CA2663695A1 - Model predictive controller solution analysis process - Google Patents
Model predictive controller solution analysis process Download PDFInfo
- Publication number
- CA2663695A1 CA2663695A1 CA002663695A CA2663695A CA2663695A1 CA 2663695 A1 CA2663695 A1 CA 2663695A1 CA 002663695 A CA002663695 A CA 002663695A CA 2663695 A CA2663695 A CA 2663695A CA 2663695 A1 CA2663695 A1 CA 2663695A1
- Authority
- CA
- Canada
- Prior art keywords
- variables
- unconstrained
- constrained
- matrix
- variable
- Prior art date
- Legal status (The legal status is an assumption and is not a legal conclusion. Google has not performed a legal analysis and makes no representation as to the accuracy of the status listed.)
- Granted
Links
- 238000000034 method Methods 0.000 title claims description 47
- 230000008569 process Effects 0.000 title claims description 21
- 238000004458 analytical method Methods 0.000 title description 11
- 230000004044 response Effects 0.000 claims abstract description 11
- 239000011159 matrix material Substances 0.000 claims description 70
- 230000008859 change Effects 0.000 claims description 18
- 238000005457 optimization Methods 0.000 claims description 13
- 238000004364 calculation method Methods 0.000 claims description 8
- 239000000284 extract Substances 0.000 claims description 3
- 230000003094 perturbing effect Effects 0.000 claims 1
- 230000000694 effects Effects 0.000 abstract description 6
- 238000011112 process operation Methods 0.000 abstract description 2
- 230000006870 function Effects 0.000 description 4
- 238000004088 simulation Methods 0.000 description 4
- 230000001419 dependent effect Effects 0.000 description 3
- 238000004422 calculation algorithm Methods 0.000 description 2
- 230000007246 mechanism Effects 0.000 description 2
- 230000035945 sensitivity Effects 0.000 description 2
- 102100035893 CD151 antigen Human genes 0.000 description 1
- 101710118846 CD151 antigen Proteins 0.000 description 1
- 101000899452 Dictyostelium discoideum Calcium-dependent cell adhesion molecule 1 Proteins 0.000 description 1
- 101150045567 GP16 gene Proteins 0.000 description 1
- 101100015456 Litomosoides carinii GP22 gene Proteins 0.000 description 1
- 241000183024 Populus tremula Species 0.000 description 1
- 238000013459 approach Methods 0.000 description 1
- 239000002131 composite material Substances 0.000 description 1
- 238000005516 engineering process Methods 0.000 description 1
- 101150029683 gB gene Proteins 0.000 description 1
- 101150002378 gC gene Proteins 0.000 description 1
- 230000003455 independent Effects 0.000 description 1
- 230000002452 interceptive effect Effects 0.000 description 1
- 238000005259 measurement Methods 0.000 description 1
- 238000012986 modification Methods 0.000 description 1
- 230000004048 modification Effects 0.000 description 1
- 238000013386 optimize process Methods 0.000 description 1
- 238000013439 planning Methods 0.000 description 1
- 238000012913 prioritisation Methods 0.000 description 1
- 238000010206 sensitivity analysis Methods 0.000 description 1
- 238000012360 testing method Methods 0.000 description 1
Classifications
-
- G—PHYSICS
- G05—CONTROLLING; REGULATING
- G05B—CONTROL OR REGULATING SYSTEMS IN GENERAL; FUNCTIONAL ELEMENTS OF SUCH SYSTEMS; MONITORING OR TESTING ARRANGEMENTS FOR SUCH SYSTEMS OR ELEMENTS
- G05B13/00—Adaptive control systems, i.e. systems automatically adjusting themselves to have a performance which is optimum according to some preassigned criterion
- G05B13/02—Adaptive control systems, i.e. systems automatically adjusting themselves to have a performance which is optimum according to some preassigned criterion electric
- G05B13/04—Adaptive control systems, i.e. systems automatically adjusting themselves to have a performance which is optimum according to some preassigned criterion electric involving the use of models or simulators
- G05B13/048—Adaptive control systems, i.e. systems automatically adjusting themselves to have a performance which is optimum according to some preassigned criterion electric involving the use of models or simulators using a predictor
Abstract
The solution from a multivariable predictive controller (MPC) is analyzed and described by providing quantitative input to operators regarding the effect of changing controller limits on the MPC controller solution. This information allows a rapid operator response to changes and more optimal process operation.
Description
MODEL PREDICTIVE CONTROLLER SOLUTION ANALYSIS PROCESS
BACKGROUND OF THE INVENTION
FIELD OF THE INVENTION
100011 This invention relates to control systems and, more particularly, to methods of driving dynamic and steady-state behavior of a process toward more optimum operating conditions.
DISCUSSION OF RELATED ART
BACKGROUND OF THE INVENTION
FIELD OF THE INVENTION
100011 This invention relates to control systems and, more particularly, to methods of driving dynamic and steady-state behavior of a process toward more optimum operating conditions.
DISCUSSION OF RELATED ART
[0002] Multivariable predictive control algorithms, such as DMCpIusTM
from AspenTech of Aspen Technologies, Inc. or RMPCT from Honeywell International Inc., are a combination of calculations to drive the dynamic and steady-state behavior of a process toward a more optimum operating condition.
The steady-state algorithm used in the control scheme is most commonly a linear program (LP), but sometimes is a quadratic program (QP). For small problems, understanding the LP or QP solution is relatively simple. Two-dimensional problems can be visualized on a paper and demonstrated to an operator to gain understanding of the process. With some detailed modeling background, engineers and well trained operators can understand medium-sized problems (less than 10 dimensions). However, larger, more interactive problems, often require offline simulation. This can take a significant amount of time to understand, even qualitatively.
from AspenTech of Aspen Technologies, Inc. or RMPCT from Honeywell International Inc., are a combination of calculations to drive the dynamic and steady-state behavior of a process toward a more optimum operating condition.
The steady-state algorithm used in the control scheme is most commonly a linear program (LP), but sometimes is a quadratic program (QP). For small problems, understanding the LP or QP solution is relatively simple. Two-dimensional problems can be visualized on a paper and demonstrated to an operator to gain understanding of the process. With some detailed modeling background, engineers and well trained operators can understand medium-sized problems (less than 10 dimensions). However, larger, more interactive problems, often require offline simulation. This can take a significant amount of time to understand, even qualitatively.
[0003] Typically, an operator of a multivariable predictive controller (MPC) can observe current constraints and may have access to an open loop model of the process. However, to fully understand the constraint set relief, the operator would need a detailed understanding of the process model and the ability to trace independent and dependent relationships through the model. For that, an offline simulation or analysis tool is required. Otherwise, the operator cannot know how much to change a constraint or which constraint is the next to become active.
[0004] One concept for an offline simulation uses a matrix pivot in which unconstrained manipulated variables (MVs) are swapped with constrained controlled variables (CV). The constraints become "independents," and the unconstrained variables become "dependents." The matrix pivot can be symbolized as follows:
yi [A B xi yz C D xz xi [A-' - A-'B yI
yz CA-' D-CA-'B xz 100051 However, this approach does not provide quantitative answers as to how much any operator change will affect the controller solution.
[0006] There is a need for a simple utility that can analyze past or current dynamic matrix control (DMC) solutions of any-sized problem, in real-time, to provide an operator meaningful, quantitative instructions for DMC controller constraint relief.
BRIEF SUMMARY OF THE INVENTION
[0007] Aspects of embodiments of the invention relate to a method to analyze and describe a solution from an MPC that can provide quantitative input to an operator regarding the effect of changing controller limits in an MPC
solution.
[0008] Another aspect of embodiments of the invention relates to using the method to provide information that is immediately available, accessible, and understood by operators of the control system.
[0009] This invention is directed to a method of analyzing a solution from a multivariable predictive controller, comprising obtaining a solution from a multivariable predictive controller having a steady-state optimizer that results in different variable constraint statuses, wherein the solution includes controlled variables that are predicted from manipulated variables, and operating on the solution to obtain a relationship between constrained variables and unconstrained variables to determine how unconstrained variables respond to changes in constrained variables. The solution can be represented in a matrix.
[0010] The invention is also directed to a method of operating a control system for use with a process facility, comprising extracting a raw gain matrix from a base model file, including manipulated variables and controlled variables related to the process, based on a steady-state response between the manipulated variables and the controlled variables. The manipulated variables and controlled variables are classified by an active constraint condition, wherein the classification is based on constrained, unconstrained or violated conditions. The amount of possible movement for each variable is calculated based on the active constraint condition classification. The order of the gain matrix is changed based on the active constraint condition to obtain a model matrix representative of an optimization solution. A result matrix is formed by pivoting the constrained controlled variables with the unconstrained manipulated variables in the model matrix to form the result matrix. The result matrix and the amount of possible movement are used to calculate the response of the unconstrained variables to changes in the constrained variables.
[0011] The invention is also directed to a control system for use with a process, comprising a storage device that stores a base model file including manipulated variables and controlled variables related to the process, and a controller associated with the storage device that extracts a raw gain matrix from the base model file based on a steady-state response between the manipulated variables and the controlled variables. The controller uses an optimization solution to describe how unconstrained variables respond to changes in constrained variables by classifying the manipulated variables and controlled variables by an active constraint condition, wherein the classification is based on constrained, unconstrained or violated conditions, calculating the amount of possible movement for each variable based on the active constraint condition classification, changing the order of the gain matrix based on the active constraint condition to obtain a model matrix representative of an optimization solution, predicting controlled variables from the manipulated variables using the model matrix, forming a result matrix by pivoting the constrained controlled variables with the unconstrained manipulated variables in the model matrix to form the result matrix, and using the result matrix and the amount of possible movement to calculate the response of the unconstrained variables to changes in the constrained variables.
[0012] These and other aspects of the invention will become apparent when taken in conjunction with the detailed description and appended drawings.
BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF THE DRAWINGS
[0013] The invention will now be described in conjunction with the accompanying drawings in which:
FIG. 1 is a flow chart showing the basic steps of the process in accordance with the invention.
yi [A B xi yz C D xz xi [A-' - A-'B yI
yz CA-' D-CA-'B xz 100051 However, this approach does not provide quantitative answers as to how much any operator change will affect the controller solution.
[0006] There is a need for a simple utility that can analyze past or current dynamic matrix control (DMC) solutions of any-sized problem, in real-time, to provide an operator meaningful, quantitative instructions for DMC controller constraint relief.
BRIEF SUMMARY OF THE INVENTION
[0007] Aspects of embodiments of the invention relate to a method to analyze and describe a solution from an MPC that can provide quantitative input to an operator regarding the effect of changing controller limits in an MPC
solution.
[0008] Another aspect of embodiments of the invention relates to using the method to provide information that is immediately available, accessible, and understood by operators of the control system.
[0009] This invention is directed to a method of analyzing a solution from a multivariable predictive controller, comprising obtaining a solution from a multivariable predictive controller having a steady-state optimizer that results in different variable constraint statuses, wherein the solution includes controlled variables that are predicted from manipulated variables, and operating on the solution to obtain a relationship between constrained variables and unconstrained variables to determine how unconstrained variables respond to changes in constrained variables. The solution can be represented in a matrix.
[0010] The invention is also directed to a method of operating a control system for use with a process facility, comprising extracting a raw gain matrix from a base model file, including manipulated variables and controlled variables related to the process, based on a steady-state response between the manipulated variables and the controlled variables. The manipulated variables and controlled variables are classified by an active constraint condition, wherein the classification is based on constrained, unconstrained or violated conditions. The amount of possible movement for each variable is calculated based on the active constraint condition classification. The order of the gain matrix is changed based on the active constraint condition to obtain a model matrix representative of an optimization solution. A result matrix is formed by pivoting the constrained controlled variables with the unconstrained manipulated variables in the model matrix to form the result matrix. The result matrix and the amount of possible movement are used to calculate the response of the unconstrained variables to changes in the constrained variables.
[0011] The invention is also directed to a control system for use with a process, comprising a storage device that stores a base model file including manipulated variables and controlled variables related to the process, and a controller associated with the storage device that extracts a raw gain matrix from the base model file based on a steady-state response between the manipulated variables and the controlled variables. The controller uses an optimization solution to describe how unconstrained variables respond to changes in constrained variables by classifying the manipulated variables and controlled variables by an active constraint condition, wherein the classification is based on constrained, unconstrained or violated conditions, calculating the amount of possible movement for each variable based on the active constraint condition classification, changing the order of the gain matrix based on the active constraint condition to obtain a model matrix representative of an optimization solution, predicting controlled variables from the manipulated variables using the model matrix, forming a result matrix by pivoting the constrained controlled variables with the unconstrained manipulated variables in the model matrix to form the result matrix, and using the result matrix and the amount of possible movement to calculate the response of the unconstrained variables to changes in the constrained variables.
[0012] These and other aspects of the invention will become apparent when taken in conjunction with the detailed description and appended drawings.
BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF THE DRAWINGS
[0013] The invention will now be described in conjunction with the accompanying drawings in which:
FIG. 1 is a flow chart showing the basic steps of the process in accordance with the invention.
DETAILED DESCRIPTION OF PREFERRED EMBODIMENTS
[0014] A preferred embodiment of this invention described herein is directed to a dynamic matrix controller (DMC). However, the invention is intended to apply more broadly to multivariable predictive controllers (MPC) in general and to control schemes in which it is desirable to optimize process limits in various applications.
[0015] The term operator used herein is intended to refer to any end user.
For example, an end user could be an operator, a process engineer, a shift lead, a control engineer, or a manager.
100161 To demonstrate the basic functionality of the invention, a simple problem is addressed. In the simplest form, a constraint sensitivity analysis tool for a DMC controller is provided with no transforms, no ramps, and no minimum move MVs. The basic functions include a constrained variable analysis, which determines how much a constraint can be moved before the next constraint becomes active, and identifies the next constraint. An unconstrained variable analysis is also accomplished, which determines which constraints are causing the controller to move some unconstrained variable (e.g., feed) down (or up) and determines the sensitivity (closed-loop gain) of all active constraints to this variable. An infeasibility analysis is accomplished, which determines which constraint variable(s) can be moved and by how much in order to make the solution become feasible. A test or Excel-based interface will work for analysis results. A
graphic user interface (GUI) is effective.
[0017] To increase the ability to analyze more complex problems, auto-recognition and calculation of MV and CV transforms are provided and the results are incorporated into the analysis. Additionally, the following capabilities are enabled: the ability to recognize and handle min-move MVs, the ability to recognize and handle ramp variables and ramp-linked relationships, economic prioritization of available constraint-relief mechanism, the ability to handle external targets, the ability to analyze infeasibilities by priority classification, the ability to express the solution with a graphical depiction of loop pairing (unconstrained MV
v. constrained CV), and the ability to step through sequential solutions from historical data. This technique will work with composite applications, where one optimization function is used for multiple combined controllers. A GUI and hypertext markup language (HTML) interface is possible.
[0018] At the highest level, the tool will also provide the ability to recognize and explain QP objective function, provide the ability to analyze multiple rank groups for relief of infeasibilities, and recognize and incorporate active gain multiplication factors. A link could also be provided to commercial databases, such as AspenWatch from AspenTech or Process History Database (PHD) from Honeywell International Inc.
[0019] More particularly, referring the flow chart of Figure 1, the process accomplished by this invention begins with providing information to an operator relating to the variables. The first step is to read in the controller definition from a file or database. This provides the number and name of the manipulated, feedforward and controlled variables. Next, read in the model file and extract the model "gains" for each independent (MV or feedforward) - dependent (CV) variable pair. In general, the model is dynamic, so only the steady-state portion of the model (i.e., the gain) is used for this calculation. In a variation of the process, the model may be a linearized relationship between variables in a non-linear controller. The model may also be a linearized relationship between variables in a real-time optimization problem.
WO 2008/039346 - ~ - PCT/US2007/020332 [0020] An example of the steady-state response between MVs and CVs in a 4MV X 7 CV matrix is shown below.
mv, G>> G12 G13 G14 G15 G16 G17 [0021] The target value and constraint status of all variables are read in, and the variables are classified as either constrained or unconstrained. Violated variables are classified as unconstrained and inactive manipulated variables are classified as constrained. The data should be consistent, i.e., all from the same execution cycle. The status can be read from a file or from a computer database.
The data can be from current or historical controller executions.
[0022] For each variable, the allowable steady-state move (AM) is calculated in each direction until the next constraint is reached. This calculation is accomplished for all variables. The calculation varies based on the type of active constraint indication.
[0023] For unconstrained variables, the delta represents the change until the variable hits a constraint. For example, an unconstrained variable is between the operator high and operator low limits. The allowable move up (AM up) equals the operator high limit (OPHIGH) minus the steady-state target. This can be represented by:
AM up = OPHIGH - Steady-State Target.
The allowable move down (AM down) equals the steady-state target minus the operator low limit (OPLO). This can be represented by:
AM down = Steady-State Target - OPLO.
[0024] For violated variables, the delta is calculated as the amount of change until the variable becomes feasible. For example, if the variable exceeds the operator high limit, AM down = Steady-State Target - OPHIGH.
[0025] For constrained variables, the delta represents the change until the next constraint is reached. For example, if the engineering limit (Engineering Hi) is the next limit beyond the operating limit, then for a variable constrained at the operator high limit, AM up = Engineering Hi - OPHIGH.
[0026] In calculating the allowable steady-state move, it is possible that single variables will have multiple sets of limits, including for example, operator, engineer, equipment, safety, range, etc. The user can select or deselect which limits to consider for calculating the allowable change. For example, the user may deselect the engineering limit and use the range of the measurement to calculate the allowable move.
[0027] The next step is to create a closed-loop matrix of the effect of the constrained variables on unconstrained variables (instead of MVs to CVs.) For each unconstrained/violated variable, the constrained variables that affect it are displayed. These are constraints that have a non-zero matrix element to the chosen unconstrained variable. This can be accomplished by changing the order of the gain matrix depending on constraint condition. Unconstrained MVs are moved to the top, and constrained CVs are moved to the left. The resulting matrix is composed of four sections, including:
(a) model of unconstrained MVs to constrained CVs;
(b) model of constrained MVs to constrained CVs;
(c) model of unconstrained MVs to unconstrained CVs; and (d) model of constrained MVs to unconstrained CVs.
[0028] The model matrix can be displayed symbolically as:
CVc CVU
MVU A C
MVc B D
100291 Algebraically, the CVs are predicted from the MV models.
CVc=A*MVu+B*MVc CVu=C*MVu+D*MVc [0030] In matrix form, the relationship appears as follows:
CVc A B MVu CVu C D MVc [0031] If the equations are scalar, it would represent two equations with two unknowns, and the knowns and unknowns could be swapped. The same equations can be done in matrix form, to swap or pivot the constrained CVs with the unconstrained MVs as follows.
MVu A-' A-B CVc CVu CA-' D- CA-' Bmvc [0032] Qualitatively, the resulting equation and matrix show how unconstrained variables respond to changes in constrained variables, as seen below.
MVU CVU
CVc GPivoc ...
MVc ... ...
[0033] This example matrix is pivoted to show the form where MV3, MV4, CV2, and CV6 are constrained.
CV1 MV, CV3 CV4 CV5 MV2 CV7 CV2 GP>> GP12 GP13 GP14 GP15 GP16 GP17 CV6 GP21 GP22 GP23 GP24 GP25 GPi6 GP27 [0034] Each element in this matrix represents the amount of change in an unconstrained variable for a unity change in the constrained variables. Matrix elements that are very close to zero are counted as zero.
[0035] An alternate way to create the closed-loop matrix is to simulate the controller and perturb each of the constraints, one at a time, by a small amount, E.
The ratio of the change or unconstrained variable to E for each constrained-unconstrained variable pair is the gain in the closed-loop matrix.
[0036] The result is that for each unconstrained/violated variable, the constrained variables that affect it are displayed. The information in this closed-loop matrix is then used to calculate all of the information regarding the three general classes of information, which relate to constrained variables, unconstrained variables, and violated variables described above, to the operators.
100371 For each constraint i, the process can calculate how far it can be moved, in both directions, until another constraint is reached (CMi). The amount of move and the next constraint are recorded and displayed for the operator's use.
In particular, the minimum of allowable move (AM) for the constraint i and the ratio of allowable move of unconstrained variable j (AMj)/closed- loop gain GPij can be found. Using this calculation, it is important to use the correct sign.
For example, if calculating how far a constraint can be moved up, the allowable move of unconstrained variable down should be used if the gain element is negative.
100381 It is also possible to calculate the value of limit relaxation of each constraint. This value is calculated by multiplying the shadow value of the constraint, which is usually a result from the calculation itself, by CM, the move until the next constraint. It is also possible to use a shadow value from another program, such as planning and scheduling or real-time optimization, in place of the shadow value from the controller optimization.
100391 Solutions to the following objectives can be obtained from using this tool.
100401 For constraint analysis, answers to the following questions can be determined.
= How much can a constraint be changed before another constraint becomes active?
= What is the next active constraint?
[0041] For unconstrained variable analysis, answers to the following questions can be determined.
= If it is desired to increase or decrease the variable, which constraints effect the change?
= What is the sensitivity (closed loop gain) of those constraints?
= What is the priority of the constraints based on the magnitude of possible effects, or the cost to the overall LP optimization objective function?
[0042] For infeasibility analysis, answers to the following questions can be determined.
WO 2008/039346 _ 12 _ PCT/US2007/020332 = Which variables can be changed, and by how much, for the solution to become feasible?
[0043] It can be appreciated that this invention provides quantitative input to operators and engineers regarding the effect of changing controller limits on the MPC controller solution. Prior to this invention, information on constraint dependencies and relief mechanisms was only available to engineers by doing multiple offline MPC simulations. Having this information immediately available, accessible and understandable by all operators allows a rapid response to changes and hence a more optimal process operation.
[0044] Various modifications can be made in our invention as described herein, and many different embodiments of the device and method can be made while remaining within the spirit and scope of the invention as defined in the claims without departing from such spirit and scope. It is intended that all matter contained in the accompanying specification shall be interpreted as illustrative only and not in a limiting sense.
[0014] A preferred embodiment of this invention described herein is directed to a dynamic matrix controller (DMC). However, the invention is intended to apply more broadly to multivariable predictive controllers (MPC) in general and to control schemes in which it is desirable to optimize process limits in various applications.
[0015] The term operator used herein is intended to refer to any end user.
For example, an end user could be an operator, a process engineer, a shift lead, a control engineer, or a manager.
100161 To demonstrate the basic functionality of the invention, a simple problem is addressed. In the simplest form, a constraint sensitivity analysis tool for a DMC controller is provided with no transforms, no ramps, and no minimum move MVs. The basic functions include a constrained variable analysis, which determines how much a constraint can be moved before the next constraint becomes active, and identifies the next constraint. An unconstrained variable analysis is also accomplished, which determines which constraints are causing the controller to move some unconstrained variable (e.g., feed) down (or up) and determines the sensitivity (closed-loop gain) of all active constraints to this variable. An infeasibility analysis is accomplished, which determines which constraint variable(s) can be moved and by how much in order to make the solution become feasible. A test or Excel-based interface will work for analysis results. A
graphic user interface (GUI) is effective.
[0017] To increase the ability to analyze more complex problems, auto-recognition and calculation of MV and CV transforms are provided and the results are incorporated into the analysis. Additionally, the following capabilities are enabled: the ability to recognize and handle min-move MVs, the ability to recognize and handle ramp variables and ramp-linked relationships, economic prioritization of available constraint-relief mechanism, the ability to handle external targets, the ability to analyze infeasibilities by priority classification, the ability to express the solution with a graphical depiction of loop pairing (unconstrained MV
v. constrained CV), and the ability to step through sequential solutions from historical data. This technique will work with composite applications, where one optimization function is used for multiple combined controllers. A GUI and hypertext markup language (HTML) interface is possible.
[0018] At the highest level, the tool will also provide the ability to recognize and explain QP objective function, provide the ability to analyze multiple rank groups for relief of infeasibilities, and recognize and incorporate active gain multiplication factors. A link could also be provided to commercial databases, such as AspenWatch from AspenTech or Process History Database (PHD) from Honeywell International Inc.
[0019] More particularly, referring the flow chart of Figure 1, the process accomplished by this invention begins with providing information to an operator relating to the variables. The first step is to read in the controller definition from a file or database. This provides the number and name of the manipulated, feedforward and controlled variables. Next, read in the model file and extract the model "gains" for each independent (MV or feedforward) - dependent (CV) variable pair. In general, the model is dynamic, so only the steady-state portion of the model (i.e., the gain) is used for this calculation. In a variation of the process, the model may be a linearized relationship between variables in a non-linear controller. The model may also be a linearized relationship between variables in a real-time optimization problem.
WO 2008/039346 - ~ - PCT/US2007/020332 [0020] An example of the steady-state response between MVs and CVs in a 4MV X 7 CV matrix is shown below.
mv, G>> G12 G13 G14 G15 G16 G17 [0021] The target value and constraint status of all variables are read in, and the variables are classified as either constrained or unconstrained. Violated variables are classified as unconstrained and inactive manipulated variables are classified as constrained. The data should be consistent, i.e., all from the same execution cycle. The status can be read from a file or from a computer database.
The data can be from current or historical controller executions.
[0022] For each variable, the allowable steady-state move (AM) is calculated in each direction until the next constraint is reached. This calculation is accomplished for all variables. The calculation varies based on the type of active constraint indication.
[0023] For unconstrained variables, the delta represents the change until the variable hits a constraint. For example, an unconstrained variable is between the operator high and operator low limits. The allowable move up (AM up) equals the operator high limit (OPHIGH) minus the steady-state target. This can be represented by:
AM up = OPHIGH - Steady-State Target.
The allowable move down (AM down) equals the steady-state target minus the operator low limit (OPLO). This can be represented by:
AM down = Steady-State Target - OPLO.
[0024] For violated variables, the delta is calculated as the amount of change until the variable becomes feasible. For example, if the variable exceeds the operator high limit, AM down = Steady-State Target - OPHIGH.
[0025] For constrained variables, the delta represents the change until the next constraint is reached. For example, if the engineering limit (Engineering Hi) is the next limit beyond the operating limit, then for a variable constrained at the operator high limit, AM up = Engineering Hi - OPHIGH.
[0026] In calculating the allowable steady-state move, it is possible that single variables will have multiple sets of limits, including for example, operator, engineer, equipment, safety, range, etc. The user can select or deselect which limits to consider for calculating the allowable change. For example, the user may deselect the engineering limit and use the range of the measurement to calculate the allowable move.
[0027] The next step is to create a closed-loop matrix of the effect of the constrained variables on unconstrained variables (instead of MVs to CVs.) For each unconstrained/violated variable, the constrained variables that affect it are displayed. These are constraints that have a non-zero matrix element to the chosen unconstrained variable. This can be accomplished by changing the order of the gain matrix depending on constraint condition. Unconstrained MVs are moved to the top, and constrained CVs are moved to the left. The resulting matrix is composed of four sections, including:
(a) model of unconstrained MVs to constrained CVs;
(b) model of constrained MVs to constrained CVs;
(c) model of unconstrained MVs to unconstrained CVs; and (d) model of constrained MVs to unconstrained CVs.
[0028] The model matrix can be displayed symbolically as:
CVc CVU
MVU A C
MVc B D
100291 Algebraically, the CVs are predicted from the MV models.
CVc=A*MVu+B*MVc CVu=C*MVu+D*MVc [0030] In matrix form, the relationship appears as follows:
CVc A B MVu CVu C D MVc [0031] If the equations are scalar, it would represent two equations with two unknowns, and the knowns and unknowns could be swapped. The same equations can be done in matrix form, to swap or pivot the constrained CVs with the unconstrained MVs as follows.
MVu A-' A-B CVc CVu CA-' D- CA-' Bmvc [0032] Qualitatively, the resulting equation and matrix show how unconstrained variables respond to changes in constrained variables, as seen below.
MVU CVU
CVc GPivoc ...
MVc ... ...
[0033] This example matrix is pivoted to show the form where MV3, MV4, CV2, and CV6 are constrained.
CV1 MV, CV3 CV4 CV5 MV2 CV7 CV2 GP>> GP12 GP13 GP14 GP15 GP16 GP17 CV6 GP21 GP22 GP23 GP24 GP25 GPi6 GP27 [0034] Each element in this matrix represents the amount of change in an unconstrained variable for a unity change in the constrained variables. Matrix elements that are very close to zero are counted as zero.
[0035] An alternate way to create the closed-loop matrix is to simulate the controller and perturb each of the constraints, one at a time, by a small amount, E.
The ratio of the change or unconstrained variable to E for each constrained-unconstrained variable pair is the gain in the closed-loop matrix.
[0036] The result is that for each unconstrained/violated variable, the constrained variables that affect it are displayed. The information in this closed-loop matrix is then used to calculate all of the information regarding the three general classes of information, which relate to constrained variables, unconstrained variables, and violated variables described above, to the operators.
100371 For each constraint i, the process can calculate how far it can be moved, in both directions, until another constraint is reached (CMi). The amount of move and the next constraint are recorded and displayed for the operator's use.
In particular, the minimum of allowable move (AM) for the constraint i and the ratio of allowable move of unconstrained variable j (AMj)/closed- loop gain GPij can be found. Using this calculation, it is important to use the correct sign.
For example, if calculating how far a constraint can be moved up, the allowable move of unconstrained variable down should be used if the gain element is negative.
100381 It is also possible to calculate the value of limit relaxation of each constraint. This value is calculated by multiplying the shadow value of the constraint, which is usually a result from the calculation itself, by CM, the move until the next constraint. It is also possible to use a shadow value from another program, such as planning and scheduling or real-time optimization, in place of the shadow value from the controller optimization.
100391 Solutions to the following objectives can be obtained from using this tool.
100401 For constraint analysis, answers to the following questions can be determined.
= How much can a constraint be changed before another constraint becomes active?
= What is the next active constraint?
[0041] For unconstrained variable analysis, answers to the following questions can be determined.
= If it is desired to increase or decrease the variable, which constraints effect the change?
= What is the sensitivity (closed loop gain) of those constraints?
= What is the priority of the constraints based on the magnitude of possible effects, or the cost to the overall LP optimization objective function?
[0042] For infeasibility analysis, answers to the following questions can be determined.
WO 2008/039346 _ 12 _ PCT/US2007/020332 = Which variables can be changed, and by how much, for the solution to become feasible?
[0043] It can be appreciated that this invention provides quantitative input to operators and engineers regarding the effect of changing controller limits on the MPC controller solution. Prior to this invention, information on constraint dependencies and relief mechanisms was only available to engineers by doing multiple offline MPC simulations. Having this information immediately available, accessible and understandable by all operators allows a rapid response to changes and hence a more optimal process operation.
[0044] Various modifications can be made in our invention as described herein, and many different embodiments of the device and method can be made while remaining within the spirit and scope of the invention as defined in the claims without departing from such spirit and scope. It is intended that all matter contained in the accompanying specification shall be interpreted as illustrative only and not in a limiting sense.
Claims (30)
1. A method of analyzing a solution from a multivariable predictive controller, comprising:
obtaining a solution from a multivariable predictive controller having a steady-state optimizer that results in different variable constraint statuses, wherein the solution includes controlled variables that are predicted from manipulated variables; and operating on the solution to obtain a relationship between constrained variables and unconstrained variables to determine how unconstrained variables respond to changes in constrained variables.
obtaining a solution from a multivariable predictive controller having a steady-state optimizer that results in different variable constraint statuses, wherein the solution includes controlled variables that are predicted from manipulated variables; and operating on the solution to obtain a relationship between constrained variables and unconstrained variables to determine how unconstrained variables respond to changes in constrained variables.
2. The method of claim 1, wherein the solution is represented in a matrix and operating on the solution includes pivoting the constrained controlled variables with the unconstrained manipulated variables in the matrix.
3. The method of claim 1, wherein the solution is represented in a matrix formed by simulating the controller and perturbing each constraint a predetermined amount, wherein a ratio of a change of unconstrained variable to the predetermined amount is defined as a gain for each constrained and unconstrained variable pair.
4. The method of claim 1, further comprising using the relationship between the constrained and unconstrained variables to calculate an amount of change needed in a constrained variable to reach a next constraint in an unconstrained or a constrained variable.
5. The method of claim 4, further comprising determining a set of limits for each variable and selecting a limit to use for calculating the amount of change.
6. The method of claim 1, wherein each variable has limits and further comprising calculating a value of limit relaxation for each variable.
7. The method of claim 1, further comprising using the relationship between the constrained and unconstrained variables to determine how much change in a constraint affects an unconstrained variable.
8. The method of claim 1, further comprising using the relationship between the constrained and unconstrained variables to determine an amount of change needed to move a constraint for a violated variable into a range of feasibility.
9. A method of operating a control system for use with a process facility, comprising:
extracting a raw gain matrix from a base model file, including manipulated variables and controlled variables related to the process, based on a steady-state response between the manipulated variables and the controlled variables;
classifying the manipulated variables and controlled variables by an active constraint condition, wherein the classification is based on constrained, unconstrained or violated conditions;
calculating the amount of possible movement for each variable based on the active constraint condition classification;
changing the order of the gain matrix based on the active constraint condition to obtain a model matrix representative of an optimization solution;
forming a result matrix by pivoting the constrained controlled variables with the unconstrained manipulated variables in the model matrix to form the result matrix; and, using the result matrix and the amount of possible movement to calculate the response of the unconstrained variables to changes in the constrained variables.
extracting a raw gain matrix from a base model file, including manipulated variables and controlled variables related to the process, based on a steady-state response between the manipulated variables and the controlled variables;
classifying the manipulated variables and controlled variables by an active constraint condition, wherein the classification is based on constrained, unconstrained or violated conditions;
calculating the amount of possible movement for each variable based on the active constraint condition classification;
changing the order of the gain matrix based on the active constraint condition to obtain a model matrix representative of an optimization solution;
forming a result matrix by pivoting the constrained controlled variables with the unconstrained manipulated variables in the model matrix to form the result matrix; and, using the result matrix and the amount of possible movement to calculate the response of the unconstrained variables to changes in the constrained variables.
10. The method of claim 9, wherein calculating the amount of possible movement for an unconstrained variable results in an operator high limit, an operator low limit or a step limit.
11. The method of claim 9, wherein each variable has a set of limits and calculating the amount of possible movement includes selecting a limit from the set of limits to use in the calculation.
12. The method of claim 9, wherein calculating the amount of possible movement for a constrained variable includes determining which constraint condition will be reached next.
13. The method of claim 9, wherein calculating the amount of possible movement for a violated variable includes determining what movement will return the variable to a limit.
14. The method of claim 9, wherein changing the order of the gain matrix includes moving unconstrained manipulated variables to the top of the matrix and constrained controlled variables to the left of the matrix.
15. The method of claim 9, wherein changing the order of the gain matrix results in a matrix having (i) a model of unconstrained manipulated variables to constrained controlled variables, (ii) a model of constrained manipulated variables to constrained controlled variables, (iii) a model of unconstrained manipulated variables to unconstrained controlled variables, and (iv) a model of constrained manipulated variables to unconstrained controlled variables.
16. The method of claim 9, wherein using the result matrix includes determining how far a constrained variable can be changed before another constraint is reached.
17. The method of claim 9, wherein using the result matrix includes determining all constrained variables that affect each unconstrained variable.
18. The method of claim 9, wherein using the result matrix includes determining how much a change in each constraint affects an associated unconstrained variable.
19. The method of claim 9, wherein using the result matrix includes calculating necessary movement to achieve feasibility for each constraint.
20. A control system for use with a process, comprising:
a storage device that stores a base model file including manipulated variables and controlled variables related to the process; and a controller associated with the storage device that extracts a raw gain matrix from the base model file based on a steady-state response between the manipulated variables and the controlled variables, wherein the controller uses an optimization solution to describe how unconstrained variables respond to changes in constrained variables by classifying the manipulated variables and controlled variables by an active constraint condition, wherein the classification is based on constrained, unconstrained or violated conditions, calculating the amount of possible movement for each variable based on the active constraint condition classification, changing the order of the gain matrix based on the active constraint condition to obtain a model matrix representative of an optimization solution, forming a result matrix by pivoting the constrained controlled variables with the unconstrained manipulated variables in the model matrix to form the result matrix, and using the result matrix and the amount of possible movement to calculate the response of the unconstrained variables to changes in the constrained variables.
a storage device that stores a base model file including manipulated variables and controlled variables related to the process; and a controller associated with the storage device that extracts a raw gain matrix from the base model file based on a steady-state response between the manipulated variables and the controlled variables, wherein the controller uses an optimization solution to describe how unconstrained variables respond to changes in constrained variables by classifying the manipulated variables and controlled variables by an active constraint condition, wherein the classification is based on constrained, unconstrained or violated conditions, calculating the amount of possible movement for each variable based on the active constraint condition classification, changing the order of the gain matrix based on the active constraint condition to obtain a model matrix representative of an optimization solution, forming a result matrix by pivoting the constrained controlled variables with the unconstrained manipulated variables in the model matrix to form the result matrix, and using the result matrix and the amount of possible movement to calculate the response of the unconstrained variables to changes in the constrained variables.
21. The control system of claim 20, wherein the controller calculates the amount of possible movement for an unconstrained variable by evaluating possible change in a result of an optimization function.
22. The control system of claim 21, wherein the result of the optimization function is an operator high limit, an operator low limit or a step limit.
23. The control system of claim 20, wherein the controller calculates the amount of possible movement for a constrained variable by determining which constraint condition will be reached next.
24. The control system of claim 20, wherein the controller calculates the amount of possible movement for a violated variable by determining what movement will return the variable to a limit.
25. The control system of claim 20, wherein the controller changes the order of the gain matrix by moving unconstrained manipulated variables to the top of the matrix and constrained controlled variables to the left of the matrix.
26. The control system of claim 20, wherein the controller changes the order of the gain matrix to result in a matrix having (i) a model of unconstrained manipulated variables to constrained controlled variables, (ii) a model of constrained manipulated variables to constrained controlled variables, (iii) a model of unconstrained manipulated variables to unconstrained controlled variables, and (iv) a model of constrained manipulated variables to unconstrained controlled variables.
27. The control system of claim 20, wherein the controller determines how far a constrained variable can be changed before another constraint is reached by using the result matrix.
28. The control system of claim 20, wherein the controller determines all constrained variables that affect each unconstrained variable by using the result matrix.
29. The control system of claim 20, wherein the controller determines how much a change in each constraint affects an associated unconstrained variable by using the result matrix.
30. The control system of claim 20, wherein the controller calculates necessary movement to achieve feasibility for each constraint by using the result matrix.
Applications Claiming Priority (3)
| Application Number | Priority Date | Filing Date | Title |
|---|---|---|---|
| US11/525,221 US7949417B2 (en) | 2006-09-22 | 2006-09-22 | Model predictive controller solution analysis process |
| US11/525,221 | 2006-09-22 | ||
| PCT/US2007/020332 WO2008039346A2 (en) | 2006-09-22 | 2007-09-19 | Model predictive controller solution analysis process |
Publications (2)
| Publication Number | Publication Date |
|---|---|
| CA2663695A1 true CA2663695A1 (en) | 2008-04-03 |
| CA2663695C CA2663695C (en) | 2013-12-17 |
Family
ID=39086140
Family Applications (1)
| Application Number | Title | Priority Date | Filing Date |
|---|---|---|---|
| CA2663695A Active CA2663695C (en) | 2006-09-22 | 2007-09-19 | Model predictive controller solution analysis process |
Country Status (8)
| Country | Link |
|---|---|
| US (1) | US7949417B2 (en) |
| EP (2) | EP2064600B1 (en) |
| JP (2) | JP2010504590A (en) |
| CN (1) | CN101517498A (en) |
| BR (1) | BRPI0716856A2 (en) |
| CA (1) | CA2663695C (en) |
| MY (1) | MY145873A (en) |
| WO (1) | WO2008039346A2 (en) |
Families Citing this family (25)
| Publication number | Priority date | Publication date | Assignee | Title |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| US20060010946A1 (en) * | 2004-07-15 | 2006-01-19 | Midwestern Bio-Ag Products & Services, Inc. | Pelleted organic calcium phosphate compositions |
| US7797063B2 (en) * | 2006-08-24 | 2010-09-14 | Exxonmobil Research And Engineering Company | Method for model gain matrix modification |
| US8046089B2 (en) * | 2008-06-20 | 2011-10-25 | Honeywell International Inc. | Apparatus and method for model predictive control (MPC) of a nonlinear process |
| US20110307155A1 (en) * | 2009-02-24 | 2011-12-15 | Simard Christian | Method and system for limiting a dynamic parameter of a vehicle |
| US8155764B2 (en) * | 2009-02-27 | 2012-04-10 | Honeywell International Inc. | Multivariable model predictive control for coalbed gas production |
| US9335042B2 (en) | 2010-08-16 | 2016-05-10 | Emerson Process Management Power & Water Solutions, Inc. | Steam temperature control using dynamic matrix control |
| US9217565B2 (en) * | 2010-08-16 | 2015-12-22 | Emerson Process Management Power & Water Solutions, Inc. | Dynamic matrix control of steam temperature with prevention of saturated steam entry into superheater |
| US9447963B2 (en) | 2010-08-16 | 2016-09-20 | Emerson Process Management Power & Water Solutions, Inc. | Dynamic tuning of dynamic matrix control of steam temperature |
| US8620705B2 (en) * | 2010-09-21 | 2013-12-31 | Exxonmobil Research And Engineering Company | Method of connecting different layers of optimization |
| US8670945B2 (en) | 2010-09-30 | 2014-03-11 | Honeywell International Inc. | Apparatus and method for product movement planning to support safety monitoring in inventory management systems |
| US9163828B2 (en) | 2011-10-31 | 2015-10-20 | Emerson Process Management Power & Water Solutions, Inc. | Model-based load demand control |
| CN102508436B (en) * | 2011-11-21 | 2014-07-16 | 湖南大学 | Application method for performing dynamic precise analysis and control on manipulator friction |
| CN102707743B (en) * | 2012-05-30 | 2014-07-23 | 广东电网公司电力科学研究院 | Supercritical machine set steam temperature control method and system based on multivariable predictive control |
| JP5969919B2 (en) * | 2012-12-28 | 2016-08-17 | アズビル株式会社 | Optimization device and method, and control device and method |
| US9727035B2 (en) * | 2013-05-02 | 2017-08-08 | Aspen Technology, Inc. | Computer apparatus and method using model structure information of model predictive control |
| DK177915B1 (en) * | 2013-05-28 | 2015-01-05 | Core As | Process control method |
| US9733629B2 (en) * | 2014-07-21 | 2017-08-15 | Honeywell International Inc. | Cascaded model predictive control (MPC) approach for plantwide control and optimization |
| WO2017035377A1 (en) | 2015-08-26 | 2017-03-02 | Lin And Associates | History compare software |
| US10353353B2 (en) * | 2015-10-02 | 2019-07-16 | Exxonmobil Research And Engineering Company | Hydrocarbon processing analysis |
| RU2625051C1 (en) | 2016-02-18 | 2017-07-11 | Акционерное общество "Лаборатория Касперского" | System and method of detecting anomalies in technological system |
| US11069102B2 (en) | 2016-05-23 | 2021-07-20 | Lin and Associates, Inc. | Dynamic progressive awareness |
| WO2017205238A1 (en) | 2016-05-23 | 2017-11-30 | Lin And Associates, Inc | Dynamic progressive awareness |
| US10190522B2 (en) * | 2016-06-17 | 2019-01-29 | Toyota Motor Engineering & Manufacturing North America, Inc. | Hybrid partial and full step quadratic solver for model predictive control of diesel engine air path flow and methods of use |
| US11073804B2 (en) * | 2017-11-07 | 2021-07-27 | Exxonmobil Research & Engineering Company | Interface between processing environment optimization layers |
| CN109828459B (en) * | 2017-11-23 | 2020-05-26 | 中国科学院沈阳自动化研究所 | Steady control implementation method based on multivariable constraint interval predictive control |
Family Cites Families (112)
| Publication number | Priority date | Publication date | Assignee | Title |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| US473631A (en) * | 1892-04-26 | loepere | ||
| US627889A (en) * | 1897-11-19 | 1899-06-27 | William James Asher | Collar-shaping machine. |
| GB1583545A (en) | 1976-08-04 | 1981-01-28 | Martin Sanchez J | Control systems |
| DE3175142D1 (en) | 1980-04-07 | 1986-09-25 | Juan Martin Sanchez | Adaptive-predictive control method and adaptive-predictive control system |
| US4736316A (en) * | 1986-08-06 | 1988-04-05 | Chevron Research Company | Minimum time, optimizing and stabilizing multivariable control method and system using a constraint associated control code |
| US5043863A (en) | 1987-03-30 | 1991-08-27 | The Foxboro Company | Multivariable adaptive feedforward controller |
| US5541833A (en) | 1987-03-30 | 1996-07-30 | The Foxboro Company | Multivariable feedforward adaptive controller |
| US4937763A (en) | 1988-09-06 | 1990-06-26 | E I International, Inc. | Method of system state analysis |
| DE69122313T2 (en) | 1990-06-21 | 1997-03-20 | Honeywell Inc | Adaptive control based on a variable horizon with means for minimizing operating costs |
| US5144549A (en) | 1990-06-29 | 1992-09-01 | Massachusetts Institute Of Technology | Time delay controlled processes |
| JPH04309101A (en) * | 1991-04-08 | 1992-10-30 | Toshiba Corp | Input device for model prediction control |
| US5260865A (en) | 1991-04-01 | 1993-11-09 | Beauford Martin H | Nonlinear model based distillation control |
| US5343407A (en) | 1991-11-01 | 1994-08-30 | Phillips Petroleum Company | Nonlinear model based distillation control |
| US5396416A (en) | 1992-08-19 | 1995-03-07 | Continental Controls, Inc. | Multivariable process control method and apparatus |
| US5740033A (en) | 1992-10-13 | 1998-04-14 | The Dow Chemical Company | Model predictive controller |
| US5351184A (en) | 1993-01-26 | 1994-09-27 | Honeywell Inc. | Method of multivariable predictive control utilizing range control |
| US5825646A (en) | 1993-03-02 | 1998-10-20 | Pavilion Technologies, Inc. | Method and apparatus for determining the sensitivity of inputs to a neural network on output parameters |
| WO1994020887A2 (en) | 1993-03-02 | 1994-09-15 | Pavilion Technologies, Inc. | Method and apparatus for analyzing a neural network within desired operating parameter constraints |
| US5457625A (en) | 1994-04-13 | 1995-10-10 | The M. W. Kellogg Company | Maximizing process production rates using permanent constraints |
| US5519605A (en) | 1994-10-24 | 1996-05-21 | Olin Corporation | Model predictive control apparatus and method |
| US5568378A (en) | 1994-10-24 | 1996-10-22 | Fisher-Rosemount Systems, Inc. | Variable horizon predictor for controlling dead time dominant processes, multivariable interactive processes, and processes with time variant dynamics |
| US5570282A (en) | 1994-11-01 | 1996-10-29 | The Foxboro Company | Multivariable nonlinear process controller |
| US5566065A (en) | 1994-11-01 | 1996-10-15 | The Foxboro Company | Method and apparatus for controlling multivariable nonlinear processes |
| US5758047A (en) | 1995-06-14 | 1998-05-26 | Lu; Zhuxin Joseph | Method of process controller optimization in a multivariable predictive controller |
| JP3956057B2 (en) | 1996-01-31 | 2007-08-08 | エイエスエム アメリカ インコーポレイテッド | Model reference predictive control of heat treatment |
| US7418301B2 (en) | 1996-05-06 | 2008-08-26 | Pavilion Technologies, Inc. | Method and apparatus for approximating gains in dynamic and steady-state processes for prediction, control, and optimization |
| US6278899B1 (en) | 1996-05-06 | 2001-08-21 | Pavilion Technologies, Inc. | Method for on-line optimization of a plant |
| US6381504B1 (en) | 1996-05-06 | 2002-04-30 | Pavilion Technologies, Inc. | Method for optimizing a plant with multiple inputs |
| US6047221A (en) | 1997-10-03 | 2000-04-04 | Pavilion Technologies, Inc. | Method for steady-state identification based upon identified dynamics |
| US6839599B2 (en) | 1996-05-06 | 2005-01-04 | Pavilion Technologies, Inc. | Kiln/cooler control and upset recovery using a combination of model predictive control and expert systems |
| US8311673B2 (en) | 1996-05-06 | 2012-11-13 | Rockwell Automation Technologies, Inc. | Method and apparatus for minimizing error in dynamic and steady-state processes for prediction, control, and optimization |
| US7058617B1 (en) | 1996-05-06 | 2006-06-06 | Pavilion Technologies, Inc. | Method and apparatus for training a system model with gain constraints |
| US6438430B1 (en) | 1996-05-06 | 2002-08-20 | Pavilion Technologies, Inc. | Kiln thermal and combustion control |
| US7610108B2 (en) | 1996-05-06 | 2009-10-27 | Rockwell Automation Technologies, Inc. | Method and apparatus for attenuating error in dynamic and steady-state processes for prediction, control, and optimization |
| US5933345A (en) | 1996-05-06 | 1999-08-03 | Pavilion Technologies, Inc. | Method and apparatus for dynamic and steady state modeling over a desired path between two end points |
| US7149590B2 (en) | 1996-05-06 | 2006-12-12 | Pavilion Technologies, Inc. | Kiln control and upset recovery using a model predictive control in series with forward chaining |
| US6493596B1 (en) | 1996-05-06 | 2002-12-10 | Pavilion Technologies, Inc. | Method and apparatus for controlling a non-linear mill |
| US6122555A (en) | 1997-05-05 | 2000-09-19 | Honeywell International Inc. | System and methods for globally optimizing a process facility |
| US5920478A (en) | 1997-06-27 | 1999-07-06 | Oakleaf Engineering, Inc. | Multi-input multi-output generic non-interacting controller |
| US6421570B1 (en) | 1997-08-22 | 2002-07-16 | Honeywell Inc. | Systems and methods for accessing data using a cyclic publish/subscribe scheme with report by exception |
| US6453308B1 (en) | 1997-10-01 | 2002-09-17 | Aspen Technology, Inc. | Non-linear dynamic predictive device |
| US6064809A (en) | 1998-06-05 | 2000-05-16 | The Board Of Trustees Of The University Of Illinois | Fast model predictive ellipsoid control process |
| US6594620B1 (en) | 1998-08-17 | 2003-07-15 | Aspen Technology, Inc. | Sensor validation apparatus and method |
| ATE236418T1 (en) | 1998-08-17 | 2003-04-15 | Aspen Technology Inc | METHOD AND DEVICE FOR SENSOR CONFIRMATION |
| US6253113B1 (en) | 1998-08-20 | 2001-06-26 | Honeywell International Inc | Controllers that determine optimal tuning parameters for use in process control systems and methods of operating the same |
| BR9803848A (en) | 1998-10-08 | 2000-10-31 | Opp Petroquimica S A | Inline system for inference of physical and chemical properties, inline system for inference of process variables, and inline control system |
| US6347254B1 (en) | 1998-12-31 | 2002-02-12 | Honeywell Inc | Process facility control systems using an efficient prediction form and methods of operating the same |
| US6542782B1 (en) | 1998-12-31 | 2003-04-01 | Z. Joseph Lu | Systems for generating and using a lookup table with process facility control systems and models of the same, and methods of operating such systems |
| US6298454B1 (en) * | 1999-02-22 | 2001-10-02 | Fisher-Rosemount Systems, Inc. | Diagnostics in a process control system |
| US6587108B1 (en) | 1999-07-01 | 2003-07-01 | Honeywell Inc. | Multivariable process matrix display and methods regarding same |
| US6901560B1 (en) | 1999-07-01 | 2005-05-31 | Honeywell Inc. | Process variable generalized graphical device display and methods regarding same |
| US6577323B1 (en) | 1999-07-01 | 2003-06-10 | Honeywell Inc. | Multivariable process trend display and methods regarding same |
| US6952808B1 (en) | 1999-07-01 | 2005-10-04 | Honeywell Inc. | Process variable gauge interface and methods regarding same |
| US6445963B1 (en) | 1999-10-04 | 2002-09-03 | Fisher Rosemount Systems, Inc. | Integrated advanced control blocks in process control systems |
| US6421575B1 (en) | 1999-12-01 | 2002-07-16 | Metso Paper Automation Oy | Method and control arrangement for controlling sheet-making process |
| JP2001255903A (en) * | 2000-03-14 | 2001-09-21 | Toshiba Corp | Process control system |
| US6760716B1 (en) | 2000-06-08 | 2004-07-06 | Fisher-Rosemount Systems, Inc. | Adaptive predictive model in a process control system |
| US6721609B1 (en) | 2000-06-14 | 2004-04-13 | Fisher-Rosemount Systems, Inc. | Integrated optimal model predictive control in a process control system |
| CA2696152A1 (en) | 2000-06-29 | 2002-01-10 | Aspen Technology, Inc. | Computer method and apparatus for constraining a non-linear approximator of an empirical process |
| GB0016695D0 (en) | 2000-07-08 | 2000-08-23 | Radioscape Ltd | Digital transactions for the delivery of media files |
| US7209793B2 (en) | 2000-07-12 | 2007-04-24 | Aspen Technology, Inc. | Automated closed loop step testing of process units |
| WO2002005042A2 (en) | 2000-07-12 | 2002-01-17 | Aspen Technology, Inc. | Automated closed loop step testing of process units |
| US6697767B2 (en) | 2000-10-18 | 2004-02-24 | The National University Of Singapore | Robust process identification and auto-tuning control |
| US20020177908A1 (en) | 2001-03-18 | 2002-11-28 | Sudarshan Bhat | System and method for optimizing optical coupling in a cross connect switch |
| US7437071B2 (en) | 2001-03-18 | 2008-10-14 | Cisco Technology, Inc. | Distributive optical switching control system |
| US6650947B2 (en) | 2001-03-23 | 2003-11-18 | Metso Automation Oy | Multi-variable control loop assessment |
| JP2004527860A (en) | 2001-05-25 | 2004-09-09 | パラメトリック・オプティミゼーション・ソリューションズ・リミテッド | Improved process control |
| JP3812381B2 (en) | 2001-07-30 | 2006-08-23 | 松下電器産業株式会社 | Welding wire feeder |
| US6936665B2 (en) | 2001-09-26 | 2005-08-30 | Bp Corporation North America Inc. | Integrated advanced chemical process control |
| US6901300B2 (en) | 2002-02-07 | 2005-05-31 | Fisher-Rosemount Systems, Inc.. | Adaptation of advanced process control blocks in response to variable process delay |
| US7376472B2 (en) | 2002-09-11 | 2008-05-20 | Fisher-Rosemount Systems, Inc. | Integrated model predictive control and optimization within a process control system |
| US7050863B2 (en) * | 2002-09-11 | 2006-05-23 | Fisher-Rosemount Systems, Inc. | Integrated model predictive control and optimization within a process control system |
| EP1418477A1 (en) | 2002-11-06 | 2004-05-12 | Abb Research Ltd. | Method for controlling an electric power transmission network |
| US6882889B2 (en) | 2002-12-02 | 2005-04-19 | United Technologies Corporation | Constrained dynamic inversion control algorithm |
| US7328074B2 (en) | 2002-12-02 | 2008-02-05 | United Technologies Corporation | Real-time quadratic programming for control of dynamical systems |
| US20050187643A1 (en) | 2004-02-19 | 2005-08-25 | Pavilion Technologies, Inc. | Parametric universal nonlinear dynamics approximator and use |
| CN100514230C (en) | 2002-12-09 | 2009-07-15 | 搭篷技术公司 | A system and method of adaptive control of processes with varying dynamics |
| US7039475B2 (en) | 2002-12-09 | 2006-05-02 | Pavilion Technologies, Inc. | System and method of adaptive control of processes with varying dynamics |
| US7152023B2 (en) | 2003-02-14 | 2006-12-19 | United Technologies Corporation | System and method of accelerated active set search for quadratic programming in real-time model predictive control |
| US6807510B1 (en) | 2003-05-05 | 2004-10-19 | Honeywell Acsa Inc. | Model predictive controller for coordinated cross direction and machine direction control |
| US7272454B2 (en) | 2003-06-05 | 2007-09-18 | Fisher-Rosemount Systems, Inc. | Multiple-input/multiple-output control blocks with non-linear predictive capabilities |
| US7197485B2 (en) | 2003-07-16 | 2007-03-27 | United Technologies Corporation | Square root method for computationally efficient model predictive control |
| GB0320670D0 (en) | 2003-09-04 | 2003-10-01 | Curvaceous Software Ltd | Multi-variable operations |
| TWI225576B (en) | 2003-10-06 | 2004-12-21 | Univ Tsinghua | Process controlling method with merged two-control loops |
| US7204101B2 (en) | 2003-10-06 | 2007-04-17 | Air Liquide Large Industries U.S. Lp | Methods and systems for optimizing argon recovery in an air separation unit |
| US7536232B2 (en) | 2004-08-27 | 2009-05-19 | Alstom Technology Ltd | Model predictive control of air pollution control processes |
| JP4382632B2 (en) * | 2004-11-04 | 2009-12-16 | 株式会社山武 | Control device |
| US20060282178A1 (en) | 2005-06-13 | 2006-12-14 | United Technologies Corporation | System and method for solving equality-constrained quadratic program while honoring degenerate constraints |
| GB0515726D0 (en) | 2005-07-30 | 2005-09-07 | Curvaceous Software Ltd | Multi-variable operations |
| US20070059838A1 (en) | 2005-09-13 | 2007-03-15 | Pavilion Technologies, Inc. | Dynamic constrained optimization of chemical manufacturing |
| US7877154B2 (en) | 2005-09-30 | 2011-01-25 | Fisher-Rosemount Systems, Inc. | Method and system for controlling a batch process |
| US7451004B2 (en) | 2005-09-30 | 2008-11-11 | Fisher-Rosemount Systems, Inc. | On-line adaptive model predictive control in a process control system |
| US7174605B1 (en) | 2005-10-18 | 2007-02-13 | Clairson, Inc. | Handles for attachment to wired products |
| US20070088448A1 (en) | 2005-10-19 | 2007-04-19 | Honeywell International Inc. | Predictive correlation model system |
| US7620460B2 (en) | 2005-10-25 | 2009-11-17 | Fisher-Rosemount Systems, Inc. | Process control with unreliable communications |
| US7587252B2 (en) | 2005-10-25 | 2009-09-08 | Fisher-Rosemount Systems, Inc. | Non-periodic control communications in wireless and other process control systems |
| US8719327B2 (en) | 2005-10-25 | 2014-05-06 | Fisher-Rosemount Systems, Inc. | Wireless communication of process measurements |
| US7650195B2 (en) | 2005-10-27 | 2010-01-19 | Honeywell Asca Inc. | Automated tuning of large-scale multivariable model predictive controllers for spatially-distributed processes |
| US7257501B2 (en) | 2005-11-17 | 2007-08-14 | Honeywell International Inc. | Apparatus and method for identifying informative data in a process control environment |
| CN1788900B (en) | 2005-12-13 | 2010-04-28 | 苏州宝时得电动工具有限公司 | Saw bit clamping device |
| US7376471B2 (en) | 2006-02-21 | 2008-05-20 | United Technologies Corporation | System and method for exploiting a good starting guess for binding constraints in quadratic programming with an infeasible and inconsistent starting guess for the solution |
| US20070225835A1 (en) | 2006-03-23 | 2007-09-27 | Yucai Zhu | Computer method and apparatus for adaptive model predictive control |
| US7840287B2 (en) | 2006-04-13 | 2010-11-23 | Fisher-Rosemount Systems, Inc. | Robust process model identification in model based control techniques |
| US8005575B2 (en) * | 2006-06-01 | 2011-08-23 | General Electric Company | Methods and apparatus for model predictive control in a real time controller |
| US7587253B2 (en) | 2006-08-01 | 2009-09-08 | Warf (Wisconsin Alumni Research Foundation) | Partial enumeration model predictive controller |
| US7930044B2 (en) | 2006-09-07 | 2011-04-19 | Fakhruddin T Attarwala | Use of dynamic variance correction in optimization |
| US7844352B2 (en) | 2006-10-20 | 2010-11-30 | Lehigh University | Iterative matrix processor based implementation of real-time model predictive control |
| US7933849B2 (en) | 2006-10-31 | 2011-04-26 | Rockwell Automation Technologies, Inc. | Integrated model predictive control of batch and continuous processes in a biofuel production process |
| US8634940B2 (en) | 2006-10-31 | 2014-01-21 | Rockwell Automation Technologies, Inc. | Model predictive control of a fermentation feed in biofuel production |
| US8571689B2 (en) | 2006-10-31 | 2013-10-29 | Rockwell Automation Technologies, Inc. | Model predictive control of fermentation in biofuel production |
| US7831318B2 (en) | 2006-10-31 | 2010-11-09 | Rockwell Automation Technologies, Inc. | Model predictive control of fermentation temperature in biofuel production |
| US20080103747A1 (en) | 2006-10-31 | 2008-05-01 | Macharia Maina A | Model predictive control of a stillage sub-process in a biofuel production process |
-
2006
- 2006-09-22 US US11/525,221 patent/US7949417B2/en active Active
-
2007
- 2007-09-19 EP EP07852412A patent/EP2064600B1/en active Active
- 2007-09-19 MY MYPI20091062A patent/MY145873A/en unknown
- 2007-09-19 CA CA2663695A patent/CA2663695C/en active Active
- 2007-09-19 CN CNA2007800348056A patent/CN101517498A/en active Pending
- 2007-09-19 JP JP2009529228A patent/JP2010504590A/en active Pending
- 2007-09-19 EP EP11182027.0A patent/EP2423766B1/en active Active
- 2007-09-19 WO PCT/US2007/020332 patent/WO2008039346A2/en active Application Filing
- 2007-09-19 BR BRPI0716856-0A2A patent/BRPI0716856A2/en not_active IP Right Cessation
-
2012
- 2012-10-10 JP JP2012224717A patent/JP2013033497A/en not_active Ceased
Also Published As
| Publication number | Publication date |
|---|---|
| BRPI0716856A2 (en) | 2013-10-01 |
| JP2013033497A (en) | 2013-02-14 |
| WO2008039346A2 (en) | 2008-04-03 |
| EP2064600B1 (en) | 2012-11-14 |
| US20080077257A1 (en) | 2008-03-27 |
| EP2423766A1 (en) | 2012-02-29 |
| JP2010504590A (en) | 2010-02-12 |
| WO2008039346A3 (en) | 2009-03-12 |
| CA2663695C (en) | 2013-12-17 |
| MY145873A (en) | 2012-05-15 |
| CN101517498A (en) | 2009-08-26 |
| EP2064600A2 (en) | 2009-06-03 |
| EP2423766B1 (en) | 2013-10-23 |
| US7949417B2 (en) | 2011-05-24 |
Similar Documents
| Publication | Publication Date | Title |
|---|---|---|
| CA2663695C (en) | Model predictive controller solution analysis process | |
| Agachi et al. | Model based control: case studies in process engineering | |
| CN102906650B (en) | Multistage process modeling approach | |
| US11573541B2 (en) | Future state estimation device and future state estimation method | |
| EP2296063A2 (en) | System and method for predicting future disturbances in model predictive control applications | |
| JP5830251B2 (en) | Fast identification and generation of process models | |
| US11119455B2 (en) | Control system database systems and methods | |
| EP2021884A2 (en) | Automated tuning method for multivariable model predictive controllers | |
| US20140330402A1 (en) | Computer Apparatus And Method using Model Structure Information of Model Predictive Control | |
| US9170572B2 (en) | Dynamic model generation for implementing hybrid linear/non-linear controller | |
| Godoy et al. | Economic performance assessment and monitoring in LP-DMC type controller applications | |
| EP2556414B1 (en) | System and method for solving chemical engineering equations and model development using equation editor | |
| WO2013034171A1 (en) | Arrangement and method for system identification of an industrial plant or process | |
| Bhat et al. | Robust design of proportional integral controllers: a Taguchi-grey approach | |
| You et al. | Optimizing an Electrohydraulic Position Control System using the DOE Method | |
| Burch | Monitoring and optimizing PID loop performance | |
| Gonzalez et al. | Physical Modeling of a Water Hydraulic Proportional Cartridge Valve for a Digital Twin in a Hydraulic Press Machine | |
| Shahni | Minimum Variance Benchmark and Performance Assessment for PID Controllers | |
| Kibira et al. | Data Requirements for a Digital Twin of a Robot Workcell | |
| Garmaev et al. | Learning Linearized Degradation of Health Indicators using Deep Koopman Operator Approach | |
| CN114611701A (en) | Monitoring system and method for nuclear chemical process | |
| Syska | Structured Approach to Industrial Control System Design | |
| Diaz Mendoza | Robust Empirical Model-Based Algorithms for Nonlinear Processes | |
| Belda | Automatic Control and Its Means in Mechatronics and Robotics | |
| Yu et al. | Performance Test of System Identification Methods for a uclear Reactor |
Legal Events
| Date | Code | Title | Description |
|---|---|---|---|
| EEER | Examination request |