06 mpc jbr stanford
Post on 01-Jun-2018
226 Views
Preview:
TRANSCRIPT
-
8/9/2019 06 mpc jbr stanford
1/25
Robustness of Suboptimal Model Predictive Control
James B. Rawlings
Department of Chemical and Biological EngineeringUniversity of Wisconsin–Madison
Insitut für Systemtheorie und RegelungstechnikUniversität StuttgartStuttgart, Germany
June 24, 2011
Stuttgart – June 2011 Distributed MPC 1 / 50
Outline
1 Inherent robustness of suboptimal MPCExponential stability for difference inclusionsNominal exponential stability of suboptimal MPCRobust exponential stability of suboptimal MPCFeasibility issueMain resultsRobust stability in absence of state constraints
2 Proposal for nonlinear, distributed MPCModelObjective FunctionTerminal ControllerRemoving the terminal constraintCooperative control algorithmStability of distributed nonlinear cooperative controlExample
Stuttgart – June 2011 Distributed MPC 2 / 50
-
8/9/2019 06 mpc jbr stanford
2/25
Why study robustness of suboptimal MPC?
Cooperative , distributed MPC is a special case of suboptimal MPC.Anything we establish about suboptimal MPC can be applied tocooperative, distributed MPC (and optimal MPC!)
Suboptimal MPC has an interesting feature: a nonunique,point-to-set control law u ∈ κN (x ).
Optimal solution of nonconvex
PN (x ) : minu∈U N
V N (x , u)
cannot be computed online for any nonlinear model. Practitionersimplement only suboptimal MPC.
We should know something about its inherent robustness properties.1
1Pannocchia, Rawlings, and Wright (2011)Stuttgart – June 2011 Distributed MPC 3 / 50
For suboptimal MPC; again, the basic MPC setup
The system modelx + = f (x , u ) (1)
State and input constraints
x (k ) ∈ X , u (k ) ∈ U for all k ∈ I≥0
Terminal constraint (and penalty)
φ(N ; x , u) ∈ Xf ⊆ X
Stuttgart – June 2011 Distributed MPC 4 / 50
-
8/9/2019 06 mpc jbr stanford
3/25
Feasible sets
The set of feasible initial states and associated control sequences
ZN = {(x , u) | u (k ) ∈ U, φ(k ; x , u) ∈ X for all k ∈ I0:N −1,
and φ(N ; x , u) ∈ Xf }
and Xf ⊆ X is the feasible terminal set.
The set of feasible initial states is
X N = {x ∈ Rn | ∃u ∈ UN such that (x , u) ∈ ZN } (2)
For each x ∈ X N , the corresponding set of feasible input sequences is
U N (x ) = {u | (x , u) ∈ ZN }
Stuttgart – June 2011 Distributed MPC 5 / 50
Cost function and control problem
For any state x ∈ Rn and input sequence u ∈ UN , we define
V N (x , u) =N −1k =0
(φ(k ; x , u), u (k )) + V f (φ(N ; x , u))
(x , u ) is the stage cost; V f (x (N )) is the terminal costConsider the finite horizon optimal control problem
PN (x ) : minu∈U N
V N (x , u)
Stuttgart – June 2011 Distributed MPC 6 / 50
-
8/9/2019 06 mpc jbr stanford
4/25
Suboptimal MPC
Rather then solving PN (x ) exactly , we consider using any(unspecified) suboptimal algorithm having the following properties.
Let u ∈ U N (x ) denote the (suboptimal) control sequence for theinitial state x , and let ũ denote a warm start for the successor initialstate x + = f (x , u (0; x )), obtained from (x , u) by
ũ := {u (1; x ), u (2; x ), . . . , u (N − 1; x ), u +} (3)
u + ∈ U is any input that satisfies the invariance conditions of Assumption 3 for x = φ(N ; x , u) ∈ Xf , i.e., u + ∈ κf (φ(N ; x , u)).
Stuttgart – June 2011 Distributed MPC 7 / 50
Suboptimal MPC
The warm start satisfies ũ ∈ U N (x +).
The suboptimal input sequence for any given x + ∈ X N is defined asany u+ ∈ UN that satisfies:
u+ ∈ U N (x
+) (4a)
V N (x +, u+) ≤ V N (x
+, ũ) (4b)
V N (x +
, u+
) ≤ V f (x +
) when x +
∈ r B (4c)
in which r is a positive scalar sufficiently small that r B ⊆ Xf .
Notice that constraint (4c) is required to hold only if x + ∈ r B, and itimplies that |u+| → 0 as |x +| → 0.
Condition (4b) ensures that the computed suboptimal cost is nolarger than that of the warm start.
Stuttgart – June 2011 Distributed MPC 8 / 50
-
8/9/2019 06 mpc jbr stanford
5/25
-
8/9/2019 06 mpc jbr stanford
6/25
Basic MPC assumptions
Assumption 1 (Continuity of system and cost)
The functions f : Rn × Rm → Rn, : Rn × Rm → R≥0 and
V f : Rn → R≥0 are continuous, f (0, 0) = 0, (0, 0) = 0, and V f (0) = 0.
Assumption 2 (Properties of constraint sets)
1 The set U is compact and contains the origin. The sets X and Xf areclosed and contain the origin in their interiors, Xf ⊆ X.
2 The set U is compact and contains the origin. The sets X = Rn and
Xf = levαV f = {x ∈ Rn | V f (x ) ≤ α}, with α > 0.
Stuttgart – June 2011 Distributed MPC 11 / 50
Basic MPC assumptions
Assumption 3 (Basic stability assumption)
For any x ∈ Xf there exists u := κf (x ) ∈ U such that f (x , u ) ∈ Xf andV f (f (x , u )) + (x , u ) ≤ V f (x ).
Assumption 4
There exist positive constants a, a1, a2, af and r̄ , such that the costfunction satisfies the inequalities
(x , u ) ≥ a1|(x , u )|a for all (x , u ) ∈ X × U
V N (x , u) ≤ a2|(x , u)|
a for all (x , u) ∈ r̄ B
V f (x ) ≤ af |x |a for all x ∈ X
Stuttgart – June 2011 Distributed MPC 12 / 50
-
8/9/2019 06 mpc jbr stanford
7/25
Definition 5 (Exponential stability)
The origin of the difference inclusion z + ∈ H (z ) is exponentially stable (ES) on Z , 0 ∈ Z , if there exist scalars b > 0 and 0 < λ
-
8/9/2019 06 mpc jbr stanford
8/25
Nominal exponential stability
Theorem 7 (ES)Under Assumptions 1, 2.1, 3, and 4, the origin of the closed-loop system
x + ∈ F (x ) = {f (x , u ) | u ∈ κN (x )}
is ES on (arbitrarily large) compact subsets of X N .
Stuttgart – June 2011 Distributed MPC 15 / 50
Robust exponential stability of suboptimal MPC
Definition 8 (RES)
The origin of the closed-loop system (6) is robustly exponentially stable (RES) on int(X N ) if there exist scalars b > 0 and 0 < λ 0, there exists δ > 0 such that for all sequences {d (k )} and{e (k )} with x (0) = x ∈ C satisfying:
maxk ≥0
|d (k )| ≤ δ, maxk ≥0
|e (k )| ≤ δ
x m(k ) = x (k ) + e (k ) ∈ X N , x (k ) ∈ X N , for all k ∈ I≥0,
it follows that
|φed (k ; x )| ≤ b λk |x | + , for all k ∈ I≥0. (8)
Stuttgart – June 2011 Distributed MPC 16 / 50
-
8/9/2019 06 mpc jbr stanford
9/25
Robust exponential stability of suboptimal MPC
Definition 9 (SRES)
The origin of the closed-loop system (6) is strongly robustly exponentially
stable (SRES) on a compact set C ⊂ X N , 0 ∈ int(C ), if there exist scalarsb > 0 and 0 < λ 0, there exists δ > 0 such that for all sequences {d (k )} and {e (k )}satisfying
|d (k )| ≤ δ and |e (k )| ≤ δ for all k ∈ I≥0,
and all x ∈ C , we have that
x m(k ) = x (k ) + e (k ) ∈ X N , x (k ) ∈ X N , for all k ∈ I≥0, (9a)
|φed (k ; x )| ≤ b λk
|x | + , for all k ∈ I≥0. (9b)
Stuttgart – June 2011 Distributed MPC 17 / 50
Feasibility issue
The warm start ũ is feasible for the predicted successor state
x̃ + = f (x m, u (0; x m))
i.e., (x̃ +, ũ) ∈ ZN ,
But it may not be feasible for the measured successor state
x +m = f (x , u (0; x m)) + d + e +
(The true successor state, which is unknown, isx + = f (x , u (0; x m)) + d .)
So we have to resolve this infeasibility online. We make the followingassumption
Assumption 10
For any x , x ∈ X N and u ∈ U N (x ), there exists u ∈ U N (x
) such that|u − u| ≤ σ(|x − x |) for some K-function σ(·).
Stuttgart – June 2011 Distributed MPC 18 / 50
-
8/9/2019 06 mpc jbr stanford
10/25
Feasibility issue
Among various options for finding p, we consider the following feasibility problem (notice that x̃ + is known):
Find p s.t. ũ + p ∈ U N (x +m ) and |p| ≤ σ(|x
+m − x̃
+|), (10)
Proposition 11
Under Assumption 10 , for any (x̃ +, ũ) ∈ ZN and x +m ∈ X N , the set of
solutions to (10) is nonempty.
Stuttgart – June 2011 Distributed MPC 19 / 50
Main results
Theorem 12 (SRES of suboptimal MPC)
Under Assumptions 1, 2.1, 3, 4, and 10 , the origin of the perturbed closed-loop system
x + ∈ F ed (x )
is SRES on C ρ.
Stuttgart – June 2011 Distributed MPC 20 / 50
-
8/9/2019 06 mpc jbr stanford
11/25
Main results
u
U N
X N
S ρS
u0(x )
C ρ
ρ
ZN
x
Figure: Sketch of the main sets involved in SRES.
Stuttgart – June 2011 Distributed MPC 21 / 50
Robust stability in absence of state constraints
To this aim, we replace Assumption 2.1 with 2.2.
Assumption 10 will not be necessary, whereas Assumptions 1, 3 and 4(with V N (·) replaced by V
βN (·) later defined) are required.
We modify the cost function as follows:
V βN (x , u) =N −1k =0
(φ(k ; x , u), u (k )) + β V f (φ(N ; x , u))
Stuttgart – June 2011 Distributed MPC 22 / 50
-
8/9/2019 06 mpc jbr stanford
12/25
Modified suboptimal MPC algorithm in absence of stateconstraints
u+
∈ UN
(11a)V βN (x
+, u+) ≤ V βN (x +, ũ) (11b)
V βN (x +, u+) ≤ β V f (x
+) when x + ∈ r B (11c)
Z̄ r = {(x , u) ∈ Rn × UN | V βN (x , u) ≤
V̄ ,
and V βN (x , u) ≤ β V f (x ) if x ∈ r B}
X0 = {x ∈ Rn
|∃u ∈ UN
such that (x , u) ∈ Z̄ r } (12)
Stuttgart – June 2011 Distributed MPC 23 / 50
Nominal exponential stability
We have the following nominal stability result.
Theorem 13 (ES without state constraints)
Under Assumptions 1, 2.2 , 3, and 4, the origin of the closed-loop system
x + ∈ {f (x , u ) | u ∈ κN (x )}
is ES on X0.
Stuttgart – June 2011 Distributed MPC 24 / 50
-
8/9/2019 06 mpc jbr stanford
13/25
Robust stability in absence of state constraints
G ed (z ) = {u+ | u+ ∈ UN , V βN (x
+m , u
+) ≤ V βN (x +m , ũ),
V βN (x +m , u
+) ≤ β V f (x +m ) if x
+m ∈ r B}
V̄ ρN (z m) = maxe ∈ρB
V βN (z ) s.t. z = z m − (e , 0) (13a)
S̄ ρ = {z m ∈ Z̄ r | V̄ ρN (z m) ≤
V̄ } (13b)
C̄ ρ = {x ∈ Rn | x = x m − e , e ∈ ρB, ∃u s.t. (x m, u) ∈ S̄ ρ} (14)
Stuttgart – June 2011 Distributed MPC 25 / 50
Robust stability in absence of state constraints
Theorem 14 (SRES without state constraints)
Under Assumptions 1, 2.2 , 3 and 4, the origin of the closed-loop system
x +
∈ F ed (x )
is SRES on C̄ ρ.
Stuttgart – June 2011 Distributed MPC 26 / 50
-
8/9/2019 06 mpc jbr stanford
14/25
The robust region of attraction
The ideal, but unachievable, result would be that the robust region of attraction under nonzero disturbances is the entire nominal feasible
set, X N .
This ideal result is approached reasonably closely, however, whenexcluding state constraints!
When |d |, |e | → 0, C̄ ρ → X0 and SRES holds over a set approachingthe admissible set of initial conditions.
These results for robustness of suboptimal nonlinear MPC all apply tocooperative, distributed MPC .
Stuttgart – June 2011 Distributed MPC 27 / 50
Requirements for distributed, nonlinear control
Now let’s return to the setting of distributed, nonlinear MPC, anddeal with the nonconvexity issue.
Two criteria in design:1 the optimizers should not rely on a central coordinator2 the exchange of information between the subsystems and the iteration
of the subsystem optimizations should be able to terminate beforeconvergence without compromising closed-loop properties.
Stuttgart – June 2011 Distributed MPC 28 / 50
-
8/9/2019 06 mpc jbr stanford
15/25
Distributed nonconvex optimization
Consider the optimization
minu V (u ) s.t. u ∈U
We require approximate solutions to the following suboptimizations atiterate p ≥ 0 for all i ∈ I1:M
u p i = arg minu i ∈Ui
V (u i , u p −i )
in which u −i = (u 1, . . . , u i −1, u i +1, . . . , u M ).
Define the step υp
i
= u p
i
− u p
i
.
Stuttgart – June 2011 Distributed MPC 29 / 50
Algorithm
To choose the stepsize αp i , each suboptimizer initializes the stepsize2
with αi
V (u p ) − V (u p i + αp i υ
p i , u
p −i ) ≥ −σα
p i ∇i V (u
p )υp i
in which σ ∈ (0, 1).
After all suboptimizers finish the backtracking process, they exchangesteps. Each suboptimizer forms a candidate step
u p +1i = u p i + w i α
p i υ
p i ∀i ∈ I1:M
2Armijo rule: (Bertsekas, 1999, p.230)Stuttgart – June 2011 Distributed MPC 30 / 50
-
8/9/2019 06 mpc jbr stanford
16/25
Algorithm
Check the following inequality, which tests if V (u p ) is convex-like
V (u p +1) ≤i ∈I
1:M
w i V (u p i + α
p i υ
p i , u
p −i ) (15)
in which
i ∈I1:M w i = 1 and w i > 0 for all i ∈ I1:M .
If the condition above is not satisfied, then we find the direction withthe worst cost improvement
i max = arg maxi
{V (u p i + αp i υ
p i , u
p −i )}
and eliminate this direction by setting w i max to zero and repartitioning
the remaining w i so that they sum to 1.At worst, condition (15) is satisfied with one direction only.
Stuttgart – June 2011 Distributed MPC 31 / 50
Distributed nonconvex optimization — Properties
Lemma 15 (Feasibility)
Given a feasible initial condition, the iterates u p are feasible for all p ≥ 0.
Lemma 16 (Objective decrease)
The objective function decreases at every iterate, that is,V (u p +1) ≤ V (u p ).
Lemma 17 (Convergence)
Every accumulation point of the sequence {u p } is stationary.
Stuttgart – June 2011 Distributed MPC 32 / 50
-
8/9/2019 06 mpc jbr stanford
17/25
Distributed nonconvex optimization
0
1
2
3
4
0 1 2 3 4
u 2
u 1
Figure: Nonconvex function optimized with Distributed nonconvex optimizationalgorithm
Stuttgart – June 2011 Distributed MPC 33 / 50
Distributed nonlinear cooperative control
We have the following local models
x +1 = f 1(x 1, x 2, u 1, u 2) x +2 = f 2(x 1, x 2, u 1, u 2) (16)
Collect these models to form the plantwide model
x + = f (x 1, x 2, u 1, u 2) = f (x , u )
in which
x =
x 1x 2
u =
u 1u 2
f (x , u ) =
f 1(x 1, x 2, u 1, u 2)f 2(x 1, x 2, u 1, u 2)
for which x ∈ Rn, u ∈ Rm, and f : Rn × Rm → Rn.
At each time step k , we require the inputs to satisfy
u 1(k ) ∈ U1 u 2(k ) ∈ U2 k ∈ I0:N −1
in which each Ui ∈ Rmi is compact, convex, and contains the origin
in its interior.
Stuttgart – June 2011 Distributed MPC 34 / 50
-
8/9/2019 06 mpc jbr stanford
18/25
Distributed nonlinear cooperative control
The objective function for each subsystem i ∈ I1:2 is defined
V i
x (0), u1, u2
=
N −1
k =0
i
x i (k ), u i (k )
+ V if
x (N )
We define plantwide objective
V
x 1(0), x 2(0), u1, u2
= ρ1V 1
x (0), u1, u2
+ ρ2V 2
x (0), u1, u2
To simplify notation we use V (x , u) for the plantwide objective.
Assumption 18
For each i ∈I
1:2, there exists a K ∞ function αi (·) such that
i (x i , u i ) ≥ αi (|x i |) ∀(x i , u i ) ∈ Rni × Ui (17)
Stuttgart – June 2011 Distributed MPC 35 / 50
Distributed nonlinear cooperative control
Denote the plantwide terminal penalty V f (x ) = ρ1V 1f (x ) + ρ2V 2f (x ).
We define the terminal region Xf to be a sublevel set of V f . Fora > 0, define
Xf = {x | V f (x ) ≤ a}
Assumption 19
The plantwide terminal penalty V f (·) satisfies
αf (|x |) ≤ V f (x ) ≤ γ f (|x |) ∀x ∈ Xf
in which αf (·) and γ f (·) are K ∞ functions.
Stuttgart – June 2011 Distributed MPC 36 / 50
-
8/9/2019 06 mpc jbr stanford
19/25
Distributed nonlinear cooperative control
Defining (x , u ) = ρ11(x 1, u 1) + ρ22(x 2, u 2), we require the followingstability assumption.
Assumption 20
The terminal cost V f (·) satisfies
min(u 1,u 2)∈U1×U2
V f
f (x , u 1, u 2)
+ (x , u )
s.t. f (x , u 1, u 2) ∈ Xf
≤ V f (x ) ∀x ∈ Xf
This assumption implies that there exists a κif (x ) ∈ Ui for all i ∈ I1:2such that
V f
f (x , κ1f (x ), κ2f (x ))
+
x , κ1f (x ), κ2f (x )
≤ V f (x ) (18)
s.t. f (x , κ1f (x ), κ2f (x )) ∈ Xf
Stuttgart – June 2011 Distributed MPC 37 / 50
Removing the terminal constraint
To avoid coupled input constraints, must remove the terminal stateconstraint.
For some β ≥ 1, define the modified objective function
V β(x , u) =
N −1k =0
(x (k ), u (k )) + β V f (x (N )) (19)
Define the set of admissible initial (x , u) pairs as
Z0 = {(x , u) ∈ X × UN | V β(x , u) ≤ V , φ(N ; x , u) ∈ Xf } (20)
The set of initial states X0 is the projection of Z0 onto X
X0 = {x ∈ X | ∃u such that (x , u) ∈ Z0}
Stuttgart – June 2011 Distributed MPC 38 / 50
-
8/9/2019 06 mpc jbr stanford
20/25
Distributed nonlinear cooperative control
Proposition 21 (Terminal constraint satisfaction)
Let {(x (k ), u(k )) | k ∈ I≥0} denote the set of states and control sequences generated by the suboptimal system. There exists a β > 1 suchthat for all β ≥ β , if (x (0), u(0)) ∈ Z0, then (x (k ), u(k )) ∈ Z0 withφ(N ; x (k ), u(k )) ∈ Xf for all k ∈ I≥0.
For the remainder of the talk, we replace the plantwide objective with themodified objective V (·) ← V β(·) and hence the terminal constraint issatisfied.
Stuttgart – June 2011 Distributed MPC 39 / 50
Cooperative control algorithm
Let ũ ∈ U be the initial condition for the cooperative MPC algorithmsuch that φ(N ; x (0), ũ) ∈ Xf .
At each iterate p , an approximate solution of the followingoptimization problem is found
minu
V x 1(0), x 2(0), u1, u2 (21a)s.t. x +1 = f 1(x 1, x 2, u 1, u 2) (21b)
x +2 = f 2(x 1, x 2, u 1, u 2) (21c)
ui ∈ UN i ∀i ∈ I1:2 (21d)
|ui | ≤ δ i (|x i (0)|) if x (0) ∈ B r ∀i ∈ I1:2 (21e)
Stuttgart – June 2011 Distributed MPC 40 / 50
-
8/9/2019 06 mpc jbr stanford
21/25
Cooperative control algorithm
Let the input sequence returned by distributed nonconvexoptimization algorithm be up̄ (x , ũ).
The first input of this sequence κ¯p
(x (0)) = u ̄p
(0; x (0), ũ) is injectedinto the plant and the state is moved forward.
To reinitialize the algorithm at the next sampling time, we define thewarm start
ũ+1 = {u 1(1), u 1(2), . . . , u 1(N − 1), κ1f
x (N )
}
ũ+2 = {u 2(1), u 2(2), . . . , u 2(N − 1), κ2f
x (N )
}
in which x (N ) = φ(N ; x (0), u1, u2).
Stuttgart – June 2011 Distributed MPC 41 / 50
Nominal stability results
Theorem 22 (Asymptotic stability)
Let Assumptions 18 -20 hold and let V (·) ← V β(·) by Proposition 21.Then for every x (0) ∈ XN , the origin is asymptotically stable for the closed-loop system x + = f (x , κp̄ (x )).
Stuttgart – June 2011 Distributed MPC 42 / 50
-
8/9/2019 06 mpc jbr stanford
22/25
A nonlinear example
Consider the unstable nonlinear system
x +1 = x 21 + x 2 + u
31 + u 2
x +2 = x 1 + x 22 + u 1 + u
32
with initial condition (x 1, x 2) = (3, −3).
For this example, we use the stage cost
1(x 1, u 1) =1
2(x 1Q 1x 1 + u
1R 1u 1)
2(x 2, u 2) =1
2(x 2Q 2x 2 + u
2R 2u 2)
For the simulation we choose the parameters
Q = I R = I N = 2 p = 3 Ui = [−2.5, 2.5] ∀i ∈ I1:2
Stuttgart – June 2011 Distributed MPC 43 / 50
Distributed nonlinear cooperative control
-4
-3
-2
-1
0
1
2
3
4
0 2 4 6 8 10
x
k
x 1
x 2
Figure: State trajectory (p = 3)
-4
-3
-2
-1
0
1
2
3
4
0 2 4 6 8 10
x
k
x 1
x 2
Figure: Centralized state trajectory(p = 10)
Stuttgart – June 2011 Distributed MPC 44 / 50
-
8/9/2019 06 mpc jbr stanford
23/25
Distributed nonlinear cooperative control
-3
-2
-1
0
1
2
3
0 2 4 6 8 10
u
k
u 1
u 2
Figure: Input trajectory (p = 3)
-3
-2
-1
0
1
2
3
0 2 4 6 8 10
u
k
u 1
u 2
Figure: Centralized input trajectory(p = 10)
Stuttgart – June 2011 Distributed MPC 45 / 50
Distributed nonlinear cooperative control
10−10
10−810−6
10−4
10−2
100
102
104
0 2 4 6 8 10
V (x (k ), ū (k ))
k
p̄ = 3p̄ = 10
Figure: Open-loop cost to go versus time on the closed-loop trajectory fordifferent numbers of iterations.
Stuttgart – June 2011 Distributed MPC 46 / 50
-
8/9/2019 06 mpc jbr stanford
24/25
-
8/9/2019 06 mpc jbr stanford
25/25
Further Reading I
D. P. Bertsekas. Nonlinear Programming . Athena Scientific, Belmont,MA, second edition, 1999.
G. Pannocchia, J. B. Rawlings, and S. J. Wright. Conditions under whichsuboptimal nonlinear MPC is inherently robust. Sys. Cont. Let., 2011.Accepted for publication.
Stuttgart – June 2011 Distributed MPC 49 / 50
Acknowledgments
The author is indebted to Luo Ji of the University of Wisconsin andGanzhou Wang of the Universität Stuttgart for their help in organizing thematerial and preparing the overheads.
top related