Skip to main content
Log in

Neural network-based nonlinear model predictive control vs. linear quadratic gaussian control

  • Published:
Mining, Metallurgy & Exploration Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

One problem with the application of neural networks to the multivariable control of mineral and extractive processes is determining whether and how to use them. The objective of this investigation was to compare neural network control to more conventional strategies and to determine if there are any advantages in using neural network control in terms of set-point tracking, rise time, settling time, disturbance rejection and other criteria.

The procedure involved developing neural network controllers using both historical plant data and simulation models. Various control patterns were tried, including both inverse and direct neural network plant models. These were compared to state space controllers that are, by nature, linear. For grinding and leaching circuits, a nonlinear neural network-based model predictive control strategy was superior to a state space-based linear quadratic gaussian controller.

The investigation pointed out the importance of incorporating state space into neural networks by making them recurrent, i.e., feeding certain output state variables into input nodes in the neural network. It was concluded that neural network controllers can have better disturbance rejection, set-point tracking, rise time, settling time and lower set-point overshoot, and it was also concluded that neural network controllers can be more reliable and easy to implement in complex, multivariable plants.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Beale, M., Prisbrey, K., and Demuth, H., 1993, “Comminution control example using the fuzzy systems and neural network toolboxes for Matlab and Simulink,” SME Preprint 93–108.

  • Demuth, H., and Beale, M., 1994, “Neural network toolbox for use with Matlab,” The Math Works Inc., Natick, MA.

  • Flament, F., Thibault, J., and Hobouin, D., 1993, “Neural network based control of mineral grinding plants,” Minerals Engineering, Vol. 6, No. 3, pp. 235–249.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Herbst, J.A., Pate, W.T., and Oblad, A.E., 1989, “Model-based control of mineral processing operations,” Powder Technology, Vol. 69, No. 1, pp. 21–32.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Herbst, J.A., Hales, LB., and Gabardi, T.L., 1990, “Continuous measurement and control of charge volume in tumbling mills,” in Control 90, SME, pp. 163–171.

  • Herbst, J.A., and Lo, Y.C., 1992, “Optimization of grinding circuits,” Mines and Carrieres, Les Techniques, pp. 153–157.

  • Karr, C.L., and Gentry, E.J., 1993, “Application of fuzzy control techniques to a chaotic system,” in Emerging computer techniques for the minerals industry”, Scheiner, Stanley and Karr, eds., SME.

  • Nock, I.D., Parkin, R.M., and Bearman, R.A., 1994, “Knowledge-based system for condition monitoring of cone crushers,” Transactions of the Institution of Mining & Metallurgy, Section a: Mining Industry, Vol. 103, pp. A33–A39.

  • Rajamani, R.K., and Herbst, J.A., eds., 1988, “Recent advances in comminution, conference papers,” International Journal of Mineral Processing, Vol. 22, No. 1–4, 444 pp.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rajamani, R.K., and Herbst, J.A., 1991, “Optimal control of a ball mill grinding circuit. I. Grinding circuit modeling and dynamic simulation,” Chemical Engineering Science, Vol. 46, No. 3, pp. 861–870.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rajamani, R.K., and Herbst, J.A., 1991, “Optimal control of a ball mill grinding circuit. II. Feedback and optimal control,” Chemical Engineering Science, Vol. 46, No. 3, pp. 871–879.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rajamani, R.K., and Herbst, J.A., 1990, “Application of expert systems in the minerals industry:,” in Control 90, SME, pp. 61–66.

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Additional information

SME preprint 96–17, SME Annual Meeting, March 11–14, 1996, Phoenix, AZ

M&MP paper 96-618. Discussion of this peer-reviewed and approved paper is invited and must be submitted to SME prior to Aug. 31, 1997.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Cho, C., Vance, R., Mardi, N. et al. Neural network-based nonlinear model predictive control vs. linear quadratic gaussian control. Mining, Metallurgy & Exploration 14, 43–46 (1997). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF03402758

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF03402758

Navigation