You are on page 1of 20

Journal of Computational and Nonlinear Dynamics.

Received July 25, 2013;


Accepted manuscript posted January 16, 2014. doi:10.1115/1.4026493
Copyright (c) 2013 by ASME

Model Predictive Control of Fractional Order Systems


Aymen Rhouma
Université de Tunis El Manar, Ecole Nationale d’Ingénieurs de Tunis,
LR11ES20 Laboratoire Analyse, Conception et Commande des Systèmes, 1002, Tunis, Tunisie;
Faculté des Sciences de Tunis, 2092, Tunis, Tunisie;
Email: aymenrh@yahoo.fr

Faouzi Bouani
Université de Tunis El Manar, Ecole Nationale d’Ingénieurs de Tunis,
LR11ES20 Laboratoire Analyse, Conception et Commande des Systèmes, 1002, Tunis, Tunisie;

d
Email : faouzi.bouani@enit.rnu.tn

ite
Badreddine Bouzouita

ed
Université de Tunis El Manar, Ecole Nationale d’Ingénieurs de Tunis,
LR11ES20 Laboratoire Analyse, Conception et Commande des Systèmes, 1002, Tunis, Tunisie;

py
Université de Sousse, Ecole Nationale d’Ingénieurs de Sousse, 4054, Sousse, Tunisie;
Email : badreddine.bouzouita@enit.rnu.tn

Co
Mekki ksouri
Université de Tunis El Manar, Ecole Nationale d’Ingénieurs de Tunis,
ot
LR11ES20 Laboratoire Analyse, Conception et Commande des Systèmes, 1002, Tunis, Tunisie;
tN
Email : mekki.ksouri@enit.rnu.tn
rip

Abstract
This paper provides on Model Predictive Control (MPC) of fractional order systems. The direct method will be used as internal
sc

model to predict the future dynamic behavior of the process which is used to achieve the control law. This method is based on the
Grünwald-Letnikov’s definition that consists of replacing the non integer derivation operator of the adopted system representation
nu

by a discrete approximation. The performances and the efficiency of this approach are illustrated with practical results on a ther-
mal system and compared to MPC based on integer ARX model.
Ma

Keywords: Model predictive control; fractional order systems; thermal system; Grünwald-Letnikov method.
ed
pt

1. Introduction
ce

The concept of fractional calculus has been defined on the 19th century by Riemann and Liouville. The goal was
Ac

to extend the integration or derivation of the fractional order by using the integer orders as well as fractional orders.

Later, in the 20th century Grünewald-Letnikov introduced the notion of fractional-order discrete difference. In recent

years, non integer order calculus, also known as fractional calculus has attracted the attention of researchers in several

fields such as engineering [1] [2], biology [3], economics [4] etc. It was found that many physical systems have shown

a dynamic behavior of non integer order. Probably, the first dynamic physical system to be widely recognized is the

Aymen Rhouma 1

Downloaded From: http://computationalnonlinear.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 02/06/2014 Terms of Use: http://asme.org/terms


Journal of Computational and Nonlinear Dynamics. Received July 25, 2013;
Accepted manuscript posted January 16, 2014. doi:10.1115/1.4026493
Copyright (c) 2013 by ASME

diffusion of heat into semi-infinite (thermal system) [5]. Other well known fractional systems include the viscoelastic

systems, the electrode-electrolyte polarization, the electromagnetic waves and many others [6]. The fractional system

is commonly used in industrial processes particularly in the application of modeling, identification and control [7-10].

The idea of using the fractional order regulator to control the dynamic systems was proposed by Oustaloup in 1988

[11] [12]. Later, in 1994, Podlubny proposed the non integer order PID controller using mainly integrals and deriva-

tives of fractional order [13]. In [14] authors have used the simple state-space realization and the approximation tech-

nique for non integer order controllers. In [15], Monje and Felui were interested in the non integer order lead compen-

d
ite
sator. In Agrawal [16], a new formulation based on the fractional differential equations as well as the solution scheme

ed
for fractional optimal control problems of fractional systems is proposed. Vinagre et al. [17] have used the non integer

py
order calculus in classic model reference adaptive control. In [18], Dadras and Momeni have used the fractional-order

Co
sliding mode control of systems with uncertainty. Ying et al. [19] have proposed two methods of non integer order

proportional integral controllers of fractional order systems. Hitay et al. [20] developed a method to design PID con-

trollers for a class of fractional order system with time delays.


ot
tN

Moreover, the MPC has become a mature control strategy over the last few years. The reason of this success is at-
rip

tributed to the consideration of different types of constraints on input and output signals. It can also handle a large
sc

class of systems such as open-loop unstable systems, non-minimum phase systems, delayed systems and multivariable
nu

systems [21]. Therefore, the model predictive control is widely encountered in the industrial processes [22]. MPC is a
Ma

control technique that optimizes a cost function by using a model to predict the future behavior of process output.
ed

Indeed, the presence of the model is necessary for the development of the predictive control.
pt

The originality of this work lies in applying the MPC of fractional order systems. The system is approximated
ce

with a direct method that is based on the numerical evaluation of non integer order operators. This method is founded
Ac

on the Grünwald-Letnikov’s definition.

The outline of this paper is organized as follows. In section 2, the basic definitions as well as the modeling of frac-

tional order systems are introduced as a preliminary step, where the Grünwald-Letnikov method used to approximate

the fractional system is detailed. Section 3 is reserved to focus on the necessary steps in finding the optimal control

law of MPC for fractional systems. To illustrate the effectiveness of the proposed approach, some simulation results

Aymen Rhouma 2

Downloaded From: http://computationalnonlinear.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 02/06/2014 Terms of Use: http://asme.org/terms


Journal of Computational and Nonlinear Dynamics. Received July 25, 2013;
Accepted manuscript posted January 16, 2014. doi:10.1115/1.4026493
Copyright (c) 2013 by ASME

are given in section 4. The experimental results on a thermal system are exhibited in section 5. Finally, a conclusion is

given.

2. Preliminary and modeling of fractional systems


Fractional calculus is a generalization of differentiation and integration to non-integer orders fundamental opera-

tor t0 Dt which is defined as:

 d
   0
 dt

d

D
t0 t  1  =0 (1)

ite
t
  (d )  <0
t0

ed
where  is the order,   R , t and t0 are respectively the upper and lower limits of the operation. There are several

py
Co
definitions of fractional order calculus, two of the most commonly used definitions are Grünwald-Letnikov (G-L) and

Riemann-Liouville (R-L) [23]. The R-L definition of function f (t ) is defined as:


ot
tN
1 dn t f ( )
Dt f  t    d , n  1    n (2)
(n   ) dt n t0 (t   )  n 1
t0
rip

where (.) is the Gamma function and n is an integer.


sc

The G-L definition of function f (t ) is defined as:


nu

1  t t0  / h  
Ma

Dt f (t )  lim  (1)


i
  f (t  ih) (3)
h0 h
t0
i 0 i 
ed

     (  1) (  i  1)
where h is the sampling period,   R  and   means:   
i  i  i!
pt
ce

The G-L definition is the most popular one for fractional-order control and its application [24-25] is also used in this
Ac

paper.

The Laplace transform of G-L definition for zero initial conditions can be given as:

L  0 Dt f (t )  s L  f (t )  s F (s) (4)


 

In general, a fractional model can be described by a fractional differential equation characterized by the following

form:

Aymen Rhouma 3

Downloaded From: http://computationalnonlinear.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 02/06/2014 Terms of Use: http://asme.org/terms


Journal of Computational and Nonlinear Dynamics. Received July 25, 2013;
Accepted manuscript posted January 16, 2014. doi:10.1115/1.4026493
Copyright (c) 2013 by ASME
L  al M  bm
 al Dt y (t )   bm Dt u (t ) (5)
l 0 m 0

Using the Laplace transform in Eqn. (5), the fractional-order system can be represented by the following transfer func-

tion:

M

 bm s bm
Y ( s) m 0
G( s)   (6)
U ( s) L  al
 al s
l 0


where  al , bm   R , al , bm
2
  R2

d
ite
The equation (3) can be used to numerically evaluate the derivative or the integral of fractional order by ap-

ed
proximating the sampling rate with a more appropriate value [26]. Hence, by removing the limit, one obtains a dis-

py
crete approximation for the fractional derivative [24-25]:

1  t t0  / h

Co
i  
t0 Dt f (t )  
 (1)   f (t  ih) (7)
h i 0 i 

ot
Summation series is contrasted with a number of terms which increases when the term ‘ h ’ decreases. For a
tN
given approximation error ‘  ’, this series can be reduced to a limited number ‘ N ’ of terms, fixed by using the short
rip

memory principle.
sc

Theorem (principle of short memory) [13]: If a temporal function ‘ f ’ is bounded on an interval t0 , t  , there exists a
nu

value ‘ M ’ verifying: f ( )  M , where  t0 , t 


Ma

Therefore the approximation: t0 Dt f (t )  t  L Dt



f (t ) where L   t  t0 
ed

ML
gives an error  such that:  
 (1   )
pt

Consequently, the Eqn. (7) can be rewritten as:


ce

1 N  
t0 Dt f (t )  
 (1)i   f (t  ih) (8)
h i 0 i 
Ac

where N is an integer equals to L / h


The use of the numerical approximation (8), allows rewriting Eqn. (5) as follows [27].
1 M bm N i  b  1 L al N i a  (9)
y (k )    bm
  1  m  u (k  i )  L   al
  1  l  y ( k  i)
L al m 0 h i 0 i  al l 0 h i 1 i 
  al
 
l 0 h l  0 h al

The objective of the next section is to propose the MPC that is based on the use of a fractional order model which

is obtained by using the G-L method.

Aymen Rhouma 4

Downloaded From: http://computationalnonlinear.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 02/06/2014 Terms of Use: http://asme.org/terms


Journal of Computational and Nonlinear Dynamics. Received July 25, 2013;
Accepted manuscript posted January 16, 2014. doi:10.1115/1.4026493
Copyright (c) 2013 by ASME

3. Model predictive control of fractional order system


In this section, we introduce the needed steps to find the optimal control law using the new proposed approach of

MPC for the fractional systems. Consequently, the G-L definition of fractional system represented in section 2 will be

used to obtain the fractional order model. Therefore, it is assumed that this fractional system is described by the model

given by Eqn. (9).

3.1. The j-step ahead predictor

d
For obvious reasons and without loss of generality, we will express y (k ) in terms of u(k  1) , and depending on

ite
the input deviation. By considering a noise sequence with zero mean and finite variance, the Eqn. (9) becomes:

ed
1 M bm N i  b  1 L a N   al 
  1  m     1  y (k  i)  e  k 

py
i
y (k )   bm  u (k  1  i)  L
l
 (10)
L al m 0 h i 0 i  al l  0 h l i 1
a
i 
  al
 

Co
l 0 h l  0 h al

  1  q 1 , is an integral action introduced in order to obtain, in closed loop, a zero steady state error.
ot
tN
By using the Eqn. (10), we obtain the predicted output of the system in k  1 :

yˆ (k  1/ k )  yl (k  1)  1u(k )
rip

(11)
1 M bm
where: 1  
sc

L al bm
m 0 h
  al
h l 0
nu

and yl (k  1) is the free response of the system:


Ma

yl (k  1)  y(k )  s1  s2 (12)
1  M bm N i  b  
s1       1  m  u (k  i ) 
ed

L al  m 0 h bm i 1 i 

   
l 0 h
pt

a l

1  L al N i a  
     1  l  y (k  1  i ) 
ce

s2 
L a  l 0 al i 1 
   h
l i  
Ac

l 0 h a l

The 2-step ahead predictor is given by:

yˆ (k  2 / k )  y(k  1)  1 u(k  1)  1 u(k ) +2 y(k  1)  s3  s4 (13)

where:
1 M bm 1 L al
1   bm
bm ;  2    al
 al
L al m 0 h L al l 0 h
  al
  al
l 0 h l 0 h

Aymen Rhouma 5

Downloaded From: http://computationalnonlinear.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 02/06/2014 Terms of Use: http://asme.org/terms


Journal of Computational and Nonlinear Dynamics. Received July 25, 2013;
Accepted manuscript posted January 16, 2014. doi:10.1115/1.4026493
Copyright (c) 2013 by ASME

1  M b N i  b  
s3    m   1  m  u (k  1  i ) 
L a  m 0 h bm i  2 
  
l i  
l 0 h l
a

1  L al N i a  
s4       1  l  y (k  2  i) 
L a  l 0 al i  2 
   h
l i  
l 0 h la

as: y(k  1)  y(k  1)  y(k )

then: yˆ (k  2 / k )  (1  2 ) y(k  1)  1u(k  1)  1u(k )-2 y(k )  s3  s4

If we replace yˆ (k  1/ k ) by its expression (11), we obtain:

d
ite
yˆ (k  2 / k )  1   2  yl (k  1)   2 u (k )  1 u (k  1)  2 y (k )  s3  s4 (14)

ed
where:  2   1   2  1  1 

py
we set: yl (k  2)  1  2  yl (k  1)  2 y(k )  s3  s4

Co
then:
yˆ (k  2 / k )  yl (k  2)  1u(k  1)  2 u(k ) ( 15)
ot
Consequently, the expression of the j-step ahead predictor yˆ (k  j / k ) is as follows:
tN
rip

j
yˆ (k  j / k )    j i 1 u(k  i  1)  yl (k  j ) (16)
i 1
sc

3.2. Control law


nu

The future control sequence over a control horizon Hc is computed by minimizing a cost function which indi-
Ma

cates how well the process follows the desired trajectory. This function can be expressed by the future errors between
ed

output signals and setpoints, and the future incremental control signals. The cost function is given by the following
pt

equation:
ce

Hp Hc1
J   ( yˆ (k  j / k )  yc(k  j )) 2    u (k  i) 2 (17)
j 1 i 0
Ac

The output sequence on the prediction horizon Hp is written as follows:

Y  GU  Yl (18)

where:
T
Y   yˆ (k  1/ k ),..., yˆ (k  Hp / k 

U   u (k ),..., u (k  Hc  1)
T

T
Yl   yl (k  1),..., yl (k  Hp )

Aymen Rhouma 6

Downloaded From: http://computationalnonlinear.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 02/06/2014 Terms of Use: http://asme.org/terms


Journal of Computational and Nonlinear Dynamics. Received July 25, 2013;
Accepted manuscript posted January 16, 2014. doi:10.1115/1.4026493
Copyright (c) 2013 by ASME

The G matrix is illustrated as follows:


1 0 0 0 
  0 0 
G  ; dim(G )  ( Hp, Hc)
2 1
 
 
 Hp  Hp 1  Hp  Hc 1 

The cost function of Eqn. (17) is expressed as:

J  (GU  Yl  Yc )T (GU  Yl  Yc )  U T U (19)

where  is the weighting factor, Yc is the sequence of set-points on the prediction horizon.

d
ite
By minimizing Eqn. (19), we obtain the optimal control sequence.

U  [GT G   I ]1 GT [Yc  Yl ]

ed
(20)

py
4. Simulation results

Co
In this section, the performance of the proposed method of MPC for the fractional systems will be illustrated with

simulation example. Consider the fractional order system given by the following equation [13]:
ot
tN
G (s)  1
(21)
0.8 s 2.2  0.5 s 0.9 1
rip

This transfer function can be expressed by the Eqn. (5) with the following parameters:

 L  2; M  0
sc


b0  1; a0  1; a1  0.5; a2  0.8
nu

  0;   0;   0.9;   2.2
 b0 a0 a1 a2
Ma

Consequently, the j-step ahead predictor can be computed as described in the section 3 with sample time h

equals to 0.1. The efficiency of the proposed MPC is compared with the classic MPC based on Oustaloup method [28-
ed

30]. This method consists of replacing the fractional operator by its integer order approximation. Therefore, an integer
pt

order system is obtained. The generalized Oustaloup method is based on replacing the term s ,   R  , by N linear
ce
Ac

cells putted in succession:

N s  wk'
c (22)
k 1 s  wk

where the zeros, poles and gain are defined from:

wk  wb wu (2k 1 )/ N ; wk'  wb wu (2k 1 )/ N ; c=wh

wh and wb are high and low transitional frequencies and wu  wh / wb .

Aymen Rhouma 7

Downloaded From: http://computationalnonlinear.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 02/06/2014 Terms of Use: http://asme.org/terms


Journal of Computational and Nonlinear Dynamics. Received July 25, 2013;
Accepted manuscript posted January 16, 2014. doi:10.1115/1.4026493
Copyright (c) 2013 by ASME

The precision of the model obtained by the oustaloup method strongly depends on the choice of the value N.

A high value of N leads to a high computational time. After simulation trials we have choose the following values:

N  6; wh  104 rad / sec; wb  102 rad / sec.

In this case, by using the function “ousta_fod” of MATLAB [31], the Eqn. (21) is expressed by the integer order mod-

el which is given by:

N ( s)
C  s  (23)
D( s )
where:

d
N ( s)  s12  1.433e004s11  5.45e007 s10  5.792e010s9

ite
 2.008e013s8  2.081e015s 7  7.15e016s 6

ed
 7.382e017s5  2.528e018s 4  2.587e018s3
 8.637e017s 2  8.056e016s  1.995e015

py
D( s)  5.048s14  6.407e004s13  1.881e008s12

Co
 1.651e011s11  4.401e013s10 +3.752e015s 9
 9.959e016s8  8.669e017s 7  2.586e018s 6
ot
 3.764e018s5  4.379e018s 4  3.14e018s3
tN
 9.233e017s 2  8.257e016s  2.011e015
rip

Figure 1 shows the step responses of the fractional order system given by the Eqn. (21) using the function
sc

“fotf” of MATLAB [31], the G-L method and the oustaloup method. The errors of these last two methods are plotted
nu

in Fig. 2. From the results, we deduce that the output computed using the G-L method is closer to the fractional sys-
Ma

tem output than to the Oustaloup method.


ed

1.6
Fractional system
1.4 Oustaloup method
pt

G-L method
1.2
ce

1
Ac Amplitude

0.8

0.6

0.4

0.2

-0.2
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
Time(sec)
Fig. 1. Step responses.

Aymen Rhouma 8

Downloaded From: http://computationalnonlinear.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 02/06/2014 Terms of Use: http://asme.org/terms


Journal of Computational and Nonlinear Dynamics. Received July 25, 2013;
Accepted manuscript posted January 16, 2014. doi:10.1115/1.4026493
Copyright (c) 2013 by ASME
0.2
G-L method
Oustaloup method
0.15

0.1

0.05

Amplitude
0

-0.05

-0.1

-0.15

-0.2
0 5 10 15 20 25 30

d
Time(sec)
Fig. 2. Errors for two methods.

ite
ed
Figure 3 compares the closed loop performances of the proposed controller based on the G-L method and the

py
classical MPC based on the Ostaloup method. The control parameters are the following: Hp  4, Hc  1 and  =0.5

Co
The choice of these parameters is explained in [32]. From the simulation results, we notice that the new predictive

controller has the advantage of predicting the behavior of the output with respect to changes of the set-point.
ot
tN
rip

Output Signal
2.5
sc

Set-point
2 Oustaloup method
G-L method
nu

1.5
output

Ma

1
ed

0.5
pt

0
20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160
Iteration
ce

Input signal
2.5
Oustaloup method
G-L method
Ac

1.5
Input

0.5

0
20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160
Iteration

Fig. 3. Closed-loop responses.

Aymen Rhouma 9

Downloaded From: http://computationalnonlinear.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 02/06/2014 Terms of Use: http://asme.org/terms


Journal of Computational and Nonlinear Dynamics. Received July 25, 2013;
Accepted manuscript posted January 16, 2014. doi:10.1115/1.4026493
Copyright (c) 2013 by ASME

5. Practical results

In this section, we proceed by applying the new predictive controller for the fractional order systems developed in

this paper to a thermal system depicted in Fig. 4. The efficiency of proposed controller is compared with classic MPC

based on integer ARX model (Auto Regressive model with eXternal inputs).

PWM Cylinder

d
Converter
oide

ite
Heating resistor

ed
Temperature
sensor

py
Data acquisi- Amplifier
Computer

Co
tion module

ot
Fig. 4. Thermal system.
tN
rip

5.1. Description of the system


sc

The studied process is composed as shown in figure 4 by an aluminum cylinder of 2 cm section and 41 cm
nu

length. The cylinder is submitted to a heating resistor and thermally isolated to insure a unidirectional transfer of the
Ma

heat flux. The thermal system is considered as a semi-infinite dimension because its length is more important when
ed

compared to its section. The input signal of this system is a thermal flux which is generated by a heating resistor. It is

fixed in one of the cylinder’s extremities and controlled by a computer with USB data acquisition module. The power
pt
ce

interface separating the controller from the heating resistance is a PWM converter with an input voltage varying from
Ac

0 to 5v. The output signal of the system is the cylinder temperature measured with a distance ‘d’ from the heated sur-

face by an LM35DZ sensor. The sensor signal is amplified and conditioned in a stage realized for these purposes to

obtain an output voltage varying from 0 to 5v.

In order to demonstrate the non integer behavior of this thermal system, the cylinder is modeled according to the fol-

lowing assumptions:

 The cylinder is perfectly isolated.

Aymen Rhouma 10

Downloaded From: http://computationalnonlinear.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 02/06/2014 Terms of Use: http://asme.org/terms


Journal of Computational and Nonlinear Dynamics. Received July 25, 2013;
Accepted manuscript posted January 16, 2014. doi:10.1115/1.4026493
Copyright (c) 2013 by ASME

 The cylinder is considered as a semi-infinite dimension.

 At rest, the cylinder is at ambient temperature.

 Losses on the surface, where the thermal flux is applied, are neglected.

Several approaches have been proposed to model the phenomenon of a thermal system [33]. A solution was pro-

posed by Cois [34] it is to show that the model of this phenomenon is of fractional order medium which has a com-

mensurable order of 0.5.

d
5.2. Identification

ite
Firstly, we have applied various step input signals to the thermal system with different amplitudes. The sam-

ed
ple time is chosen equal to 5 sec. The obtained open loop step responses are depicted in Fig. 5.

py
The table 1 shows the static gain (K), the response time (T) and the time delay (D) for each step input signal. We note

Co
that ambient temperature of 15.4°C, corresponding to 0.77v.

80 ot
tN
70 u=4v

60 u=3v
rip
Temperature(C°)

50 u=2.5v
sc

40

u=2v
nu

30

u=1.5v
20
Ma

10
0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000
Iteration
Fig. 5. Open loop step responses.
ed

Table1. Parameters of open loop system.


pt

u (v) 1.5 2 2.5 3 4


K 0.312 0.518 0.718 0.77 0.712
ce

T(sec) 2250 1800 2260 2150 2050


D(sec) 120 110 105 100 70
Ac

Based on the results presented on Tab. 1, we deduce that the time response is about 2000 sec and the time de-

lay is about 100 sec. Consequently, we can adopt as sample time 40 sec.

In order to estimate the fractional order model of the process, we have applied to the heating resistor the input

sequence given by the Fig. 6. This last depicts also the evolution of the temperature, at distance of d=15 cm of the

cylinder extremity. For displaying reasons, we multiplied the input by 10.

Aymen Rhouma 11

Downloaded From: http://computationalnonlinear.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 02/06/2014 Terms of Use: http://asme.org/terms


Journal of Computational and Nonlinear Dynamics. Received July 25, 2013;
Accepted manuscript posted January 16, 2014. doi:10.1115/1.4026493
Copyright (c) 2013 by ASME
70

Measured output
10*Input
60

50

40

30

20

10

0
0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600 1800 2000
Iteration

Fig. 6. Identification data.

d
70
Measured output

ite
Fractional model
60 Integer model
10*Input

ed
50

40

py
30

Co
20

10

0
ot
tN
0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600 1800 2000
Iteration
Fig. 7. Validation data.
rip

The fractional model is established from the data identification using the simplified refined instrumental vari-
sc

able for continuous-time fractional models (SRIVCF) method [35]:


nu

0.8623
H1 (s)  e100s (24)
506.2843s 1.5
 135.3925s  6.3598s 0.5
1
Ma

For comparison purposes, we have identified the thermal system by an integer order model. Hence, by using
ed

the toolbox ident of Matlab, we were able to determine this model which is given by:
pt

0.712
H 2 ( s)  e100s
ce

(25)
30.77s  236.84s  1
2
Ac

In order to test the both models performances, we have performed another input excitation sequence and we

have measured the corresponding temperature. As represented in the validation data of Fig. 7, we deduce that the iden-

tified fractional model is closer to the measured output than to the integer model. The Normalized Mean Squared Er-

ror (NMSE) [36] computed on validation data for the fractional order model is NMSE ( H1)  8.8  104 , whereas for the

Aymen Rhouma 12

Downloaded From: http://computationalnonlinear.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 02/06/2014 Terms of Use: http://asme.org/terms


Journal of Computational and Nonlinear Dynamics. Received July 25, 2013;
Accepted manuscript posted January 16, 2014. doi:10.1115/1.4026493
Copyright (c) 2013 by ASME

integer model is NMSE( H2 )  5.7  103 . Therefore, the fractional identification is more adapted than integer one with this

thermal system.

5.3. Experimental results

The goal is to maintain the temperature of the system measured at 15 cm from the heated surface by adjust-

ment the power of the heating resistor obtained with application of the MPC based on the G-L method that developed

d
in this paper and MPC based on integer model.

ite
In all experiences, the sample time is equal to 40 sec and the control signal is limited between the following values:

ed
0  u(k )  5v

py
In the case of MPC proposed in this paper, the j-step ahead prediction is expressed by Eqn. (10) with the following

Co
parameters:
ot
 h  0.1; L  3; M  0; b0  0.8623

tN
a0  1; a1  6.3598; a2  135.3925; a3  506.2843
   0;   0;   0.5;   1;   1.5
 b0
rip

a0 a1 a2 a3

Figure 8 exhibits the measured temperature, the setpoint and the control signal when the proposed controller is
sc

designed with the following parameters: Hp  8, Hc  1 and  =0.2


nu

In the second experiment, we have increased the prediction horizon from Hp  8 to Hp  12 . The closed loop re-
Ma

sults obtained are plotted in Fig. 9.


ed
pt
ce
Ac

Aymen Rhouma 13

Downloaded From: http://computationalnonlinear.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 02/06/2014 Terms of Use: http://asme.org/terms


Journal of Computational and Nonlinear Dynamics. Received July 25, 2013;
Accepted manuscript posted January 16, 2014. doi:10.1115/1.4026493
Copyright (c) 2013 by ASME
Set point and output
70

60

50

Temperature(C°)
40

30

20

10
Output
set point
0
0 100 200 300 400 500 600
Iteration
Control signal

d
5

ite
4.5

ed
3.5

3
Input(v)

py
2.5

Co
1.5

0.5
Input
0
0 100 200 300
Iteration
ot
400

Fig. 8. Closed-loop results with Hp  8.


500 600
tN
Set point and output
70
rip

60
sc

50
Temperature(C°)

40
nu

30
Ma

20

10
Output
ed

set point
0
0 100 200 300 400 500 600
pt

Iteration
Control signal
5
ce

4.5
Ac

3.5

3
Input(v)

2.5

1.5

0.5
input
0
0 100 200 300 400 500 600
Iteration

Fig. 9. Closed-loop results with Hp  12.

Aymen Rhouma 14

Downloaded From: http://computationalnonlinear.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 02/06/2014 Terms of Use: http://asme.org/terms


Journal of Computational and Nonlinear Dynamics. Received July 25, 2013;
Accepted manuscript posted January 16, 2014. doi:10.1115/1.4026493
Copyright (c) 2013 by ASME

Based on practical results shown in figures 8 and 9, it is clear that the temperature follows the desired set

points. Consequently, these results show good performances of the proposed approach. But in the first experience

when the prediction horizon is equal to 8, the input/output signals of the thermal system contain oscillations. In fact,

when we have increased the prediction horizon from 8 to 12, the response of the thermal system becomes faster.

In these experiences, the control signal is saturated and attained the maximal value. In order to avoid the control input

saturation, we have introduced a model for the sequence of set-points which is given by:

d
1
Hc  s   (26)
1   .s

ite
The constant  is used to modify the closed loop dynamic system. In this case, we choose this constant equals

ed
py
to 2800 sec. The evolutions of the set point, the control signal and the measured temperature (output signal) obtained

Co
with the proposed MPC with Hp = 12 are represented in Fig. 10. Based in these results, we notice that the measured

temperature meets the desired requirements. We remark also that the control signal not saturated.
Set point and output
ot
tN
70

60
rip

50
sc
Temperature(C°)

40
nu

30

20
Ma

10
Output
set point
ed

0
0 100 200 300 400 500 600
Iteration
Control signal
pt

4.5
ce

4
Ac

3.5

3
Input(v)

2.5

1.5

0.5
Input
0
0 100 200 300 400 500 600
Iteration

Fig. 10. Closed-loop results with fractional model.

Aymen Rhouma 15

Downloaded From: http://computationalnonlinear.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 02/06/2014 Terms of Use: http://asme.org/terms


Journal of Computational and Nonlinear Dynamics. Received July 25, 2013;
Accepted manuscript posted January 16, 2014. doi:10.1115/1.4026493
Copyright (c) 2013 by ASME

A comparison of the closed-loop performances of the proposed approach is established with classic MPC

based on integer order model given by the Eqn. (25). The both predictive controllers are designed with the following

parameters:

Hp  12, Hc  1 and =0.2

Figure 11 presents the outputs and control signals evaluation obtained by the predictive controller based on in-

teger order model. Based on this figure, we deduce that the measured temperature and the control signal present many

fluctuations. We can compute the average and the variance of the control sequence, respectively by 1
M  kM1 u (k ) and

d
ite
 kM1 u (k ) , with M is the number of iterations.
1 2
M

ed
Based on the results presented on Tab. 2, we notice also that the control sequence obtained with the proposed

py
MPC based on the fractional model, presents the least control variance compared to the control sequence obtained

Co
with the classic MPC founded on the integer model.

ot
tN
Table2. Average and variance of the control sequence.
Average Variance
rip

Proposed MPC 2.64 7.11


Classic MPC 2.73 7.90
sc
nu
Ma
ed
pt
ce
Ac

Aymen Rhouma 16

Downloaded From: http://computationalnonlinear.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 02/06/2014 Terms of Use: http://asme.org/terms


Journal of Computational and Nonlinear Dynamics. Received July 25, 2013;
Accepted manuscript posted January 16, 2014. doi:10.1115/1.4026493
Copyright (c) 2013 by ASME
Set point and output
70

60

50

Temperature(C°)
40

30

20

10
Output
Set point
0
0 100 200 300 400 500 600
Iteration
Control signal
5

d
4.5

ite
4

ed
3.5

3
Input(v)

py
2.5

Co
1.5

0.5

0
0 100 200 300
ot
400 500
Input

600
tN
Iteration

Fig. 11. Closed-loop results with integer model.


rip

6. Conclusion
sc

In this paper, a new method of MPC has been introduced to fractional order systems. This method is based on the
nu

Grünwald-Letnikov’s definition. Therefore, the output deviation approach is used to design the j-step ahead output
Ma

predictor and the control law is obtained by solving a quadratic cost function. Experimental results on a thermal sys-
ed

tem show that the predictive controller using the Grünwald-Letnikov method exhibits good performance and it is more
pt

efficient than the classic MPC using the integer method.


ce
Ac

REFERENCES

[1] Bagley, R., and Calico R., 1991, Fractional order state equations for the control of viscoelastically damped structures, Journal
of Guidance, Control, and Dynamics, 14, pp.304–311.
[2] Zhang, Y., Tian, Q., Chen, L., and Yang J., 2009, Simulation of a viscoelastic flexible multibody system using absolute nodal
coordinate and fractional derivative methods, Multibody System Dynamics, 21, pp.281–303.
[3] Yuste, S., Abad, E., and Lindenberg K., 2010, Application of fractional calculus to reaction-subdiffusion processes and
morphogen gradient formation, Arxiv preprint arXiv, 1006.2661.
[4] Mainardi, F., Raberto, M., Gorenflo, R., and Scalas, E., 2000, Fractional calculus and continuous-time finance II: the
waiting-time distribution. Physica A: Statistical Mechanics and its Applications, 287, pp.468–481.

Aymen Rhouma 17

Downloaded From: http://computationalnonlinear.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 02/06/2014 Terms of Use: http://asme.org/terms


Journal of Computational and Nonlinear Dynamics. Received July 25, 2013;
Accepted manuscript posted January 16, 2014. doi:10.1115/1.4026493
Copyright (c) 2013 by ASME
[5] Victor, S., Melchior, P. and Oustaloup A., 2010, Robust path tracking using flatness for fractional linear MIMO systems: A
thermal application, Computers And Mathematics With Applications, Elsevier, 59, pp.1667-1678.
[6] Sun, H.H., Charef, A., Tsao, Y., and Onaral, B., 1992, Analysis of polarization dynamics by singularity decomposition
method, Annals of Biomedical Engineering, 20, pp.321-335
[7] Shantanu, D., 2008, Functional fractional calculs for system identification and controls, Springer-verlag, Berlin.
[8] Victor, S., Malti, R., Melchior, P., and Oustaloup A., 2011, Instrumental Variable Identification of Hybrid Fractional Box-
Jenking Models, 18th IFAC World Congress, Milano (Italy).
[9] Sommacal, L., Melchior, P., Dossat, A., Petit, J., Cabelguen, J. M., Oustaloup A., and Ijspeert A.J., 2007, Improvement of the
muscle fractional multimodel for low-rate stimulation, Biomedical Signal Processing and Control, Elsevier, 2(3), pp.226-233.
[10] Ionescu, C., M., Machado, J.A.T., and De Keyser, R., 2011, Modeling of the lung impedance using a fractional-order ladder
network with constant phase elements, IEEE Transactions on Biomedical Circuits and Systems, 5(1), pp.83-89.
[11] Oustaloup, A., 1988, From fractality to non-integer derivation through recursivity, a property common to these two concepts:

d
a fundamental idea from a new process control strategy, 12th IMACS World Conf., Paris, pp.203–208.

ite
[12] Oustaloup, A., 1991, La commande CRONE (Commande Robuste d’Ordre Non Entier). Paris, Hermès.

ed
[13] Podlubny, I., 1999, Fractional Differential Equations, Academie Press, New York.
[14] Raynaud, H.F., and Zergainoh A., 2000, State-space representation for fractional order controllers. Automatica, 36, pp.1017–

py
1021.
[15] Monje, C. A., and Feliu, V., 2004, The fractional-order lead compensator, IEEE International Conference on Computational

Co
Cybernetics, Vienna, Austria.
[16] Agrawal, O.P., 2004, A general formulation and solution scheme for fractional optimal control problems, Nonlinear
Dynamics, 38, pp.323–337. ot
tN
[17] Vinagre, B.M., Petras, I., Podlubny, I., and Chen Y.Q., 2002, Using fractional-order adjustment rules and fractional-order
reference models in model reference adaptive control, Nonlinear Dynamics, 29, pp.269–279.
rip

[18] Dadras, S., Momeni, H.R., 2012, Fractional terminal sliding mode control design for a class of dynamical systems with
uncertainty, Communications in Nonlinear Science and Numerical Simulation, 17, pp.367-377.
sc

[19] Ying, L., Yang, Q.C., Chun, Y.W., and You, G.P., 2010, Tuning fractional order proportional integral controllers for
fractional order systems. Journal of Process Control, 20, pp. 823–831.
nu

[20] Hitay, O., Catherine, B., and André R.F., 2012, PID controller design for fractional-order systems with time delays, Systems
& Control Letters, 61, pp.18–23.
Ma

[21] Fukushima, H., Kim, T., and Sugie T., 2007, Adaptive model predictive control for a class of constrained linear systems
based on comparison model, Automatica, 43, pp.301–308.
ed

[22] Camacho, E.F., and Bordons C., 2004, Model Predictive Control. Springer-Verlag, Berlin.
[23] Tavazoei, M.S., 2010, A note on fractional-order derivatives of periodic functions, Automatica, 46, pp.945–948.
pt

[24] Hajiloo, A., and Nariman-zadeh, N., and Moeini A., 2012, Pareto optimal robust design of fractional-order PID controllers
ce

for systems with probabilistic uncertainties. Mechatronics, Elsevier, 22, pp.788–801.


[25] Rodriguez, E., Echeverria, J.C., and Alvarez-Ramirez J., 2009, 1/f fractal noise generation from Grunwald–Letnikov formula,
Ac

Chaos, Solitons and Fractals, Elsevier, 39, pp.882–888.


[26] Miller, K.S., and Ross B., 1993, An introduction to the fractional calculs and fractional differential equation, John Wiley and
Son.
[27] Oustaloup, A., Olivier, C., and Ludovic, L., 2005, Representation et Identification Par Modele Non Entier, Paris: Lavoisier.
[28] Trigeassou, J.C., Poinot, P., Lin, J., Oustaloup A., and Levron F., 1999, Modelling and identification of a non integer order
system, In ECC, Karlsruhe, Germany.
[29] Oustaloup, A., 1995, la dérivation non-entiere. Hermès-Paris.

Aymen Rhouma 18

Downloaded From: http://computationalnonlinear.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 02/06/2014 Terms of Use: http://asme.org/terms


Journal of Computational and Nonlinear Dynamics. Received July 25, 2013;
Accepted manuscript posted January 16, 2014. doi:10.1115/1.4026493
Copyright (c) 2013 by ASME
[30] Oustaloup, A., Levron, F., Mathieu, B., and Nanot F.M., 2000, Frequency band complex non integer differentiator:
characterization and synthesis, IEEE Transactions on Circuits and Systems I: Fundamental Theory and Applications, 47,
pp.25–40.
[31] Monje, C.A., Chen, Y.Q., Vinagre, B.M., Dingyu, X., and Vicente, F., 2010, Fractional-order systems and control:
Fundamentals and applications: Advances in Industrial Control. Springer, London.
[32] Boucher, P., and Dumur D., 1996, La commande prédictive, Paris, technip edition.
[33] Malti, R., Victor, S., and Oustaloup A., 2008, Advances in system identification using fractional models. Journal of
computational and nonlinear Dynamics, 03:021401.
[34] Cois, O., 2002, Systèmes linéaires non entiers et identification par modèle non entier : application en thermique. PhD thesis,
Université Bordeaux1, Talence.
[35] Malti, R., Victor, S., Oustaloup, A., and Garnier H., 2008, An optimal instrumental variable method for continuous-time
fractional model identification, In 17th IFAC World Congress, Seoul South Korea, pp.14379–14384.

d
[36] Gabano, J.D., and Poinot T., 2011, Fractional modelling and identification of thermal systems. Signal Processing, 91, pp.531-

ite
541.

ed
Figure Captions List

py
Fig. 1 Step responses

Co
Fig. 2 Errors for two methods
ot
tN
Fig. 3 Closed-loop responses
rip

Fig. 4 Thermal system


sc

Fig. 5 Open loop step responses


nu
Ma

Fig. 6 Identification data


ed

Fig. 7 Validation data


pt

Fig. 8 Closed-loop results with Hp  8


ce
Ac

Fig. 9 Closed-loop results with Hp  12

Fig. 10 Closed-loop results with fractional model

Fig. 11 Closed-loop results with integer model

Aymen Rhouma 19

Downloaded From: http://computationalnonlinear.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 02/06/2014 Terms of Use: http://asme.org/terms


Journal of Computational and Nonlinear Dynamics. Received July 25, 2013;
Accepted manuscript posted January 16, 2014. doi:10.1115/1.4026493
Copyright (c) 2013 by ASME

Table Caption List

Table 1 Parameters of open loop system

Table 2 Average and variance of the control sequence

d
ite
ed
py
Co
ot
tN
rip
sc
nu
Ma
ed
pt
ce
Ac

Aymen Rhouma 20

Downloaded From: http://computationalnonlinear.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 02/06/2014 Terms of Use: http://asme.org/terms

You might also like