Heat recovery steam generator (HRSG) water–steam chemical dosing involves transport delays, multivariable coupling, measurable disturbances, measurement uncertainty, and operating constraints. This study develops an engineering-inspired constrained dynamic matrix control (DMC) benchmark for HRSG feedwater and condensate ammonia dosing using a three-controlled-variable (CV), two-manipulated-variable (MV), and five-measurable-disturbance-variable (DV) first-order-plus-dead-time (FOPDT) model. The controller incorporates measurement-based prediction correction, current measurable-disturbance compensation, quadratic programming (QP), receding-horizon optimization, and predefined proportional–integral (PI) fallback logic. Performance is evaluated using 30 matched Monte Carlo scenarios against independently tuned diagonal- and cross-paired PI baselines, with additional centralized-PI, disturbance-channel, measurement-quality, constraint-feasibility, and soft-CV diagnostic audits. DMC with zero-order-hold disturbance prediction reduces high-pressure (HP) and intermediate-pressure (IP) pH integral absolute error by 9.61%/13.61% relative to PI-diagonal and by 18.32%/10.17% relative to PI-cross. Explicit use of current measurable disturbances further reduces HP/IP pH error by 3.11%/2.02% compared with DMC without disturbance-variable information, whereas short-window trend extrapolation provides no statistically supported additional tracking benefit after Holm adjustment and increases MV1/MV2 total variation by 16.59%/86.06%. Under an extreme conductivity-pressure condition, the original hard-constrained DMC becomes finite-horizon infeasible for most attempted QPs even though separate steady-state feasibility checks are satisfied; a diagnostic soft-CV formulation largely removes Phase-I infeasibility by accepting penalized prediction-domain slack. The FOPDT dynamics are engineering-inspired benchmark assumptions rather than parameters identified from plant historian or step-test data.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Cui et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: