Está en la página 1de 61

Distributed model predictive control of large-scale

systems

James B. Rawlings1 , Aswin N. Venkat1


and Stephen J. Wright2

1 Department of Chemical and Biological Engineering


2 Department of Computer Sciences
University of Wisconsin–Madison

Assessment and Future Directions of Nonlinear Model Predictive


Control
Zollernblick, Freudenstadt-Lauterbad, Germany
August 27, 2005

Rawlings, Venkat and Wright (Wisconsin) Distributed, Large-scale MPC 2005 NMPC Workshop 1 / 39
Outline

1 Introduction

2 The Geometry of Decentralization, Communication and Cooperation

3 Results for Distributed MPC


Models
Communication Based MPC
Cooperation Based MPC
MPC with Partial Cooperation

4 Conclusions

Rawlings, Venkat and Wright (Wisconsin) Distributed, Large-scale MPC 2005 NMPC Workshop 2 / 39
Introduction

Most large-scale systems consist of networks of


interconnected/interacting subsystems
Chemical plants, water distribution networks, power grids etc.

Traditional approach: Decentralized control


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

Rawlings, Venkat and Wright (Wisconsin) Distributed, Large-scale MPC 2005 NMPC Workshop 3 / 39
Introduction

Steady increase in available computational power has provided the


opportunity for centralized control
Most practitioners view centralized control of large, networked
systems as impractical and unrealistic
Centralized control law grows exponentially with system size
Difficult to tailor a centralized controller to meet operational objectives
A divide and conquer strategy is essential for control of large,
networked systems (Ho [2005])
Centralized control: A benchmark control framework for comparing
and assessing other control formulations

Rawlings, Venkat and Wright (Wisconsin) Distributed, Large-scale MPC 2005 NMPC Workshop 4 / 39
Introduction

Linear MPC
Mid-Late 90’s: Linear MPC became a dominant advanced control
technology (Morari and Lee [1997], Young et al. [2001], Qin and
Badgwell [2003])
Properties of centralized linear MPCs well established (Sznaier and
Damborg [1990], Rawlings and Muske [1993], Mayne et al. [2000],
Bemporad et al. [2002])
Efficient large-scale solution strategies available (Antwerp and Braatz
[2000], Bartlett et al. [2002])

Current focus
Possibility of horizontal integration of subsystems’ MPCs to improve
overall system performance

Rawlings, Venkat and Wright (Wisconsin) Distributed, Large-scale MPC 2005 NMPC Workshop 5 / 39
Introduction

Integrating subsystem-based MPCs


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

Rawlings, Venkat and Wright (Wisconsin) Distributed, Large-scale MPC 2005 NMPC Workshop 6 / 39
Nomenclature: Consider Two Interacting Units

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


decision variables for units x1 , x2

Rawlings, Venkat and Wright (Wisconsin) Distributed, Large-scale MPC 2005 NMPC Workshop 7 / 39
Nomenclature: Consider Two Interacting Units

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


decision variables for units x1 , x2
Decentralized Control min Φ
e 1 (x1 ) min Φ
e 2 (x2 )
x1 x2

Rawlings, Venkat and Wright (Wisconsin) Distributed, Large-scale MPC 2005 NMPC Workshop 7 / 39
Nomenclature: Consider Two Interacting Units

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


decision variables for units x1 , x2
Decentralized Control min Φ
e 1 (x1 ) min Φ
e 2 (x2 )
x1 x2

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


x1 x2
(Nash equilibrium)

Rawlings, Venkat and Wright (Wisconsin) Distributed, Large-scale MPC 2005 NMPC Workshop 7 / 39
Nomenclature: Consider Two Interacting Units

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


decision variables for units x1 , x2
Decentralized Control min Φ
e 1 (x1 ) min Φ
e 2 (x2 )
x1 x2

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


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

Rawlings, Venkat and Wright (Wisconsin) Distributed, Large-scale MPC 2005 NMPC Workshop 7 / 39
Nomenclature: Consider Two Interacting Units

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


decision variables for units x1 , x2
Decentralized Control min Φ
e 1 (x1 ) min Φ
e 2 (x2 )
x1 x2

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


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

Centralized Control min Φ(x1 , x2 )


x1 ,x2
(Pareto optimal)

Rawlings, Venkat and Wright (Wisconsin) Distributed, Large-scale MPC 2005 NMPC Workshop 7 / 39
Noninteracting systems

2
n, d, p
1 b
Φ2 (x)
x2 0
a

-1 Φ1 (x)

-2

-2 -1 0 1 2
x1

Rawlings, Venkat and Wright (Wisconsin) Distributed, Large-scale MPC 2005 NMPC Workshop 8 / 39
Weakly interacting systems

0.5
Φ2 (x)
0 b n, d
p
-0.5
x2
-1 Φ1 (x)
a
-1.5

-2
-2 -1.5 -1 -0.5 0 0.5 1 1.5 2
x1

Rawlings, Venkat and Wright (Wisconsin) Distributed, Large-scale MPC 2005 NMPC Workshop 9 / 39
Moderately interacting systems

1.5 Φ1 (x)
a
1
Φ2 (x)
0.5
x2 p
0 b d

-0.5
n
-1

-1.5
-2 -1.5 -1 -0.5 0 0.5 1 1.5 2
x1

Rawlings, Venkat and Wright (Wisconsin) Distributed, Large-scale MPC 2005 NMPC Workshop 10 / 39
Strongly interacting (conflicting) systems

2
1.5 Φ1 (x)
a
1
Φ2 (x)
0.5 p
x2 0 b d
-0.5
-1
-1.5
-2
-2 -1.5 -1 -0.5 0 0.5 1 1.5 2
x1

Rawlings, Venkat and Wright (Wisconsin) Distributed, Large-scale MPC 2005 NMPC Workshop 11 / 39
Strongly interacting (conflicting) systems

160
n
140
120
100
80
x2
60
40
20
Φ2 (x)
0 Φ1 (x)
-20
-10 0 10 20 30 40 50
x1

Rawlings, Venkat and Wright (Wisconsin) Distributed, Large-scale MPC 2005 NMPC Workshop 12 / 39
Modeling for distributed MPC
Decentralized, interaction models

Decentralized Model
xii (k + 1) = Aii xii (k) + Bii ui (k)

ui yi (k)
(Aii , Bii , Cii )
(local subsystem inputs)

Rawlings, Venkat and Wright (Wisconsin) Distributed, Large-scale MPC 2005 NMPC Workshop 13 / 39
Modeling for distributed MPC
Decentralized, interaction models

Decentralized Model
xii (k + 1) = Aii xii (k) + Bii ui (k)
P
ui yi (k) = j Cij xij (k)
(Aii , Bii , Cii )
++
(local subsystem inputs)

Interaction Model
xij (k + 1) = Aij xij (k) + Bij uj (k)

uj6=i
(Aij , Bij , Cij )
(external subsystem inputs)

Rawlings, Venkat and Wright (Wisconsin) Distributed, Large-scale MPC 2005 NMPC Workshop 13 / 39
Modeling for distributed MPC

The composite plant model

x11 A11 x11


2 3 2 32 3
6 . 7 6 .. 76 . 7
6 . 7 6
.
76 . 7
6
6 . 7
7
6
6
76
76 . 7
7
6 x A1M 76 x
6 1M
7 6
7 6 1M
7
7 6 7
. .
6 7 6 76 7
6
.
7
(k + 1) =
6 .. 76
. 7 (k)
7
.
6 7 6 76
6
6 . 7
7
6
6
76
76 . 7
7
6 xM1 7 6 AM1 7 6 xM1 7
6 7 6 76 7
6 . 7 6
..
76 . 7
6 . 7 6
.
76 . 7
4 . 5 4 54 . 5
xMM AMM xMM
B11
2 3
6
6 .. 7
7
6
6 . 7
72
B1M u1
6 7 3
6 7
. 76 .
6 76 7
+6 7 (k)
6
. 74 .
6
6 . 7
7 . 5
6 BM1
6
7
7 uM
..
6 7
6 7
4 . 5
BMM

Rawlings, Venkat and Wright (Wisconsin) Distributed, Large-scale MPC 2005 NMPC Workshop 14 / 39
Modeling for distributed MPC

The composite plant model

x11
2 3
6 . 7
6 . 7
6 . 7
36
6 x
7
y1 C11 ··· C1M
2 3 2
6 1M
7
7
. 7 76 .
7
6
(k) =
6 .. 76 7 (k)
7
6 . 7 6 .
4 . 5 4 . 56
6 . 7
6 7
yM CM1 ··· CMM 6 xM1
6
7
7
6 . 7
6 . 7
4 . 5
xMM

Centralized model
A minimal realization of the composite plant model

Rawlings, Venkat and Wright (Wisconsin) Distributed, Large-scale MPC 2005 NMPC Workshop 14 / 39
Distributed MPC
Assumptions and formulations

Assumptions
All MPC cost functions are positive definite, quadratic
Each subsystem represented by a linear, state-space model
All interaction models are stable
Local input inequality constraints (e.g., input bounds)

Formulations for distributed MPC


Communication Based MPC
Cooperation Based MPC

Rawlings, Venkat and Wright (Wisconsin) Distributed, Large-scale MPC 2005 NMPC Workshop 15 / 39
Communication-based MPC1

MPC 1 Prediction MPC 2 Prediction

Exchange of state and input


trajectory information Prediction horizon Prediction horizon
between MPCs State trajectory Controlled input trajectory
Setpoint trajectory Process-process interactions
Subsystems’ MPC
optimizations solved until u1 u2
state and input trajectories MPC 1 MPC 2

converge
First move in each converged
input trajectory injected into Process Process
the plant 1 2

y1 y2

1
Similar schemes proposed by Jia and Krogh [2001], Camponogara et al. [2002]
Rawlings, Venkat and Wright (Wisconsin) Distributed, Large-scale MPC 2005 NMPC Workshop 16 / 39
Communication-based MPC1

MPC 1 Prediction MPC 2 Prediction

Exchange of state and input


trajectory information Prediction horizon Prediction horizon
between MPCs State trajectory Controlled input trajectory
Setpoint trajectory Process-process interactions
Subsystems’ MPC
optimizations solved until u1 u2
state and input trajectories MPC 1 MPC 2

converge
First move in each converged
input trajectory injected into Process Process
the plant 1 2

y1 y2

1
Similar schemes proposed by Jia and Krogh [2001], Camponogara et al. [2002]
Rawlings, Venkat and Wright (Wisconsin) Distributed, Large-scale MPC 2005 NMPC Workshop 16 / 39
Communication-based MPC
Distillation column of Ogunnaike and Ray [1994]

0.5
Outputs T21 , T7 ; Inputs L, V 0.25
setpoint
cent-MPC
comm-MPC
Two SISO MPCs 0
-0.25
Intentionally choose bad pairing: T21
-0.5
MPC-1 : T21 − V -0.75

MPC-2 : T7 − L -1
-1.25
Can communication-based MPC fix 0 50 100
Time (sec)
150 200

this kind of bad design choice? 1.5


cent-MPC
1 comm-MPC

0.5
V 0
-0.5
-1
-1.5
0 50 100 150 200
Time (sec)

Rawlings, Venkat and Wright (Wisconsin) Distributed, Large-scale MPC 2005 NMPC Workshop 17 / 39
Communication-based MPC

An unreliable plantwide control strategy


Lack of provable convergence properties
Suboptimal, even at convergence of the state and input trajectories
Cannot fix bad design choices (e.g., bad pairing choices)
Can lead to closed-loop instability in some cases

Rawlings, Venkat and Wright (Wisconsin) Distributed, Large-scale MPC 2005 NMPC Workshop 18 / 39
Cooperation-based MPC

Tasks involved
Model interconnections between subsystems
Exchange state and input trajectories among interconnected
subsystems
Replace local objectives by a suitable global objective e.g.,

X M
X
Φ= w i Φi wi ≥ 0, wi = 1
i i=1

Rawlings, Venkat and Wright (Wisconsin) Distributed, Large-scale MPC 2005 NMPC Workshop 19 / 39
Cooperation-based MPC
Intermediate termination

Implementation issues for large-scale systems


Optimal (centralized) performance at convergence
Unrealistic for large-scale systems
Computational time for convergence >> sampling interval
Intermediate termination may be necessary

Cooperation-based MPC terminated at an intermediate iterate


1 Feasible ?
2 Stable ?

Rawlings, Venkat and Wright (Wisconsin) Distributed, Large-scale MPC 2005 NMPC Workshop 20 / 39
Feasible cooperation-based MPC (FC-MPC)

Tasks involved
Model interconnections between subsystems
Exchange input trajectories among interconnected subsystems
Replace local objectives by a suitable global objective e.g.,

X M
X
Φ= w i Φi wi ≥ 0, wi = 1
i i=1

Eliminate the state variables using the model equality constraints

Each MPC solves an optimization problem in the local input variables

Rawlings, Venkat and Wright (Wisconsin) Distributed, Large-scale MPC 2005 NMPC Workshop 21 / 39
Geometry of FC-MPC

Φ2
Φ1

u2

u1

Rawlings, Venkat and Wright (Wisconsin) Distributed, Large-scale MPC 2005 NMPC Workshop 22 / 39
Geometry of FC-MPC

Pareto optimal surface

Φ2
Φ1

p
u2

u1

Rawlings, Venkat and Wright (Wisconsin) Distributed, Large-scale MPC 2005 NMPC Workshop 22 / 39
Geometry of FC-MPC

Φ
Pareto optimal surface

Φ2
Φ1

p
u2

u1

Rawlings, Venkat and Wright (Wisconsin) Distributed, Large-scale MPC 2005 NMPC Workshop 22 / 39
Geometry of FC-MPC

Φ
Pareto optimal surface

Φ2
Φ1

p
u2

0
FC − MPC1(u1)

u1

Rawlings, Venkat and Wright (Wisconsin) Distributed, Large-scale MPC 2005 NMPC Workshop 22 / 39
Geometry of FC-MPC

FC − MPC2(u2)
Φ
Pareto optimal surface

Φ2
Φ1

p
u2

0
FC − MPC1(u1)

u1

Rawlings, Venkat and Wright (Wisconsin) Distributed, Large-scale MPC 2005 NMPC Workshop 22 / 39
Geometry of FC-MPC

FC − MPC2(u2)
Φ
Pareto optimal surface

∗(0)
Φ2
Φ1

p
u2

0
FC − MPC1(u1)

u1

Rawlings, Venkat and Wright (Wisconsin) Distributed, Large-scale MPC 2005 NMPC Workshop 22 / 39
Geometry of FC-MPC

FC − MPC2(u2)
Φ
Pareto optimal surface

∗(0)
Φ2
Φ1

p
u2
1

0
FC − MPC1(u1)

u1

Rawlings, Venkat and Wright (Wisconsin) Distributed, Large-scale MPC 2005 NMPC Workshop 22 / 39
Feasible cooperation-based MPC (FC-MPC)

Properties
1 All iterates are plantwide feasible
2 The sequence of cost functions is a non-increasing function of the
iteration number
Also bounded below, hence convergent
3 The sequence of iterates converges to an optimal limit point
(centralized MPC solution)

Rawlings, Venkat and Wright (Wisconsin) Distributed, Large-scale MPC 2005 NMPC Workshop 23 / 39
Closed-loop properties of FC-MPC

Distributed MPC control law


First input move in the last calculated input trajectory of each subsystem’s
FC-MPC injected into the plant

Properties
Nominal closed-loop stability under intermediate termination
Disturbance scenarios that destabilize FC-MPC also destabilize
centralized MPC

Rawlings, Venkat and Wright (Wisconsin) Distributed, Large-scale MPC 2005 NMPC Workshop 24 / 39
Performance of FC-MPC
Distillation column of Ogunnaike and Ray [1994]

0.5
Outputs T21 , T7 ; Inputs L, V 0.25
setpoint
cent-MPC
comm-MPC
Two SISO MPCs 0
-0.25
Intentionally choose bad pairing: T21
-0.5
MPC-1 : T21 − V -0.75

MPC-2 : T7 − L -1
-1.25
Communication-based MPC cannot 0 50 100
Time (sec)
150 200

fix this kind of bad design choice


1.5
cent-MPC
1 comm-MPC

0.5
V 0
-0.5
-1
-1.5
0 50 100 150 200
Time (sec)

Rawlings, Venkat and Wright (Wisconsin) Distributed, Large-scale MPC 2005 NMPC Workshop 25 / 39
Performance of FC-MPC
Distillation column of Ogunnaike and Ray [1994]

0.5
Outputs T21 , T7 ; Inputs L, V 0.25
setpoint
cent-MPC
comm-MPC
Two SISO MPCs 0 FC-MPC (1 iterate)
-0.25
Intentionally choose bad pairing: T21
-0.5
MPC-1 : T21 − V -0.75

MPC-2 : T7 − L -1
-1.25
Communication-based MPC cannot 0 50 100
Time (sec)
150 200

fix this kind of bad design choice


1.5
cent-MPC
FC-MPC can fix this kind of bad 1 comm-MPC
FC-MPC (1 iterate)
design choice 0.5
V 0
-0.5
-1
-1.5
0 50 100 150 200
Time (sec)

Rawlings, Venkat and Wright (Wisconsin) Distributed, Large-scale MPC 2005 NMPC Workshop 25 / 39
Integrated styrene polymerization plants

Plant 1
Plant 1:
Fs0 , cs, Tf0 Manipulate Finit0 to control
Frecy, Cmr , Tr
Fm0 , cm0 , Tf0
T1
Finit0 , ci0 , Tf0 End use grade fraction: (1 − β)

Plant 2
Produces grade A (lower
Fc0 , Tc0 grade) of polymer
Fm1 , cm1 , T1 Plant 2:
Fs2 , cs2 , Tf2
Fm2 , cm2 , Tf2
Two units–polymerization
Finit2 , ci2 , Tf2
L D reactor and separator
Fm3 , cm3 , T2
MPC manipulates Finit2 ,
Fc2 , Tc2 V
Frecy and V to control T2 ,
B
Cp, Cmbot , Cinitbot Cmr and Cp
Produces grade B (higher
grade) of polymer
Two MPCs, one for each plant

Rawlings, Venkat and Wright (Wisconsin) Distributed, Large-scale MPC 2005 NMPC Workshop 26 / 39
Integrated styrene polymerization plants

Modeling and control of a styrene polymerization reactor well studied


(Hidalgo and Brosilow [1990], Russo and Bequette [1998])
Transport of material between plants causes significant time delays
Time delays and recycle dynamics known to complicate control
(Luyben [1993], Samyudia and Kadiman [2002], Monroy-Loperena
et al. [2004]).

Rawlings, Venkat and Wright (Wisconsin) Distributed, Large-scale MPC 2005 NMPC Workshop 27 / 39
Integrated styrene polymerization plants
Performance of different MPC frameworks

0 setpoint 0 setpoint
Centralized MPC -1 Centralized MPC
-2 Decentralized MPC Decentralized MPC
-2
-4 -3
T1 T2 -4
-6
-5
-8 -6
-10 -7
-8
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 0 10 20 30 40 50 60
Time (hrs) Time (hrs)

0.05 0.5
Centralized MPC Centralized MPC
0 Decentralized MPC 0.4 Decentralized MPC
-0.05
0.3
-0.1
Finit0 Finit2 0.2
-0.15
0.1
-0.2
-0.25 0
-0.3 -0.1
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 0 10 20 30 40 50 60
Time (hrs) Time (hrs)

Rawlings, Venkat and Wright (Wisconsin) Distributed, Large-scale MPC 2005 NMPC Workshop 28 / 39
Integrated styrene polymerization plants
Performance of different MPC frameworks

0 setpoint 0 setpoint
Centralized MPC -1 Centralized MPC
-2 Decentralized MPC Decentralized MPC
FC-MPC (1 iterate) -2 FC-MPC (1 iterate)
-4 -3
T1 T2 -4
-6
-5
-8 -6
-10 -7
-8
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 0 10 20 30 40 50 60
Time (hrs) Time (hrs)

0.05 0.5
Centralized MPC Centralized MPC
0 Decentralized MPC 0.4 Decentralized MPC
FC-MPC (1 iterate) FC-MPC (1 iterate)
-0.05
0.3
-0.1
Finit0 Finit2 0.2
-0.15
0.1
-0.2
-0.25 0
-0.3 -0.1
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 0 10 20 30 40 50 60
Time (hrs) Time (hrs)

Rawlings, Venkat and Wright (Wisconsin) Distributed, Large-scale MPC 2005 NMPC Workshop 28 / 39
Integrated styrene polymerization plants

Controller performance measure


k M
1 XX
Λcost (k) = L [xi (j), ui (j)]
k
j=0 i=1

Performance comparison
Λcost Performance loss
(w.r.t centralized MPC)
Centralized-MPC 18.84 -
Decentralized-MPC 1608 8400%
FC-MPC (1 iterate) 18.94 0.54%
FC-MPC (5 iterates) 18.84 0%

Rawlings, Venkat and Wright (Wisconsin) Distributed, Large-scale MPC 2005 NMPC Workshop 29 / 39
MPC with partial cooperation

An industrially motivated scenario


pFC − MPC1

   
Operational objective. Use u1
   

y1

u1 Plant
   

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






Centralized control uses both u1
y2
and u2
  
  

  
  

pFC − MPC2

Design MPCs to explicitly handle operational objectives


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

Rawlings, Venkat and Wright (Wisconsin) Distributed, Large-scale MPC 2005 NMPC Workshop 30 / 39
MPC with partial cooperation

An industrially motivated scenario


pFC − MPC1

   
Operational objective. Use u1
   

y1

u1 Plant
   

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






Centralized control uses both u1
y2
and u2
  
  

  
  

pFC − MPC2

pFC − MPC1 min Φ1


u1

pFC − MPC2 min Φ = w1 Φ1 + w2 Φ2


u2

Rawlings, Venkat and Wright (Wisconsin) Distributed, Large-scale MPC 2005 NMPC Workshop 30 / 39
Geometry of pFC-MPC

0.5
0.25 Φ2 (x)
n
0 b d
-0.25
x2 Φ(x)
-0.5 p p0

-0.75
-1 Φ1 (x)
a
-1.25
-1.5 -1 -0.5 0 0.5 1 1.5
x1

Rawlings, Venkat and Wright (Wisconsin) Distributed, Large-scale MPC 2005 NMPC Workshop 31 / 39
MPC with partial cooperation

Weight for output y2 = 50 × weight for output y1


2 1.8
setpoint 1.6
1.5 cent-MPC 1.4
pFC-MPC
1.2
1 1
y1 y2 0.8
0.5
0.6
0.4 setpoint
0
0.2 cent-MPC
pFC-MPC
-0.5 0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Time Time

1.5 0.35
1 0.3
0.25
0.5 0.2
u1 0 u2 0.15
-0.5 0.1
0.05
-1 cent-MPC 0 cent-MPC
pFC-MPC pFC-MPC
-1.5 -0.05
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Time Time

Rawlings, Venkat and Wright (Wisconsin) Distributed, Large-scale MPC 2005 NMPC Workshop 32 / 39
Conclusions

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


opportunities for integrating unit level MPCs.

Rawlings, Venkat and Wright (Wisconsin) Distributed, Large-scale MPC 2005 NMPC Workshop 33 / 39
Conclusions

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


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

Rawlings, Venkat and Wright (Wisconsin) Distributed, Large-scale MPC 2005 NMPC Workshop 33 / 39
Conclusions

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


opportunities for integrating unit level MPCs.
In this talk we used communication and cooperation to achieve
distributed control that approaches the performance of centralized
optimal control while maintaining the unit control structure.
Intermediate termination of the cooperation control law retains
nominal closed-loop stability and robustness to disturbances.

Rawlings, Venkat and Wright (Wisconsin) Distributed, Large-scale MPC 2005 NMPC Workshop 33 / 39
Conclusions

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


opportunities for integrating unit level MPCs.
In this talk we used communication and cooperation to achieve
distributed control that approaches the performance of centralized
optimal control while maintaining the unit control structure.
Intermediate termination of the cooperation control law retains
nominal closed-loop stability and robustness to disturbances.
Structured cooperation (modular control) is also transparently
implemented, but its general closed-loop properties remain unclear.

Rawlings, Venkat and Wright (Wisconsin) Distributed, Large-scale MPC 2005 NMPC Workshop 33 / 39
Future research

Develop identification methods for “minimal” modeling of the unit


interactions.

Rawlings, Venkat and Wright (Wisconsin) Distributed, Large-scale MPC 2005 NMPC Workshop 34 / 39
Future research

Develop identification methods for “minimal” modeling of the unit


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

Rawlings, Venkat and Wright (Wisconsin) Distributed, Large-scale MPC 2005 NMPC Workshop 34 / 39
Future research

Develop identification methods for “minimal” modeling of the unit


interactions.
Develop structured optimization methods to compute the distributed
control law.
Extend these ideas to nonlinear models.

Rawlings, Venkat and Wright (Wisconsin) Distributed, Large-scale MPC 2005 NMPC Workshop 34 / 39
Future research

Develop identification methods for “minimal” modeling of the unit


interactions.
Develop structured optimization methods to compute the distributed
control law.
Extend these ideas to nonlinear models.
Test and implement the approach on industrial applications.

Rawlings, Venkat and Wright (Wisconsin) Distributed, Large-scale MPC 2005 NMPC Workshop 34 / 39
Acknowledgments

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


CTS–0456694.
Collaboration with and support from Aspentech, Eastman,
ExxonMobil and Shell Global Solutions.

Rawlings, Venkat and Wright (Wisconsin) Distributed, Large-scale MPC 2005 NMPC Workshop 35 / 39
Further Reading I

J. Antwerp and R. Braatz. Model predictive control of large scale processes. J. Proc.
Control, 10:1–8, 2000.
T. Başar and G. J. Olsder. Dynamic Noncooperative Game Theory. SIAM, Philadelphia,
1999.
R. Bartlett, L. Biegler, J. Backstrom, and V. Gopal. Quadratic programming algorithms
for large-scale model predictive control. J. Proc. Cont., 12(7):775–795, 2002.
A. Bemporad, M. Morari, V. Dua, and E. Pistikopoulos. The explicit linear quadratic
regulator for constrained systems. Automatica, 38(1):3–20, 2002.
D. P. Bertsekas and J. N. Tsitsiklis. Parallel and Distributed Computation.
Prentice-Hall, Inc., Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey, 1989.
E. Camponogara, D. Jia, B. H. Krogh, and S. Talukdar. Distributed model predictive
control. IEEE Ctl. Sys. Mag., pages 44–52, February 2002.
J. E. Cohen. Cooperation and self interest: Pareto-inefficiency of Nash equilibria in finite
random games. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA, 95:9724–9731, 1998.
P. M. Hidalgo and C. B. Brosilow. Nonlinear model predictive control of styrene
polymerization at unstable operating points. Comput. Chem. Eng., 14(4/5):481–494,
1990.
Rawlings, Venkat and Wright (Wisconsin) Distributed, Large-scale MPC 2005 NMPC Workshop 36 / 39
Further Reading II

Y.-C. Ho. On Centralized Optimal Control. IEEE Trans. Auto. Cont., 50(4):537–538,
2005.
D. Jia and B. H. Krogh. Distributed model predictive control. In Proceedings of the
American Control Conference, Arlington, Virginia, June 2001.
D. Jia and B. H. Krogh. Min-max feedback model predictive control for distributed
control with communication. In Proceedings of the American Control Conference,
Anchorage,Alaska, May 2002.
T. Keviczky, F. Borelli, and G. J. Balas. A study on decentralized receding horizon
control for decoupled systems. In Proceedings of the American Control Conference,
Boston, Massachusetts, July 2004.
R. Kulhavý, J. Lu, and T. Samad. Emerging technologies for enterprise optimization in
the process industries. In J. B. Rawlings, B. A. Ogunnaike, and J. W. Eaton, editors,
Chemical Process Control–VI: Sixth International Conference on Chemical Process
Control, pages 352–363, Tucson, Arizona, January 2001. AIChE Symposium Series,
Volume 98, Number 326.
S. Li and T. Başar. Distributed algorithms for the computation of noncooperative
equilibria. Automatica, 23(4):523–533, 1987.

Rawlings, Venkat and Wright (Wisconsin) Distributed, Large-scale MPC 2005 NMPC Workshop 37 / 39
Further Reading III
J. Lu. Challenging control problems and emerging technologies in enterprise
optimization. Control Eng. Prac., 11(8):847–858, August 2003.
J. Lunze. Feedback Control of Large Scale Systems. Prentice-Hall, London, U.K, 1992.
W. L. Luyben. Dynamics and control of recycle systems. 1. simple open-loop and
closed-loop systems. Ind. Eng. Chem. Res., 32:466–475, 1993.
D. Q. Mayne, J. B. Rawlings, C. V. Rao, and P. O. M. Scokaert. Constrained model
predictive control: Stability and optimality. Automatica, 36(6):789–814, 2000.
T. Meadowcroft, G. Stephanopoulos, and C. Brosilow. The Modular Multivariable
Controller: 1: Steady-state properties. AIChE J., 38(8):1254–1278, 1992.
R. Monroy-Loperena, R. Solar, and J. Alvarez-Ramirez. Balanced control scheme for
reactor/separator processes with material recycle. Ind. Eng. Chem. Res., 43:
1853–1862, 2004.
M. Morari and J. H. Lee. Model predictive control: past, present and future. In
Proceedings of joint 6th international symposium on process systems engineering
(PSE ’97) and 30th European symposium on computer aided process systems
engineering (ESCAPE 7), Trondheim, Norway, 1997.
B. A. Ogunnaike and W. H. Ray. Process Dynamics, Modeling, and Control. Oxford
University Press, New York, 1994.
Rawlings, Venkat and Wright (Wisconsin) Distributed, Large-scale MPC 2005 NMPC Workshop 38 / 39
Further Reading IV
S. J. Qin and T. A. Badgwell. A survey of industrial model predictive control
technology. Control Eng. Prac., 11(7):733–764, 2003.
J. B. Rawlings and K. R. Muske. Stability of constrained receding horizon control. IEEE
Trans. Auto. Cont., 38(10):1512–1516, October 1993.
L. P. Russo and B. W. Bequette. Operability of chemical reactors: multiplicity behavior
of a jacketed styrene polymerization reactor. Chem. Eng. Sci., 53(1):27–45, 1998.
Y. Samyudia and K. Kadiman. Control design for recycled, multi unit processes. J.
Proc. Control, 13:1–14, 2002.
N. R. Sandell-Jr., P. Varaiya, M. Athans, and M. Safonov. Survey of decentralized
control methods for larger scale systems. IEEE Trans. Auto. Cont., 23(2):108–128,
1978.
D. Siljak. Decentralized Control of Complex Systems. Academic Press, London, 1991.
M. Sznaier and M. J. Damborg. Heuristically enhanced feedback control of constrained
discrete-time linear systems. Automatica, 26(3):521–532, 1990.
R. E. Young, R. D. Bartusiak, and R. W. Fontaine. Evolution of an industrial nonlinear
model predictive controller. In J. B. Rawlings, B. A. Ogunnaike, and J. W. Eaton,
editors, Chemical Process Control–VI: Sixth International Conference on Chemical
Process Control, pages 342–351, Tucson, Arizona, January 2001. AIChE Symposium
Series, Volume 98, Number 326.
Rawlings, Venkat and Wright (Wisconsin) Distributed, Large-scale MPC 2005 NMPC Workshop 39 / 39