Abstract :

Model predictive control is attractive for industrial processes because constraints and multivariable interactions can be handled explicitly, but its performance depends on the credibility of the prediction model and the measurements supplied to the controller. This article develops a data-driven robust MPC framework for an industrial evaporator in which model uncertainty and sensor degradation are treated jointly. The open DaISy industrial evaporator benchmark (code 96-010) supplies the data basis: 6305 samples, three manipulated inputs and three measured outputs. Publicly reproducible system-identification results for this benchmark report a first experiment of 3300 samples, an order-eight prediction-error model, and five-step output mean-square errors of 0.0576, 0.1564 and 0.0193. These error scales are used to define relative residual uncertainty for a closed-loop benchmark-constrained surrogate. The controller combines a trust-weighted state estimate with scenario-based robust prediction across a finite uncertainty ensemble. Bias, drift, precision loss and dropout are injected into the sensor channels, and at the same time plant matrices are perturbed independently across Monte Carlo trials. In 200 composite-degradation scenarios with 12% plant-model uncertainty, the proposed robust MPC reduces mean normalized tracking RMSE from 0.2750 for nominal MPC to 0.2421, and reduces normalized performance-envelope exceedance from 14.12% to 6.02%. The improvement is obtained at a 6.75% increase in average control effort. The results show that a practical data-driven robust MPC architecture should not treat identification error and sensor integrity as separate problems; both must enter the online state estimate and the predictive optimization layer.

---

Keywords :

DaISy, data-driven control, fault-tolerant control., industrial evaporator, robust MPC, sensor degradation

---

References :

1. Mayne, D. Q., Rawlings, J. B., Rao, C. V., & Scokaert, P. O. M. (2000). Constrained model predictive control: Stability and optimality. Automatica, 36(6), 789-814. doi:10.1016/S0005-1098(99)00214-9.
2. Qin, S. J., & Badgwell, T. A. (2003). A survey of industrial model predictive control technology. Control Engineering Practice, 11(7), 733-764. doi:10.1016/S0967-0661(02)00186-7.
3. Mayne, D. Q. (2014). Model predictive control: Recent developments and future promise. Automatica, 50(12), 2967-2986. doi:10.1016/j.automatica.2014.10.128.
4. Rawlings, J. B., Mayne, D. Q., & Diehl, M. M. (2026). Model Predictive Control: Theory, Computation, and Design, 2nd ed. Nob Hill Publishing.
5. De Moor, B. L. R. (ed.). DaISy: Database for the Identification of Systems. Department of Electrical Engineering, ESAT/STADIUS, KU Leuven, Belgium. Used dataset: Data from an industrial evaporator, Process Industry Systems, 96-010. Accessed 22 September 2026.
6. Zhu, Y., Van Overschee, P., De Moor, B., & Ljung, L. (1994). Comparison of three classes of identification methods. Proceedings of SYSID ’94, Vol. 1, Copenhagen, pp. 175-180.
7. jl Documentation. (2026). Evaporator example: prediction-error identification of the STADIUS industrial evaporator benchmark. Generated 24 July 2026; accessed 22 September 2026.
8. Wan, Y., & Ye, H. (2012). Data-driven diagnosis of sensor precision degradation in the presence of control. Journal of Process Control, 22(1), 26-40. doi:10.1016/j.jprocont.2011.10.013.
9. Wang, J.-S., & Yang, G.-H. (2018). Data-driven compensation method for sensor drift faults in digital PID systems with unknown dynamics. Journal of Process Control, 65, 15-33. doi:10.1016/j.jprocont.2017.10.011.
10. He, R., Ju, K., Zhao, L., Long, J., & Yang, M. (2023). Data-driven worst case model predictive control algorithm for propylene distillation column under uncertainty of top composition. Journal of Process Control, 124, 199-213. doi:10.1016/j.jprocont.2023.03.001.
11. Shi, H., Li, P., Su, C., Wang, Y., Yu, J., & Cao, J. (2019). Robust constrained model predictive fault-tolerant control for industrial processes with partial actuator failures and interval time-varying delays. Journal of Process Control, 75, 187-203. doi:10.1016/j.jprocont.2018.09.003.
12. Wei, Y., Brändle, F., Liu, W., Xie, Y., Wang, G., Sun, J., & Allgöwer, F. (2026). Robust data-driven min-max model predictive control with unknown-input observers. Automatica, 189, 113010. doi:10.1016/j.automatica.2026.113010.
13. Vasilev, I. (2026). A Stochastic Framework for Fully Distributed Control Systems and CPS: From Local State Transitions to Global Uncertainty Propagation. International Journal of Current Science Research and Review, 9(6), 2943-2957. doi:10.47191/ijcsrr/V9-i6-01.
14. Ahmed, S., Petrov, M., Taneva, A., & Todorov, Y. (2013). Nonlinear model predictive control of an evaporator system using fuzzy-neural observer. Proceedings/Scientific Works in Automation and Information Technologies.
15. Rangaiah, G. P., Saha, P., Tadé, M. O., & co-authors. (2002). Nonlinear model predictive control of an industrial four-stage evaporator system via simulation. Chemical Engineering Journal.