1,593 research outputs found

    Sensitivity-based multistep MPC for embedded systems

    Get PDF
    In model predictive control (MPC), an optimization problem is solved every sampling instant to determine an optimal control for a physical system. We aim to accelerate this procedure for fast systems applications and address the challenge of implementing the resulting MPC scheme on an embedded system with limited computing power. We present the sensitivity-based multistep MPC, a strategy which considerably reduces the computing requirements in terms of floating point operations (FLOPs), compared to a standard MPC formulation, while fulfilling closed- loop performance expectations. We illustrate by applying the method to a DC-DC converter model and show how a designer can optimally trade off closed-loop performance considerations with computing requirements in order to fit the controller into a resource-constrained embedded system

    ์ด๋™๋ธ”๋ก ๋ฐ ์ž”๋ฅ˜ํŽธ์ฐจ ์ œ๊ฑฐ ๋ชจ๋ธ์˜ˆ์ธก์ œ์–ด ๊ธฐ๋ฒ•์˜ ์ตœ์ ์„ฑ ํ–ฅ์ƒ

    Get PDF
    ํ•™์œ„๋…ผ๋ฌธ(๋ฐ•์‚ฌ)--์„œ์šธ๋Œ€ํ•™๊ต ๋Œ€ํ•™์› :๊ณต๊ณผ๋Œ€ํ•™ ํ™”ํ•™์ƒ๋ฌผ๊ณตํ•™๋ถ€,2020. 2. ์ด์ข…๋ฏผ.Model predictive control (MPC) is a receding horizon control which derives finite-horizon optimal solution for current state on-line by solving an optimal control problem. MPC has had a tremendous impact on both industrial and control research areas. There are several outstanding issues in MPC. MPC has to solve the optimization problem within a sampling period so that the reduction of on-line computational complexity is a one of the main research subject in MPC. Another major issue is model-plant mismatch due to the model based predictive approach so that offset-free tracking schemes by compensating model-plant mismatch or unmeasured disturbance has been developed. In this thesis, we focused on the optimality performance of move blocking which fixes the decision variables over arbitrary time intervals to reduce computational load for on-line optimization in MPC and disturbance estimator approach based offset-free MPC which is the most standardly used method to accomplish offset-free tracking in MPC. We improve the optimality performance of move blocked MPC in two ways. The first scheme provides a superior base sequence by linearly interpolating complementary base sequences, and the second scheme provides a proper time-varying blocking structure with semi-explicit approach. Moreover, we improve the optimality performance of offset-free MPC by exploiting learned model-plant mismatch compensating signal from estimated disturbance data. With the proposed schemes, we efficiently improve the optimality performance while guaranteeing the recursive feasibility and closed-loop stability.๋ชจ๋ธ์˜ˆ์ธก์ œ์–ด๋Š” ํ˜„์žฌ ์‹œ์Šคํ…œ ์ƒํƒœ์— ๋Œ€ํ•œ ์œ ํ•œ ๊ตฌ๊ฐ„ ์ตœ์ ํ•ด๋ฅผ ๋„์ถœํ•˜๋Š” ์˜จ๋ผ์ธ ์ด๋™ ๊ตฌ๊ฐ„ ์ œ์–ด ๋ฐฉ์‹์ด๋‹ค. ๋ชจ๋ธ์˜ˆ์ธก์ œ์–ด๋Š” ํ”ผ๋“œ๋ฐฑ์„ ํ†ตํ•œ ๊ณต์ • ๋™ํŠน์„ฑ๊ณผ ์ œ์•ฝ ์กฐ๊ฑด์„ ํšจ๊ณผ์ ์œผ๋กœ ๋ฐ˜์˜ํ•˜๋Š” ์žฅ์ ์œผ๋กœ ์ธํ•ด ์‚ฐ์—… ๋ฐ ์ œ์–ด ์—ฐ๊ตฌ ๋ถ„์•ผ์— ํฐ ์˜ํ–ฅ์„ ๋ฏธ์ณค๋‹ค. ์ด๋Ÿฌํ•œ ๋ชจ๋ธ์˜ˆ์ธก์ œ์–ด์—๋Š” ๋ช‡ ๊ฐ€์ง€ ํ•ด๊ฒฐ๋˜์–ด์•ผ ํ•  ๋ฌธ์ œ๊ฐ€ ์žˆ๋‹ค. ๋ชจ๋ธ์˜ˆ์ธก์ œ์–ด์—์„œ๋Š” ์ƒ˜ํ”Œ๋ง ๊ธฐ๊ฐ„ ๋‚ด์— ์ตœ์ ํ™” ๋ฌธ์ œ๋ฅผ ํ’€์–ด๋‚ด์•ผ ํ•˜๊ธฐ ๋•Œ๋ฌธ์—, ์˜จ๋ผ์ธ ๊ณ„์‚ฐ ๋ณต์žก์„ฑ์˜ ๊ฐ์†Œ๊ฐ€ ์ฃผ์š” ์—ฐ๊ตฌ ์ฃผ์ œ ์ค‘ ํ•˜๋‚˜๋กœ ํ™œ๋ฐœํžˆ ์—ฐ๊ตฌ๋˜๊ณ  ์žˆ๋‹ค. ๋˜ ๋‹ค๋ฅธ ์ฃผ์š” ๋ฌธ์ œ๋Š” ๋ชจ๋ธ์— ๊ธฐ๋ฐ˜ํ•œ ์˜ˆ์ธก์„ ์ด์šฉํ•˜๋Š” ์ ‘๊ทผ ๋ฐฉ์‹์œผ๋กœ ์ธํ•ด ๋ชจ๋ธ-ํ”Œ๋žœํŠธ ๋ถˆ์ผ์น˜๋กœ ์ธํ•œ ์˜ค์ฐจ๋ฅผ ํ•ด๊ฒฐํ•ด์•ผ ํ•œ๋‹ค๋Š” ์ ์ด๋ฉฐ, ๋ชจ๋ธ ํ”Œ๋žœํŠธ ๋ถˆ์ผ์น˜ ๋˜๋Š” ์ธก์ •๋˜์ง€ ์•Š์€ ์™ธ๋ž€์„ ๋ณด์ƒํ•˜์—ฌ ์ž”๋ฅ˜ํŽธ์ฐจ ์—†์ด ์ฐธ์กฐ์‹ ํ˜ธ๋ฅผ ์ถ”์ ํ•˜๋Š” ์—ฐ๊ตฌ๊ฐ€ ํ™œ๋ฐœํžˆ ์ด๋ฃจ์–ด์ง€๊ณ  ์žˆ๋‹ค. ์ด ๋…ผ๋ฌธ์—์„œ๋Š” ๋ชจ๋ธ์˜ˆ์ธก์ œ์–ด์—์„œ์˜ ์˜จ๋ผ์ธ ์ตœ์ ํ™”๋ฅผ ์œ„ํ•œ ๊ณ„์‚ฐ ๋ถ€ํ•˜๋ฅผ ์ค„์ด๊ธฐ ์œ„ํ•ด ์ž„์˜์˜ ์‹œ๊ฐ„ ๊ฐ„๊ฒฉ์— ๊ฑธ์ณ ๊ฒฐ์ • ๋ณ€์ˆ˜๋ฅผ ๊ณ ์ •์‹œํ‚ค๋Š” ์ด๋™ ๋ธ”๋ก ์ „๋žต์˜ ์ตœ์ ์„ฑ ํ–ฅ์ƒ์— ์ค‘์ ์„ ๋‘์—ˆ์œผ๋ฉฐ, ๋˜ํ•œ ์ž”๋ฅ˜ํŽธ์ฐจ๋ฅผ ์ œ๊ฑฐํ•˜๊ธฐ ์œ„ํ•ด ๊ฐ€์žฅ ํ‘œ์ค€์ ์œผ๋กœ ์‚ฌ์šฉ๋˜๋Š” ์™ธ๋ž€ ์ถ”์ •๊ธฐ๋ฅผ ์ด์šฉํ•œ ์ž”๋ฅ˜ํŽธ์ฐจ-์ œ๊ฑฐ ๋ชจ๋ธ์˜ˆ์ธก์ œ์–ด ๊ธฐ๋ฒ•์˜ ์ตœ์ ์„ฑ ํ–ฅ์ƒ์— ์ค‘์ ์„ ๋‘์—ˆ๋‹ค. ์ด ๋…ผ๋ฌธ์—์„œ๋Š” ์ด๋™ ๋ธ”๋ก ๋ชจ๋ธ์˜ˆ์ธก์ œ์–ด์˜ ์ตœ์  ์„ฑ๋Šฅ์„ ํ–ฅ์ƒ์‹œํ‚ค๊ธฐ ์œ„ํ•œ ๋‘ ๊ฐ€์ง€ ์ „๋žต์„ ์ œ์‹œํ•œ๋‹ค. ์ฒซ ๋ฒˆ์งธ ์ „๋žต์€ ์ด๋™ ๋ธ”๋ก ์ „๋žต์—์„œ ์ผ๋ฐ˜์ ์œผ๋กœ ๊ณ ์ •๋œ ์ฑ„๋กœ ์‚ฌ์šฉ๋˜๋Š” ๊ธฐ๋ฐ˜ ์‹œํ€€์Šค๋ฅผ ์ƒํ˜ธ ๋ณด์™„์ ์ธ ๋‘ ๊ธฐ๋ฐ˜ ์‹œํ€€์Šค์˜ ์„ ํ˜• ๋ณด๊ฐ„์œผ๋กœ ๋Œ€์ฒดํ•จ์œผ๋กœ์จ ๋ณด๋‹ค ์šฐ์ˆ˜ํ•œ ๊ธฐ๋ฐ˜ ์‹œํ€€์Šค๋ฅผ ์ œ๊ณตํ•˜๋ฉฐ, ๋‘ ๋ฒˆ์งธ ์ „๋žต์€ ์ค€-๋ช…์‹œ์  ์ ‘๊ทผ๋ฒ•์„ ํ™œ์šฉํ•˜์—ฌ ํ˜„์žฌ ์‹œ์Šคํ…œ ์ƒํƒœ์— ์ ์ ˆํ•œ ์‹œ๋ณ€ ๋ธ”๋ก ๊ตฌ์กฐ๋ฅผ ์˜จ๋ผ์ธ์—์„œ ์ œ๊ณตํ•œ๋‹ค. ๋˜ํ•œ, ์ž”๋ฅ˜ํŽธ์ฐจ-์ œ๊ฑฐ ๋ชจ๋ธ์˜ˆ์ธก์ œ์–ด ๊ธฐ๋ฒ•์˜ ์ตœ์  ์„ฑ๋Šฅ์„ ํ–ฅ์ƒ์‹œํ‚ค๊ธฐ ์œ„ํ•ด ์ถ”์ • ์™ธ๋ž€ ๋ฐ์ดํ„ฐ๋กœ๋ถ€ํ„ฐ ํ•™์Šต๋œ ๋ชจ๋ธ-ํ”Œ๋žœํŠธ ๋ถˆ์ผ์น˜ ๋ณด์ƒ ์‹ ํ˜ธ๋ฅผ ์˜จ๋ผ์ธ์—์„œ ์ด์šฉํ•˜๋Š” ์ „๋žต์„ ์ œ์•ˆํ•˜์˜€๋‹ค. ์ œ์•ˆ๋œ ์„ธ ๊ฐ€์ง€ ๊ธฐ๋ฒ•์„ ํ†ตํ•ด ๋ชจ๋ธ์˜ˆ์ธก์ œ์–ด์˜ ๋ฐ˜๋ณต์  ์‹คํ˜„๊ฐ€๋Šฅ์„ฑ๊ณผ ํ์‡„-๋ฃจํ”„ ์•ˆ์ •์„ฑ์„ ๋ณด์žฅํ•˜๋ฉด์„œ ์ตœ์  ์„ฑ๋Šฅ์„ ํšจ์œจ์ ์œผ๋กœ ๊ฐœ์„  ํ•˜์˜€๋‹ค.1. Introduction 1 2. Move-blocked model predictive control with linear interpolation of base sequences 5 2.1 Introduction 5 2.2 Preliminaries 9 2.2.1 MPC formulation 9 2.2.2 Move blocking 12 2.2.3 Move blocked MPC (MBMPC) 15 2.3 Move blocking schemes 16 2.3.1 Previous solution based offset blocking 17 2.3.2 LQR solution based offset blocking 18 2.4 Interpolated solution based move blocking 20 2.4.1 Interpolated solution based MBMPC 20 2.4.2 QP formulation 26 2.5 Numerical examples 29 2.5.1 Example 1 (Feasible region) 30 2.5.2 Example 2 (Performance in regulation problem) 33 2.5.3 Example 3 (Performance in tracking problem) 36 3. Move-blocked model predictive control with time-varying blocking structure by semi-explicit approach 43 3.1 Introduction 43 3.2 Problem formulation 46 3.3 Move blocked MPC 48 3.3.1 Move blocking scheme 48 3.3.2 Implementation of move blocking 51 3.4 Semi-explicit approach for move blocked MPC 53 3.4.1 Off-line generation of critical region 56 3.4.2 On-line MPC scheme with critical region search 60 3.4.3 Property of semi-explicit move blocked MPC 62 3.5 Numerical examples 70 3.5.1 Example 1 (Regulation problem) 71 3.5.2 Example 2 (Tracking problem) 77 4. Model-plant mismatch learning offset-free model predictive control 83 4.1 Introduction 83 4.2 Offset-free MPC: Disturbance estimator approach 86 4.2.1 Preliminaries 86 4.2.2 Disturbance estimator and controller design 87 4.2.3 Offset-free tracking condition 89 4.3 Model-plant mismatch learning offset-free MPC 91 4.3.1 Model-plant mismatch learning 92 4.3.2 Application of learned model-plant mismatch 97 4.3.3 Robust asymptotic stability of model-plant mismatch learning offset-free MPC 102 4.4 Numerical example 117 4.4.1 System with random set-point 120 4.4.2 Transformed system 125 4.4.3 System with multiple random set-points 128 5. Concluding remarks 134 5.1 Move-blocked model predictive control with linear interpolation of base sequences 134 5.2 Move-blocked model predictive control with time-varying blocking structure by semi-explicit approach 135 5.3 Model-plant mismatch learning offset-free model predictive control 136 5.4 Conclusions 138 5.5 Future work 139 Bibliography 145Docto

    Robust Model Predictive Control via Scenario Optimization

    Full text link
    This paper discusses a novel probabilistic approach for the design of robust model predictive control (MPC) laws for discrete-time linear systems affected by parametric uncertainty and additive disturbances. The proposed technique is based on the iterated solution, at each step, of a finite-horizon optimal control problem (FHOCP) that takes into account a suitable number of randomly extracted scenarios of uncertainty and disturbances, followed by a specific command selection rule implemented in a receding horizon fashion. The scenario FHOCP is always convex, also when the uncertain parameters and disturbance belong to non-convex sets, and irrespective of how the model uncertainty influences the system's matrices. Moreover, the computational complexity of the proposed approach does not depend on the uncertainty/disturbance dimensions, and scales quadratically with the control horizon. The main result in this paper is related to the analysis of the closed loop system under receding-horizon implementation of the scenario FHOCP, and essentially states that the devised control law guarantees constraint satisfaction at each step with some a-priori assigned probability p, while the system's state reaches the target set either asymptotically, or in finite time with probability at least p. The proposed method may be a valid alternative when other existing techniques, either deterministic or stochastic, are not directly usable due to excessive conservatism or to numerical intractability caused by lack of convexity of the robust or chance-constrained optimization problem.Comment: This manuscript is a preprint of a paper accepted for publication in the IEEE Transactions on Automatic Control, with DOI: 10.1109/TAC.2012.2203054, and is subject to IEEE copyright. The copy of record will be available at http://ieeexplore.ieee.or

    Model predictive control of resistive wall mode for ITER

    Full text link
    Active feedback stabilization of the dominant resistive wall mode (RWM) for an ITER H-mode scenario at high plasma pressure using infinite-horizon model predictive control (MPC) is presented. The MPC approach is closely-related to linear-quadratic-Gaussian (LQG) control, improving the performance in the vicinity of constraints. The control-oriented model for MPC is obtained with model reduction from a high-dimensional model produced by CarMa code. Due to the limited time for on-line optimization, a suitable MPC formulation considering only input (coil voltage) constraints is chosen, and the primal fast gradient method is used for solving the associated quadratic programming problem. The performance is evaluated in simulation in comparison to LQG control. Sensitivity to noise, robustness to changes of unstable RWM dynamics, and size of the domain of attraction of the initial conditions of the unstable modes are examined.Comment: Original manuscript as submitted to Fusion Engineering and Desig

    Model predictive emissions control of a diesel engine airpath: Design and experimental evaluation

    Full text link
    Peer Reviewedhttp://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/163480/2/rnc5188.pdfhttp://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/163480/1/rnc5188_am.pd

    NMPC in Active Subspaces: Dimensionality Reduction with Recursive Feasibility Guarantees

    Full text link
    Dimensionality reduction of decision variables is a practical and classic method to reduce the computational burden in linear and Nonlinear Model Predictive Control (NMPC). Available results range from early move-blocking ideas to singular-value decomposition. For schemes more complex than move-blocking it is seemingly not straightforward to guarantee recursive feasibility of the receding-horizon optimization. Decomposing the space of decision variables related to the inputs into active and inactive complements, this paper proposes a general framework for effective feasibility-preserving dimensionality reduction in NMPC. We show how -- independently of the actual choice of the subspaces -- recursive feasibility can be established. Moreover, we propose the use of global sensitivity analysis to construct the active subspace in data-driven fashion based on user-defined criteria. Numerical examples illustrate the efficacy of the proposed scheme. Specifically, for a chemical reactor we obtain a significant reduction by factor 20โˆ’4020-40 at a closed-loop performance decay of less than 0.05%0.05\%.Comment: 10 page
    • โ€ฆ
    corecore