The importance of a number of practical issues when implementing nonlinear model predictive control on a drug infusion system are shown. The motivation for this system is a patient under congestive heart failure (heart attack) conditions. The control objective is to adjust the infusion rate of drugs to maintain the patient's blood pressure and blood flowrate at desired values. A selective linearization technique is introduced to reduce the computation time for the model prediction step. A rule-based override procedure is developed to initialize the drug delivery rates to avoid unacceptably slow responses and operation in the 'forbidden zone'. The performance of the multirate rule-based override model predictive control is illustrated through simulation examples.
MPC OverviewConceptual simplicity is perhaps one of the prime reasons for the success of model predictive control (MPC) for multi variable systems. Although MPC has been presented in a number of papers in this workshop, we briefly review the technique for continuity of discussion. The MPC approach for a SISO system, sampled at a constant single-rate, is shown in Figure 1. The basic idea is to find a set of m control moves which will minimize an objective function (usually a least squares error in desired setpoint response) evaluated over a prediction horizon of p time-intervals. Constraints include minimum, maximum and rate-of-change values of the manipulated variable. Although a set (horizon) of control moves is obtained in this optimization procedure, usually only the first control move is implemented on the process. The measured output at the end of the time step is used to compensate for plant/model mismatch, and the optimization problem is re-solved after shifting forward one time step (moving horizon formulation).When implementing nonlinear model predictive control (NMPC) a number of critical decisions must be made, including:• What type of dynamic model will be used for output prediction? • How will the modeling equations be solved?• How will the model be cO.i'ected for plant/model mismatch?
607
R. Berber (eeL). Methods of Model Based Process