Journal of Process Control 21 (2011) 13321344

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Journal of Process Control

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/jprocont

Unscented Kalman lter based nonlinear model predictive control of a LDPE

autoclave reactor
Noel C. Jacob, Ramdhane Dhib
Department of Chemical Engineering, Ryerson University, Toronto, ON M5B 2K3, Canada

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: This paper presents a multivariable nonlinear model predictive control (NMPC) scheme for the regulation
Received 8 June 2010 of a low-density polyethylene (LDPE) autoclave reactor. A detailed mechanistic process model developed
Received in revised form 15 June 2011 previously was used to describe the dynamics of the LDPE reactor and the properties of the polymer
Accepted 20 June 2011
product. Closed-loop simulations are used to demonstrate the disturbance rejection and tracking perfor-
Available online 6 August 2011
mance of the NMPC algorithm for control of reactor temperature and weight-averaged molecular weight
(WAMW). In addition, the effect of parametric uncertainty in the kinetic rate constants of the LDPE reac-
Keywords:
tor model on closed-loop performance is discussed. The unscented Kalman ltering (UKF) algorithm is
Ethylene polymerization
Low-density polyethylene reactor
employed to estimate plant states and disturbances. All control simulations were performed under con-
Nonlinear model predictive control ditions of noisy process measurements and structural plantmodel mismatch. Where appropriate, the
Unscented Kalman lter performance of the NMPC algorithm is contrasted with that of linear model predictive control (LMPC). It
is shown that for this application the closed-loop performance of the UKF based NMPC scheme is very
good and is superior to that of the linear predictive controller.
2011 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction
Continuous polymerization reactors are characterized by highly
nonlinear dynamics, multiple operating regions, and signicant
interaction among process variables. Therefore, they are usually
difcult to control efciently when using conventional linear pro-
cess control strategies. It is generally accepted that nonlinear
control techniques are required to adequately handle such cases [1].
Over the past two decades, model predictive control (MPC) technol-
ogy has emerged as a general-purpose control strategy for process
control. MPC based on linear process models has been extraordi-
narily successful in the chemical process industries with numerous
reported applications [2,3], predominantly in renery and petro-
chemical operations, where the degree of process nonlinearity is
not too severe. The principal appeal of MPC as a control strategy
for chemical processes stems from its ability to explicitly handle
process and operational constraints within its framework, lead-
ing to more efcient and protable process operation. However,
despite the success of conventional linear model predictive control
(LMPC), it is not recommended for continuous polymerization sys-
tems which exhibit a high degree of process nonlinearity and which
are required to operate over a wide region. For such systems, it is
Corresponding author. Fax: +1 416 979 5083.
E-mail address: rdhib@ryerson.ca (R. Dhib).
essential to implement control systems that take into account the
nonlinear system dynamics over the entire operating range.
Nonlinear model predictive control (NMPC) is a natural alter-
native to conventional LMPC, especially in situations where LMPC
performs poorly. NMPC inherits most of the advantageous prop-
erties of LMPC such as explicit handling of constraints, and
intuitive treatment of multivariable and nonsquare systems. How-
ever, instead of a linear process model, the NMPC scheme utilizes
a nonlinear representation of the plant dynamics in the con-
troller framework, making it theoretically appealing for processes
with signicant nonlinearity. Recent improvements in our under-
standing of polymerization reaction engineering have led to the
development of highly reliable and data-validated mechanistic
process models for continuous polymerization reactors. Of partic-
ular interest in this study is the application of these fundamental
reactor models within the framework of NMPC for process control.
From an industrial perspective, the ultimate benet to be gained
from the implementation of advanced process control strategies
like NMPC on continuous polymerization reactors is that it per-
mits good control of polymer quality indices in the production
stage. In todays highly competitive industrial environment, good
polymer quality control can result in a signicant reduction in the
degree of product variability, and can help curtail the frequency of
downstream polymer blending operations necessitated by the pro-
duction of off-spec product, potentially leading to signicant cost
savings [4]. Polymer weight-averaged molecular weight (WAMW)

0959-1524/$ see front matter 2011 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.jprocont.2011.06.013
 N.C. Jacob, R. Dhib / Journal of Process Control 21 (2011) 13321344 1333

is an excellent indicator of polymer quality and end-use properties

and has been demonstrated [5,6] to correlate well with industrially
relevant polyethylene characterization tests such as the melt ow
index. Therefore, it is a logical modeling choice to describe polymer
quality.
Marini and Georgakis [7,8] studied the problem of reactor tem-
perature control in low-density polyethylene (LDPE) autoclave
reactors. They proposed a unique reaction rate control strategy
and showed that the resulting controller performed satisfactorily
over a wide operating range. Berber and Coskun [9] implemented
a linear quadratic dynamic matrix control (L-QDMC) strategy for
the control of reactor temperature prole in a multi-zone LDPE
autoclave reactor. Their simulation study showed that the L-QDMC
approach delivered superior regulatory and servo performance
compared to conventional PI control. Ham and Rhee [10] applied
PID and adaptive pole placement controllers for reactor tempera-
Fig. 1. Free radical bulk polymerization of ethylene in an LDPE autoclave reactor.
ture control in a two-compartment LDPE autoclave reactor. Their
study showed that the adaptive controller provided better reactor
temperature control compared to the PID controller. The afore- neighborhood of around 25 m/m [19]. The principal feature of the
mentioned studies, however, did not consider directly the control industrial LDPE autoclave is that the reactor operates, to a very good
of polymer quality or end-use properties in their work which is approximation, adiabatically. This can be directly attributed to the
of tremendous commercial importance. Singstad et al. [11] devel- fact that the thick reactor walls required to withstand the high oper-
oped and commissioned a two-level internal nonlinear decoupling ating pressures prevent heat transfer from the reaction mixture
controller [12,13] for the control of an industrial multi-zone LDPE [20]. Consequently, external cooling jackets which are common-
autoclave reactor. Their scheme performed product quality con- place in other continuous polymerization reactors cannot be used
trol at a supervisory level and reactor stabilization at the lower to remove heat from the system. However, the primary cooling
level. They showed that their control strategy provided supe- source is the monomer feed stream entering the reactor at about
rior performance in comparison with conventional multi-loop PID 3040 C. Thermal decomposition of ethylene into byproducts is an
control. important factor to consider in the operation and modeling of LDPE
This study is principally concerned with the control of an autoclave reactors. Ethylene decomposition generally becomes sig-
LDPE autoclave reactor using a nonlinear model predictive control nicant at temperatures over 300 C. The decomposition reactions
scheme. Along with polymer WAMW, reactor temperature control are highly exothermic and, if initiated, can result in reactor runaway
is very much important since it strongly inuences fundamental in the order of just a few seconds [20]. In fact, ethylene decompo-
polymer characteristics, e.g., branching frequency and polydisper- sition is essentially impossible to control and reactor runaway is
sity. Furthermore, it is essential that the reactor temperature is kept inevitable once decomposition has been triggered. Hence, from a
under tight control and within safe operating limits in order to process control perspective, the modeling of decomposition kinet-
prevent reactor runaway. The feed owrates of the initiator and ics is of limited usefulness, and was therefore not included in this
monomer streams are selected as the control variables. Frequent work.
measurements of the controlled variables are assumed to be read- Ethylene polymerization in high-pressure autoclave reactors
ily available online for feedback. The unscented Kalman lter (UKF) follows the well-known free-radical chain growth mechanism.
algorithm is employed to estimate plant states and disturbances Usually, the reaction is initiated by a peroxide initiator like
from the available measurements. Recent studies on chemical engi-
neering systems [14,15] have demonstrated superior performance
Table 1
of the UKF relative to the more commonly used extended Kalman
Rate constants.
lter. Murshed et al. [16] successfully demonstrated the perfor-
mance of UKF estimation in conjunction with NMPC for the control kd = 1.83 1014 exp(3.06 104 /R1 T 5.9P/R2 T) 1/s
kth = 6.04 103 exp(3.87 104 /R1 T) L2 /mol2 -s
of solid oxide fuel cell systems. Prakash et al. [17] demonstrated
kp = 5.12 105 exp(4.21 103 /R1 T + 5.6P/R2 T) L/mol-s
the application of UKF estimation in context of autonomous hybrid ktc = 2.53 109 exp(3.37 103 /R1 T 9.2P/R2 T) L/mol-s
systems. Moreover, modications to the base UKF algorithm have kfm = 1.20 104 exp(1.44 104 /R1 T + 20P/R2 T) L/mol-s
been shown to be capable of handling multimodal probability den- kfp = 1.80 105 exp(9.40 103 /R1 T) L/mol-s
sity functions, process constraints, etc. making it a very attractive k = 1.40 109 exp(1.93 104 /R1 T 9.9P/R2 T) 1/s
kb = 3.27 105 exp(7.47 103 /R1 T) 1/s
and computationally cheap state estimation alternative to moving
horizon estimator based approaches [18]. R1 = 1.987 cal/mol-K, R2 = 82.06 cm3 -atm/mol-K.
This paper is organized as follows. In Section 2, the mathemati-
cal process model of the LDPE autoclave reactor used in this work Table 2
is discussed. The NMPC formulation and the UKF state estimation Model parameters.
algorithm are covered in Section 3. In Section 4, simulation results P 1700 bar
are presented showing the performance of the UKF based NMPC f 0.88
formulation for the control of the LDPE autoclave reactor. Section M0 28.05 g/mol
5 concludes this paper with a few closing remarks. If 0.0916 mol/L
Mf 20.9 mol/L
Tf 313 K
V 1502 L
2. Reactor modeling (Hp )a 2.017 104 cal/mol
a 501.2 g/L
Cp a 0.586 cal/mol-K
Single-zone LDPE autoclaves are well-agitated high-pressure
a
vessels with relatively low length-to-diameter ratios, usually in the Constant parameters used when physical property correlations were omitted.
1334 N.C. Jacob, R. Dhib / Journal of Process Control 21 (2011) 13321344

dioctanoyl peroxide, which together with the monomer ethylene long chain branching. The kth moment of the chain length distri-
are the only feed inputs to the reactor. Fig. 1 presents a simple bution (CLD) of live, i.e., growing, polymer radicals k is dened
schematic of the LDPE autoclave reactor system showing the con- by
troller, measurements, and control inputs (Table 1). The modeling


of LDPE autoclaves is quite challenging due to highly complicated k = nk Rn (9)
physicochemical phenomena, e.g., nonideal mixing and gel forma-
n=1
tion encountered in the reactors. Therefore, in order to simplify
the reactor modeling procedure, the following assumptions were where Rn is a live polymer chain of length n, whereas the kth
postulated: (i) the reaction mixture is perfectly mixed; (ii) heat gen- moment of the CLD of the dead polymer chains k is dened by
eration due to mechanical agitation and the initiation, termination, 

and chain transfer reactions are negligible compared to the heat k = nk Pn (10)
of polymerization; (iii) there is almost no mass accumulation in n=1
the reactor; (iv) the reaction mixture behaves as a homogenous
single-phase system, i.e., the contribution of the polymer phase where Pn is a dead polymer chain of length n. The number- and
to the overall kinetics is insignicant; (v) diffusional effects, e.g., weight-averaged molecular weights Mn and Mw of the LDPE poly-
cage effect and Trommsdorff gel effect on the polymerization kinet- mer are dened, respectively, by
ics are negligible. The overall mole balances on the initiator I and 1 + 1 1
monomer M species in the reactor are, respectively, given by Mn = M0 M0 (11)
0 + 0 0
dI qf If qI 2 + 2 2
= 2kd I + I (1) Mw = M0 M0 (12)
dt V 1 + 1 1
dM qf Mf qM where M0 is the molecular weight of a single ethylene monomer
= kp M0 + M (2)
dt V unit. Note that the moments k of the CLD of live polymer chains are
where If and Mf are the initiator and monomer concentrations in usually signicantly smaller than their dead polymer chain coun-
the feed, while qfI and qfM are the corresponding feed owrates. terparts k , leading to the simplications shown above. Using the
The exit owrate from the reactor is denoted by q and the reactor quasi steady state assumption on the live polymer radicals, appro-
volume by V. priate modications can be made to the equations derived by Dhib
We dene the total monomer concentration Mt as the total con- and coworkers [21,24] leading to the following expressions for the
centration of free monomer and monomer bound in polymer chains rst three moments of the CLD of the live polymer chains.
in the LDPE autoclave reactor. The dynamics of the total monomer 
RI
is given by 0 = (13)
ktc
dMt qf Mf qMt
= M (3) RI + (kp M + kfm M + kb + 2kfp 2 )0
dt V 1 = (14)
ktc 0 + kfm M + k + kfp 1 + kb
The monomer conversion xM achieved in the reactor is dened
as RI + kp M(21 + 0 ) + (kfm M + k + kfp 3 )0
2 = (15)
M ktc 0 + kfm M + k + kfp 1 + kb
xM =1 (4)
Mt The rate of radical initiation RI is expressed as
The energy balance on the reactor results in the following equa-
RI = 2fkd I + 2kth M 3 (16)
tion for reactor temperature T below.
where f is the initiator efciency factor.
dT (Hp )kp M0 qf Tf qT
= + (5) The differential equations describing the dynamics of the rst
dt Cp V
three moments of the dead polymer CLD are given by
where Tf is the feed temperature. d0 1 q0
The heat of polymerization (Hp ) is given by the correlation = ktc 20 + (kfm M + kb )0 (17)
dt 2 V
[21].
d1
Hp (cal/mol) = 84, 185 + 0.209(T 273.15) + 0.105P (6) = ktc 0 1 + kfm M1 + kb (1 0 )
dt
The density  and heat capacity Cp of the reaction mixture are q1
given by the following correlations, respectively [22,23]. + kfp (1 1 0 2 ) (18)
V
P
 (g/L) = 1995.8 261.1 log d2
1000 = ktc (0 2 + 21 ) + kfm M2 + kb (2 21 + 0 )
dt
1 P 1 q2
+ 257.7 log 63.3 log log (7) + kfp (2 1 0 3 ) (19)
T 1000 T V

Cp (cal/mol-K) = 0.518(1 xM ) + (1.041 + 8.3 104 T )xM
where T and P are in Kelvin and bar, respectively.
In this work, we employed the method of moments approach in
order to model the dynamics of the polymer properties (Table 2).
This technique is a powerful, yet compact way to characterize aver-
age molecular properties of the polymer, such as the number- and
weight-averaged molecular weights, and frequencies of short and
(8) The second moments of the live and dead polymer CLDs 2 and
2 both depend on the third moment 3 making the system open-
ended. In fact, for all polymerization systems exhibiting signicant
chain transfer to polymer, i.e., kfp > 0, the nth moments of both
the live and dead polymer CLDs depend on the (n + 1)th moments
for all n 1. Therefore, some sort of moment closure technique is
required in order to resolve this problem. In this study, we adopt
the technique of Hulburt and Katz [25] which approximates the
 N.C. Jacob, R. Dhib / Journal of Process Control 21 (2011) 13321344 1335

third moment 3 in terms of lower order moments by the following

equation.
2
3 = (20 2 21 ) (20)
0 1

2.1. Notation

The differential equations of the LDPE autoclave reactor model

can be expressed concisely in state space form by
Fig. 2. Schematic of the closed-loop control scheme.
x(t) = f (x(t), u(t)) (21)

where the state vector x(t) and the control input vector u(t) are, zk = g(xk ) (27)
respectively, dened as
where xk Rnis the plant state at time tk , uk Rm
is the piecewise-
T
x = [I M Mt T 0 1 2 ] (22) constant (zero-order hold enforced) control input, pk Rnd is the
vector of integrating disturbance states, yk Rp is the plant mea-
T
u = [ qfI qfM ] (23) surement, and zk Rnc is the vector of controlled variables. The
effect of the integrating disturbance on the state evolution (see
The vector of discrete plant measurements yk is given by Eq. (25)) and plant measurement (see Eq. (26)) is modeled by
 M0 2
T the input disturbance matrix  d and the output disturbance
T
yk = [ T Mw ] = T (24) matrix Cd , respectively. Note that more general nonlinear dis-
1
turbance relationships can be modeled if required. However, the
3. Algorithm present formulation was found to be sufcient for this particular
application. The process noise wk Rn ,  k Rnc and measurement
In this section, the UKF based NMPC algorithm used for the con- noise vk Rp are assumed to be additive zero-mean Gaussian
trol of the LDPE autoclave reactor is described. In Section 3.1, the white-noise processes with covariance matrices Qk , Sk , and Rk ,
NMPC formulation employed is discussed, whereas the UKF state respectively.
estimation algorithm is covered in Section 3.2. Fig. 2 illustrates the structure of the closed-loop UKF based
NMPC feedback control system with a simple schematic diagram.
Here, the plant block represents the LDPE autoclave reactor system.
3.1. Controller formulation
The NMPC formulation receives the setpoints zs of the controlled
variables, the current estimate xk of the plant state, and the cur-
Model predictive control, also known as receding horizon or
rent estimate pk of the integrating disturbance state as inputs.
moving horizon control, refers to a class of control algorithms
The setpoints to the controller can be supplied either manually by
that utilizes an explicit process model to compute future control
operator intervention or automatically using an upper real-time
actions. At any sampling instance, the current measurements are
optimization layer [1]. The estimates of the state and disturbance
used to initialize an open-loop optimal control problem which
vectors are constructed by the UKF algorithm from the inputs uk
is solved over a nite horizon in order to determine an optimal
and process measurements yk . Using the current state and distur-
control input trajectory that minimizes a certain cost function.
bance estimates, the NMPC algorithm initializes a given open-loop
In practice, this cost function is designed in order to achieve
nite horizon optimal control problem to solve for an optimal
some specic performance criteria, e.g., maximization of prof-
control input trajectory which minimizes the selected cost func-
its, minimization of process emissions, or as is often the case,
tion. The rst input in this trajectory is implemented on the
minimization of deviations from a particular setpoint trajectory.
plant thus completing the closed-loop. The controlled variables
However, only the rst control input in the computed optimal tra-
are represented generally by some nonlinear function g() of the
jectory is applied to the plant. This procedure is then continued
states.
repeatedly at all future sampling instants. Unlike the classical con-
The NMPC block shown in Fig. 2 consists of two individual sub-
trol approach, the online computation of the MPC control law is
components, namely, the target calculator and the regulator. In the
generally not possible. Instead, the control law is obtained online
following subsections, we shall discuss the purpose and function of
by the periodic solution of the aforementioned optimal control
these components in detail.
problem.
The presence of modeling errors and unmeasured disturbances
3.2. Target calculator
can lead to steady state offsets. Therefore, an important concern in
the formulation of the NMPC algorithm is the requirement for inte-
The role of the target calculator in the NMPC formulation is to
gral action in the closed-loop. In general, the most popular approach
identify, if possible, a steady state or equilibrium of the plant model
taken to achieve integral or offset-free MPC control is the augmen-
Eqs. (25)(27) at which the controlled variables zk achieve their
tation of the plant state vector with certain integrating disturbance
respective setpoints zs . Here, the notation zt,j and ut,j refers to the
states [26,27]. Obviously, since these states are articial entities,
steady state targets of the controlled variables and control inputs,
they are not controllable. However, a suitable disturbance (or con-
respectively, at the jth sampling instance and pj is the correspond-
troller) model must be designed such that they can be estimated
ing estimate of the integrating disturbance state. While the target
from the available plant measurements.
calculation problem is fundamentally an algebraic one, complica-
Here, the plant dynamics and measurements are described by
tions arise in the case of nonsquare plants and/or in the presence of
the nonlinear discrete model
        constraints. For example, in the case of thin plants (nc > m), there are
xk+1 f (xk , uk ) d wk fewer control inputs than controlled variables and in general it is
= + pk + (25)
pk+1 0 I k not easy to identify equilibrium targets which satisfy the controlled
variable setpoint. In the case of fat plants (nc < m), there are more
yk = h(xk ) + Cd pk + vk (26) control input variables than controlled ones. Therefore, it is usually
1336 N.C. Jacob, R. Dhib / Journal of Process Control 21 (2011) 13321344

necessary to choose between multiple targets which satisfy the set-
point at steady state. Even in the case of square plants such as the
LDPE reactor in this study, multiple combinations of control inputs
are capable of satisfying the controlled variable setpoints at steady
state. In addition, process constraints can determine if a particu-
lar setpoint is ultimately feasible. Due to these reasons, the target
calculation problem is usually resolved within MPC algorithms by
uk from their current targets ut,j , as well as the control rate uk over
a discrete P-interval prediction horizon. The length of each interval
in the prediction horizon is equal to the process sampling period.
Therefore, the nite-horizon NMPC problem that is solved at each
sampling instance is expressed as

j+P1

min||zj+P zt,j ||2Q + ||zk zt,j ||2Q + ||uk ut,j ||2R + ||uk ||2S
dening it as an optimization problem. xj ,uj
Tenny et al. [28] and Rao and Rawlings [29] employed an exact k=j
(35)
penalty based approach to target calculation in NMPC and LMPC
problems, respectively. A similar approach is adopted in this study. subject to:
Therefore, the target calculator NLP that is solved at each iteration
is given by xk+1 = f (xk , uk ) + d pj (36)

min 1
||||2Q + qT  + 12 ||ut,j ut,j1 ||2R (28) yk = h(xk ) + Cd pj (37)
xt,j ,ut,j , 2
zk = g(xk ) (38)
subject to:
xL , zL , uL , uL xk , zk , uk , uk xU , zU , uU , uU (39)
xt,j = f (xt,j , ut,j ) + d pj (29)
uk = uj+M1 k = j + M, j + M + 1, . . . , j + P 1 (40)
yt,j = h(xt,j ) + Cd pj (30)
where P is the prediction horizon and M is the control horizon. The
zt,j = g(xt,j ) (31) role of the control horizon is dictated by the constraint Eq. (40).
In essence, the control horizon constraint in the above NLP forces
zs  zt,j zs +  (32) the (M + 1)th to Pth inputs in the optimal control input trajectory
xL , uL xt,j , ut,j xU , uU (33) to be equal to the Mth control input in the trajectory. In practice,
implementing higher control horizons relative to the prediction
0 (34) horizon results in more aggressive closed-loop control behavior.
In addition to the prediction and control horizons, the regulator
where  Rnc is a vector of nonnegative slack variables whose func-
quadratic weighting matrices (Q, R, and S), the target calculator
tion is to accommodate situations in which the controlled variable
penalty matrices (Q, q, and R), and the disturbance model matrices
setpoint is not achievable.
( d and Cd ) must be supplied in order to tune the NMPC algorithm
The soft constraint Eq. (32) is included to relax the requirement
for closed-loop stability and performance.
that the controlled variables achieve their setpoints by allowing
The decision variable vectors xj and uj are the open-loop tra-
the controlled variable target zt,j to lie within some radius  of the
jectories of states and control inputs over the P-interval prediction
setpoint zs . This radius can be made arbitrarily small by appropriate
horizon.
penalization of  in the objective function Eq. (28) such that, for all
T
intents and purposes, the equality zt,j = zs holds when the setpoint xj = [ xjT T
xj+1 T
xj+P1 T
xj+P ] (41)
zs is feasible. If the setpoint is not feasible, the target calculator NLP
T
selects targets that are the closest to the setpoint in an l1 /l2 optimal uj = [ uTj uTj+1 uTj+P2 uTj+P1 ] (42)
sense [29]. For situations where several equilibrium targets satisfy
the controlled variable setpoint, the current formulation ensures 3.3. State estimation
that the target selected is one that is closest to the previous input
target ut,j1 . Tenny et al. [28] suggest that the penalty vector q be Next, we summarize the UKF state estimation algorithm
selected relatively large and strictly positive and that the quadratic T
employed in this study. By dening the variables xk [xkT pTk ] and
penalty matrices Q and R be positive denite. T
wk [wkT kT ] , the disturbance model Eqs. (25) and (26) can be
expressed equivalently by the discrete-time model
3.2.1. Regulator
The role of the regulator in the NMPC algorithm is to drive the xk+1 = f(xk , uk ) + wk (43)
plant to the steady state targets determined by the target calcula-
yk = h(xk ) + vk (44)
tor. It does so by solving a discrete-time open-loop nite-horizon
optimal control problem at every sampling instance resulting in an where xk is the state, uk is the input, yk is the measurement, wk is the
optimal control input trajectory which minimizes a given objec- process noise, and vk is the measurement noise of the new system.
tive function. Due to virtually inevitable plantmodel mismatch An na -dimensional vector xak1|k1 is then dened by augmenting
and the generally unexpected nature of process disturbances, only the state vector with the process and measurement noise vectors
the rst control input in the computed optimal trajectory is imple- resulting in
mented on the plant. This procedure is then repeated at successive
T
sampling instances following the generation of state estimates and xak1|k1 = [ xTk1|k1 wTk1 vTk1 ] (45)
steady state targets by the UKF and target calculator algorithms,
respectively. Since the process and measurement noise are assumed to be
a
The regulator NLP objective function is realized by weighting zero-mean, the mean xk1|k1 of the augmented state vector is
several performance criteria within a single cost function. In addi- given by
tion to maintaining a number of process outputs at their required a T
xk1|k1 = [ xTk1|k1 01(n+nd ) 01p ] (46)
setpoints, it is also desirable that the NMPC algorithm accomplishes
this by employing minimal control effort while avoiding exces- Thus, the discrete-time nonlinear model Eqs. (43) and (44) can
sively large control moves. These notions are incorporated into be rewritten in terms of the augmented vector yielding
a quadratic cost function which penalizes deviations of the con-
xk+1|k = fa (xak|k , uk ) (47)
trolled variables zk from their current targets zt,j , the control inputs
 N.C. Jacob, R. Dhib / Journal of Process Control 21 (2011) 13321344 1337

yk = ha (xak|k ) (48) The innovation covariance Pyy and the cross correlation Pxy are
a of the augmented system can be com-
computed, respectively, from the following expressions.
The covariance matrix Pk|k

2na
puted from T
Pyy = Wi [Yi,k yk ][Yi,k yk ] (59)
Pk|k 0 0
i=0

Pkwv
a
Pk|k = 0 Qk (49)

2na
T
0 P vw
k
Rk Pxy = Wi [ i,k|k1 xk|k1 ][Yi,k yk ] (60)
i=0
where Pk|k is the estimation error covariance of the state xk , Qk is
the covariance of the process noise wk , and Rk is the covariance of The measurement correction expressions for the unscented l-
the measurement noise vk . The prediction step of the UKF algorithm ter are given by
involves the propagation of a given set of sigma points through the
xk|k = xk|k1 + Kk (yk yk ) (61)
nonlinear system to generate a corresponding set of transformed
points which are then used to generate predictions of the state esti- Pk|k = Pk|k1 Kk Pyy KkT (62)
mates. Now, the set of (2na + 1) sigma points i,k1|k1 is computed
according to the algorithm where the Kalman gain Kk is calculated from
1
a0,k1|k1 = xk1|k1
a
(50) Kk = Pxy Pyy (63)

a 1/2
ai,k1|k1 = xk1|k1 + [(na +
)Pk1|k1
a
] (51) 4. Results
i
a 1/2
ai+na ,k1|k1 = xk1|k1 [(na +
)Pk1|k1
a
] (52) The UKF based NMPC algorithm considered here was imple-
i
mented for the control of the LDPE autoclave reactor. The
for all integers i [0, na ]. Here,
is a scalar parameter used to ne closed-loop performance of the NMPC formulation was investi-
tune higher order moments of the distribution in order to reduce gated through a series of simulation runs using the LDPE reactor
overall prediction errors [30,31]. If the distribution of xk is assumed process model. In this study, the UKF based NMPC algorithm was
to be Gaussian, Julier et al. [30] recommend that
be chosen such supplied with a simplied version of the process model in which
that na +
= 3. In the following, we denote the complete sigma point the physical property correlations (6)(8) are replaced with con-
set by ak1|k1 . stant physical parameters. However, the plant model of the LDPE
Each sigma point in the set ak1|k1 is propagated through the autoclave reactor under feedback control was represented by the
nonlinear process model over the sampling interval [tk1 , tk ] in comprehensive model with varying physicochemical properties.
order to generate a set of transformed points i,k|k1 given by The purpose of introducing this difference between the two models
was to demonstrate visibly the capability of the NMPC algorithm
i,k|k1 = fa ( ai,k1|k1 , uk1 ) (53)
to cope with structural mismatch that generally exists between the
for all integers i [0, 2na ]. plant dynamics and the mathematical LDPE reactor model on which
The predicted state estimate xk|k1 is calculated as a weighted the controller is based. Furthermore, this work included a study of
average of the transformed points given by the performance of the controller in the presence of parametric
plantmodel mismatch. Specically, the case of parametric uncer-

2n a
tainty in the kinetic rate constants of the LDPE autoclave reactor
xk|k1 = Wi i,k|k1 (54)
model was considered. The kinetic rate constants were selected for
i=0
the parametric mismatch study since identifying them accurately is
where the weighting factors Wi are chosen according to the algo- a relatively difcult problem and the high-pressure ethylene poly-
rithm merization process is very sensitive to them.
 LDPE autoclave reactors have been shown to exhibit the clas-

/(na +
) if i = 0
Wi = (55) sical S-shaped curve bifurcation behavior [32,33] associated with
1/2(na +
) if i =
/ 0 nonisothermal CSTRs with the existence of an unstable equilib-
The predicted estimation error covariance Pk|k1 is computed rium branch sandwiched between two stable equilibrium branches.
from the weighted outer product of the transformed points given Commercial operation at unstable steady states is not uncommon in
by order to produce polymer having certain characteristics. A detailed
steady state bifurcation analysis was conducted in order to identify

2n a
T the stable and unstable operating regions of the LDPE autoclave
Pk|k1 = Wi [ i,k|k1 xk|k1 ][ i,k|k1 xk|k1 ] (56) reactor with dioctanoyl peroxide initiator [34]. Fig. 3 provides a
i=0 sample schematic showing the steady state bifurcation behavior
The propagated set of sigma points k|k1 are then mapped of the LDPE autoclave reactor model employed in this study. Here,
through the nonlinear measurement function ha (), yielding a set the reactor residence time is the primary bifurcation parameter,
of outputs Yi,k expressed by whereas the initiator feed concentration is the secondary one. Sta-
ble equilibrium branches in the gure are respresented by solid
Yi,k = ha ( i,k|k1 ) (57) lines () while dashed lines ( ) indicate unstable branches. The
for all integers i [0, 2na ]. low-temperature stable branch is associated with low initiator and
In a manner similar to the predicted state estimate, the predicted monomer conversions, as well as high polymer molecular weights.
output yk is calculated as a weighted average of the mapped outputs In contrast, the high-temperature stable branch is associated with
Yi,k given by high initiator and monomer conversions, and comparatively lower
molecular weights. Industrial operation generally takes place on

2na
the high-temperature stable branch, or on the unstable branch in
yk = Wi Yi,k (58) close vicinity of the high-temperature stable branch. The results
i=0 of the bifurcation analysis facilitated the identication of the most
1338 N.C. Jacob, R. Dhib / Journal of Process Control 21 (2011) 13321344

1 0.2

Monomer conv., xM
Initiator conv., xI
0.75 0.15

0.5 0.1

0.25 0.05

0 0
0 10 20 30 40 0 10 20 30 40
Res. time, [min.] Res. time, [min.]
5
x 10
300 10

WAMW, Mw [g/mol]
A B C
7.5
Temp., T [C]

200

5
100
2.5 A. If = 14ppm
B. I = 7ppm
f
C. If = 3.5ppm
0 0
0 10 20 30 40 0 10 20 30 40
Res. time, [min.] Res. time, [min.]

Fig. 3. Bifurcation diagram with reactor residence time as the primary bifurcation parameter and initiator feed concentration as the secondary parameter.

plausible operating sub-regions of the LDPE autoclave reactor. The where the system Jacobian matrices = f()/xk ,  = f()/uk , and
operating regions identied from the bifurcation study were uti- C = h()/xk are evaluated at the desired steady state conditions.
lized in investigating the closed-loop performance of the NMPC The disturbance matrices  d and Cd reect the effect of the inte-
algorithm at both stable and unstable operating points of the grating disturbance states on the model dynamics. The system
reactor. and measurement noises are both assumed to be zero-mean nor-
Continuous polymerization reactors are generally required to mally distributed white-noise processes. The target calculator in
function at several different setpoints during the course of normal the LMPC algorithm is cast as the quadratic programming problem
operation in order to produce various grades of polymer. There- given below [27,29].
fore, it is highly important that changes in the polymer grades be
min ||ut,j us ||2R (67)
achieved efciently in order to minimize the production of off-spec xt,j ,ut,j
product. Linear control schemes are generally not capable of cop-
ing with the highly nonlinear dynamics of polymerization reactors subject to:
and therefore cannot handle polymer grade change situations sat-     
I  xt,j d pj
isfactorily. However, the NMPC methodology can incorporate the = (68)
complex nonlinear dynamics encountered in polymerization pro- HC 0 ut,j HCd pj + zs
cesses into the controller framework and therefore it is well-suited xL , uL xt,j , ut,j xU , uU (69)
to track setpoint variations. Therefore, this study also investigates
the performance of the UKF based NMPC algorithm in setpoint By dening a new set of deviation variables, xk = xk xt,j and
tracking situations for the LDPE autoclave reactor. uk = uk ut,j the LMPC regulator QP that is solved at each iteration
In order to provide an appropriate frame of reference for is dened by
assessing the performance of the UKF based NMPC formulation, 
j+P1
closed-loop reactor control simulations were also carried out min||xj+P ||2Q + ||xk ||2C T H T QHC + ||uk ||2R + ||uk ||2S (70)
using a Kalman lter based LMPC algorithm. The LMPC algorithm xj ,uj
k=j
employed is essentially a linear control scheme analog to the NMPC
algorithm discussed previously. In particular, the linear disturbance subject to:
model allows for the addition of integrating disturbance inputs on
xk+1 = xk +  uk (71)
both the states and measurements as given by
xL , uL , uL xk , uk , uk xU , uU , uU (72)
         
xk+1  d wk uk = uj+M1 k = j + M, j + M + 1, . . . , j + P 1 (73)
= xk + uk + pk + (64)
pk+1 0 0 I k
Orthogonal collocation on nite elements (OCFE) was employed
to discretize the time-varying continuous nonlinear process model.
yk = Cxk + Cd pk + vk (65) The resulting NMPC dynamic optimization problem (35)(40) was
solved using sequential quadratic programming (SQP). A detailed
zk = Hyk (66) discussion of orthogonal collocation and its extension to nite
 N.C. Jacob, R. Dhib / Journal of Process Control 21 (2011) 13321344 1339

210
NMPC

Temp., T [ C]
UKF

o
LMPC
205

200
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50
Time, t [min.]
5
x 10
1.06
WAMW, Mw [g/mol]

1.04

1.02
NMPC
1 UKF
LMPC
0.98
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50
Time, t [min.]

Fig. 4. Plot of closed-loop controlled variable proles in response to an unmeasured +10 C step disturbance in feed temperature. This gure provides a comparison of NMPC
and LMPC controller performance at an open-loop stable operating point.

elements can be found in the seminal texts of Finlayson [35] and Vil-
ladsen and Michelsen [36]. In addition, Meadows and Rawlings [37]
provide an excellent introduction into the implementation of OCFE
for NMPC. The reader is referred to a number of sources (Biegler
[38]; Cuthrell and Biegler [39]; Martinsen et al. [40]; Tenny et al.
[41]) for thorough discussions on SQP based algorithmic implemen-
tations for NMPC. In our implementation, each control interval in
the prediction horizon was used as a single nite element for OCFE.
We found that two interior collocation points (four in total) per
nite element were adequately sufcient for this application.
Note that prior to solving the target calculator and regula-
tor NLPs, it was found suitable to transform the state, input,
measurement, and controlled variable vectors into a scaled-
deviation format denoted by: xi = (xi xi,s )/xi,s , ui = (ui ui,s )/ui,s ,
yi = (yi yi,s )/yi,s , and zi = (zi zi,s )/zi,s . Here, the notation xi R refers
to an individual state variable, xi,s R is the associated scal-
ing factor, and xi R is the corresponding scaled state. In this
study, we selected the scaling factor as the steady state (nomi-
nal) value of respective state. Similar conventions were applied to
the inputs, measurements, and controlled variables. Scaling helps
avoid numerical problems arising from ill-conditioning in the con-
Init. feed rate, q [cm /s]
troller NLPs and simplies the selection of the controller tuning
matrices.
The controller tuning parameters were screened out essentially
by trial and error in order to obtain satisfactory closed-
loop disturbance rejection and setpoint tracking performance.
The sampling interval was chosen to be 10 s. Only the
two controlled variablesthe reactor temperature and polymer
WAMWwere assumed to be measured frequently online. The
NMPC formulation was supplied with a prediction horizon of
9 control intervals and a control horizon of 1 control inter-
val. The regulator quadratic weighting matrices were tuned:
Q = diag(5, 10), R = diag(0.05, 0.05), and S = diag(5, 5). For the tar-
get calculator, the matrices were tuned as well: Q = diag(103 , 103 ),
q = [2 103 , 2 103 ]T , and R = diag(10, 104 ). The elements in the
 penalty matrices in the target calculator corresponding to the
reactor temperature and polymer WAMW were assigned identi-
cal values since we were equally interested in eliminating offsets
in both quantities. In this system, a range of control input com-
binations were found to be capable of satisfying the controlled
variable setpoints at steady state. Each control input combina-
tion can be shown to correspond to a different reactor residence

26
3

NMPC
LMPC
24
I
f

22

20
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50
Time, t [min.]
Mono. feed rate, q [L/s]

22
NMPC
M
f

LMPC
21

20

19
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50
Time, t [min.]

Fig. 5. Plot of closed-loop control input proles corresponding to the controlled variable responses illustrated in Fig. 4.
1340 N.C. Jacob, R. Dhib / Journal of Process Control 21 (2011) 13321344

155

Temp., T [ oC]
150

145
NMPC
140 UKF
LMPC
135
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50
Time, t [min.]
5
x 10
2.1
WAMW, Mw [g/mol]

NMPC
2 UKF
LMPC
1.9

1.8

1.7
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50
Time, t [min.]

Fig. 6. Plot of closed-loop controlled variable proles in response to an unmeasured 15% step disturbance in feed initiator concentration. This gure provides a comparison
of NMPC and LMPC controller performance at an open-loop unstable operating point.

time. Therefore, it is important that the steady state controller
targets are selected in such a way as to minimize variations of
the reactor residence time. This can be accomplished quite con-
veniently by the preferential manipulation of the initiator feed
owrate targets as opposed to the monomer feed owrate tar-
gets. In the target calculator, the elements of matrix R were
chosen such that the moves of the monomer feed owrate tar-
gets were penalized excessively relative to the target initiator
feed owrates. These notions motivated the selection of the
matrix R in the target calculator. For the LDPE reactor control
study, it was experienced that it was signicantly more chal-
lenging to tune the LMPC algorithm (relative to NMPC) to obtain
acceptable control performance for the nonlinear plant. In fact,
our simulation studies showed that a given set of LMPC tuning
parameters which gave satisfactory performance at one operat-
ing point yielded totally unacceptable performance or closed-loop
instability at another operating point. Therefore, in order to facil-
itate a reasonable comparison between the two controllers, the
LMPC algorithm was supplied with what was deemed to be the
most appropriate set of tuning parameters for a given operating
point.
Init. feed rate, q [cm /s]
The present nite horizon NMPC scheme does not incorporate
an explicit condition, such as a terminal penalty, in order to guaran-
tee stability of the closed-loop system. In this case, stability must be
attained through good tuning of the controller parameters. In this
study, we did not experience any notable difculties with respect to
closed-loop stability using the selected tuning parameters. In fact,
the tuning parameters selected here resulted in a closed-loop stable
system under a variety of operating conditions. There are currently
no widely accepted guidelines pertaining to the design of distur-
bance models for the NMPC algorithm. In general, an acceptable
disturbance model design is one in which the disturbance states pk
are observable from available measurements and which results in
zero offsets in the controlled variables. Here, an input disturbance
was added to the state equation corresponding to the reactor tem-
perature whereas an output disturbance was added to the polymer
WAMW measurement equation. The corresponding disturbance
matrices were selected as:  d = [0, 0, 0, 1, 0, 0, 0; 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0]T
and Cd = diag(0, 100). Identical disturbance matrices were supplied
to the LMPC algorithm.
Unless otherwise mentioned, the reactor temperature measure-
ments in this study were disturbed by zero-mean Gaussian white

60
3

40
I
f

20
NMPC
LMPC
0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50
Time, t [min.]
Mono. feed rate, q [L/s]

30
M
f

25

20
NMPC
LMPC
15
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50
Time, t [min.]

Fig. 7. Plot of closed-loop control input proles corresponding to the controlled variable responses illustrated in Fig. 6.
 N.C. Jacob, R. Dhib / Journal of Process Control 21 (2011) 13321344 1341

Fig. 8. Comparison of closed-loop NMPC performance with and without parametric plantmodel mismatch. Parametric mismatch of +10% to all kinetic rate constants in the
controller and estimator process models.

noise with a standard deviation of 0.2 C, whereas the polymer
WAMW measurements were assumed to be corrupted with zero-
mean normally distributed white noise with standard deviation
equal to 0.5% of the steady state (nominal) value. The measurement
noise covariance matrix Rk was tuned accordingly. Any interaction
between the individual measurement noise processes was not con-
sidered. The plant model is assumed to be unaffected by the effects
of process noise. However, in order to prevent the state estima-
tion error covariance matrix from going to zero, the process noise
covariance matrices Qk and Sk are specied as diagonal matrices
with small elements (around 1010 ) along the diagonal.
Figs. 4 and 5 show simulation results for the control of the
LDPE autoclave reactor in response to an unmeasured feed tem-
perature step input disturbance of +10 C. In this run, the autoclave
reactor was operated at an open-loop stable operating point on
the high-temperature stable branch of the bifurcation diagram.
Fig. 4 shows the closed-loop response of the controlled variables
including estimates of the controlled outputs generated by the
UKF algorithm. Fig. 5 shows the response of the control inputs.
Since the disturbance is unmeasured, the controllers must rst
estimate the disturbance from the measurements and then imple-
Init. feed rate, q [cm /s]
ment appropriate control actions. In this simulation scenario, the
LMPC prediction horizon was 14 and the control horizon was 2
control intervals. The LMPC regulator tuning parameters employed
were: Q = diag(10, 20), R = diag(0.01, 0.01), and S = diag(40, 40). The
LMPC target calculator quadratic penalty matrix R = diag(10, 104 )
was selected. The controlled variable response in Fig. 4 shows
that the NMPC algorithm is able to satisfactorily reject the tem-
perature disturbance causing the process to quickly return to its
original operating point. In addition, the simulation data shows
that the UKF provides good estimates of both controlled variables
following the process disturbance. The Kalman lter based LMPC
algorithm takes noticeably longer to return the controlled vari-
ables to their setpoints and simultaneously incurs larger maximal
deviations. However, while the reactor temperature and polymer
WAMW achieve their setpoints, it is clear from the control input
response in Fig. 5 that the LMPC algorithm is moving the sys-
tem to a completely different operating point with signicantly
lower initiator and monomer feed owrates. On the other hand,
the NMPC formulation manipulates primarily the initiator feed
owrate to reject the disturbance, while maintaining the monomer
feed owrate relatively close to its original value. Thus, it is obvious

60
3
I
f

50

40
NMPCNo mismatch
NMPCMismatch
30
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50
Time, t [min.]
Mono. feed rate, q [L/s]

28
M
f

26

24

22 NMPCNo mismatch
NMPCMismatch
20
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50
Time, t [min.]

Fig. 9. Plot of closed-loop control input proles corresponding to the controlled variable responses illustrated in Fig. 8.
1342 N.C. Jacob, R. Dhib / Journal of Process Control 21 (2011) 13321344
240
NMPCNo mismatch
220 NMPCMismatch
Temp., T [ C]
o
200 UKFMismatch
180
160
140
0 30
Time, t [min.]
5
x 10
2
NMPCNo mismatch
WAMW, M [g/mol]
1.8 NMPCMismatch
1.6 UKFMismatch
w
1.4
1.2
1
0 30
Time, t [min.]
Fig. 10. Plot of closed-loop controlled variable proles in response to multiple LDPE grade change (setpoint tracking) requests. The gure provides a comparison of NMPC
performance with and without parametric plantmodel mismatch. Parametric mismatch of 10% to all kinetic rate constants in the controller and estimator process models.
that the performance obtained with the NMPC scheme is far supe-
rior to that of LMPC under the given conditions. The most important
property of the closed-loop NMPC performance is the capability of
the controller to adequately maintain reactor residence time close
to its original value following the disturbance. It is clearly revealed
that LMPC is virtually unsuitable to control the autoclave reactor at
this operating point.
In the second simulation test illustrated in Figs. 6 and 7, the
performance of the NMPC and LMPC strategies at an open-loop
unstable operating point of the LDPE autoclave reactor is demon-
strated. In this case, the reactor is subjected to an unmeasured
15% step input disturbance in the initiator feed concentration. The
LMPC prediction and control horizons selected were 14 and 2 con-
trol intervals, respectively. The LMPC regulator tuning parameters
used were: Q = diag(5, 10), R = diag(0.05, 0.05), and S = diag(5, 5).
The LMPC target calculator quadratic penalty matrix selected was
R = diag(10, 104 ). It is clear from the controlled variable and control
input responses in Figs. 6 and 7, respectively, that the sudden loss of
initiator concentration causes a signicant disturbance to the sys-
tem. The reactor temperature and polymer WAMW proles in Fig. 6
show that the UKF based NMPC formulation does not allow the con-
trolled variables to deviate signicantly from their setpoints, and it
is sufciently capable of controlling the reactor even at the unsta-
ble operating point. In addition, the NMPC algorithm brings the
controlled variables back to their setpoints without signicantly
modifying the reactor residence time at steady state. The simulation
results reveal that the Kalman lter based LMPC algorithm actually
performs reasonably well relative to NMPC. In comparison with the
NMPC, even though the maximal deviations of the controlled vari-
ables from their setpoints are larger, the LMPC algorithm appears
to guide the temperature and WAMW to their setpoints somewhat
faster. Furthermore, the undesirable behavior, i.e., the drastic shift
in the steady state target monomer feed owrate, observed in the
previous simulation run is not encountered here.
The presence of plantmodel mismatch can greatly affect the
closed-loop stability and performance of a control system. There-
fore, it is critically important for any practical controller to be
relatively robust towards at least moderate levels of model uncer-
tainty. So far, we have considered only structural model mismatch
(arising from physical property correlations) between the plant
60 90 120
60 90 120
and controller models. Next, we consider parametric model mis-
match stemming from uncertainty in the kinetic rate constants
in the LDPE autoclave reactor model. In order to demonstrate the
effectiveness of the UKF based NMPC algorithm in the presence of
parametric model uncertainty, the previous simulation run (step
disturbance in initiator concentration, unstable operating point)
was repeated. However, this time all rate constants in the process
model employed by the controller and estimator were disturbed
by +10% compared to their plant counterparts. Figs. 8 and 9 show
results comparing the performance of the NMPC algorithm with
and without parametric mismatch in the model rate constants. In
Fig. 8, the UKF results presented correspond to the case of paramet-
ric model mismatch between the plant and controller models. It
is demonstrated that there is a noticeable degradation in the con-
troller performance in the presence of parametric model mismatch
as compared to the controller without mismatch. Nevertheless, the
NMPC formulation is still successful in keeping the controlled vari-
ables in the vicinity of their respective setpoints in response to the
disturbance. In addition, the responses of the control inputs shown
in Fig. 9 appear to be virtually identical in both cases.
Next, the performance of the UKF based NMPC formulation is
demonstrated for the control of polymer grade change in the LDPE
reactor, i.e., for setpoint tracking. Figs. 10 and 11 show the per-
formance of the NMPC algorithm in response to a series of step
changes to the setpoints of the reactor temperature and poly-
mer WAMW. In addition, the performance of the NMPC scheme
was tested in the presence of parametric plantmodel mismatch.
Here, the reaction rate constants in the controller and estimator
models were altered by 10% of the corresponding rate constants
in the plant model. In Fig. 10, the UKF results presented corre-
spond to the case of parametric model mismatch between the
plant and controller models. The rst, second, and fourth setpoints
tracked by the controller are open-loop stable, while the third one
is open-loop unstable. The controlled variable proles illustrated
in Fig. 10 show that the NMPC formulation is capable of track-
ing the specic LDPE grade changes adequately fast with marginal
overshoots. In addition, the results demonstrate clearly that there
is virtually no difference in the observed closed-loop controlled
variable responses with and without parametric mismatch. The
proles shown in Fig. 11 demonstrate that the NMPC scheme is
 N.C. Jacob, R. Dhib / Journal of Process Control 21 (2011) 13321344
Init. feed rate, qf [cm /s]
60
3
NMPCNo mismatch
50 NMPCMismatch
I
40
30
20
0 30
Time, t [min.]
Mono. feed rate, qf [L/s]
26
M
24
22
20
NMPCNo mismatch
18
NMPCMismatch
16
0 30
Time, t [min.]
Fig. 11. Plot of closed-loop control input proles corresponding to the controlled variable responses illustrated in Fig. 10.
capable of driving the process to the different setpoints without
forcing signicant moves of the steady state monomer feed rate
(or throughput) of the reactor, which is highly desirable. However,
there appears to be a somewhat noticeable discrepancy between
the steady state control input targets achieved in the tracking of the
fourth setpoint in the two depicted scenarios. In fact, NMPC con-
troller with parametric mismatch achieves the controlled variable
setpoints at slightly lower initiator and monomer feed owrates as
compared to the case without mismatch. While undesirable, this
difference is relatively small and can be explained partly on the
basis of the relatively large jump between the third and fourth
operating points.
5. Conclusions
This paper describes the application of an unscented Kalman
lter based nonlinear model predictive control formulation for
the regulation of an LDPE autoclave reactor. The reactor temper-
ature and LDPE weight-averaged molecular weight were selected
as the controlled variables while the owrates of the feed initia-
tor and monomer streams were selected as the control inputs. A
detailed process model previously developed and validated was
employed to describe the dynamic behavior of the LDPE auto-
clave reactor. Simulation tests were conducted to investigate the
closed-loop performance of the NMPC algorithm for both distur-
bance rejection and setpoint tracking. In order to make this study
more realistic, all simulation runs were carried out under condi-
tions of noisy process measurements and structural plantmodel
mismatch. It was shown that the UKF based NMPC algorithm
performed very well and provided signicantly improved control
performance with respect to Kalman lter based LMPC. The most
remarkable characteristic of the closed-loop NMPC performance
was its ability to satisfactorily regulate the reactor temperature
and polymer WAMW without forcing major movements in the
steady state reactor residence time. In addition, the results show
that the proposed NMPC algorithm is relatively robust in the pres-
ence of signicant structural and parametric mismatch between
the plant and controller models. Lastly, the proposed disturbance
model structure taken as an input disturbance on the reactor tem-
perature state equation and an output disturbance on the polymer
WAMW measurement equation was shown to be satisfactorily
capable of handling unmeasured disturbances and plantmodel
mismatch.
1343
60 90 120
60 90 120
Acknowledgements
The authors would like to acknowledge the National Science
and Engineering Research Council of Canada (NSERC) and Ryerson
University for their nancial support of this research.
References
[1] S. BenAmor, F.J. Doyle III, R. McFarlane, Polymer grade transition control using
advanced real-time optimization software, Journal of Process Control 14 (4)
(2004) 349364.
[2] S.J. Qin, T.A. Badgwell, An overview of industrial model predictive control
technology, in: J.C. Kantor, C.E. Garcia, B. Carnahan (Eds.), Fifth International
Conference on Chemical Process Control, AIChE Symposium Series, New York,
1997, pp. 232256.
[3] S.J. Qin, T.A. Badgwell, An overview of nonlinear model predictive control appli-
cations, in: F. Allgwer, A. Zheng (Eds.), Nonlinear Model Predictive Control,
Birkhuser Verlag, Basel, Switzerland, 2000, pp. 369392.
[4] J. Valappil, C. Georgakis, Nonlinear model predictive control of end-use prop-
erties in batch reactors, AIChE Journal 48 (9) (2002) 20062021.
[5] A.V. Shenoy, D.R. Saini, Melt ow index: more than just a quality control rheo-
logical parameter. Part I, Advances in Polymer Technology 6 (1) (1986) 158.
[6] A.V. Shenoy, D.R. Saini, Melt ow index: more than just a quality control
rheological parameter. Part II, Advances in Polymer Technology 6 (2) (1986)
125145.
[7] L. Marini, C. Georgakis, Low-density polyethylene vessel reactors. Part I. Steady
state and dynamic modeling, AIChE Journal 30 (3) (1984) 401408.
[8] L. Marini, C. Georgakis, Low-density polyethylene vessel reactors. Part II. A
novel controller, AIChE Journal 30 (3) (1984) 409415.
[9] R. Berber, S. Coskun, Dynamic simulation and quadratic dynamic matrix control
of an industrial low density polyethylene reactor, Computers and Chemical
Engineering 20 (Suppl.) (1996) S799S804.
[10] J.Y. Ham, H.-K. Rhee, Modeling and control of an LDPE autoclave reactor, Journal
of Process Control 6 (4) (1996) 241246.
[11] P. Singstad, H. Nordhus, K. Strand, M. Lien, L.B. Lyngmo, O. Moen, Multivariable
non-linear control of industrial LDPE autoclave reactors, Proceedings of the
American Control Conference 1 (1992) 615619.
[12] J.G. Balchen, B. Lie, I. Solberg, Internal decoupling in non-linear process control,
Modeling, Identication and Control 9 (3) (1988) 137148.
[13] E. Freund, The structure of decoupled nonlinear systems, International Journal
of Control 21 (3) (1975) 443450.
[14] A. Romanenko, J.A.A.M. Castro, The unscented lter as an alternative to the
EKF for nonlinear state estimation: a simulation case study, Computers and
Chemical Engineering 28 (3) (2004) 347355.
[15] A. Romanenko, L.O. Santos, P.A.F.N.A. Afonso, Unscented Kalman ltering of
a simulated pH system, Industrial & Engineering Chemistry Research 43 (23)
(2004) 75317538.
[16] A.K.M.M. Murshed, B. Huang, K. Nandakumar, Estimation and control of solid
oxide fuel cell system, Computers and Chemical Engineering 34 (1) (2010)
96111.
[17] J. Prakash, S.C. Patwardhan, S.L. Shah, State estimation and nonlinear predictive
control of autonomous hybrid system using derivative free state estimators,
Journal of Process Control 20 (7) (2010) 787799.
[18] S. Kola, B.A. Foss, T.S. Schei, Constrained nonlinear state estimation based
on the UKF approach, Computers and Chemical Engineering 33 (8) (2009)
13861401.
1344 N.C. Jacob, R. Dhib / Journal of Process Control 21 (2011) 13321344
[19] J. Lee, J.Y. Ham, K.S. Chang, J.Y. Kim, H.-K. Rhee, Analysis of an LDPE compact
autoclave reactor by two-cell model with backow, Polymer Engineering and
Science 39 (7) (1999) 12791290.
[20] S.X. Zhang, N.K. Read, W.H. Ray, Runaway phenomena in low-density polyethy-
lene autoclave reactors, AIChE Journal 42 (10) (1996) 29112925.
[21] P.K.F. Khazraei, R. Dhib, Modeling of ethylene polymerization with difunctional
initiators in tubular reactors, Journal of Applied Polymer Science 109 (6) (2008)
39083922.
[22] P. Feucht, B. Tilger, G. Luft, Prediction of molar mass distribution, number
and weight average degree of polymerization and branching of low density
polyethylene, Chemical Engineering Science 40 (10) (1985) 19351942.
[23] D.M. Kalyon, Y.-N. Chiou, S. Kovenklioglu, A. Bouaffar, High pressure polymer-
ization of ethylene and rheological behavior of polyethylene product, Polymer
Engineering and Science 34 (10) (1994) 804814.
[24] R. Dhib, N. Al-Nidawy, Modelling of free radical polymerisation of ethylene
using difunctional initiators, Chemical Engineering Science 57 (14) (2002)
27352746.
[25] H. Hulburt, S. Katz, Some problems in particle technology. A statisti-
cal mechanical formulation, Chemical Engineering Science 19 (8) (1964)
555574.
[26] K.R. Muske, T.A. Badgwell, Disturbance modeling for offset-free linear model
predictive control, Journal of Process Control 12 (5) (2002) 617632.
[27] G. Pannocchia, J.B. Rawlings, Disturbance models for offset-free model predic-
tive control, AIChE Journal 49 (2) (2003) 426437.
[28] M.J. Tenny, J.B. Rawlings, S.J. Wright, Closed-loop behavior of nonlinear model
predictive control, AIChE Journal 50 (9) (2004) 21422154.
[29] C.V. Rao, J.B. Rawlings, Steady states and constraints in model predictive con-
trol, AIChE Journal 45 (6) (1999) 12661278.
[30] S. Julier, J. Uhlmann, H. Durrant-Whyte, A new method for the nonlinear trans-
formation of means and covariances in lters and estimators, IEEE Transactions
on Automatic Control 45 (3) (2000) 477482.
[31] S. Julier, J. Uhlmann, Unscented ltering and nonlinear estimation, Proceedings
of the IEEE 92 (3) (2004) 401422.
[32] C.M. Villa, J.O. Dihora, W.H. Ray, Effects of imperfect mixing on low-density
polyethylene reactor dynamics, AIChE Journal 44 (7) (1998) 16461656.
[33] W.H. Ray, C.M. Villa, Nonlinear dynamics found in polymerization processesa
review, Chemical Engineering Science 55 (2) (2000) 275290.
[34] N.C. Jacob, Nonlinear model predictive control of LDPE autoclave reactors, Mas-
ters Thesis, Ryerson University, Toronto, 2009.
[35] B. Finlayson, The Method of Weighted Residuals and Variational Principles,
Academic Press, New York, NY, 1972.
[36] J. Villadsen, M.L. Michelsen, Solution of Differential Equation Models by Poly-
nomial Approximation, Prentice-Hall Inc., Englewood Cliffs, NJ, 1978.
[37] E.S. Meadows, J.B. Rawlings, Model predictive control, in: M.A. Henson, D.E.
Seborg (Eds.), Nonlinear Process Control, Prentice-Hall Inc., Upper Saddle River,
NJ, 1997, pp. 233310 (Chapter 5).
[38] L.T. Biegler, Solution of dynamic optimization problems by successive quadratic
programming and orthogonal collocation, Computers and Chemical Engineer-
ing 8 (3/4) (1984) 243248.
[39] J.E. Cuthrell, L.T. Biegler, On the optimization of differentialalgebraic process
systems, AIChE Journal 33 (8) (1987) 12571270.
[40] F. Martinsen, L.T. Biegler, B.A. Foss, A new optimization algorithm with appli-
cation to nonlinear MPC, Journal of Process Control 14 (8) (2004) 853865.
[41] M.J. Tenny, S.J. Wright, J.B. Rawlings, Nonlinear model predictive control via
feasibility-perturbed sequential quadratic programming, Computational Opti-
mization and Applications 28 (1) (2004) 87121.