Control Theory and Technology

, Volume 15, Issue 2, pp 92–108 | Cite as

Experimental investigation of control updating period monitoring in industrial PLC-based fast MPC: Application to the constrained control of a cryogenic refrigerator

  • François Bonne
  • Mazen Alamir
  • Patrick Bonnay


In this paper, a complete industrial validation of a recently published scheme for on-line adaptation of the control updating period in model predictive control is proposed. The industrial process that serves in the validation is a cryogenic refrigerator that is used to cool the supra-conductors involved in particle accelerators or experimental nuclear reactors. Two recently predicted features are validated: the first states that it is sometimes better to use less efficient (per iteration) optimizer if the lack of efficiency is over-compensated by an increase in the updating control frequency. The second is that for a given solver, it is worth monitoring the control updating period based on the on-line measured behavior of the cost function.


Fast MPC cryogenic refrigerators control updating period ODE-based optimization 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.



Authors would like to thank every co-worker from the SBT for their kind help to improve models and control strategy and for their time to correct and discuss this paper. Authors give special thanks to Michel Bon-Mardion, Lionel Monteiro, François Millet, Christine Hoa, Bernard Rousset and Jean-Marc Poncet from SBT for their explanation about the process and their participation on experimental campaigns.


  1. [1]
    D. Q. Mayne, J. B. Rawlings, C. V. Rao, et al. Constrained model predictive control: Stability and optimality. Automatica, 2000, 36(6): 789–814.MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  2. [2]
    M. Alamir. Stabilization of Nonlinear Systems Using Receding- Horizon Control Schemes: A Parameterized Approach for Fast Systems. Berlin: Springer, 2006.Google Scholar
  3. [3]
    M. Diehl, H. G. Bock, J. P. Schlöder. A real-time iteration scheme for nonlinear optimization in optimal feedback control. SIAM Journal on Control and Optimization, 2005, 43(5): 1714–1736.MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  4. [4]
    V. M. Zavala, C. D. Laird, L. T. Biegler. Fast implementation and rigorous models: can both be accommodated in NMPC? International Journal of Robust and Nonlinear Control, 2008, 18(8): 800–815.MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  5. [5]
    M. Diehl, R. Findeisen, F. Allgower, et al. Nominal stability of realtime iteration scheme for nonlinear model predictive control. IEE Proceedings–Control Theory and Applications, 2005, 152(3): 296–308.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. [6]
    M. Alamir. A framework for monitoring control updating period in real-time NMPC schemes. Nonlinear Model Predictive Control. L. Magni, D. Raimondo, F. Allgöwer (eds.). Berlin: Springer,2009: 433–445.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. [7]
    M. Alamir. Monitoring control updating period in fast gradient based NMPC. European Control Conference, Zurich: IEEE, 2013: 3621–3626.Google Scholar
  8. [8]
    M. Alamir. Fast NMPC, a reality-steered paradigm: Key properties of fast NMPC algorithms. European Control Conference, Strasbourg: IEEE, 2014: 2472–2477.Google Scholar
  9. [9]
    M. Alamir. From certification of algorithms to certified MPC: The missing links. IFAC-Papers Online, 2015, 48(23): 65–72.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. [10]
    A. Bomporad. Simple and certifiable quadratic programming algorithms for embedded linear model predictive control. IFAC Proceedings Volumes, 2012, 45(17): 14–20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. [11]
    C. N. Jones, A. Domahidi, M. Morari, et al. Fast predictive control: Real-time computation and certification. IFAC Proceedings Volumes, 2012, 45(17): 94–98.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. [12]
    Y. Nesterov. A method of solving a convex programming problem with convergence rate O(1/k2). Soviet Mathematics Doklady, 1983, 27(2): 372–376.zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  13. [13]
    H. Ferreau, H. G. Bock, M. Diehl. An online active set strategy to overcome the limitations of explicit MPC. International Journal of Robust and Nonlinear Control, 2008, 18(8): 816–830.MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  14. [14]
    H. Ferreau, C. Kirches, A. Potschka, et al. qpOASES: A parametric active-set algorithm for quadratic programming. Mathematical Programming Computation, 2014, 6(4): 327–363.MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  15. [15]
    R. E. Bank, W. M. Fichtner, W. Fichtner, et al. Transient simulation of silicon devices and circuits. IEEE Transactions on Electron Devices, 1986, ED-32(10): 1992–2007.Google Scholar
  16. [16]
    F. Bonne, M. Alamir, P. Bonnay, et al. Model based multivariable controller for large scale compression stations. Design and experimental validation on the LHC 18kW cryorefrigerator. AIP Conference Proceedings, Anchorage: American Institute of Physics, 2014: DOI 10.1063/1.4860899.Google Scholar
  17. [17]
    F. Clavel, M. Alamir, P. Bonnay, et al. Multivariable control architecture for a cryogenic test facility under high pulsed loads: Model derivation, control design and experimental validation. Journal of Process Control, 2011, 21(7): 1030–1039.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. [18]
    F. Clavel. Modélisation et Controle d’un Réfrigérateur Cryog énique. Application à la Station 800W à 4.5K du CEA Grenoble. Ph.D. thesis. Grenoble, France: University of Grenoble-Alpes, 2011.Google Scholar
  19. [19]
    F. Bonne, M. Alamir, P. Bonnay. Nonlinear observers of the thermal loads applied to the helium bath of a cryogenic Joule-Thompson cycle. Journal of Process Control, 2014, 24(3): 73–80.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© South China University of Technology, Academy of Mathematics and Systems Science, Chinese Academy of Sciences and Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Université Grenoble AlpesINAC-SBTGrenobleFrance
  2. 2.CNRS, Gipsa-labUniversité Grenoble AlpesGrenobleFrance

Personalised recommendations