1 views

Uploaded by Julio David Vilca Pizarro

- Optimal Seating Chart
- SK-MB0048 (SET-1)
- ch19
- Linear Programming Through Solver Tool in Excel
- UT Dallas Syllabus for opre6302.001.07f taught by Kathryn Stecke (kes021000)
- Structural Design Optimization using Generalized Fuzzy number
- tower design
- Note1 Model Formulation
- Simplex Mixed Constraints
- Telecom Optic
- Linear Programming
- 05275373
- Robust optimization – methodology and applications
- commercial
- Articulo
- Approximation of optimal.pdf
- assessmentreview
- Chapter13 - Agreggate Planning
- interior point method Paper
- ME 705C-CT-2016

You are on page 1of 8

Jean-Francois Stumper and Ralph Kennel, Senior Member, IEEE

Abstract This paper presents a trajectory generation burden. If only feasibility is of interest, numerical procedures

method that optimizes a quadratic cost functional with respect applying time scaling to slow down some variables can be

to linear system dynamics and to linear input and state con- used [1].

arXiv:1211.5761v1 [cs.SY] 25 Nov 2012

trajectory generation, and the outputs are parameterized using This paper treats the special case of the linearly con-

a polynomial basis. A method to parameterize the constraints strained linear-quadratic problem. The linear structure of the

is introduced using a result on polynomial nonpositivity. The system is exploited in the transformation of the problem to a

resulting parameterized problem remains linear-quadratic and finite-parameter optimization problem. The linear-quadratic

can be solved using quadratic programming. The problem can structure of the problem is maintained. The unconstrained

be further simplified to a linear programming problem by

linearization around the unconstrained optimum. The method problem is solved algebraically as it is convex. A quadratic

promises to be computationally efficient for constrained systems or linear programming (QP/LP) solver is then applied for

with a high optimization horizon. As application, a predictive constraint handling to modify the solution to a feasible

torque controller for a permanent magnet synchronous motor trajectory. The solution is computationally efficient, as first

which is based on real-time optimization is presented. a continuous parameterization is performed, and second a

I. I NTRODUCTION linear programming solver is used for the quadratic problem

by linearizing around the unconstrained optimum. To the

Trajectory optimization in real-time is an important part

knowledge of the authors, QP and LP have so far not been

of many modern control systems, for instance, predictive

applied to this type of continuous problems.

control. The trajectory optimization problem must be solved

The paper is organized as follows. Section II defines the

in the sampling interval, determined by the plant dynamics.

optimization problem and presents inversion-based linear-

A computationally efficient solution, however, encounters

quadratic trajectory optimization using basis functions, with

two major obstacles: first, the optimization horizon has a

the special case of power series. Section III proposes the

minimum length, either to avoid suboptimality or as stability

novel constraint handling method, first using a result on

criterion, and second, the trajectory must satisfy input and

polynomial nonnegativity, second rewriting the problem as

state constraints to be feasible. For fast systems, many of

linear programming problem. Section IV shows numerical

the existing constrained predictive control schemes, which

results of a synchronous motor predictive torque controller,

are based on numerical iterations, are not applicable.

which is a multivariable system with a high sampling rate and

Concerning the horizon length problem, the continuous

both input and state constraints. The algorithm is computable

approach to predictive control is of interest [1]. Using differ-

in real time: 2 ms prediction are implemented at a sampling

ential flatness, the optimal control problem can be rewritten

rate of 10 kHz. The experimental results are presented in

as output optimization problem. The basis function approach

[21].

is applied to obtain a finite-parameter optimization problem

[2] [3] [4] [5], analogeously to discrete-time optimization. II. P RELIMINARIES : C ONTINUOUS F LATNESS -BASED

A long optimization horizon is, however, obtained with L INEAR -Q UADRATIC T RAJECTORY O PTIMIZATION

comparably few optimization parameters.

A remaining issue regarding computational efficiency is A. Optimal Control Problem

the inclusion of constraints. The classical method is the The optimal control problem considered is to generate tra-

application of penalty functions [3]. As an alternative, a jectories on a finite time horizon T minimizing the quadratic

coordinate transformation was proposed to modify the con- cost functional

strained problem to a nonlinear unconstrained problem [6], Z T

xT (t)Qx(t) + uT (t)Ru(t) dt

solvable with nonlinear calculus of variations methods. The J=

existing optimization methods with penalty functions or 0

nonlinear coordinate transformations lead to a nonlinear or + (x(T ) x )T P(x(T ) x ) (1)

non-linear-quadratic problem, increasing the computational with states x(t) Rn , inputs u(t) Rm , weight matrices

This work was supported through the National Research Funds of P Rnn , Q Rnn and R Rmm , and the desired

Luxembourg under grant PhD-08-070. final state x Rn . The weight matrices are assumed to be

J-F. Stumper and R. Kennel are with the Institute of Electrical Drive positive definite and symmetric. Any quadratic functional is

Systems and Power Electronics, Department of Electrical Engineering and

Information Technology, Technische Universitat Munchen, Arcisstr. 21, D- eligible, for instance the reference x can also be included

80333 Munich, Germany. jean-francois.stumper@tum.de in the cost integral. Quadratic cost functionals are preferred

in predictive control as they will provide good closed-loop C. Output Parameterization with a Polynomial Basis

behavior [7]. They can also describe physical costs better The Ritz-Galerkin method, also called basis function ap-

than other norms. Furthermore, if the weight matrices are proach, is a direct method to find an approximate solution

positive definite, the optimization problem is convex and to an optimal control problem [10]. In the flatness-based ap-

easily solvable: a unique optimum exists and is found by proach, the outputs are parameterized as a linear combination

solving first-order necessary conditions. The states and inputs of time-variant basis functions. It is comparable to the control

are constrained to the time invariant linear dynamics of the parameterization Ritz method (CPRM) [11], where the inputs

multi-input multi-output system u are parameterized. Convergence of this method (combined

x(t) = Ax(t) + Bu(t) (2) with linear splines) was studied in [12] and more generally

in [13].

nn

with system matrix A R and input matrix B As basis functions, polynomials are chosen. Their simplic-

Rnm . The system is further assumed to be controllable. The ity is exploited for the further developments, main advantage

optimization is subject to Nc linear input and state constraints being that the parameters enter linearly, for instance they

allow to prove that the transformed cost remains convex.

Gx x(t) + Gu u(t) + g0 0, t [0, T ] (3)

They also allow constraint transformation based on a result

with Gx RNc n , Gu RNc m , g0 RNc , as well as the on polynomial nonpositivity in section III. Furthermore,

n initial conditions the dynamic shape of the resulting trajectory can be well

analyzed.

x(0) = x0 . (4)

Higher-order polynomials (for instance Laguerre and Leg-

Terminal constraints could be imposed too, but may yield an endre) have been used in many applications, but here,

unfeasible problem in the presence of input or state bounds. power series, the simplest form of polynomials, are used.

The methods and results are all applicable to higher-order

polynomials, there, the undetermined coefficients still enter

linearly and they might inherit numerical advantages (power

B. Parameterization of the System Variables using Flatness series are numerically stable only up to degree 12..15), but

the notation would be less comprehensible. In [14] it was

By definition, a linear system is said to be differentially shown that only the polynomial degree but not the type of

flat if there exist m output functions series are important for convergence. The choice is a simple

approximate, but yet, it turns out to be quite accurate.

yf (t) = Cf x(t), (5) The system outputs are defined as degree N power series

with yf (t) Rm , Cf Rmn , such that all states x(t) N

X tj

and inputs u(t) can be expressed as linear combination of yf i (t) = ij , i = 1..m, t [0, T ] (9)

Tj

the flat outputs and a finite number of their derivatives [8] j=0

[9]. Differential flatness can be interpreted as transformation with ij R. This is not an approximation of a system step

into controller canonical form, and in the linear case, it is response, but merely an assumption that the optimal solution

equivalent to controllability [9]. The flat outputs yf (t) are can be described as a polynomial. The system response is

thus the controller canonical form outputs, and the canonical exact, only the output is reduced in dimensionality.

form state vector is The original problem is thereby transformed to a finite-

(r 1)

z(t) = yf 1 , y f 1 , .., yf 11

(r 1)

, yf 2 , y f 2 , .., yf 22 , parameter optimization problem where a set of constants is

T searched. Fig. 1 demonstrates the computational advantage.

(r 1) For instance, in the example in section IV, the prediction

.., yf m , y f m , .., yf mm (6)

horizon is 2 ms (the slowest time constant in the system)

with z(t) Rn and where ri is the corresponding vector and the sampling rate is 10 kHz (determined by the power

relative degree with regard to the output yf i (yf i being the stage). A discrete description takes 20 parameters, but here,

i-th flat

P output resp. i-th element of yf in (5), see [9]). Note only 6 are sufficient to describe a setpoint change. A more

that m i=1 ri = n. The differential parameterization of the complicated trajectory may not be expected on most plants.

system variables is [8] [9] The n initial conditions (4) define n of the parameters ij ,

(k1)

they are computed via the transformed state z(0) in (6) (See

x = x yf , y f , .., yf , (7) that the initial time is t0 = 0, such that only the first element

of the power series is nonzero, same for the derivatives). For

(k)

u = u yf , y f , .., yf , (8)

further notational simplicity, the vector is defined as the

where k R is k = max{ri }. The functions x and u vector of the undetermined coefficients

are linear functions of z resp. of z and z , as they are derived = (1r1 , .., 1N , 2r2 , .., 2N , .., mrm , .., mN )T , (10)

from the controller canonical form transformation. See that

(7) is the inverse transformation from controller canonical with RN with N = m N n, and the indices

form, and (8) follows from (7) and (2). ri represent the respective vector relative degree of the flat

Eq. (13) is derived directly from (1) by substitution of

1

(7), (8) and (9) (or (11) and (12)). Practical (symbolical)

calculations are performed using a computer algebra tool,

0.5 matrix K is the Hessian matrix of J, and vector k follows

from the gradient of J.

0

0 0.5 1 1.5 2 Proposition II.2

Time [ms]

Convexity of the conditioned cost function.

The conditioned cost function (13) is convex over the set

Fig. 1. Trajectories with 6 free parameters. Discrete-time horizon is

maximum 0.6 ms, continuous trajectory is well-conditioned at the desired RN if matrices Q, R and P in (1) are positive definite

horizon length of 2 ms. and real-symmetric matrices.

output yf i . formed cost function (13) has a higher dimension as the orig-

Based on the flatness parameterization (7) and (8), and inal cost functional (1) (N instead of n). It is proven for the

di

knowing that dt i yf are polynomials, the system variables unconstrained linear-quadratic case. This proof follows from

can be parameterized with the coefficients yielding the the knowledge that the states and inputs are polynomials

functions with coefficients linearly dependent on , and is sketched

x(t) = x (, t), (11) in appendix I. As only linear constraints are regarded, the

result can be assumed valid also for the constrained case.

u(t) = u (, t). (12)

This result allows to apply first-order conditions of op-

These functions are degree N polynomials of time t, where timality, and will guarantee a solution in finite time as an

the coefficients enter linearly. unique minimum of J exists.

It is seen that N max{ri }, i = 1..m, is mandatory

to have degrees of freedom on the trajectory. It should be III. M AIN R ESULTS : C ONSTRAINT H ANDLING

remarked that when choosing a higher N , the error bounds

of the basis function approach become smaller and the The previous section presented the unconstrained opti-

dynamical response increases, at the cost of higher com- mization of a controllable linear system with a flat output pa-

putational requirements and the risk of less good numerical rameterized with a polynomial basis. This section introduces

conditioning of the parameters. a computationally efficient method for including constraints

in trajectory generation. It is a follow-up to the previous

D. Remark: Generality of the Parameterization for Linear section.

Systems with Power Series Outputs

It is remarked that the same parameterization (11) and (12) A. Parameterizing the Constraints

can be obtained for arbitrary non-flat outputs of a controllable

The input and state constraints (3) are transformed with

and observable linear system, if the output is defined as

the system variable parameterizations (11) and (12). With

polynomial series with undetermined coefficients [15]. Then,

the knowledge that the parameterizations (11) and (12) are

the outputs do not need to be redefined to flat, or controller

univariate polynomials in t, each of the constraints in (3) is

canonical form outputs.

also a polynomial in t of order N where the coefficients are

E. Parameterizing the Cost Functional affine functions in . Thus, the constraints are rewritten as

The parameterization of the system variables (11), (12) N

X

gki0 + gTki ti 0, k = 1..Nc , t [0, T ],

is applied to transform the cost functional (1) to a finite- Pk (t) =

parameter cost function. i=0

(14)

Proposition II.1

with gki0 R and gki RN . Checking constraints

Conditioning the cost functional. over a time interval t [0, T ] is difficult. The typical

The cost functional (1) with the substitutions (11) and (12) solutions for such continuous problems are penalty functions

yields a biaffine function in the undetermined parameters in the cost functional, or nonlinear state transformations.

of the type In the following, the constraints are transformed to allow

J() = T K + kT + k0 (13) a direct check on independent of t, while maintaining the

simplicity of a linear constraint.

with k0 R, k RN and K RN N

.

The proof follows from a straightforward computation Proposition III.1

with the knowledge that (11), (12) are polynomials with Sufficient affine conditions for the constraints.

affine coefficients , and is omitted. The univariate polynomials Pk (t) are positive on the finite

interval t [0, T ] if the conditions used in a program [16]. These methods, however, require

a numerical iterative algorithm to establish the LMIs, and

Pk (0) 0, k = 1..Nc , (15)

can therefore not be considered if computational efficiency is

T important. Due to updated initial conditions, the constraints

Pk p Pk (0) 0, p = 1..N, k = 1..Nc , (16)

N must be reconditioned in each trajectory generation cycle,

with a constant R > 0 are satisfied. and the computational burden adds up.

The constraints, written in the introduced notations, are B. Trajectory Generation in Finite Time

(17) In the previous section, the optimal control problem has

been transformed to a finite-parameter optimization problem.

and The transformed problem can be solved in finite time using

N quadratic programming (QP) to find the parameters , as

Ti i

X

T T

gki0 + gki ) i p (gk00 + gk0 0, the cost function is quadratic in and as the constraints

i=0

N are affine functions of . This is an interesting result for

p = 1..N, k = 1..Nc . (18) continuous systems, as QP is a standard method in discrete-

time optimization. Furthermore, the number of parameters

The underlying idea is shown in Fig. 2. If a polynomial is decoupled from the horizon length, thus higher prediction

trajectory P (t) of degree N is constrained at N +1 sampling horizons can be reached with less parameters.

points on the interval [0, T ] to be nonpositive, then, in the An even more convincing advantage of the presented

worst case, this polynomial reaches a maximum of P (t) = method shall be a further reduction of the computational

P (0). This maximum offset of P (0) is applied complexity. In the following, the problem will be approx-

as interleaf to the constraint boundary (the second term in imated such that it is solvable using linear programming

(16)). The proof of this proposition is presented in appendix (LP) techniques. The approximation yields a feasible solu-

II, where also the value of the constant is found, which is a tion (thus it is satisfying the constraints) with a bounded

constant depending on the polynomial degree N only. After suboptimality.

transformation of the constraints, they can be used directly

in an optimization procedure, as the result is an affine and C. Transformation to a Least Distance Problem

purely parametric constraint. They are affine functions of .

In the first step, a transformation is performed to obtain a

simpler cost functional.

P(0)

0

Proposition III.2

0.2

Reformulation as least-distance problem.

Polynomial P(t)

0.6 J = fT f + c, (19)

0.8 where f = (f1 , f2 , .., fN )T RN is the vector of trans-

formed parameters and c R a constant.

P(0) = 1

0 0.4 0.8 1.2 1.6 2

Time [ms] The new parameter vector f is defined as

Fig. 2. A degree N polynomial trajectory (black) constrained at N + 1 f = F( 0 ), (20)

points to be nonpositive (red arrows) will not exceed the upper bound of

P (0) (green line). Here, N = 6, P (0) = 1 and = 0.037. where 0 RN is the unconstrained minimum of the

parameterized cost functional (13)

The resulting set of constraints is sufficient, but not neces- 1

sary, thus they guarantee maintainance of the constraints, but 0 = K1 k, (21)

2

are too restrictive. The offset between the necessary and the

N

sufficient conditions is the factor , and the restriction is, for and matrix F RN is defined such that

example, 6.4% for N = 3, 1.2% for N = 10, and even less

FT F = K (22)

for higher N . It is assumed that this restriction is acceptable

for most applications regarding the inherited computational with K from eq. (13). Computation is not an issue as K is

advantages. positive definite and symmetric, for instance, in the notations

Exact results on necessary and sufficient conditions on in appendix I one would set F = BA. If this decomposition

positivity of univariate polynomials over an interval [0, T ] is not known, F can be computed via the Cholesky matrix

exist. Semidefinite programming (SDP) is applied to estab- decomposition FT = cholesky(KT ).

lish linear matrix inequalities (LMI), which, just as for the Transformation (20) must also be applied to transform

presented results, are independent of t and can directly be the constraints. This is done by substituting the inverse

transformation the lozenge). It can be shown that the resulting cost is

= 0 + F1 f (23) J = J 0 + N JC (26)

to the constraint equation, yielding directly the affine con- in the worst case, where J is the cost with the linear

straints in terms of f. The same equation is applied to program, J0 the cost of the unconstrained problem, JC

retransform the obtained results into the original parame- the extra cost when considering constraints in a quadratic

ters. Contrary to the amount of parameters, the amount of program, and N = dim() the amount of free parameters

constraints is not increased. . Thus, the linear programming solver yields the worst-

The least-distance problem is simpler to solve as the orig- case suboptimality J /(J0 + JC ) of up to N times the

inal QP problem, as some computations become obsolete in cost. If not all constraints are active, or if the constraints

the iterations [17]. The transformation renders the quadratic intersect the contour lines, suboptimality will be considerably

programming more efficient and increases numerical stabil- less. The bound of the suboptimality and the consideration

ity. that the overall suboptimality is relative to the cost of the

unconstrained problem makes the simplification of a linear

D. Transformation to a Linear Programming Problem programming solver acceptable for many applications.

Now the least distance problem can be approximated for a IV. E XAMPLE : P REDICTIVE T ORQUE C ONTROL OF

solution using linear programming. The L2 -norm is rewritten P ERMANENT-M AGNET S YNCHRONOUS M ACHINES

as L1 -norm. The variables in linear programs are limited to

positive numbers, thus the variables f are replaced by To present the advantages and the good functionality of

the presented trajectory optimization scheme, a predictive

fi = fip fin , (24) torque controller for a permanent-magnet synchronous ma-

with fip , fin R and fip 0, fin 0. chine (PMSM) is presented. So far, this plant has been

controlled via generalized predictive control (GPC), via finite

control set MPC (FS-MPC) and via the explicit solution [18].

Proposition III.3 Even though the methods provided good results, they were

Linear Cost Function for the Least-Distance Problem. either unconstrained, or limited to few prediction steps. The

The cost function approximation presented method obtains a high optimization horizon (2 ms)

N

X N

X N

X while respecting all constraints.

J =c+ fi2 c+ |fi | = c + (fip + fin ) = J , Its suboptimality in 1) the assumption of a polynomial

i=1 i=1 i=1 output, 2) the restrictive constraint parameterization (of 2%),

(25) and 3) the use of LP instead of QP is analyzed.

with fip , fin 0, yields a feasible solution with bounded A cascaded control structure is chosen [19]. The speed

suboptimality for a least-distance problem. loop is controlled via a PI controller, and the current (and

torque) loop is the predictive controller. The electrical sub-

This approximation implies a large offset between the system of a non-salient PMSM, consisting of the torque-

linearized cost J and the correct cost J. However, this is not generating and field-generating currents iq and id (peak

of importance, as the goal is to find a point in the parameter values), and the machine torque M as output, is given as

space f that is feasible and least-distance to the origin. Under d R 1

this aspect, the suboptimality is not the variation of the cost, id = id + np M iq + vd (27)

dt L L

but of the difference of the found parameters in the squared d R 1

distance to the origin. The contour lines of the quadratic cost iq = iq np M id np M K + vq (28)

dt L L

are circles around the origin, whereas these of the linear cost 3

are lozenges [7]. M = np Kiq (29)

2

It should be remarked that |fi | is not necessarily equivalent

which is linearized by the assumption that speed is constant

to fip + fin , but in the reverse, if fip + fin is minimized, it over the prediction horizon,

is equivalent to |fi | as fip , fin 0, such that at least one of

each fip , fin is zero. d

M (t0 ) 0 M (t) = M (t0 ) t [t0 , t0 + T ].

The advantages of a linear programming solver are ob- dt

(30)

vious, increased reliability and reduced computational com-

plexity, and the computational burden only grows linearly The parameters are taken from a real machine: R = 0.86

with the degree of the output polynomial N . It represents a , L = 6 mH, np = 3, K = 0.236 Vs, rated speed 314

significant computational saving compared to when applying rad/s, rated torque 10 Nm. The trajectory optimization shall

QP as solver. minimize the control error

If no constraint is active, the solution is exact. If a con- 2

Pctrl (t) = (M (t) M ) (31)

straint is active, the worst case is when the active constraint

vertex is parallel to a contour line (i.e. parallel to a side of and at the same time optimize the power efficiency by

minimizing the dissipated energy which, according to the model, reduces the induced voltage

M on iq , thereby dtd iq is higher as when keeping id small. This is

Ploss (t) = R i2d + i2q + (Lid + K)2 + i2q ,

(32) the advantageous behavior of predictive control; in contrast

Rm

to feedback controllers with saturation, the coupling between

where Rm = 1800, thus the goal is to minimize J =

RT the states is exploited to bypass the constraints in an optimal

0 (qPctrl (t) + Ploss (t))dt + q T Pctrl (T ) with the weight fashion. This result is only visible as a high optimization

q = 20. The flat outputs id and iq are each parameterized

horizon and the constraints are included in the trajectory

with a degree 5 power series. The prediction horizon is T = 2

generation.

ms and the sampling rate is 10 kHz. The optimization must

As the constraint handling of LP is suboptimal, there is

also maintain the current constraints

a quantitative difference, especially in dynamical operation.

i2d + i2q Imax

2

= 102 A2 (33) The peaks are generally somewhat smaller, and at t = 0.07,

the negative id -peak is of shorter duration and thus less

to protect the power inverter, and the voltage constraints effective.

vd2 + vq2 Vmax

2

= 3302 V2 (34) V. C ONCLUSION

to obtain a feasible trajectory. These constraints are lin- A trajectory optimization scheme minimizing a quadratic

earized as shown in Fig. 3, similar as in [20]. The argu- cost functional to generate continuous trajectories for a

mentation is that only id 0 makes sense (field-weakening, linear control system with linear constraints was presented.

see (32)), and that the current and voltage range in q-axis is The scheme recombines several methods in order to obtain

more important for PMSMs with isotropic rotors. a computationally efficient solution. These are the use of

differential flatness and of a parameterization using a poly-

nomial basis. A result on polynomial nonnegativity is used

iq I vq as a suitable way to parameterize the constraints. Further

max Umax

developments are done to formulate a linear programming

problem.

Imax Umax Numerical simulations of a predictive controller for a

id vd permanent magnet synchronous machine show that the sub-

optimality of the method is acceptable. The optimization

problem is sufficiently simplified and solvable in real-time, in

the presented application, 2 ms prediction are implemented

at a sampling rate of 10 kHz.

Fig. 3. Linearized current and voltage constraints. Circle: feasible set

of current and voltage vectors, grey: feasible set after linearization of the R EFERENCES

constraints.

[1] M. Fliess and R. Marquez, Continuous-time linear predictive control

and flatness: A module-theoretic setting with examples, Int. Journal

Numerical simulation results are shown in Fig. 4. The of Control, Vol. 73, No. 7, pp. 606623, 2000.

results of the QP solver are shown in blue, and the results of [2] D.A. Pierre, Optimization theory with applications. New York: Wiley,

the LP solver in red. Experimental results are shown in [21]. 1969.

[3] M. Guay and J.F. Forbes, Real-time dynamic optimization of control-

At t = 0.01 s, a speed setpoint change from M = 0 to 420 lable linear systems, Journal of Guidance, Control and Dynamics, Vol.

rad/s is commanded. Then, at t = 0.07 s, a load torque step 29, No. 4, pp. 929935, 2006.

of 8 Nm is applied. From the computational results, QP takes [4] N. Petit, M.B. Milam and R.M. Murray, Inversion based constrained

trajectory optimization, Proc. 5th IFAC Symp. on nonlinear control

17 iterations in the worst case, wereas LP takes 24 iterations. systems design, 2001.

This increased number is logical, as there are 20 parameters [5] M.J. van Nieuwstadt and R.M. Murray, Real-time trajectory generation

instead of 10. As the LP algorithm is much simpler, this for differentially flat systems, Int. J. of Robust and Nonlinear Control,

Vol. 8, No. 11, pp. 9951020, 1998.

still represents a considerable computational saving. With [6] K. Graichen and N. Petit, Incorporating a class of constraints into the

an optimized C implementation, the worst case computation dynamics of optimal control problems, Optim. Control Appl. Methods,

time of the LP was 20s on a PC (1.4 GHz clock). Runtime Vol. 30, No. 6, pp. 537561, 2009.

[7] C.V. Rao and J.B. Rawlings, Linear programming and model predictive

is further discussed in [21]. control, J. of Process Control, vol. 10, pp. 283289, 2000.

From a qualitative standpoint, the resulting behavior is [8] M. Fliess, J. Levine, P. Martin and P. Rouchon, Flatness and defect

identical for both solvers. The system is always operating of nonlinear systems: Introductory theory and examples, Int. J. of

Control, Vol. 61, No. 6, pp. 13271361, 1995.

at its performance limit. There is a (feasible) voltage peak [9] H. Sira-Ramrez and S.K. Agrawal, Differentially flat systems. New

on vq at t = 0.01 s to rapidly establish a torque current York: Marcel Dekker, 2004.

iq , and after this, the induced voltage increases proportional [10] L.V. Kantorovich and V.I. Krylov, Approximate methods of higher

analysis. New York: Interscience, 1964.

to speed on vd and vq . The iron losses are reduced by [11] H.R. Sirisena, Computation of optimal controls using a piecewise

imposing id < 0. Then, at high speed, the load step polynomial parameterization, IEEE Trans. Automat. Control, Vol. 18,

is quickly compensated via the cascaded speed controller, No. 4, 1973.

[12] H.R. Sirisena and F.S. Chou, Convergence of the control parameteriza-

which commands a torque increase. To do this, the trajectory tion Ritz method for nonlinear optimal control problems, J. of Optim.

optimization generates a negative peak on id (green arrow) Theory and Appl., Vol. 29, No. 3, pp. 369382, 1979.

[13] W.E. Bosarge, O.G. Johnson, R.S. McKnight and W.P. Timlake, The A PPENDIX II

Ritz-Galerkin procedure for nonlinear control problems, SIAM Journal P ROOF OF P ROPOSITION III.3

on Numerical Analysis, Vol. 10, No. 1, pp. 94111, 1973.

[14] R.E. Brown and M.A. Stone, On the use of polynomial series with the Sufficient affine conditions for the constraints.

Rayleigh-Ritz method, Compos. Struct., Vol. 39, No. 3-4, pp. 191196, The polynomial

1997. N

[15] J-F. Stumper and R. Kennel, Inversion of linear and nonlinear observ-

X

P (s) = ci si 0, (42)

able systems with series-defined output trajectories, Proc. of the IEEE

i=0

Int. Symp. on Computer-Aided Control System Design, pp. 19931998,

2010. with ci R, is analyzed on non-positivity over a segment s [0, 1].

[16] D. Henrion and J.-B. Lasserre, LMIs for constrained polynomial in- A first necessary and sufficient condition is

terpolation with application in trajectory planning, Systems & Control

Letters, Vol. 55, No. 6, pp. 473477, 2003. P (0) = c0 0 (43)

[17] R. Fletcher, Practical methods of optimization. New York: Wiley,

1987. which in the following is assumed satisfied. Furthermore, the N

[18] P. Cortes, M. Kazmierkowski, R. Kennel, D. Quevedo and J. Ro- conditions

driguez, Predictive control in power electronics and drives, IEEE

k

Trans. Ind. Electron., Vol. 55, No. 2, pp. 43124324, 2008. P 0, k = 1..N (44)

[19] E. Delaleau and A.M. Stankovic, Flatness-based hierarchical control

N

of the PM synchronous motor, Proc. of the American Control Conf., are also assumed to hold for all ci .

pp. 6570, 2004. These conditions can be rewritten in matrix notation

[20] S. Bolognani, S. Bolognani, L. Peretti and M. Zigliotto, Design and

implementation of model predictive control for electrical motor drives, c0 + Qc 0 (45)

IEEE Trans. Ind. Electron., Vol. 56, No. 6, pp. 19251936, 2009.

[21] J-F. Stumper, A. Dotlinger, J. Jung and R. Kennel, Predictive control of with c0 = (c0 , .., c0 )T RN , c = (c1 , .., cN )T RN and Q

a permanent magnet synchronous machine based on real-time dynamic RNN such that

optimization, European Conf. on Power Electronics and Appl., 2011. j !

i

Q = (qij ) = P (i/N ) = ,

cj N

A PPENDIX I i = 1..N, j = 1..N. (46)

P ROOF OFP ROPOSITION III.2

It can be shown that det(Q) 6= 0 for N > 0, and that Q is positive

definite. It follows

Convexity of the conditioned cost function.

Assume Q is positive definite. Then, c Q1 c0 (47)

T

x (t)Qx(t) > 0, x(t) 6= 0 (35) which can be placed into the polynomial equation

and P (s) = c0 + sT c c0 sT Q1 c0 = (c0 ) (48)

Z T N T N T 1 T

J= xT (t)Qx(t)dt > 0, x(t) 6= 0t [0, T ]. (36) with s = (s, .., s ) R and = 1 + s Q (1, .., 1) . As

0 we assumed c0 0, the upper bound of P (s) under the mentioned

conditions is at when is at its maximum. It can be shown that

The inverse model replaces x(t) by polynomials p(t) with linear the upper bound of , = sup{} s [0, 1], is positive and

coefficients in only dependent on N , as Q is known. Some values, which were

Z T

computed numerically, are shown in the table below.

J= pT (t)Qp(t)dt > 0, x(t) = p(t) 6= 0t [0, T ]. (37)

0 N 2 3 4 10 20

= sup{}

RT

0.125 0.064 0.041 0.012 0.005

R

Define the primitives P(t) = p(t)dt thus P(T ) = 0

p(t)dt

T Therefore if the conditions (44) hold, we have

J = P (T )QP(T ) > 0, P(T ) 6= 0. (38)

P (s) P (0). (49)

The expression P(t) is the primitive of a polynomial, thus a

polynomial, with linear coefficients in , and P(T ) is rewritten Shifting the conditions by the constant (and negative) factor P (0),

as the sufficient conditions for non-positivity of the polynomial P (s)

are found:

P(T ) = A (39)

P (0) 0, (50)

and we assume rank(A) = n with n = dim(x). It follows

k

P ( ) P (0) 0, k = 1..N. (51)

J = T AT QA > 0, P(T ) 6= 0. (40) N

The matrix of the parameterized cost function is K = AT QA and

as we assumed Q is positive definite we know Q = BT B (Cholesky

decomposition). The weight matrix is then

K = AT BT BA = (BA)T (BA) (41)

T

which is positive definite as any matrix K = C C for some C

with rank(C) = n is positive semidefinite [C.D. Meyer, Matrix

analysis and applied linear algebra, SIAM books, 2000, pp. 566].

The parameterized cost functional J is thus a convex function of

the parameters .

600

ref

Speed M [rad/s]

Torque M [Nm]

400 10

M L

200 5

M

0 0

0 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.08 0.1 0 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.08 0.1

Field current id [A]

0

8

6 i

2

id 4 q

2

4

0

0 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.08 0.1 0 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.08 0.1

0 300

vd 200

vq [V ]

vd [V ]

50

vq

100

100 0

0 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.08 0.1 0 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.08 0.1

Time t [s] Time t [s]

10

locus curve locus curve

200

voltage 5 current

vq [V ]

iq [A]

0 0

200 5

10

Dissipated Power PL [W]

30

800

Iterations

600 PFe 20 LP

400 PCu

10

200

QP

0 0

0 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.08 0.1 0 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.08 0.1

Time t [s] Time t [s]

Fig. 4. Results of predictive control applying the presented trajectory optimization. Red: results with LP solver, Blue: results with QP solver.

- Optimal Seating ChartUploaded byMohd Firdaus
- SK-MB0048 (SET-1)Uploaded bysanjeev_kaushik2579
- ch19Uploaded byradislamy
- Linear Programming Through Solver Tool in ExcelUploaded byami402t
- UT Dallas Syllabus for opre6302.001.07f taught by Kathryn Stecke (kes021000)Uploaded byUT Dallas Provost's Technology Group
- Structural Design Optimization using Generalized Fuzzy numberUploaded byIOSRjournal
- tower designUploaded byriz2010
- Note1 Model FormulationUploaded byアユ ギタ
- Simplex Mixed ConstraintsUploaded byGloy Suwannimitr
- Telecom OpticUploaded byasif ali
- Linear ProgrammingUploaded bySubhan yousaf
- 05275373Uploaded byAhmed Westminister
- Robust optimization – methodology and applicationsUploaded byZhen Wang
- commercialUploaded byAnonymous HGEL832
- ArticuloUploaded byCarlos
- Approximation of optimal.pdfUploaded bymousa bagherpourjahromi
- assessmentreviewUploaded byapi-292276730
- Chapter13 - Agreggate PlanningUploaded byMarco Tulio
- interior point method PaperUploaded bymanorathprasad
- ME 705C-CT-2016Uploaded byPrasenjit Chatterjee
- Me ManufecturingUploaded byCody Lee
- Application of Fuzzy Multi-objective Linear Programming To Aggregate Production PlanningUploaded byTria Putri Noviasari
- Chap006sUploaded byRana Gaballah
- 00743446Uploaded byhellothapliyal
- Tent2Uploaded byPETER
- EM 516 - GAMS Tutorial.pdfUploaded bycnsuu_
- MIC-2008-3-3Uploaded byZakia Puspa Ramdhani
- brand awareness_309706814.pdfUploaded bySaloni Anand
- Preserv of Optic Net DesignUploaded bychaidar_lakare
- 68430-141977-1-PBUploaded bySanthosh S Shetty

- Ecological EngineeringUploaded byNur Almira Rahardyan
- Foundation Level Learning ObjectivesUploaded byRoshni Biju
- Frequency Response Ex-4 (1)Uploaded byJohn Anthony Jose
- Compare TS 16949 to ISO 9001.docxUploaded byNguyen Van Hanh
- BRUINEBERG the Anticipating Brain is Not a ScientistUploaded byMiguel Segundo Ortin
- What is MechatronicsUploaded byPrabakaran Muniandy
- Scheduled Control of PVTOL AircraftUploaded byjames
- Lamidi 2015.pdfUploaded byJm Lanuza
- Optimized PID Controller For pH Neutralisation ProcessUploaded byInternational Journal for Scientific Research and Development - IJSRD
- exam-98Uploaded byjaafer_ahmed
- duffing.pdfUploaded byTamonash Jana
- Use a Trace Ability Matrix ToUploaded byRaaju Lenka
- SignalsUploaded byWael Bazzi
- Proj Scope ManagementUploaded byjacobian
- Avionics Capabilities Canada SCADEUploaded byanantia
- Life as a Manifestation of the Second Law of ThermodynamicsUploaded byVinci0594
- Theories of Open Systems Realities and Perspectives (1)Uploaded byInternational Journal of Innovative Science and Research Technology
- AP9211.docUploaded bypuppyr
- Mekatronika and ControlUploaded bySholeh Abdullah Arif Budiman
- Advanced Control using Matlab -.pdfUploaded byYousef Sardahi
- Roll 8 Emplicit Implicit Transient Dynamic Analysis (Pradeep Shrestha).pptxUploaded byAsim Gautam
- Line Follower Robot ProjectUploaded byJeffery Yip
- Entropy generation in thermal systems with solid structures – A concise reviewUploaded byHenrique Neiva Guimaraes
- ISTQB Exam QuestionsUploaded bym2mlck
- Madrasah Lit. ReferenceUploaded bychrisesteban1978
- An Optimal Fuzzy Self-Tuning PID Controller for Robot Manipulators via Genetic AlgorithmUploaded bybenja_1987
- PhDThesis_SilviaAbrahaoUploaded bymazare77
- Lecture 1Uploaded bypeugeot309
- Corrections Pds Method Handbook 2013Uploaded bysvdkar
- Balanced Scorecard.docUploaded bypiyalhassan