Intelligent Control and Automation, 2011, 2, 226232 doi:10.4236/ica.2011.23027 Published Online August 2011 (http://www.SciRP.org/journal/ica) Copyright © 2011 SciRes. ICA Nonlinear Multiple Model Predictive Control of Solution Polymerization of Methyl Methacrylate Masoud Abbaszadeh Department of El ectri cal and C om puter Engineerin g, University of Alberta, Edmonton, Canada Email: masoud@ece.ua lberta.ca Received December 29, 2010; revised June 10, 2011; accepted June 17, 2011 Abstract A sequential linearized model based predictive controller is designed using the DMC algorithm to control the temperature of a batch MMA polymerization process. Using the mechanistic model of the polymerization, a parametric transfer function is derived to relate the reactor temperature to the power of the heaters. Then, a multiple model predictive control approach is taken in to track a desired temperature trajectory. The coeffi cients of the multiple transfer functions are calculated along the selected temperature trajectory by sequential linearization and the model is validated experimentally. The controller performance is studied on a small scale batch reactor. Keywords: Model Predictive Control, Methyl Methacrylate, Nonlinear Multiple Model Control, Polymerization 1. Introduction The importance of effective polymer reactor control has been emphasized in recent decades. Kinetic studies are usually complex because of the nonlinearity of the proc ess. Hence, the control of the polymerization reactor has always been a challenging task. Due to its great flexibil ity, a batch reactor is suitable to produce small amounts of special polymers and copolymers. The batch reactor is always dynamic by its nature. A good dynamic response over the entire process is necessary to reach an effective controller performance. To do so, it is essential to have a suitable dynamic model of the process. Louie et al. [1] reviewed the gel effect models and their theoretical foundations. These researchers then modeled the solution polymerization of methyl methacrylate (MMA) and validated their model. Control of MMA polymerization processes has be come popular as a benchmark for advaced process con trol methods, since the dynamics of the methyl methacrylate polymerization process is well studied and several physical models of high fedility are readily avaliable. Methyl methacrylate is normally produced by a free radical, chain addition polymerization. Free radical polymerization consists of three main reactions: initia tion, propagation and termination. Free radicals are formed by the decomposition of initiators. Once formed, these radicals propagate by reacting with surrounding monomers to produce long polymer chains; the active site being shifted to the end of the chain when a new monomer is added. Rafizadeh [2] presented a review on the proposed models and suggested an online estimation of some parameters, such as heat transfer coefficients. The model consists of the oil bath, electrical heaters, cooling water coil, and reactor. MendozaBustos et al. [3] derived a first order plus dead time transfer function for polymerization. Then, they designed PID, Smith predic tor, and Dahlin controllers for temperature control. Pe terson et al [4] presented a nonlinear predictive strategy for semi batch polymerization of MMA. Penlidis et al. [5] presented an excellent paper, in which they reviewed a mechanistic model for bulk and solution free radical po lymerization for control purposes. Soroush and Kravaris [6] applied a Global Linearizing Control (GLC) method to control the reactor temperature. They compared the result of GLC and PID controllers. Performance of the GLC for tracking an optimum temperature trajectory was found to be suitable. DeSouza Jr. et al. [7] studied an expert neural network as an internal model in control of solution polymerization of vinyl estate. The architecture of their model predicts one step ahead. In their study, they compared their neural network control with a classic PID controller. ClarkePringle and MacGregor [8] stu died the temperature control of a semibatch industrial
M. ABBASZADEH227 reactor. They suggested a coupled nonlinear strategy and extended Kalman filter method. They used energy balance approach for the reactor and jacket to estimate process parameters. Mutha et al. [9] suggested a non linear model based control strategy, which includes a new estimator as well as Kalman filter. They conducted experiments in a small reactor for solution polymeriza tion of MMA. Rho et al. [10] reviewed the batch polym erization modeling and estimated the model parameters based on the experimental data in the literature. For con trol purposes, they assumed a model to pursue the con trol studies and estimated the parameters of this model by on line ARMAX model. Model predictive control (MPC), on the other hand, is a model based advanced control technique that have been proved to be very sussefull in controlling highly complex dynamic systems. It naturally supports design for MIMO and timedelayed systems as well as state/input/output constiants. MPC is generally based on online optimiza tion but in the case of unconstrianed linear plants, closed form solutions can be derived analytically. MPC usally requires a high computaional power; however, since chemical processes are typically of slow dynamics, they have been designed and implemented on various chemi cal plnat with great success. Therefore, MPC seems to be good candicate for controlling MMA polymerization based on physical (firstprinciple) modeling. This paper presents a mechanistic model of batch po lymerization. Sequential linearization, along a selected temperature trajectory, is conducted. Consequently, us ing a nonlinear model predictive approach, a controller is designed. A multiple model adaptive MPC controller is desined for the trajectory lineairzed model. Results show the better performance than the performance of adaptive PI controller [11]. 2. Polymerization Mechanism Methyl methacrylate normally is produced by a free radical, chain addition polymerization. Free radical po lymerization consists of three main reactions: initiation, propagation and termination. Free radicals are formed by the decomposition of initiators. Once formed, these radi cals propagate by reacting with surrounding monomers to produce long polymer chains; the active site being shifted to the end of the chain when a new monomer is added. During the propagation, millions of monomers are added to 1 radicals. During termination, due to reac tions among free radicals, the concentration of radicals decreases. Termination is by combination or dispropor tionation reactions. With chain transfer reactions to monomer, initiator, solvent, or even polymer, the active free radicals are converted to dead polymer [1]. Table 1 o P Table 1. Polymerization mechanism. 1 2 2 2 d i ti o k dd oo o k ii oo k ti ti IRG RkI MP RkRM RI RkR Initiation 1 d oo k nnpp o n MP RkMP Propagation tc tc oo oo k nmn mtctcnm oo oo k nmnm tdtdnm PP DRkPP PPDDRkPP Termination 1 f s k oo nnff oo k nnss PMPD RkMP PMsD RkMP o n o n Transfer gives the basic free radical polymerization mechanism. The free radical polymerization rate decreases due to reduction of monomer and initiator concentration. How ever, due to viscosity increase beyond a certain conver sion there is a sudden increase in the polymerization rate. This effect is called Trommsdorff, gel, or autoaccelera tion effect. For bulk polymerization of methyl methacry late beyond the conversion, reaction rate and mo lecular weight suddenly increase. In high conversion, because of viscosity increase there is a reduction in ter mination reaction rate. 20% 3. Mathematical Modeling of Polymerization Table 2 shows the mass and energy balances of reactor. The polymer production is accomplished by a reduction in volume of the mixture. The volumetric reduction fac tor is given by: m p (1) The instantaneous volume of mixture is given by: Table 2. Mass and energy balances. 0 0 0 d2 1 d dpf xfk kk x tMV dd dd d II V kI tV t 0 dd dd s SS V kS tV t 0 dd dd m VM x x tt d dt 0 d d ppp j r T mCH kMV UAT TUAT T t d d o j opj j ro T mCPP UATTUATT t 0 2d t kI k Copyright © 2011 SciRes. ICA
M. ABBASZADEH Copyright © 2011 SciRes. ICA 228 01 m M Vx (2) 1 exp 1 p p DAB (5) The parameter is defined as: Similarly, termination rate constant, , is given by: t k 1 s (3) 0 0 11 t tt kk D (6) During the free radical polymerization, the cage, glass, and gel effects occur. For the cage effect, the initiator efficiency factor is used. The CCS (Chiu, Carrat, and Soong) model is used in this study to take into considera tion the glass and the gel effects. Therefore, propagation rate constant, k, is changing according to: 0 t is changing as Arrhenius function. k and t are adjustable parameters related to propagation and ter mination rate constants, respectively. All the other nec essary parameters and constants for this model are given in the literature [1]. The Equations (7)(10) are essential for dynamic studies. 0 0 11 p pp kk D (4) 1 2 d1 d ,, d pf t kI xkk x tk fxIT (7) 0 k is changing as Arrhenius function, and is given by equation: D 2 d2 1 d1 d dpf t If kIk k IxfxIT tx k , , kI (8) 00 3 2 1 d,,, d d pp j r t p fk I HkVMxUATT UATT k T xITT tmC (9) 4 2 d,, do jj jro j op PUATTUATT T TT P tmC (10) Equations (7) and (8) are mass balances for monomer and initiator, respectively. Long Chain Approximation (LCA) and Quasi Steady State Approximation (QSSA) are used in this study. Equations (9) and (10) show en ergy balances for the reactant mixture and oil, respec tively. In this study, heat transfer coefficients are esti mated experimentally [2]. Equations (7)(10) are highly nonlinear and, using Taylor expansion series, these equa tions were converted to linearized form. The linearized state space form is given by: 11 1 22 21 33 0 d d0 d00 d0 d2 d d d00 ss s ss s rr j spp sopo j ro r opo opo ff f XxI T tX ff f ixI Ti tT TUA UAUA ff tT x ImCmCmC TUA UA UA tmC mC 0010 j P X i TT T (11)
M. ABBASZADEH Copyright © 2011 SciRes. ICA 229 where ,, , s s jjjss , s xxiI IT TT TTT PPP (12) Equation (11) and is converted to the transfer function form: 2 345 432 1234 () () nsns n Ts Psdsdsds dsd 5 (13) 4. The Experimental Setup A schematic representation of the experimental batch reactor setup is shown in Figure 1. The reactor is a Bu chi type jacketed, cylindrical glass vessel. A multipad dle agitator mixes the content. A Pentium II 500 MHz computer is connected to the reactor via an ADCPWM 01 analog/digital Input/Output data acquisition card. The data acquisition software was developed inhouse. The heating oil was circulated by a gear pump and its flow rate was about 15 minlit . The heating/cooling system of the oil consisted of two 1500W electrical heaters and a coolant water coil, which was operated by an On/Off Acco brand solenoid valve. Two Resistance Temperature Detectors (RTDs), were used with accuracy of . Methyl methacrylate and toluene were used as monomer and solvent, respectively. Benzoyl peroxide (BPO) was used as the initiator. The molecular weight of the pro duced polymer was measured using an Ubbelohde vis cometer. o 0.2 C 5. An Overview of MPC Due to its high performance, Model predictive control method has recieved a great deal of attention to control chemical processes, in last few years. This approach is applicable to multivariable systems and canstrained sys tems. Monuverability in design, noise and disturbance rejection and robustness under model mismatch are the most important ability of this method. Cumbersome Motor Data acquisition card T T Polymerization reactorOil bath Coolant water Oil circulating pump Control Figure 1. The experimental setup. computation, lack of systematic rules for controller tun ing are some drawback of this method. Model predictive control is based on a process model. Although impulse or step responses have some limitation for nonlinear proc ess, they may be used to develop a model. During the the model predictive control following steps should be con ducted: Explicit prediction of future output (prediction hori zon). Calculation of a control sequence based on the mini mized cost function (control horizon). Receding strategy. The Dynamic Matrix Control (DMC) is used in this research. Its cost function is: 1 1 22 11 1 NP M QR iN i Jeti uti (14) where P, M and N1 are prediction horizon, control hori zon and pure time delay, respectively, , MP RQ P are whigthing martices. The prediction horizon must be at least equal to the pure time delay. dp dm et iyt iyt i ytiytidti (15) where yp is the process output, ym is the model output and d is the process and model outputs diffrence, including noise, disturbance and model mismatch. yd(t) is the de sired output based on the refrence input. If ysp(t) is the refrence input, the following filtered form is used as the tracking trajectory: 11(); 0 dd sp yt ytyt 1 (16) changes the first order smoothing filter pole place. The smaller the faster output. It has been shown that system robustness can be decreased by the reduction of and increment of the manipulated signal [12]. Figure 2 shows the block diagram of DMC. The cost function in equation 10 can be rearrenged to: TT mDmD YDYQYDY URU (17) without loss of generality, if N1 is assumed zero, then: Model  ym ysp M , P System d R , Q α yp + u(i1) Δu(i1) Optimization + u(i) Figure 2. Block diagram of DMC.
M. ABBASZADEH 230 For LTI system, without any constraints on output or co where: 1T YytytP mm m 1T Dd d Yyt ytP 1, 1 T T UututM Ddt dtP ntrol signal, optimization has the following closed form: 1 TT UG QGRG QE (18) D EYY (19) s are the step response samples and G+ is a Toeplitz m N (20) where N is the number of system step response samples 1 1 , 1 P T g gg G g UUutut M i g atrix consisting the step response samples. The model output has calculated by: YGUG 12 1 21 , ut 1ut1 mN N N p T UgU gg g gg G g UN reaching to steady state or equvalent impulse response steps which lead to zero; and gN is the system dc gain. N dcgain 11 T N U utNutNutNP 6. The Modified DMC If there is any pole close to origin, the step response will  co be very slow and the required N is very large. Then, a system including integrator never reaches to the steady state (this case exists in the set of linearized models of the MMA reactor) and N lead to infinity. Hence, unsta bility occurs. This is one of the DMC limitations [13]. Researchers have suggested some methods to over me this problem, for example formulating DMC in the state space an then using an state observer [14]. Because of model mismatch this method doesn’t have proper per formance in real time applications. The alternative is: mNN astNNmPast YG UgU YGUY YGUGUgU (21) where ast Y utp is “the effect of past input to the future system outs without considering the effect of present and future inputs”. Consequently, ast Y can be calcu lated by setting the future “Δu”s equ zero and solv ing the model P steps ahead. UY al to mPas Y t (22) As seen in equations 14 and 15, G+ and U are inde pendent of N. G dimension is determined by N. There fore, the DMC culation is independent than N. YD is: 1T cal Dd d Yyt ytp (23) 7. Results and Discussion Figure 3 shows the model validation results. The simu lation follows the experimental data very well. The DMC algorithm was applied to control a MMA polymerization reactor. The reactor temperature trajectory is known, hence, the refrence input is known for all times so the programmed MPC is used. The DMC controller gain defined as: 1 TT DMC GQGR GQ (24) DMC UkE The (25) G ch of present model is useDMC kD d to calculate its k. MC is anged in the appropriate model switching in stant. Therefore, a multiple model strategy is used im plicitly. However the valid model is known before. 020406080 100 120 140 160 50 55 60 65 70 75 80 85 90 95 100 Ti me,min Reac tor temperature E x perim ent al dat a S im ulat ion res ult Figure 3. Model validation. Copyright © 2011 SciRes. ICA
M. ABBASZADEH231 Figures 4 an ity to track the te d 5 show the controller abil mperature trajectory. The average error is 0.3˚C. Due to the controller robustness, switching between models causes no unstability in closed loop system. Furthermore, appropriate selection of controller parameters could pre vent the unstability. The selected sampling period is T = 10s. Other parameters are 5P, 2 , 0.05 , 5*5 QI, 3*3 .05*RI. Thetiipl nsures the reactor temperature tracking error to with in 0.3˚C while the adaptive PI con trol in [11] has a 2˚C average error and the Generalized TakagiSugenoKang fuzzy controller proposed in [16] has a 1˚C average error; demonstrating the superior per formance of the MPC. adapve multle mode MPC designed here e 0500010000 15000 75 80 85 90 95 100 output 0500010000 15000 0 500 1000 1500 c ont rol s ignal Ti me sec Figure 4. Controller performance in the absence of distur bance and noise. 0500010000 15000 75 80 85 90 95 100 output 0500010000 15000 0 100 200 300 c ont rol si gnal Time(sec) Figure 5. Controller performance in the presense of ste zed model based predictive controller based on the DMC algorithm was designed to control the . C. Carratt and D. S. Soong, “Modeling the Free Radical Solution and Bulk Polymerization of p disturbance (dashed line) and Guassian measurem e nt noise. 8. Conclusions A sequential lineari temperature of a batch MMA polymerization reactor. Using the mechanistic model of the polymerization, a transfer function was derived to relate the reactor tem perature to the power of the heaters. The coefficients of the transfer function were calculated along the selected temperature trajectory by sequential linearization. The controller performance was studied experimentally on a small scale batch reactor. 9. References [1] B. M. Louie, G Methyl Methacrylate,” Journal of Applied Polymer Sci ence, Vol. 30, No. 10, 1985, pp. 3985 4012. doi:10.1002/app.1985.070301004 [2] M. Rafizadeh, “NonIsothermal Modeling o Polymerization of Methyl Methacr f Solution ylate for Control Pur dern Polymerization PilotPlant for Under ibatch Polymeri coll, “Polymer Reaction Engineering: Modeling poses,” Iranian Polymer Journal, Vol. 10, No. 4, 2001, pp. 251263. [3] S. A. MendozaBustos, A. Penlidis and W. R. Cluett, “Use of a Mo graduate Control Projects,” Chemical Engineering Edu cation, Vol. 25, No. 1, 1990, pp. 3439. [4] T. Peterson, E. Hernandez, Y. Arkun and F. J. Schork, “Nonlinear Predictive Control of a Sem zation Reactor by an Extended DMC,” American Control Conference, Pennsylvania, 2123 June 1989, pp. 1534 1539. [5] A. Penlidis, S. R. Ponnuswamy, C. Kiparissides and K. F. O’Dris Consideration for Control Studies,” The Chemical Engi neering Journal, Vol. 50, No. 2, 1992, pp. 95107. doi:10.1016/03009467(92)80013Z [6] M. Soroush and C. Kravaris, “Nonlinear Contro Batch Polymerization Reactor: An E l of a xperimental Study,” AIChE Journal, Vol. 38, No. 9, 1991, pp. 14291448. doi:10.1002/aic.690380914 [7] S. De, B. J. Mauricio, J. C. Pinto and E. L. Lima, “C trol of a Chaotic Polymeriza on tion Reactor: A Neural Net work Based Model Predictive Approach,” Polymer En gineering & Science, Vol. 36, No. 4, 1996, pp. 448457. doi:10.1002/pen.10431 [8] T. ClarkePringle and J. F. MacGregor, “Nonlinea Adaptive Temperature C r ontrol of MultiProduct, Semi Batch Polymerization Reactors,” Computers & Chemical Engineering, Vol. 21, No. 12, 1997, pp. 13951409. doi:10.1016/S00981354(97)000136 [9] R. K. Mutha and W. R. Cluett and A. Penlidis, “OnL Nonlinear ModelBased Estimation ine and Control of a Polymer Reactor,” AIChE Journal, Vol. 43, No. 11, 1997, pp. 30423058. doi:10.1002/aic.690431116 [10] H. R. Rho, Y. Huh and H. Rhee, “Application of Adap Copyright © 2011 SciRes. ICA
M. ABBASZADEH Copyright © 2011 SciRes. ICA 232 Science, Vol. tive ModelPredictive Control to a Batch MMA Polym erization Reactor,” Chemical Engineering 53, No.21, 1998, pp. 37283739. doi:10.1002/aic.690431116 [11] M. Rafizadeh, “Sequential Linearization Adaptive Con trol of Solution Polymerization of a Batch Reactor,” Polymer R Methyl Methacrylate in eaction Engineering, Vol. 3, No. 10, 2002, pp. 121133. doi:10.1081/PRE120014692 [12] R. Rouhani and R. K. Mehra, “Model Algorithmic Con trol; Basic Teoretical Properties,” Automatica, Vol 18, No 4, 1982, pp. 401404. doi:10.1016/00051098(82)900693 [13] E. F. Camacho and C. Bordons, “Model Predictive Con trol in the Process Industry ,” Springer and Verlag, New Dynamic Matrix Control,” Computers ntrol of Open Loop Unstable Processes,” Pro olymerization Reactor York, 1995. [14] P. Lundstorm, J. H. Lee, M. Morari and S. Skogestod, “Limitations of & Chemical Engineering, Vol. 19, No. 4, 1995, pp 402 421. [15] Q. Z. Kent, D. G. Fisher and A. Alberta, “Model Predic tive Co ceedings of the American Control Conference, San Frav cisco, 10 June 1993, pp. 791795. [16] R. Solgi, R. Vosough, and M. Rafizadeh, “Adaptive Fuzzy Control of MMA Batch P Based on Fuzzy Trajectory Definition,” Proceeding of the 2004 American Control Conference, Boston, 30 June2 July, 2004, pp. 10971102.
