66 views

Uploaded by Abdulhmeed Mutalat

Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)

- Analysis of bogie suspension system
- Incremental Train Control System 2007
- Railway Technical
- Communications Based Train Control (CBTC)
- Glossary of International Freight Terms
- AREMA Shoring Guidelines
- Advanced Train Control System B Neing-Book Resumen
- (Sky-Tel) Smart Railroads- 200 Wide Band+ High Accuracy Location, By Federal Railroad Admin, 2008
- 2015 08 Federal Railroad Administration Positive Train Control Status Report
- Rail Wheel Int. TOTP
- Trends in Intermodal Freight Transport
- AREMA_MRE_2013_TOC-Vol2_Ch9.pdf
- Wheel-Rail Interface Handbook
- Freight Rail Location Alternatives Analysis
- Arema Mre 2013 Toc-Vol1 Ch30
- AREMA_MRE_2013_TOC-Vol2_Ch7.pdf
- On Positive Train Control leveraged into Advanced Railroad Wireless, and ARW spectrum
- Rail Wheel Interaction 02
- Canadian National Railway Company (SAP Business Transformation Study)
- AREMA_MRE_2013_TOC-Vol2_Ch10.pdf

You are on page 1of 297

by

XUAN VU

B.Info.Tech. (Hons)

Division of Information Technology Engineering and the Environment

University of South Australia

July 2006

Contents

Table of Contents i

Summary xiv

Declaration xvii

Acknowledgements xviii

1 Introduction 2

1.1 Project aims . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3

1.2 History of optimal train control . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3

1.3 Uniqueness of the optimal control strategy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9

1.4 Parameter estimation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10

1.5 Thesis structure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10

2 Optimal journeys 12

2.1 Problem formulation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12

i

Contents ii

2.2.1 State and adjoint equations for an optimal journey . . . . . . . . . 19

2.2.2 Possible control transitions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21

2.3 Example journeys . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22

2.4 Phase diagrams . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24

2.5 Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28

3.1 Steep sections . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29

3.2 Limiting speed at a constant power on a constant gradient . . . . . . . . . 32

3.3 Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33

4.1 Problem formulation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35

4.2 Uniqueness of the final coast–brake phase . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37

4.3 Uniqueness of the optimal journey . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42

4.4 Examples . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46

4.5 Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49

5.1 Problem formulation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 52

5.2 Necessary conditions for an optimal power phase . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 53

5.3 An alternative necessary condition . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 54

5.3.1 Key equations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 59

5.4 Existence and uniqueness . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 64

5.4.1 Geometric approach . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 64

5.4.2 Algebraic approach . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 66

ii

Contents iii

5.6 Example . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 71

5.7 Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 73

6.1 Problem formulation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 76

6.2 Necessary conditions for an optimal strategy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 78

6.3 Existence and uniqueness of an optimal solution . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 82

6.3.1 Existence . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 82

6.3.2 Uniqueness . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 86

6.4 Numerical solution . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 86

6.5 Example . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 88

6.6 Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 88

7.1 Problem formulation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 92

7.2 Numerical solution . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 95

7.2.1 Calculating f . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 97

7.2.2 Finding the optimal power phase . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 98

7.3 Examples . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 98

7.4 Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 104

8.1 Problem formulation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 106

8.2 Necessary conditions for an optimal coast phase . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 107

8.3 An alternative necessary condition . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 107

8.4 Key equation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 109

8.5 Existence and uniqueness . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 112

8.5.1 Geometric approach . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 112

iii

Contents iv

8.5.3 Numerical solution . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 120

8.6 Example . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 121

8.7 Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 121

9.1 Problem formulation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 125

9.2 Necessary conditions for an optimal strategy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 127

9.3 Existence and uniqueness of an optimal solution . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 131

9.3.1 Existence of an optimal solution . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 131

9.3.2 Uniqueness . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 136

9.4 Numerical solution . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 136

9.5 Examples . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 137

9.6 Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 137

10.1 Problem formulation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 139

10.1.1 Numerical solution . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 143

10.2 Example . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 144

10.3 Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 147

11.1 An exact integral for the adjoint equation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 150

11.2 Necessary conditions for an optimal power phase . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 152

11.2.1 A single steep gradient . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 153

11.2.2 Two steep gradient sections . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 156

11.3 Properties of η(v) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 159

iv

Contents v

11.5 Phase diagrams of combinations of long and short steep sections . . . . . . 170

11.5.1 γ11 = 0.3, L11 = 500, γ12 = 0.2, L12 ∈ {400, 1000, . . . , 3400} . . 171

11.5.2 γ11 = 0.3, L11 = 1500, γ12 = 0.2, L12 ∈ {200, 600, . . . , 2200} . . . 172

11.5.3 γ11 = 0.3, L11 ∈ {200, 600, . . . , 2200}, γ12 = 0.2, L12 = 1000 . . . 173

11.5.4 γ11 = 0.3, L11 ∈ {700, 1200, . . . , 3200}, γ12 = 0.2, L12 = 1600 . . 174

11.5.5 γ11 = 0.2, L11 = 1200, γ12 = 0.3, L12 ∈ {200, 600, . . . , 2200} . . . 175

11.5.6 γ11 = 0.2, L11 = 4000, γ12 = 0.3, L12 ∈ {200, 600, . . . , 2200} . . . 176

11.5.7 γ11 = 0.2, L11 ∈ {600, 1400, . . . , 4600}, γ12 = 0.3, L12 = 400 . . . 177

11.5.8 γ11 = 0.2, L11 ∈ {200, 600, . . . , 2200}, γ12 = 0.3, L12 = 1200 . . . 178

11.6 Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 179

12.1 An exact integral for the adjoint equation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 180

12.2 Necessary conditions for an optimal coast phase . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 181

12.2.1 A single steep gradient section . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 182

12.2.2 A section of two steep gradients . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 182

12.3 Properties of η(v) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 183

12.4 Phase diagram for (η, v) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 185

12.5 Phase diagrams for combinations of long and short steep downhill gradients. 189

12.5.1 γ11 = 0.2, L11 = 1200; γ12 = 0.4, L12 ∈ {800, 4000, . . . , 23200}. . 190

12.5.2 γ11 = 0.2, L11 = 3000; γ12 = 0.4, L12 ∈ {1600, 3200, . . . , 8000}. . 191

12.5.3 γ11 = 0.2, L11 ∈ {18000, 19200, . . . , 24000} ; γ12 = 0.4, L12 = 400. 192

12.5.4 γ11 = 0.2, L11 ∈ {12000, 18000, . . . , 42000} , γ12 = 0.4, L12 = 1600. 193

12.5.5 γ11 = 0.4, L11 = 1800; γ12 = 0.2, L12 ∈ {2400, 4800, . . . , 14400}. 194

12.5.6 γ11 = 0.4, L11 = 3200; γ12 = 0.2, L12 ∈ {2400, 4800, . . . , 14400}. 195

12.5.7 γ11 = 0.4, L11 ∈ {1800, 5400, . . . , 19800}; γ12 = 0.2, L12 = 800. . 196

12.5.8 γ11 = 0.4, L11 ∈ {5600, 9400, 13000, 19800}; γ12 = 0.2, L12 = 5600. 197

12.6 Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 198

v

Contents vi

13.1 Coasting and braking on a constant gradient . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 200

13.2 Final coasting and braking phases on a piecewise constant gradient . . . . . 202

13.3 Example . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 211

13.4 Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 213

14.1 Problem formulation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 216

14.2 Kalman Filter . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 218

14.3 Extended Kalman Filter . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 220

14.4 Nonlinear Projection Filter . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 220

14.5 Unscented Kalman Filter . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 221

14.6 H∞ Filter . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 222

14.7 Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 224

15.1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 225

15.2 A simple example without diffusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 226

15.2.1 Exact solution . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 227

15.2.2 Approximation using a Fast Fourier Transform . . . . . . . . . . . 228

15.2.3 Solution using a Fourier Cosine Series . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 234

15.2.4 Approximation using Discrete Cosine Transform . . . . . . . . . . 241

15.3 A simple example with diffusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 249

15.4 A simple train example . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 251

15.5 Conclusions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 253

vi

Contents vii

16.1.1 The Unscented Transformation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 255

16.2 Estimating train parameters with an UKF . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 256

16.2.1 Define the problem . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 256

16.2.2 Implementation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 257

16.2.3 The role of the covariance matrix . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 261

16.2.4 Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 266

17 Conclusions 267

A.1 Existence and uniqueness of solution for a system of ordinary differential

equation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 269

A.2 The variational equation for a normal system . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 271

Bibliography 273

vii

List of Figures

2.2 Diagram of possible transitions 2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22

2.3 Speed profile and adjoint variable profile 1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23

2.4 Speed profile and adjoint variable profile 2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24

2.5 Speed profile of a final coast and brake phase . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25

2.6 Phase diagram for a steep uphill and a steep downhill sections . . . . . . 25

2.7 Zoom into a part of phase diagram . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26

2.8 Phase diagram for power phase in non-optimal cases . . . . . . . . . . . 27

2.9 Phase diagram for a coast phase in non-optimal cases . . . . . . . . . . . 27

3.2 Speed increases on a steep downhill section . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30

3.3 Limiting speeds . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32

4.2 Perturbed speed profile for coasting and braking . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39

4.3 Speed profiles of two optimal journeys on a non-steep track . . . . . . . . 42

4.4 Speed profiles of two optimal journeys on a non-steep track 3 . . . . . . . 44

4.5 Speed profiles of two optimal journeys on a non-steep track . . . . . . . . 44

4.6 Speed profiles of two optimal journeys on a non-steep track . . . . . . . . 45

viii

4.7 Speed profiles of power–coast–brake journeys . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45

4.8 Optimal journeys for different hold speeds . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47

4.9 Speed profiles of journeys with different hold speeds . . . . . . . . . . . 48

4.10 Speed profiles of journeys with different hold speeds . . . . . . . . . . . 48

5.2 Plot of cost function J . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 60

5.3 Diagram of a convex curve and its tangent . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 66

5.4 Speed profile when v(b) = v̄b . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 67

5.5 Result of Example 5.6.1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 72

6.2 Speed profile of γ11 < γ12 track . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 77

6.3 Calculation squence . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 87

6.4 Result of example 6.5.1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 90

7.2 Calculation sequence . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 95

7.3 Speed decreases on a non-steep section . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 96

7.4 Speed increases on a steep section . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 97

7.5 Optimal speed profile for example 7.3.1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 99

7.6 Optimal speed profile for example 7.3.2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 100

7.7 Function f . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 103

7.8 Speed decreases on a non-steep section . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 103

8.2 Cost J for various starting locations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 108

8.3 Illustration of the geometric proof . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 115

8.4 Illustration of domain of f 1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 116

8.5 Illustration of domain of f 2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 116

ix

8.6 Optimal speed profile for example 8.6.1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 122

9.2 Speed profile of two steep sections 2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 126

9.3 Calculation sequence for hold-coast-hold . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 136

9.4 f for example 9.5.1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 138

10.1 Gradient change points for a general steep downhill section . . . . . . . . 140

10.2 Calculation sequence for f . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 144

10.3 Results of Example 10.2.1. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 146

11.1 Speed and elevation profiles with one steep gradient . . . . . . . . . . . . 154

11.2 Speed and elevation profile with two steep gradients . . . . . . . . . . . . 157

11.3 Phase diagram of a uphill section . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 162

11.4 Phase plots 1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 166

11.5 Phase diagrams obtained using the traditional method and the new method. 167

11.6 Phase diagrams of optimal and non-optimal strategies . . . . . . . . . . . 168

11.7 Phase diagrams and critical curves 1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 169

11.8 Phase diagrams of different journeys 2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 171

11.9 Phase diagrams of long-steep-normal-less-steep sections . . . . . . . . . 172

11.10 Phase diagrams of long-steep-short-less-steep sections . . . . . . . . . . 173

11.11 Phase diagrams of short-steep-long-less-steep sections . . . . . . . . . . 174

11.12 Phase diagrams of short-steep-normal-steeper sections . . . . . . . . . . 175

11.13 Phase diagrams of long-steep-normal-steeper-hills . . . . . . . . . . . . . 176

11.14 Phase diagrams of normal-steep-short-steeper sections . . . . . . . . . . 177

11.15 Phase diagrams of normal-steep-long-steeper sections . . . . . . . . . . . 178

12.2 Optimal speed profile and track profile of a downhill section . . . . . . . 183

12.3 Phase diagram of a downhill section . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 185

x

12.4 Phase diagrams for coast phase . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 187

12.5 Optimal adjoint variable profiles . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 188

12.6 Optimal and non-optimal adjoint variable profiles . . . . . . . . . . . . . 188

12.7 Phase diagrams of short steep and various, steeper sections . . . . . . . . 190

12.8 Phase diagrams of long steep and various steeper sections . . . . . . . . . 191

12.9 Phase diagrams of long various and short steep sections . . . . . . . . . . 192

12.10 Phase diagrams for long various and short steeper section . . . . . . . . . 193

12.11 Phase diagrams of long steep and various-less-steep sections . . . . . . . 194

12.12 Phase diagrams of long steep and long-various-less-steep sections . . . . 195

12.13 Phase diagrams of long various steep and short-less-steep-sections . . . . 196

12.14 Phase diagrams of long various steep and long-less-steep sections . . . . 197

13.2 Track and speed profiles . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 205

13.3 Track and speed profiles . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 206

13.4 Speed profiles of different holding speed journeys 2 . . . . . . . . . . . . 212

15.2 Kolmogorov solution using FFT without diffusion after one iteration . . . 231

15.3 Kolmogorov solution using FFT without diffusion after two iterations . . 232

15.4 Example 1 results using FFT without diffusion at t = 0 . . . . . . . . . . 232

15.5 Example 1 results using FFT without diffusion at time t = x j − xm . . . 233

15.6 Example 1 results using FFT without diffusion at time t = x j − xm . . . 233

15.7 Example 1 using FCS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 240

15.8 Example 1 results using DCT after one time step . . . . . . . . . . . . . 248

15.9 Example 1 using DCT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 250

15.10 Solution to Kolmogorov’s equation using FFT with diffusion . . . . . . . 251

15.11 Train example using KE 1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 252

15.12 Train example using KE 2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 252

xi

16.1 Estimations on flat track with no process noise . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 259

16.2 Estimations on flat track no process noise, P 1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 260

16.3 Mean filter error parallel coordinates . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 264

16.4 Estimation on flat track no process noise 1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 264

16.5 Estimations on flat track no process noise 2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 265

16.6 Evolutions of covariances of initial covariance matrix . . . . . . . . . . . 266

xii

List of Tables

2.2 Summary of optimal control modes with modified adjoint variable . . . . . 20

Example 6.5.1. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 89

7.1 Optimal speeds and limiting speeds for Example 7.3.2. . . . . . . . . . . . 101

7.2 Track data for the example of hold-power-hold on multi steep uphill section. 102

tion, Example 9.5.1. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 138

10.1 Track data and results of hold-coast-hold on a multi steep downhill section. 145

16.1 Relative errors for different values of the initial covariance matrix . . . . . 263

xiii

Summary

The Scheduling and Control Group at the University of South Australia has been

studying the optimal control of trains for many years, and has developed in-cab

devices that help drivers stay on time and minimise energy use.

drive a long-haul freight train over an undulating track with speed restrictions,

and developed necessary conditions for an optimal control. It is possible to

construct complete train journeys that satisfy these optimal conditions. However,

the previous work did not prove that these solutions were always unique.

In this thesis, we re-examine the optimal control theory for the train control prob-

lem. In particular, we study the optimal control around steep sections of track.

This work is introduced in the first part of the thesis along with some preliminary

analysis. An uphill section is said to be ‘steep’ if the train has insufficient power

to maintain a desired constant holding speed on the hill. In such cases the opti-

mal control requires that full power is applied at some point before the steep hill

is reached and is maintained until some point beyond the steep hill. The speed

increases above the holding speed before the steep section commences and then

falls to a level below the holding speed while the train traverses the steep uphill

section before finally increasing and eventually returning to the holding speed

after the train leaves the steep uphill section.

Similarly, a downhill section is said to be steep if the speed of the train increases

even when no power is supplied. In such cases the optimal control requires that

the train coasts at some point before the steep downhill section; speed decreases

before the section, increases on the steep section, then decreases again after the

xiv

steep section and finally returns to the holding speed at some point beyond the

steep downhill section.

the control should be changed. These switching points are normally determined

[24, 33] from necessary conditions derived via the Pontryagin’s Maximum Prin-

ciple. In the second part of this thesis we use perturbation analysis to develop

an alternative set of necessary conditions for an optimal driving strategy near a

steep section. The new necessary condition indicates that the optimal strategy

involves a specific local trade-off between the energy used and time taken on

each steep section that the train traverses. We also develop a new numerical

procedure for calculating the optimal switching points.

For a simple steep section, we are able to show that the optimal control strategy

is unique. Proving uniqueness is more difficult for steep sections with two or

more steep gradients and more work is required before these issues can be fully

resolved.

In the third part of the thesis we use phase trajectories to study optimal control

strategies. The optimal control for a journey is determined by the evolution of

an adjoint variable, η. The state of the journey can be characterised by the speed

v and the adjoint variable η. Note there are two different but equivalent adjoint

variables θ and η = θ − 1. We use θ for final coast and brake and η other-

wise. The evolution of the state (v, η) is a phase trajectory. By constructing

phase trajectories for various scenarios, we are able to understand the relation-

ship between η and v for an optimal strategy. In the case of a piecewise constant

gradient we give an explicit formula for η as a function of v.

formance. In particular, we need to know a coefficient of rolling resistance and

xv

a coefficient of aerodynamic drag. In practice, these coefficients are different

for every train and difficult to predict. In the fourth and final part of the the-

sis, we study the use of mathematical filters to estimate model parameters from

observations of actual train performance.

xvi

Declaration

I declare that this thesis does not incorporate without acknowledgment any ma-

terial previously submitted for a degree or diploma in any university; and that to

the best of knowledge it does not contain any materials previously published or

written by another person except where due reference is made in the text.

Xuan Vu

xvii

Acknowledgements

Many people have made a contribution, whether small or large, to this project.

Most especially and foremost I would like to thank my Principal Supervisor,

Professor Phil Howlett, for helping me to obtain an APA scholarship for my PhD

study. His patient guidance, tireless support and invaluable advice have helped

me stay strong to go to the end of my PhD journey. From him I have learnt not

only mathematics but also what is required to become a good researcher. He has

been a continual source of ideas and potential solution procedure.

help, advice and encouragement. He is exceedingly generous in answering my

endless, annoying questions about train technology. His constructive feedback,

helpful discussion over the thesis contributed a big part in making it possible. I

am also thankful for his sustenance, inspiration and unique sense of humor that

have helped me through my PhD years.

I would like to thank Mr Basil Benjamin who extensively reviewed the thesis

and suggested many improvements. His sincere encouragement helped me con-

fidently complete this project.

I wish to express my sincere appreciation to the Rail CRC for providing finan-

cial support and opportunities to attend conferences and workshops during my

doctoral studies. Working in a Rail CRC project has given me great experience

and enriched my research career. I also would like to send special thanks to Dr

Anna Thomas for her heartfelt advice and encouragement.

My deep appreciations and thanks belong to all staff members and postgraduate

xviii

students in the School of Mathematics and Statistics at the University of South

Australia (you know who you are), to the Head of School, Associate Professor

David Panton and to the Director of the CIAM, Associate Professor Vladimir

Gaitsgory, for their help, support, encouragement and friendship.

during my studies. They are sources of strength for me to be able to complete

the project. They are always there for me whenever I need help, patiently listen

to all my sorrows, incessantly believe in me even when I sometimes lose belief

in myself.

xix

Part I

1

Chapter 1

Introduction

Trains are an efficient form of transport—the energy per kilometre required to transport

a given mass by rail is one third that required by even the most efficient road transport.

Nevertheless, energy cost is a significant part of the operating cost of a railway, and so

minimising energy use is an important problem. Researchers at the University of South

Australia and elsewhere have been studying the problem of determining optimal control

strategies for many years. At the University of South Australia, this research has led to the

development of in-cab equipment that helps drivers stay on time and reduce energy use.

Although much is known about optimal train control, there are still some gaps in this knowl-

edge. Howlett and Pudney have shown that an optimal strategy always exists. Their argument

is given in a paper [23] on optimal control of a solar powered racing car, but can be easily

modified to apply to a train. The practical driving strategies used in our in-cab devices are

based on necessary conditions for an optimal strategy. We have not yet been able to prove

that these conditions are sufficient for an optimal journey but this will follow if it can be

shown that the strategies are uniquely defined by the necessary conditions.

2

Chapter 1. Introduction 3

The work in this thesis is part of a Rail Cooperative Research Centre (CRC) project to min-

imise fuel consumption and improve the timekeeping of trains. The main and significant

output of the Rail CRC project is an in-cab advice system called FreightMiser, which mon-

itors the progress of a journey, calculates an optimal control strategy, and displays advice to

the driver.

The first aim of this PhD project was to find a constructive proof that the optimal driving

strategy for a journey is unique. Such a proof could lead to more efficient methods for

calculating optimal driving strategies.

The second aim of the PhD project was to develop a method for estimating train parameters

from real-time observations of performance. To calculate an optimal driving strategy, it is

reasonable to assume that FreightMiser will perform best when it uses an accurate model of

train performance. Train parameters such as rolling resistance coefficients vary significantly

between trains and journeys, and even within a journey. If we can estimate train parameters

in real time, we can calculate more accurate optimal driving strategies.

In 1970, Figuera [13] showed that on short track sections without significant gradients or

speed restrictions, the optimal driving strategy for a train has three phases: power, coast and

brake. If the train departs on time and always follows the same speed profile, coasting can

begin at a predetermined time from the start of the run. However, if the train falls behind

schedule then the coast phase should be shortened to recover the lost time and reach the

destination on time.

Chapter 1. Introduction 4

An early paper by Kokotovic [34] presents a second-order nonlinear model of an electric trac-

tion system, and uses Green’s theorem to approximate the solution to the minimum energy

control problem. Kokotovic constructed a family of speed trajectories that is bounded below

by the minimum-energy, maximum-time trajectory and bounded above by a minimum-time,

maximum energy trajectory. The solution for a particular initial condition and final condition

can always be obtained by choosing the appropriate trajectory in this family.

Hoang et al [17] used two approaches to find the optimal trajectories that minimise energy for

a metro network: a rigorous optimal control formulation and a heuristic method employing

a direct search algorithm. The first approach was formulated rigorously but not solved.

The second approach was developed on a simplified model and applied successfully on the

Montreal Metro subway system, reducing energy use by about 8%.

In his 1980 PhD thesis, Aspects of Automatic Train Control, Milroy included some novel

work on optimal driving strategies for trains. In 1982 he formed the Transport Control Group

at the South Australian Institute of Technology to work on a project to develop a system for

achieving fuel savings on suburban trains. The first part of the project involved calculating

efficient speed profiles for various sections of track on the Adelaide metropolitan rail network

in South Australia. The second part of the project was to design and build a device that could

compute optimal driving strategies in real time, and display driving advice to a train driver.

This device would later become known as Metromiser.

The aim of Metromiser was to calculate driving advice that would help the driver arrive at

each station on time, with minimal fuel consumption. The driving strategy between each pair

of stops was to apply maximum power at the beginning of the section, then switch off power

as soon as possible and coast and brake into the stop. Trains have very low rolling resistance,

and can coast for long distances without slowing significantly. The device monitored the

progress of the train compared to the timetable and calculated a precise point at which the

driver could switch from power to coast on each journey section. Metromiser was first eval-

uated in Adelaide in 1985 and then later in Melbourne, Brisbane and Toronto, and achieved

Chapter 1. Introduction 5

average fuel savings of more than 15% and significant improvements in timekeeping.

The theoretical basis for the work was extended during the period 1982–1985. In 1984,

Howlett [19] showed that when the problem is formulated in an appropriate function space

an optimal strategy does indeed satisfy the Pontryagin conditions. Howlett gave a rigorous

justification of the work. He also showed that a speed-holding phase should be incorporated

into the optimal strategy if the journey time is relatively large, and found a special rela-

tionship between the holding speed and the speed at which braking should begin for a flat

track.

A similar approach was independently developed by Anis et al [2] in 1985. They also used

the Pontryagin principle to find necessary conditions on an optimal control strategy and

showed that these conditions could be applied to determine an optimal driving strategy.

Howlett used a similar approach but simplified the analysis by using the Pontryagin prin-

ciple to reformulate the problem as a finite dimensional constrained optimisation in which

the variables are the unknown switching times where the level of control is changed. Both

Anis et al and Howlett assumed in this early work that the level of acceleration is controlled.

This assumption has now been replaced by a more realistic assumption that is motive power

controlled, or that there are speed-dependent constraints on acceleration. Throughout the

thesis we refer to switching times or switching points to denote the times or positions where

the control is changed.

A paper by Strobel and Horn [45] presented a uniform approach to the solution of the energy

optimum train control problem for both electric and diesel locomotives on a level track. Their

results are similar to those of Howlett [19, 20]. They also conclude that for long journeys

the optimal strategy includes a speedhold phase, but for short journeys the optimal strategy

is power–coast–brake.

Prime et al [41] consider the problem for an electric train. Once again, the journeys are short

and the role of the coast phase is emphasized. For a single station-to-station run, minimum

Chapter 1. Introduction 6

energy can be achieved by modifying the coast position as a function of average supply

voltage.

In 1986 the Transport Control Group embarked on a second project to develop a fuel conser-

vation system for long-haul freight trains. On long journeys, with many changes of gradient

and many speed restrictions, the driving strategy is much more complicated than the simple

power-coast-brake strategy for short suburban journeys. A more detailed train model, which

took into account the relationship between locomotive power, train speed and fuel flow rates,

was developed by Benjamin et al [4]. The initial work used a heuristic method to insert

coasting into the driving strategy. Eventually, theoretical work was developed to determine

necessary conditions for an optimal driving strategy and to construct optimal journeys. Pre-

liminary work was presented by Howlett and Cheng in 1989 at the Conference of Australian

Institutes of Transport Research. Since then, the model has been studied systematically on

level track by Cheng and Howlett [9, 10], on level track with speed limits by Pudney and

Howlett [43], on track with piecewise constant gradient by Howlett [14], on track with con-

tinuously varying gradient by Howlett and Cheng [21], on track with piecewise constant

gradient with speed limits by Davydova, Cheng, Howlett and Pudney [11] and on track with

non-zero gradient without speed limits by Cheng in his PhD thesis [8].

with continuously varying gradient using continuous control. Khmelnitsky proved that under

certain conditions there exists a unique optimal solution. However, it is not clear that these

conditions are always true. Khmelnitsky also developed a numerical algorithm for finding

linking trajectories between sections of speedholding that satisfy the necessary conditions for

an optimal journey. Khmelnitsky’s necessary conditions are equivalent to those of Howlett

et al, and his numerical method is similar. However, while Khmelnitsky’s method is suitable

for journeys with occasional short sections of steep track, it may not be the best method for

heavy-haul journeys where only small portions of the journey are spent speedholding.

My PhD work is mainly based on the results described by Howlett in [20]. This paper

Chapter 1. Introduction 7

discussed an optimal driving strategy for a train with continuous control and for a train with

discrete control. For the continuous control problem the Pontryagin principle is used to find

necessary conditions for an optimal strategy. It is shown that these conditions yield key

equations that determine the optimal switching points. In the case of discrete control, the

Karush-Kuhn-Tucker equations are used to derive an optimal strategy for each fixed control

sequence by finding the optimal switching times.

An interesting result for a discrete control problem with finite control sets was presented by

Howlett and Leizarowitz [22]. They obtained an algebraic equation, rather than a differential

equation, from the Euler-Lagrange equation in some intervals, and show that the optimal

control is a combination of two types of control: pure control and chattering control.

Recently Liu and Golovitcher [39] also tackled the optimal train control problem, and ob-

tained results similar to those of Howlett et al and Khmelnitsky.

The theoretical work on train control was summarised by Howlett and Pudney in a mono-

graph [25]. In this summary, Howlett and Pudney view the optimal strategy as speed-holding

interrupted by occasional steep sections. Shortly after the monograph was published they re-

alised that for many practical journeys the train spends most of its time reacting to steep

sections and very little time travelling at a constant speed. Although this does not change the

theoretical interpretation it does mean that the numerical algorithm needs to be more robust.

This required development of a new numerical algorithm for calculating optimal journey

profiles [18]. This new algorithm was used to develop an in-cab system, called FreightMiser,

for calculating optimal driving strategies for long-haul journeys. The system determines

the location and speed of the train from GPS measurements and then calculates the optimal

strategy to arrive on time at the next key location.

Figure 1.1 shows the prototype FreightMiser screen. The bottom part of the display shows

the elevation profile of the track over the next 6km. The top part of the display shows the

ideal speed profile. The orange lines are speed limits. The colour of the ideal speed profile

Chapter 1. Introduction 8

indicates the power required to follow the profile. The two white triangles indicate the current

speed of the train.

The FreightMiser system has been tested on in-service freight trains running between Ade-

laide and Melbourne. Using FreightMiser, drivers were able to achieve average fuel savings

of 12%.

A fascinating vehicle control problem is the corresponding problem for solar-powered racing

cars. An optimal driving problem for solar cars is very similar to optimal driving for trains.

One possible objective is to maximize the distance travelled during a fixed period of time.

In one model used by Howlett and Pudney [23, 24] there are two holding speeds. The upper

holding speed is maintained if solar power is high and the lower holding speed is maintained

if solar power is low. These two holding speeds are related by a simple formula.

The solar car problem for a level road is studied by Howlett et al [24] and for an undulating

road [23]. Pudney [42] developed optimal control strategies for a range of battery models,

motor models and solar irradiance scenarios.

Chapter 1. Introduction 9

The main aim of my PhD work was to show that the optimal control strategy for any specific

journey is unique. Howlett and Cheng [10] prove uniqueness of the optimal strategy for the

simple case of a flat track, and suggested that this argument could be extended to a track with

no steep grades, but they did not find a uniqueness proof when speed-holding is interrupted

by steep gradients. We have used a perturbation analysis to show that on a non-steep track

the optimal strategy is unique.

Khmelnitsky [33] presents a proof that the optimal journey is unique provided a certain

condition is met. Unfortunately, this condition cannot be tested until after an optimal journey

has been constructed. It is not clear that this condition will be true for all practical optimal

journeys. Our aim was to find an alternative proof of uniqueness.

We have shown that when a hold phase is interrupted by a single steep uphill gradient then

there is a uniquely determined optimal power phase required for the steep section. Similarly,

when a hold phase is interrupted by a single steep downhill gradient then there is a uniquely

determined optimal coast phase required for the steep section.

For more complicated tracks, we have not been able to prove that the power phases re-

quired for a steep uphill sections and the coast phases required for steep downhill sections

are uniquely defined. However, we have developed alternative necessary conditions that can

be used to calculate the relevant switching points , and developed a new numerical method

for calculating optimal power and coast phases. The new necessary conditions provide addi-

tional insight and may eventually lead to the desired comprehensive proof of uniqueness.

Chapter 1. Introduction 10

The second aim of my PhD work was to develop a method for estimating the parameters

of our train performance model. These parameters include a rolling resistance coefficient

and an aerodynamic drag coefficient. In practice, it is difficult to predict values for these

parameters for a freight train because the length and mass of the train will vary from one

journey to the next, and the aerodynamic drag on the train will depend on prevailing winds

and track conditions which can change even during the journey.

One way to overcome this difficulty is to estimate the parameter values in real-time from

observations of the actual train performance, and then use the estimated parameter values

in the journey optimisation calculations to give a driving strategy tailored to the prevailing

conditions.

We have successfully applied the Unscented Kalman Filter to example problems of estimat-

ing train parameters. This filter is easy to implement, and fast enough to be used in real

time.

There are four parts to this thesis: The Train Control Problem, A New Method For Finding

Optimal Driving Strategies, Phase Trajectories, and Parameter Estimation.

Part I, The Train Control Problem, comprises three chapters. Chapter 1 is this chapter. In

Chapter 2 we give a detailed problem formulation and review the use of Pontryagin’s Maxi-

mum Principle to derive necessary conditions for an optimal journey. We also introduce the

concept of a phase diagram, which will be used extensively later in the thesis. In Chapter

Chapter 1. Introduction 11

3, ‘steep’ gradients are defined and the concept of a limiting speed for a fixed gradient is

introduced. In Chapter 4 we show that the optimal strategy is unique for non-steep track.

In Part II , A New Method For Finding Optimal Driving Strategies, we develop new necessary

conditions for an optimal strategy and a new method for finding an optimal strategy. In

Chapter 5 we consider a power phase on a single steep uphill gradient, and introduce a new

method for deriving alternative necessary conditions. Using these conditions, we develop a

new numerical procedure for calculating optimal strategies. We also show that the optimal

strategy is unique. In Chapter 6 we extend the analysis to a steep uphill section with two

gradients. In this case, however, we are not able to prove uniqueness. In Chapter 7 we

extend the analysis again, this time to the case of a steep uphill section with many gradients.

In Chapters 8–10 the analysis of Chapters 5–7 is repeated for a coast phase on a steep down-

hill section.

In Part III, Phase Diagrams, we develop an analytical relationship between the key adjoint

variable and train speed for a power phase on a steep uphill section in Chapter 11, for a coast

phase on a steep downhill section in Chapter 12 , and for a final coasting and braking in

Chapter 13.

In Part IV, Parameter Estimation of the thesis we study the parameter estimation problem.

In Chapter 14 the problem is formulated and we discuss some candidate numerical filters

that could be used for parameter estimation, including the Extended Kalman Filter and H-∞

filter. In Chapter 15 we discuss the Nonlinear Projection Filter which, although it should

do the job, has some serious practical difficulties. We use Chapter 16 to discuss the simpler

Unscented Kalman Filter, and demonstrate how the filter can be “tuned” to give good results

for many example problems.

Finally, we summarise the thesis and propose further research in Chapter 17.

Chapter 2

Optimal journeys

In this chapter we first formulate the train control problem, and then use Pontryagin’s Prin-

ciple to derive necessary conditions for an optimal control.

The results in this chapter are not new and can be found in [19, 20]. However, since it

is necessary to understand and use these results throughout the thesis, it is convenient to

present them here.

The motion of a train along a track can be described by the state equations

dv 1 p

m = − q − r(v) + g(x) (2.1)

dx v v

and

dt 1

= (2.2)

dx v

where v(x) is the speed of the train at location x and t(x) is the time at which the train is at

location x.

12

Chapter 2. Optimal journeys 13

In this model, m is the mass of the train, p ≥ 0 is the tractive power applied at the wheels,

q ≥ 0 is the braking force, v ≥ 0 is the speed of the train, r is the resistance force acting

against the train and g is the gradient force acting on the train. The gradient force g is positive

for downhill gradients. The train is controlled by controlling power p and braking force q.

For the remainder of this thesis, we will assume that m = 1, and scale the other parameters

accordingly.

For diesel-electric trains, the power generated is approximately proportional to the fuel flow

rate. In this thesis we will consider the problem of minimising mechanical energy. For diesel-

electric trains this is almost equivalent to minimising fuel consumption, and for electric trains

this is almost equivalent to minimising electrical energy use.

The mechanical work done by the locomotive as the train drives from x = 0 to x = X is

X

p

J= dx.

0 v

More generally we can define x

p

J(x) = dξ

0 v

in which case

dJ p

= . (2.3)

dx v

We ignore the (negative) work done by the brakes since this energy is not recovered. We

wish to drive from location x = 0 to location x = X in time T with minimum mechanical

energy. That is, we want to minimise the cost function J subject to the state equations (2.1)

and (2.2). The boundary conditions for the problem are

v(0) = v(X) = 0

and

t(0) = 0, t(X) = T.

These equations are for a point mass train. Howlett and Pudney [25] show that the motion

of a train with distributed mass on a given gradient profile is the same as motion of a point

Chapter 2. Optimal journeys 14

mass train on a modified gradient profile. The motion of a long train with length S and mass

M can be modelled as

S

dv p 1

v = − q − r(v) + ρ(s)g(x − s)ds (2.4)

dx v M 0

where ρ(s) is the mass per unit length at distance s from the front of the train. If we define

the modified gradient acceleration as

S

1

ḡ(x) = ρ(s)g(x − s)ds

M 0

dv p

v = − q − r(v) + ḡ(x), (2.5)

dx v

which takes the same form as that for a point mass train. From now on, we will consider

only point mass trains. By using the modified gradient profile we can see that all results can

be applied to trains with distributed mass.

We can use Pontryagin’s Maximum Principle to find necessary conditions for an optimal

journey. Pontryagin’s Maximum Principle is used to find an extreme of a function under

consideration of a set of optimal control variables that is critical for the control problem.

It is carried out with the help of Hamiltonian function which is a set of differential equa-

tions of adjoint variables. The details about Hamiltonian function can be found in [35]. By

Pontryagin’s Maximum Principle finding optimal solutions of a cost function is equivalent

to maximising its Hamiltonian equation. We can find good descriptions and examples on

Pontryagin’s Maximum Principle in [40].

To apply Pontryagin’s Maximum Principle to minimise the cost function, we first define the

Hamiltonian function

p α p β

H=− + − q + g(x) − r(v) + (2.6)

v v v v

Chapter 2. Optimal journeys 15

where α and β are adjoint variables. The adjoint variables evolve according to the equations

dα ∂H p α β

=− = − 2 + 3 (2p − qv + g(x)v − r(v)v + r (v)v 2 ) + 2 (2.7)

dx ∂v v v v

and

dβ ∂H

=− = 0. (2.8)

dx ∂t

We want to maximise H subject to

0≤p≤P

and

0 ≤ q ≤ Q,

where P is the maximum available driving power, and Q is the maximum available braking

force. Thus we define

1 α α α

H= − 1 p − q + (g(x) − r(v)) + λp + µ(P − p) + ρq + σ(Q − q) (2.9)

v v v v

where µ, λ, ρ, σ are non-negative Lagrange multipliers. In order to maximize H we apply

the Karush-Kuhn-Tucker conditions

∂H 1 α

= −1 +λ−µ =0 (2.10)

∂p v v

and

∂H α

= − +ρ−σ =0 (2.11)

∂q v

with the complementary slackness conditions

There are two critical values of α: α = v and α = 0. So we must consider the Hamiltonian

in five cases: α > v, α = v, 0 < α < v, α = 0 and α < 0.

Case 1: α > v

If α > v then

1 α

− 1 > 0.

v v

Chapter 2. Optimal journeys 16

But λ ≥ 0, µ ≥ 0 and, from (2.12), λ and µ cannot both be positive. If λ > 0 and µ = 0

then P = p = 0, which is inconsistent. So we must have λ = 0 and, from (2.10),

1 α

µ= −1 > 0

v v

and λ = 0. Note that λ > 0 and µ = 0 is not possible. Using µ(P − p) = 0 gives P = p.

Since α/v > 0, (2.11) implies ρ = α/v and σ = 0. The complementary slackness

conditions require q = 0. So if α > v the optimal control is given by p = P and q = 0. We

call this driving mode power.

Case 2: α = v

dα dv

=

dx dx

and hence

1 p p α β

− q − r(v) + g(x) = − 2 + 3 (2p − qv − r(v)v + g(x)v + r (v)v 2 ) + 2

v v v v v

=⇒ v 2 r (v) + β = 0

=⇒ ψ(v) + β = 0 (2.13)

where

ψ(v) = v 2 r (v). (2.14)

ϕ(v) = vr(v). (2.15)

Proof:

Chapter 2. Optimal journeys 17

We have

ψ (v) = 2vr (v) + v 2 r (v) = v(2r (v) + vr (v)).

So

ψ (v) = vϕ (v) > 0.

From Lemma 2.2.1, it follows that (2.13) has a unique solution v = V , a constant. We call

this driving mode speed holding or simply hold. To maintain this singular driving mode

requires

dv

= 0 =⇒ p = V [r(V ) − g(x)].

dx

During speed holding, with v = V , we have α = v = V and (2.13) gives

ϕ(V ) − β = 0

and so the adjoint variable β, which from (2.8) is constant for the entire journey, takes the

value β = −V 2 r (V ) < 0.

0 ≤ V [r(v) − g(x)] ≤ P.

If this condition is not met then it is not possible to satisfy the condition v = V on the interval

and the track is said to be steep uphill at (x, V ). We will present a systematic definition of

steepness in the next chapter. Since α/v = 1 in this speed holding case , (2.10) =⇒ λ = µ.

Using (2.12) we must have

λ = µ = 0.

ρ = σ + 1.

Chapter 2. Optimal journeys 18

q = Q =⇒ σ > 0 =⇒ ρ > 0 =⇒ q = 0,

q < Q =⇒ σ = 0 =⇒ ρ = 1 =⇒ q = 0.

α

− 1 < 0.

v

From (2.10) and (2.12) we must have λ > 0 and µ = 0. Since α/v > 0, then from (2.11),

σ = 0 and ρ = α/v > 0. Using the complementary slackness we have p = q = 0. Thus

there is no power applied and no braking. We call this driving mode coast.

Case 4: α = 0

If α = 0 then because we cannot have both λ > 0 and µ > 0 it follows that

and since we cannot have both ρ > 0 and σ > 0 we also deduce that

(2.11) =⇒ ρ − σ = 0 =⇒ ρ = σ = 0.

Since α = 0 then

dα β

= 0, (2.7) =⇒ 2 = 0.

dx v

But β = −V 2 r (V ) = 0 (by Lemma 2.2.1) and so α = 0 cannot be sustained on a non-zero

length control interval. The case β = 0 corresponds to V = 0 which means infinite time.

Case 5: α < 0

Chapter 2. Optimal journeys 19

If α < 0 then

α

− 1 < 0.

v

Equations (2.12) and (2.10) are satisfied when

λ > 0 and µ = 0.

α

ρ−σ = < 0.

v

If σ = 0 and ρ > 0 then, from (2.12), q = Q = 0, which is inconsistent. But ρ and σ cannot

both be positive, and so σ > 0 and ρ = 0. Now using complementary slackness, we must

have p = 0 and q = Q. We call this driving mode braking.

α>v power p = P, q = 0

α=v hold p = r(v) − g(x), q = 0

0<α<v coast p = 0, q = 0

α<0 brake p = 0, q = Q

We could analyse the optimal trajectory using α but it is convenient to introduce a modified

adjoint variable

α

θ= . (2.16)

v

The modified necessary conditions are

Chapter 2. Optimal journeys 20

θ>1 power p = P, q = 0

θ=1 hold p = r(v) − g(x), v = V

0<θ<1 coast p = 0, q = 0

θ<0 brake p = 0, q = Q

Table 2.2: Summary of optimal control modes with modified adjoint variable

dθ 1 dα α dv

= − 2 .

dx v dx v dx

From (2.5) and (2.7) we have the general form of the modified adjoint equation

dθ 1 p α 2 β

= − 3 + 3 (2p − qv + g(x)v − r(v)v + r (v)v ) + 2

dx v v v v

α p q r(v) g(x)

− 2 2− − +

v v v v v

p α

α r (v) β

= 3 −1 + + 3

v v v v v

p r (v) ψ(V )

= 3 (θ − 1) + θ− 3 . (2.17)

v v v

dθ P + ψ(v) P + ψ(V )

− 3

θ = (−1) . (2.18)

dx v v3

dθ ψ(v) ψ(V )

− 3 ·θ =− 3 . (2.19)

dx v v

An optimal solution has speed v satisfying (2.1), adjoint variable θ satisfying (2.17) and

controls p and q as given in table 2.2.

Chapter 2. Optimal journeys 21

The adjoint variable θ is continuous and so only some transitions are possible. The possible

control transition are illustrated in Figure 2.1. The control can be changed to or from hold

only if v = V . It is possible to change from power to coast or coast to power if v = V.

T t1 T 1, v V 0 dT d1 T d0

dθ P + ψ(v) P + ψ(V )

− 3

θ = (−1) .

dx v v3

A change to power occurs at θ = 1. For the power mode to be maintained, we require

dθ

≥0

dx

at the point where the control changes. For this condition to be met we require v ≥ V . So

the control can be changed to power only if v ≥ V and θ = 1.

A change to coast also requires θ = 1. However to maintain the coast mode we require

dθ

≤0

dx

at the point where the control changes. Since the adjoint equation in the coast mode at the

point θ = 1 is

dθ ψ(v)θ − ψ(V )

= , (2.20)

dx v3

we require v ≤ V . So we can change to coast only if v ≤ V and θ = 1.

If speed v ≥ V during a power phase, and the control is changed to power at speed v ≥ V ,

then θ will continue to increase and no further changes will be possible if v stays above V .

Chapter 2. Optimal journeys 22

If speed v ≤ V during coasting, and the control is changed to coast at speed v ≤ V , then θ

will continue to decrease and the only other control change will be a change to brake.

Once the brakes have been applied, v < V and θ < 0. Then from (2.20) we have dθ/dx < 0.

So v and θ will always decrease. Hence no further control changes are possible.

On a non-steep track, where speed increases during a power phase and decreases during

coasting and braking, only two control sequences are possible: power – hold – coast – brake,

and power – coast – brake. The possible control transitions are illustrated in Figure 2.2.

T t1 T 1, v V 0 dT d1 T d0

The optimal control sequence on a flat track is power, speedhold, coast and brake.

Figure 2.3 shows the speed profile (top) and adjoint variable profile (bottom) for an optimal

strategy with V = 20. The journey starts at x = 1000 and finishes at x = 40000. (In

all examples, quantities are in SI units—distance is in metres, and speed is in metres per

second). The adjoint variable θ is greater than 1 during power phase as seen in Figure 2.3.

If the track has steep sections then the optimal strategy is more complicated. If the track has

a steep uphill section then it is necessary to start power before reaching the steep section and

maintain power beyond the steep section until the speed returns to the holding speed. The

Chapter 2. Optimal journeys 23

30

25

20

v 15

10

0

0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4

x x 10

4

1.5

θ

0.5

−0.5

0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4

x x 10

4

train will slow down on the steep section and then increase speed back to the holding speed

V after the steep section. The adjoint variable increases from one and then decreases back to

one.

For a steep downhill section then we should start coasting before the steep section and keep

coasting beyond the steep downhill section until the speed returns to the holding speed again.

This time the speed increases on the steep section and slows down after the steep section until

it comes back to V . The adjoint variable decreases below one and then increases up to one

again.

Figure 2.4 shows the optimal speed and adjoint variable profiles for a journey with a steep

uphill section from 5000 to 6000 and a steep downhill section from 11000 to 12000. The

brown line indicates the elevation profile of the track. Figure 2.5 shows the final coast and

brake phases for this journey.

Chapter 2. Optimal journeys 24

30

25

20

v

15

10

track gradient

5

0

0 0.2 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.8 1 1.1 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 2

x 4

x 10

1.4

1.3

θ 1.2

1.1

1

0.9

0.8

0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 2

x 4

x 10

Figure 2.4: Speed profile and θ profile of a journey with one steep uphill and one steep downhill

section.

A useful way to view the system of state and adjoint equations is a phase diagram that plots

θ against v. Figure 2.6 is the phase diagram for the journey shown in Figure 2.4. Figure

2.7 shows more detail of the phase profile on the steep sections. The phase diagram can be

divided into six regions, separated by v = V , θ = 0 and θ = 1. A journey on a non-steep

track starts powering from v = 0 to v = V and from θ > 1 to θ = 1, then coasts from v < V

to v = U and θ = 0, then brakes from v = U to v = 0 with θ < 0.

For a steep uphill section the state changes from hold at v = V, θ = 1 to power at some

point before the start of the steep section. The variables v and θ both increase until the train

reaches the bottom of the steep section. Speed then starts decreasing on the steep section.

The adjoint variable θ still increases till some point and then start decreasing. At the top of

the steep section, speed starts increasing but θ continues to decrease. If the starting point for

Chapter 2. Optimal journeys 25

30

25

20

v 15

10

5 track gradient

0

3 3.1 3.2 3.3 3.4 3.5 3.6 3.7 3.8 3.9 4 4.1

4

x x 10

1.5

θ

0.5

−0.5

3 3.1 3.2 3.3 3.4 3.5 3.6 3.7 3.8 3.9 4 4.1

4

x x 10

Figure 2.5: Coasting and braking at the end of a journey on a level track.

1.5

θ

0.5

−0.5

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

v

Figure 2.6: Phase diagram for a journey with a steep uphill section and a steep downhill section.

Chapter 2. Optimal journeys 26

1.05

0.95

0.9

0.85

0.8

14 16 18 20 22 24 26

v

Figure 2.7: Details of the phase plot for the steep steep sections.

the power phase was chosen correctly, the (v, θ) trajectory will finish at (V, 1). If the power

phase is started too soon or too late, the trajectory will not return to v = V and θ = 1, as

shown in Figure 2.8, and the train will not be able to resume speed holding.

Figure 2.9 shows two incorrect trajectories for a coast phase on a steep downhill section. If

the train starts coasting at the wrong location then the trajectory will not have θ = 1 when v

returns to V , and so the train will not be able to resume speed holding.

In part III of the thesis, we will study phase diagrams for optimal profiles in more detail on

steep sections.

Chapter 2. Optimal journeys 27

1.025

1.02

1.015

θ

1.01

1.005

1

17.5 18 18.5 19 19.5 20 20.5 21 21.5 22

1.015

1.01

1.005

θ 1

0.995

0.99

0.985

0.98

17.5 18 18.5 19 19.5 20 20.5 21 21.5

v

Figure 2.8: Phase diagram for power phases that start too late and too soon for a steep uphill section.

1

0.95

θ

0.9

0.85

17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26

1.05

θ

0.95

0.9

0.85

17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26

v

Figure 2.9: Phase diagram for a coast phase that starts too late or too soon for a steep downhill section.

Chapter 2. Optimal journeys 28

2.5 Summary

We have used Pontryagin’s principle to show that an optimal journey has only four distinct

driving modes: power, hold, coast and brake. Furthermore, the necessary conditions for an

optimal journey limit the possible transitions between driving modes. For simple journeys,

the sequence of driving modes is power-hold-coast-brake. For more complicated journeys,

with many steep sections, it is not obvious that there is a unique optimal control strategy.

In Part II of the thesis, we will examine the necessary conditions and the uniqueness for an

optimal journey in more detail.

We can use the (v, θ) phase plot to visualise optimal journeys. In Part III of the thesis we

will examine the relationship between v and θ in more detail.

Chapter 3

On a flat track, the optimal strategy has four phases: power, hold, coast and brake. This

simple strategy is also optimal on undulating track, provided that the track does not contain

gradients that are so steep that the train cannot maintain the holding speed V . In this chapter

we will define what is meant by steep track. We will also introduce the idea of a limiting

speed for a constant gradient and a constant power level. In Parts II and III of the thesis

we will show that if a holding phase is interrupted by a steep section of track, the optimal

strategy must be modified.

A non-level track gradient exerts a longitudinal force on the train. In much of this thesis,

we will assume that the track gradient is a piecewise constant function of distance, and so

the force per unit mass exerted by the track and the corresponding gradient acceleration, are

also a piecewise constant function of distance. Gradient acceleration is positive for downhill

gradients, and negative for uphill gradients.

29

Chapter 3. Steep hills and limiting speeds 30

Suppose the optimal hold speed for a journey is V . If the train is unable to maintain speed V

on a section of track even if full power is applied we say the section is steep uphill at speed

V.

V V

If train speed increases above the optimal speed V on a section of track even when no power

is applied we say the section is steep downhill relative to V .

V V

dv P

v = + γ − r(v).

dx v

Chapter 3. Steep hills and limiting speeds 31

If the track is steep at speed V the train speed decreases. That is,

P

+ γ − r(V ) < 0 =⇒ V r(V ) − γV > P.

V

ϕ(V ) − γV > P.

Note that steepness of a section depends on the holding speed as well as on the gradient.

A gradient that is steep uphill at some speed V 1 may not be steep uphill at a lower speed

V2 < V1 . Note also that for vary high speeds, a downhill gradient could be classified as

‘steep uphill’.

dv

v = γ − r(v).

dx

If the track is steep downhill at speed V then train speed increases. That is,

A gradient that is steep downhill at some speed V 1 may not be steep downhill at a higher

speed V2 > V1 .

On a track with piecewise constant gradient, a track interval [x1 , x2 ] of constant gradient is

said to be steep at speed V if the gradient acceleration γ on the interval is steep at speed V .

Chapter 3. Steep hills and limiting speeds 32

dient

Definition 3.2.1 The limiting speed VL = VL (p0 , γ) of a train driving with constant power

p0 ∈ [0, P ] on a gradient γ is determined by the equation

ϕ(VL) + γVL = p0 .

Limiting speed

v

Speed profile

Lemma 3.2.2 Let VL (p0 , γ) be the limiting speed for a train applying power p 0 on a section

[a, b] of track with constant gradient acceleration γ.

If v(a) > VL (p0 , γ) then v(x) > VL (p0 , γ) throughout the interval and v(x) decreases toward

the limiting value. If v(a) < VL (p0 , γ) then v(x) < V )L(p0 , γ) throughout the interval and

v(x) increases towards the limiting value.

The speed of a train on an interval [a, b] with constant gradient acceleration γ and power

p = p0 approaches the limiting speed VL (p0 , γ).

We can show that it is not possible for any phase with power p 0 to cross the limiting speed

on a track interval [a, b] with gradient acceleration γ by calculating the distance required to

Chapter 3. Steep hills and limiting speeds 33

v(c) < VL (p0 , γ)

v 2 dξ

x(v) − xc = .

vc p0 − ϕ(v) + γv

Assume that p0 − ϕ(v) + γv > 0. As v ↑ VL (p0 , γ) we have x(v) ↑ +∞. Hence

v(c) > VL (p0 , γ)

v 2 dξ

x(v) − xc = .

vc ϕ(v) − γv − p0

As v ↓ VL we have x(v) ↑ +∞. This means that

3.3 Conclusion

A gradient acceleration γ is said to be steep uphill at speed V if the train has insufficient

power to maintain speed V on the gradient. A gradient is said to be steep downhill at speed

V if v increases while coasting from speed V . The limiting speed V L (p0 , γ) for a constant

power and a constant gradient acceleration γ is the speed at which the applied power p 0 gives

dv/dx = 0.

Chapter 4

non-steep track

In this chapter we show that the optimal driving strategy on a non-steep track is unique.

First we show that for each optimal final coast phase there is a unique holding speed V .

Next we consider the optimal control of a train as it coasts and then brakes to a stop on

a non-steep track, and prove the uniqueness of the optimal coast and brake phases using

an infinitesimal perturbation analysis. A proof of uniqueness for level tracks was given by

Cheng and Howlett in [10]. Khmelnitsky [33] argues that the optimal strategy is unique

under more general conditions. However it is not clear that these conditions are always true

and his method has not been useful for numerical calculations in real time control.

We then show that on a non-steep track the entire optimal strategy is completely determined

by the holding speed, and that increasing the holding speed implies increasing the speed at

every point. This means that for a fixed total journey time there is only one corresponding

strategy of optimal type that arrives at the final destination on time. It follows that the optimal

strategy is unique for each holding speed.

34

Chapter 4. Uniqueness of the optimal strategy on a non-steep track 35

dv P

v = − r(v) + g(x) (4.1)

dx v

dv

v = −r(v) + g(x) (4.2)

dx

dv

v = −Q − r(v) + g(x) (4.3)

dx

for full brake Q during a brake phase. We assume that the track gradient is non-steep, so

that the speed of the train is strictly increasing during a power phase and strictly decreasing

during coast and brake phases.

In Section 2.2.2 we showed that for a journey on non-steep track starting at x = 0 and v = 0

and finishing at x = X and v = 0, there are only two control sequences that can satisfy the

necessary conditions for an optimal journey: power–coast–brake and power–hold–coast–

brake. Figure 4.1 shows optimal journeys for hold speeds V ∈ {15, 20, 25, 30, 40, . . . , 120}

on a non-steep track. For each of the journeys, the power phase starts at x = 0 and the brake

finishes at X = 12000. For journeys with V ∈ {15, 20, 25} we can find a coast phase that

starts with v = V and θ = 1 and finishes on the braking curve with θ = 0. For journeys with

higher hold speeds, no such coast phase can be found and instead, the coast phase must start

from the power phase with v < V and θ = 1 and finish on the braking curve with θ = 0. For

both types of journeys, as the hold speed increases, the length of the coast phase decreases

and the journey time decreases.

In the more usual case of a power–hold–coast–brake strategy with a given hold speed, V ,

the train powers from speed v = 0 to the hold speed, v = V . Two control decisions remain:

when to change from hold to coast, and when to change from coast to brake. In Section 4.2

Chapter 4. Uniqueness of the optimal strategy on a non-steep track 36

40

35

30

25

v 20

15

10

0

0 2000 4000 6000 8000 10000 12000 14000

x

Figure 4.1: Optimal journeys for different hold speed V on a non-steep track.

below, we will show that there is only one coast–brake trajectory that starts with v = V and

finishes at x = X with v = 0 and satisfies the necessary conditions for an optimal journey.

Since the only two decisions are when to start coasting and when to start braking, the optimal

journey for a power–hold–coast– brake strategy with hold speed V is unique.

For sufficiently short journey times, a power–hold–coast–brake strategy is not feasible. In-

stead, we must use a power–coast–brake strategy. There is only one power–coast–brake

journey that satisfies the distance and time constraints, and so we do not need to use the ad-

joint equations and the necessary conditions. However, the power–coast–brake journey will

have θ = 1 at the start to the coast phase and θ = 0 at the end of the coast phase for some

hold speed V that is greater than the speed at which coasting begins.

For journeys where the required journey time is less than the time required by a power–brake

strategy, no feasible strategy exists.

Chapter 4. Uniqueness of the optimal strategy on a non-steep track 37

From (2.19) in Chapter 2, the adjoint equation for the system during coasting and braking is

dθ ψ(v) ψ(V )

= 3 θ− 3 (4.4)

dx v v

where V is the holding speed for the journey. The necessary conditions for an optimal

journey require the coast phase to start with θ = 1 and finish with θ = 0. The brake phase

starts with θ = 0 and finishes with v = 0.

We will assume that the final coast phase for the optimal journey starts with v = V C and

θ = 1, and finishes with v = VB and θ = 0. The following theorem states that there is a

unique hold speed V associated with an optimal final coast phase.

Theorem 4.2.1 For a given optimal coast phase that starts with x = x C , v = VC and θ = 1,

and finishes with v = VB and θ = 0, there is a unique hold speed V associated with that

optimal coast phase.

Proof:

Let xC be the starting point for the coast phase with v(x C ) = VC and θ(xC ) = 1, and let xB

be the finishing point for the coast phase with v(x B ) = VB and θ(xB ) = 0. Integrating the

adjoint equation (4.4) from xC to xB gives

xB

ψ(v) ψ(V )

−1 = θ − 3 dx. (4.5)

xC v3 v

If V = 0 then the right hand side of (4.5) is positive. If V = ∞ then the right hand side of

(4.5) is negative.

Let

ψ(v) ψ(V )

f (v, V ) = 3

θ− 3 .

v v

Chapter 4. Uniqueness of the optimal strategy on a non-steep track 38

Since θ > 0 and ∂f /∂V < 0 for all v then there must exist a unique value of V ∈ [0, ∞)

that satisfies equation (4.5).

We now wish to show that the final coast and brake phases for an optimal power–hold–coast–

brake journey are unique. In this case the coast phase starts with V C = V .

Theorem 4.2.2 On a non-steep track, for given hold speed V there is exactly one coast–

brake strategy for which the coast phase starts with speed V and θ = 1 and finishes with

θ = 0, and for which the brake phase finishes at x = X with v = 0. In other words, if two

optimal speed profiles v and w have holding speeds V < W then they also have braking

speeds VB < WB .

Proof:

Consider the uniquely defined braking curve v = vB (x) for x ≤ X that satisfies the equation

dv

v = −Q − r(v) + g(x)

dx

with v(X) = 0. Choose a speed VB > 0 and define xB < X such that vB (xB ) = VB . The

point xB is unique because v decreases during braking. Let v = vC (x) for x ≤ xB be the

uniquely defined coasting curve satisfying the equation

dv

v = −r(v) + g(x)

dx

with v(xB ) = VB . Finally suppose that for some V > VB we can find a point xC such that

vC (xC ) = V and vC (x) < V when xC < x ≤ xB . The point xC is also unique since speed

decreases during coasting. We define a composite speed profile v = v (x) by setting

⎧

⎪

⎪ v (x) for xC ≤ x ≤ xB

⎪

⎨ C

v (x) =

⎪

⎪

⎪

⎩ v (x) for x ≤ x ≤ X.

B B

The composite speed profile is shown in Figure 4.2. If the composite speed profile is the

Chapter 4. Uniqueness of the optimal strategy on a non-steep track 39

v v
+ G v

V

W

v

VB G VB

VB

xC xW xVB +G VB xB x

coast–brake phase for an optimal strategy then θ = θ (x) must satisfy the equation

dθ r (v (x)) V 2 r (V )

− θ = (−1)

dx v (x) v (x)3

with θ(xC ) = 1 and θ(xB ) = 0. Now consider an infinitesimal perturbation analysis. Sup-

pose VB is increased to VB + δVB and define xVB +δVB < xB such that vB (xVB +δVB ) =

VB + δVB . Let v = [vC + δvC ](x) for x ≤ xVB +δVB be the uniquely defined coasting curve

satisfying the equation

dv

v = −r(v) + g(x)

dx

with v(xVB +δVB ) = VB + δVB . Finally, define a composite speed profile v = [v + δv](x) by

setting ⎧

⎪

⎪ [v + δvC ](x) for x ≤ xVB +δVB

⎪

⎨ C

[v + δv](x) =

⎪

⎪

⎪

⎩ v (x)

B for xVB +δVB ≤ x ≤ X.

Now we define θ = [θ + δθ](x) as the unique solution to the differential equation

(θ∗ + δθ) − θ = (−1)

dx [v + δv](x) [v + δv](x)3

with θ(xVB +δVB ) = 0. By applying a first order Maclaurin series approximation this equation

Chapter 4. Uniqueness of the optimal strategy on a non-steep track 40

can be rewritten as

d r (v ) r (v ) r (v ) r (v∗ )

[θ + δθ] − + − δv θ − δθ

dx v v v 2 v∗

ψ(V ) ψ (V )δV 3ψ(V )

= (−1) 3

+ 3

− δv

v∗ v∗ v∗4

and since

dθ r (v (x)) ψ(V )

− θ = (−1)

dx v (x) v (x)3

it follows that

d δθ r (v ) r (v ) r (v ) 3ψ(V ) ψ (V )

− δθ = − θ (x) + δv(x) − δV (4.6)

dx v v v 2 v 4 v∗3

the unique solution to (v ∗ + δv)(x) = W , as shown in Figure 4.2. If we write

r (v ) r (v∗ ) 3ψ(V ) ψ (V )

m(x) = θ − θ∗ + δv − δV (4.7)

v v 2 v∗4 v∗3

then because ψ(v) = v 2 r (v) is an increasing function of v and v∗ (x) ≤ V and θ (x) < 1 in

the region xC < x ≤ xVB +δVB it follows that

r (v∗ ) 2ψ(V ) ψ (V )

m(x) ≥ θ∗ + δv − δV

v∗ v∗4 v∗3

r (v∗ ) 2ψ(v∗ ) ψ (V )

≥ θ∗ + δv − δV

v∗ v∗4 v∗3

1

≥ 3 [ψ (v∗ )θ∗ δv − ψ (V )δV ]

v∗

> 0 (4.8)

for xC < x ≤ xVB +δVB if δV < 0. The integrating factor for (4.6) is

xV +δV

B B r (v (ξ))

I(x) = exp (−1) dξ

x v∗ (ξ)

d

[I(x)δθ(x)] = I(x)m(x)

dx

Chapter 4. Uniqueness of the optimal strategy on a non-steep track 41

xVB +δVB

I(xVB +δVB )δθ(xVB +δVB ) − I(x)δθ(x) = I(ξ)m(ξ)dξ.

x

xVB +δVB

I(x)δθ(x) = (−1) I(ξ)m(ξ)dξ

x

and hence that δθ(x) < 0 for xC ≤ x ≤ xVB +δVB . We conclude that [θ + δθ](x) < 1 for

xC ≤ x ≤ xVB +δVB and so the optimal control associated with the trajectory [θ + δθ] does

not change in the interval [xC , xVB +δVB ]. In particular, it cannot change at xW , and so we

have a contradiction. Hence if [v + δv](x) is part of an optimal strategy then it must be asso-

ciated with a holding speed W > V . In other words, if the optimal braking speed increases

then the optimal holding speed also increases. The linear perturbation analysis is justified by

the uniform convergence of δv(x) → 0 on xW ≤ x ≤ xVB +δVB as δVB approaches 0.

For a power–coast–brake journey the final coast phase does not start with v = V but with

v = VC < V . From Section 2.2.2 we know that on non-steep track a change to coast

requires VC ≤ V . In this case, we want to show that if the braking speed V B increases then

the coasting speed VC also increases.

Theorem 4.2.3 On a non-steep track, for a given holding speed V there is exactly one coast-

brake strategy for which the coast phase starts with speed V C ≤ V and θ = 1 and finishes

with θ = 0, and for which the brake phase finishes at x = X with v = 0.

The proof of this theorem is similar to the proof of Theorem 4.2.2. Since V C < V and

v∗ (x) < VC on a non-steep track then the statement (4.8) in the proof of Theorem 4.2.2 is

still valid for the case when the train starts coasting from V C < V . Thus we can obtain a

similar conclusion to Theorem 4.2.2, that is if [v ∗ + δv](x) is part of an optimal strategy then

it must be associated with a coasting speed V C + δVC > VC . Hence if VB increases then VC

increases.

Chapter 4. Uniqueness of the optimal strategy on a non-steep track 42

V WB

VB

a x1 x2 x3 x 4 x5 x6 b

Using the proof from the previous section, we can show that the optimal journey is unique.

Lemma 4.3.1 Let V and W be holding speeds of optimal driving strategies v(x) and w(x)

on a non-steep track over the interval [a, b]. If

V <W

then

v(x) ≤ w(x)

There are two types of optimal journey: power–hold–coast–brake for long journeys, and

power–coast–brake for short journeys. We need to show that w(x) ≥ v(x) for the power,

coast and brake phases.

for two optimal journeys with hold speeds V and W as shown in Figure 4.3. For the power

Chapter 4. Uniqueness of the optimal strategy on a non-steep track 43

dv 1 P

= − r(v) + g(x) (4.9)

dx v v

dw 1 P

= − r(w) + g(x)

dx w w

with w(a) = 0. Since v(a) = w(a) then by Picard’s uniqueness theorem the solutions of the

two differential equations are the same. At the end of the respective power phases we have

where x1 < x2 . On [a, x1 ] we have v(x) = w(x). On [x1 , x2 ] we have v(x) = V ≤ w(x). So

v(x) ≤ w(x) on [a, x2 ].

Now consider the brake phases of the two journeys. The equation of motion during a brake

phase is

dv

v = −Q − r(v) + g(x). (4.10)

dx

Let VB and WB be the respective braking speeds of the two strategies. Since the two strate-

gies stop at the same location x = b, this means v(b) = w(b) = 0. By Picard’s uniqueness

theorem the two brake phases follow the same braking curve. If we have VB ≥ WB then by

Theorem 4.2.2 we must have V ≥ W . This contradicts our assumption that V < W , and so

we must have VB < WB .

Now consider the coast phase. The speed profile is the solution of the differential equation

dv

v = −r(v) + g(x). (4.11)

dx

We know that for a power–hold–coast–brake journey the two strategies start coasting at

speeds V and W respectively and change into braking at V B and WB respectively. Since

V < W then VB < WB , and so x5 < x6 where x6 and x5 are the locations where the train

starts braking for the strategy of V and of W respectively.

Chapter 4. Uniqueness of the optimal strategy on a non-steep track 44

W v( x3 )

v( x4 )

V

WB

VB

x4 x3 x5 x6 b

Figure 4.4: Speed profiles of two optimal journeys on a non-steep track, coast and brake phases.

w( x3 )

W w( x4 )

V

v( x4 ) WB

VB

x3 x4 x5 x6 b

Figure 4.5: Speed profiles of two optimal journeys on a non-steep track, coast and brake phases.

Let x4 and x3 be locations where coast phase starts for the optimal journey with hold speeds

V and W respectively.

If x3 > x4 then it is obvious (see Figure 4.4) that v(x) < w(x) in [x 3 , x4 ]. So by Picard’s

theorem we also have v(x) < w(x) in [x3 , x6 ]. Hence v(x) < w(x) during the coast phase.

If x3 < x4 then in the interval [x3 , x4 ], we may have two cases. If V < w(x4 ) (see Figure 4.5)

then using the argument similar to the one above, we have v(x) < w(x) for x ∈ [x 3 , x6 ).

If V ≥ w(x4 ) (see Figure 4.6) then by Picard’s theorem for the interval [x4 , x5 ] we must

have v(x5 ) ≥ UW which leads to UV > UW . That contradicts Theorem 4.2.2. Therefore

v(x) < w(x) in [x3 , x6 ].

Chapter 4. Uniqueness of the optimal strategy on a non-steep track 45

W

V

w( x4 )

VB

WB

x3 x4 x5 x6 b

Figure 4.6: Speed profiles of two optimal journeys on a non-steep track, coast and brake phases. This

situation, where the two speed profiles cross, cannot occur.

WC

VC

WB

VB

0 x1 x2 x3 x4 X

and WC be the coasting speeds, and v(x) and w(x) be the speed profiles of the journeys with

holding speeds V < W respectively. The speed profiles of the two journeys are illustrated in

Figure 4.7.

Let x3 be the unique location with w(x3 ) = WB and let x4 be the unique location with

v(x4 ) = VB . By Theorem 4.2.2 V < W =⇒ VB < WB . Since there is a unique brake

curve which v = 0 at x = X and speed decreases during a brake phase then x3 < x4 .

Chapter 4. Uniqueness of the optimal strategy on a non-steep track 46

Because v(x4 ) = w(x4 ) and dv/dx > dw/dx on [x3 , x4 ], it follows that v(x) ≤ w(x) on

[x3 , x4 ].

Similarly, let x1 be the unique location with w(x2 ) = WC and let x1 be the unique location

with v(x1 ) = VC . By Theorem 4.2.3 if VB < WB then VC < WC . Since there is also a

unique power curve with v = 0 at x = 0 and speed increases during a power phase then

x1 < x2 . Because v(x1 ) = w(x1 ) and dv/dx < dw/dx we have v(x) ≤ w(x) on [x1 , x2 ].

By Picard’s theorem, v(x) < w(x) for x ∈ [x2 , x3 ] because v(x2 ) < w(x2 ). Therefore

v(x) < w(x) at every point in the journey.

We have shown that v(x) ≤ w(x) if v and w are power–hold–coast–brake strategies, and that

v(x) ≤ w(x) if v and w are power–coast–brake strategies. Consider Figure 4.8, where each

optimal speed profile vi has corresponding holding speed V i . We have shown that V1 < V2

and that V4 < V5 . The critial speed profile v3 with holding speed V3 is both a power–coast–

brake strategy with V3 < V4 and a power–hold–coast–brake strategy with zero length hold

phase and with V2 < V3 . Hence V2 < V3 < V4 .

4.4 Examples

Example 4.4.1 A train travels on a non-steep track with different holding speeds V ∈

{20, 22, 24} and stops at X = 12000. The track elevation profile is defined by function

1

y= 100

(cos (x/1000) + sin (x/800)). Power P = 3 and braking force Q = 0.3.

To find an optimal journey we need to find an optimal point x h where the train switches to

speedhold and an optimal point x c where the train changes to coast. To find the optimal point

xh we solve equation

dx v2

=

dv P − v[r(v) + g(x)]

Chapter 4. Uniqueness of the optimal strategy on a non-steep track 47

35

v5

30 v

4

25 v

3

20

v

2

v1

15

10

0

0 2000 4000 6000 8000 10000 12000 14000

Figure 4.8: The optimal speed profile v3 has holdspeed phase length of 0.

from v = 0 to v = V . We use the midpoint method to find x c for which the coast and brake

phases start with v = V , θ = 1 and finish with v = 0 at x = X. Figure 4.9 shows the optimal

speed profiles for the three different holding speeds, and hence three different journey times.

Example 4.4.2 We find speed profiles of three short journeys on a track with continuous

non-steep gradient function and stopping at X = 6000. The gradient function and train

parameters used in this example are the same as those in Example 4.4.1. The holding speeds

are {20, 22, 24} although these journeys do not have a speedhold phase.

For power–coast–brake journeys, we do not know speeds at which coasting should com-

mence. We use the midpoint method to find the point (x c , vc ) on the power curve for which

the optimal coast and brake phases finish at x = X. Figure 4.10 shows optimal speed profiles

for three different hold speeds.

Chapter 4. Uniqueness of the optimal strategy on a non-steep track 48

24

22

20

15

v

10

5

0

0 2000 4000 6000 8000 10000 12000

x

Figure 4.9: Speed profiles of journeys with different hold speeds {20, 22, 24}.

25

20

15

v

10

5

0

0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000

x

Figure 4.10: Speed profiles of journeys with different hold speeds {20, 22, 24}.

Chapter 4. Uniqueness of the optimal strategy on a non-steep track 49

4.5 Conclusion

We have used perturbation analysis to prove the uniqueness of the final coast and brake

phases of an optimal journey for a train on a non-steep track. We then used this result to

show that there is a unique optimal power–hold–coast–brake strategy for long journeys and a

unique optimal power–coast–brake strategy for short journeys. Finally, we have shown that

if v is the optimal speed profile with holding speed V and w is the optimal speed profile with

holding speed W , then V ≤ W implies v ≤ w.

In parts II and III of the thesis we will consider changes to the form of the optimal strategy

when there are steep hills.

Part II

driving strategies

50

Chapter 5

gradient

The optimal journey for a long journey on a non-steep track has four phases: an initial power

phase, a long speed holding phase, a coast phase and a final brake phase. The majority of the

journey is speed holding.

On a track with steep gradients, it becomes necessary to vary the strategy around steep sec-

tions of track because it is not possible to hold a constant speed on steep track. In this chapter

we consider the optimal control when the speed holding phase is interrupted by a single steep

uphill section. For simplicity we assume the track gradient is piecewise constant, and com-

prises a non-steep gradient, a steep uphill gradient, and another non-steep gradient.

It is not possible to hold speed on the steep uphill section. Instead, we must interrupt the

speed hold phase with a power phase that starts somewhere before the steep section and

finishes somewhere beyond the steep section. The aim of this chapter is to show that there

is a unique power phase that satisfies the necessary conditions for an optimal journey. We

formulate the problem of finding the optimal power phase, and present a new condition for

51

Chapter 5. Hold-power-hold for a single steep uphill gradient 52

optimality of the power phase that minimises the energy used during the power phase subject

to a weighted time penalty. We then derive key necessary conditions for an optimal power

phase, and prove that the optimal hold-power-hold phase exists and is unique.

In later chapters we will consider tracks where the non-steep and steep sections comprise

more than one gradient.

dv P

v = − r(v) + g(x) (5.1)

dx v

where P is the maximum power per unit mass, r(v) is the resistance force per unit mass and

g(x) is the gradient force per unit mass. The adjoint equation of the system, as defined in

equation (2.18) in Chapter 2, is

dθ ψ(v) + P P + ψ(V )

− 3

θ = (−1) (5.2)

dx v v3

where

ψ(v) = v 2 r (v) (5.3)

and v = v(x) is the solution to (5.1). From Chapter 2, we know that for an optimal journey

a change from hold to power and a change from power to hold each requires θ = 1. For

convenience, we define η = θ − 1, so that power starts and finishes at η = 0. From (5.2), the

modified adjoint equation is

dη ψ(v) + P ψ(v) − ψ(V )

− η = . (5.4)

dx v3 v3

Suppose the optimal holding speed for the entire journey is V . Howlett [20] and Howlett and

Leizarowitz [22] show that when the hold phase for an optimal journey is interrupted by a

steep uphill section, the optimal control requires a power phase that starts before the start of

Chapter 5. Hold-power-hold for a single steep uphill gradient 53

V V

p b c q

the steep section and finishes beyond the steep section. During this power phase, the speed

of the train increases from the hold speed V before the start of the steep section, decreases to

below speed V on the steep section, and returns to speed V after the steep section. Intuitively,

we want to keep the ”average“ speed of the train during the power phase the same as the

holding speed for the overall journey. Figure 5.1 indicates the problem: we want to find

an optimal point p at which to start the power phase so that speed increases before the start

of the steep section at b, decreases through speed V on the steep uphill interval [b, c], and

increases back to speed V at some point q beyond the steep section.

θ=1⇔η=0

and

dθ dη

=0⇔ =0

dx dx

Chapter 5. Hold-power-hold for a single steep uphill gradient 54

at x = p and x = q. Let v0 (x) be the optimal speed profile. Integrating the modified adjoint

equation

dη ψ(v) + P ψ(v0 ) − ψ(V )

− 3

η= (5.5)

dx v0 v03

over [p, q] gives q

ψ(v0 ) − ψ(V )

Ip (x)dx = 0 (5.6)

p v03

where the integrating factor Ip (x) is defined for x ∈ [p, q] by the formula

x

ψ(v0 ) + P

Ip (x) = C exp − dξ . (5.7)

p v03

Equation (5.6) for p < b < c < q was used by Howlett [20] as a standard necessary condition

to specify the optimal power phase on a steep uphill section. We will use a variational

argument to find an alternative necessary condition.

If the speed changes from the optimal profile v0 (x) by an infinitesimal increment to a new

profile (v0 + δv)(x) then the equation for the new profile is

d(v0 + δv) P

(v0 + δv) = − r(v0 + δv) + g(x). (5.8)

dx v0 + δv

By applying a Maclaurin series expansion, subtracting the original equation (5.5) for v 0 and

neglecting second and higher order terms we obtain the perturbation equation

dv0 dδv P

δv + v0 = (−1) 2 + r (v0 ) δv. (5.9)

dx dx v0

We call δv a first order variation of the speed. The equation for the first order variation is

derived rigorously on page 163 of the book by Birkhoff and Rota [5]. For convenience the

relevant details are presented in Appendix A. If we rewrite (5.9) in the form

d P + ψ(v0 )

(v0 δv) = (−1) (v0 δv). (5.10)

dx v03

Chapter 5. Hold-power-hold for a single steep uphill gradient 55

q

ψ(v0 ) − ψ(V )

· δv · dx = 0

p v02

or q

−ψ(V )

+ r (v0 ) · δv · dx = 0 (5.11)

p v02

where δv = δv(x) is the first order variation. This is an alternative necessary condition for

the optimal power phase on a steep uphill section. The expression (5.11) takes the form of a

first order variation for an integral cost function. Suppose we define

q

ψ(V )

J0 (v) = + r(v) dx. (5.12)

p v

We have the following result.

q

ψ(V )

J0 (v) = + r(v) dx

p v

where p < b < c < q are chosen so that v(p) = v(q) = V . A necessary condition for a

minimum of J0 is

q

−ψ(V )

2

+ r (v) · δv · dx + (δq − δp)ϕ (V ) = 0

p v

where δv is the first order variation and where δp and δq are chosen to satisfy

Proof:

q0

ψ(V )

J0 (v0 ) = + r(v0 ) dx. (5.13)

p0 v0

Chapter 5. Hold-power-hold for a single steep uphill gradient 56

If we consider a small variation δv(x) to the optimal speed profile and let v = v 0 + δv, we

obtain

q0 +δq

ψ(V )

J0 (v0 + δv) = + r(v0 + δv) dx (5.14)

p0 +δp v0 + δv

where δp and δq are chosen so that the value of the function v0 + δv at the points p0 + δp and

q0 + δq is equal to V . Using a Taylor series expansion we can write (5.14) in form

q0 +δq

ψ(V )

J0 (v0 + δv) = + r(v0 ) dx

p0 +δp v0

q0 +δq

∂ ψ(V )

+ + r(v0 ) δv · dx + O(δv 2 )

p0 +δp ∂v v0

q0 q0 +δq

ψ(V ) ψ(V )

= + r(v0 ) dx + + r(v0 ) dx

p0 v0 q0 v0

p0 +δp q0

ψ(V ) ∂ ψ(V )

− + r(v0 ) dx + + r(v0 ) δv · dx

p0 v0 p0 ∂v v0

q0 +δq

ψ(V )

+ + r(v0 ) δv · dx

q0 v0

p0 +δp

ψ(V )

− + r(v0 ) δv · dx + O(δv 2 )

p0 v0

q0

−ψ(V )

+ 2

+ r (v0 ) δv · dx + O(δv 2 )

(5.15)

p0 v0

where we have rewritten ψ(v)/v + r(v) = ϕ (v). By subtracting (5.13) and neglecting the

second order quantities, we have the perturbed equation

q0

ψ(V )

δJ0 (v0 ) = (δq − δp)ϕ (V ) + − 2 + r (v0 ) · δv · dx (5.16)

p0 v0

Chapter 5. Hold-power-hold for a single steep uphill gradient 57

for the infinitesimal variation of the functional J. In order to have (5.13) as a local minimum

of (5.14) we need to have

δJ0 = 0. (5.17)

However what we really wanted was to find a functional where the minimum is defined by

condition (5.11). Thus we modify our original proposal (5.12) for the cost functional.

where p < b < c < q are chosen so that v(p) = v(q) = V . A necessary condition for a

minimum of J is q

−ψ(V )

+ r (v) · δv · dx = 0

p v2

where δv is the first order variation of v.

Proof:

q0 +δq

ψ(V )

= + r(v0 + δv) dx − [(q0 + δq) − (p0 + δp)]ϕ (V ).

p0 +δp v0 + δv

Note that δp and δq are chosen in the same way as the previous proof. If we write v = v0 +δv,

p = p0 + δp and q = q0 + δq then we have

q

ψ(V )

J(v) = + r(v) − ϕ (V ) dx. (5.18)

p v

Chapter 5. Hold-power-hold for a single steep uphill gradient 58

q0 +δq

ψ(V )

= + r(v0 + δv) − ϕ (V ) dx

p0 +δp v0 + δv

q0

ψ(V )

− + r(v0 ) − ϕ (V ) dx

p0 v0

q0

ψ(V )

= − 2 + r (v0 ) · δv · dx + O(δv 2).

p0 v0

q

From equation (5.11) it follows that p00 [−ψ(V )/v02 + r (v0 )] · δv · dx = 0. Hence the

optimal speed profile v0 (x) that satisfies the necessary condition for an optimal journey also

minimises the functional J 0 (v).

q

ψ(V ) ψ(V )

J(v, V ) = + r(v) − + r(V ) dx

p v V

q q

ψ(V ) ψ(V )

= dx − (q − p) + [r(v) − r(V )]dx

p v V p

q

q−p

= ψ(V ) (tq − tp ) − + [r(v) − r(V )] dx. (5.19)

V p

V

on the right

hand side of (5.19) is the time taken by a train with speed profile v = v(x) to power from p to

q

q, less the time taken to travel from p to q at constant speed V . The term p [r(v) − r(V )] dx

is the extra energy spent to overcome resistance in the power mode compared to the speed

hold mode. So J is a combined measure of the time taken and the energy spent during the

power mode. If the time taken is low, energy used will be high. Conversely, if the energy used

is low, time taken will be high. The optimal power phase that minimises J is a compromise

between time and energy.

Chapter 5. Hold-power-hold for a single steep uphill gradient 59

Note that the overall problem is to minimise energy usage subject to a time constraint. For

an individual steep incline the local condition that defines the power phase is to minimise

energy usage subject to an appropriately weighted time penalty.

Our next theoretical task is to prove that the minimum value of J is unique. Before we do

that, we illustrate the results with a numerical calculation.

In our example we use P = 3, driving over a constant gradient hill g = −0.2. The steep

section starts at 5000 and ends at 6000. The resistance parameters are

Previously, Howlett [20] has used a shooting method to find a strategy that meets the neces-

sary conditions (2.18) described in Chapter 2. Using this method, the optimal starting point

is calculated as 4158. Calculating J for various starting points confirms that a minimum of

J occurs at point 4158 as seen in Figure 5.2.

Suppose a train is powering on a steep uphill section [b, c]. The gradient function is defined

as ⎧

⎪

⎪

⎪

⎪ γ0 if x ∈ [p, b)

⎪

⎨

g(x) = γ1

⎪ if x ∈ [b, c] (5.20)

⎪

⎪

⎪

⎪

⎩γ2 if x ∈ (c, q] .

The gradient accelerations γ0 and γ2 could be either positive or negative but we assume they

are not steep. We assume γ1 is steep at hold speed V .

Theorem 5.3.3 The necessary conditions for minimising the cost function (5.18) for a train

travelling on the section defined in (5.20) are

Chapter 5. Hold-power-hold for a single steep uphill gradient 60

1.4932

1.4932

1.4932

1.4932

1.4932

1.4931

4152 4154 4156 4158 4160 4162 4164

starting points

and

[P − ϕ(vc ) + γ2 vc ]µ = [ϕ(vc ) − ϕ (V )vc + ψ(V )](γ2 − γ1 )

µ = λ − (ϕ (V ) − γ1 ).

Proof:

dv P

v = − r(v) + g(x) (5.21)

dx v

with v(p) = v(q) = V . We choose the starting point p with p < b and v(p) = V and then

find q < c such that v(q) = V . By separating the variables in (5.21) and integrating we

obtain vb

v 2 dv

p=b− (5.22)

V P − v[r(v) − γ0 ]

Chapter 5. Hold-power-hold for a single steep uphill gradient 61

where vb is the speed of the train at the bottom of the steep section, and

V

v 2 dv

q =c+ (5.23)

vc P − v[r(v) − γ2 ]

where vc is the speed of the train at the crest of the steep section. If we integrate (5.21) from

b to c then we have vb

v 2 dv

c−b= . (5.24)

vc v[r(v) − γ1 ] − P

Integrating both sides of (5.21) from p to b gives

b b

1 2 1 2 P

v − V = dx − r(v)dx + γ0 (b − p). (5.25)

2 b 2 p v p

c c

1 2 1 2 P

v − v = dx − r(v)dx + γ1 (c − b) (5.26)

2 c 2 b b v b

q q

1 2 1 2 P

V − vc = dx − r(v)dx + γ2 (q − c). (5.27)

2 2 c v c

q q

P

r(v)dx = dx + γ0 (b − p) + γ1 (c − b) + γ2 (q − c). (5.28)

p p v

q

ψ(V )

J0 = + r(v) − ϕ (V ) dx.

p v

q

dx

J0 = [ψ(V ) + P ] + γ0 (b − p) + γ1 (c − b)

p v (5.29)

+ γ2 (q − c) − ϕ (V )(q − p).

Chapter 5. Hold-power-hold for a single steep uphill gradient 62

⎧

⎪

⎪

vdv

if x ∈ [p, b)

⎪

⎪

⎪

⎪ P − v[r(v) − γ0 ]

⎪

⎪

⎪

⎪

⎪

⎪

⎪

⎨

1 −vdv

dx = if x ∈ [b, c] (5.30)

v ⎪

⎪ v[r(v) − γ1 ] − P

⎪

⎪

⎪

⎪

⎪

⎪

⎪

⎪

⎪

⎪

⎪

⎩

vdv

if x ∈ (c, q].

P − v[r(v) − γ2 ]

From (5.30) we define

q

dx

A(vb , vc ) = dv

v

p vb vb

vdv vdv

= +

V P − v[r(v) + γ0 ] vc v[r(v) + γ1 ] − P

V

vdv

+ . (5.31)

vc P − v[r(v) + γ2 ]

Hence using (5.22) and (5.23) we obtain

vb V

v 2 dv v 2 dv

+ γ0 + γ1 (c − b) + γ2

V P − v[r(v) − γ0 ] vc P − v[r(v) − γ2 ]

(5.32)

vb V

v 2 dv v 2 dv

− ϕ (V ) c − b + + .

V P − v[r(v) − γ0 ] vc P − v[r(v) − γ2 ]

We need to minimise J(vb , vc ) subject to

vb

v 2 dv

c−b= .

vc v[r(v) − γ1 ] − P

We define the Lagrangian function

vb

v 2 dv

J (vb , vc ) = J(vb , vc ) + λ c − b − (5.33)

vc v[r(v) − γ1 ] − P

where λ is the Lagrange multiplier. Applying the Karush-Kuhn-Tucker conditions we have

∂J ∂J

= 0 and =0

∂vb ∂vc

Chapter 5. Hold-power-hold for a single steep uphill gradient 63

vb

v 2 dv

λ c−b− = 0.

vc v[r(v) − γ1 ] − P

vb

v 2 dv

c−b ≤ (5.34)

vc v[r(v) − γ1 ] − P

then we can also guarantee that λ is non-negative and our solution is unchanged because the

control that minimises energy will not travel further than the required distance c − b.

So we have

∂J 1 1

= [ψ(V ) + P ]vb −

∂vb P − vb [vb (r) − γ0 ] P − vb [vb (r) − γ1 ]

ϕ (V ) − γ0 λ

−vb2 −

P − vb [vb (r) − γ0 ] P − vb [vb (r) − γ1 ]

=

(P − vb [vb (r) − γ0 ])(P − vb [vb (r) − γ1 ])

[ϕ (V ) − γ0 ](P − ϕ(vb ) + γ1 vb ) − λ(P − ϕ(vb ) + γ0 vb )

−vb2

(P − vb [vb (r) − γ0 ])(P − vb [vb (r) − γ1 ])

Chapter 5. Hold-power-hold for a single steep uphill gradient 64

Let

µ = λ − (ϕ (V ) − γ1 ). (5.38)

and

[P − ϕ(vc ) + γ2 vc ]µ = [ϕ(vc ) − LV (vc )](γ2 − γ1 ) (5.40)

where LV (v) = ϕ(V ) + ϕ (V )(v − V ). The line y = LV (v) is the tangent to the convex

curve y = ϕ(v). Equations (5.24), (5.39) and (5.40) are necessary conditions for an optimal

solution.

We now wish to show that µ > 0. Since γ0 and γ2 are non-steep gradient accelerations, we

have

P − ϕ(vb ) + γ0 vb > 0 (5.41)

and

P − ϕ(vc ) + γ2 vc > 0. (5.42)

Since ϕ(v) is convex and and LV (v) is the tangent to ϕ(v) at v = V it follows that

ϕ(v) − LV (v) ≥ 0.

Since γj − γ0 for j = 0, 2, we can use (5.39), (5.41) and (5.42) to conclude that µ is positive.

Chapter 5. Hold-power-hold for a single steep uphill gradient 65

and

ϕ(vc ) = Lµ,γ2 (vc ) (5.44)

where

(ϕ (V ) − γi)(γi − γ1 ) (ψ(V ) + P )(γi − γ1 )

Lµ,γi (v) = γi + vb + P −

µ + γi − γ1 µ + γi − γ1

for i = 0, 2. The right hand sides of (5.43) and (5.44) are linear functions. The straight line

y = Lµ,γ0 (v) passes through the fixed point

P + ψ(V ) [P + ψ(V )]γ0

P0 = ,P +

ϕ (V ) − γ0 ϕ (V ) − γ0

and the straight line y = Lµ,γ2 (v) passes through the fixed point

P + ψ(V ) [P + ψ(V )]γ2

P2 = ,P + .

ϕ (V ) − γ2 ϕ (V ) − γ2

Since ϕ(v) is convex, equations (5.43) and (5.44) each have at most two solutions for v.

The line y = LV (v) is the tangent to the curve y = ϕ(v) at the point v = V . Thus (5.43) and

(5.44) imply that vb = vc = V and the fixed points are on the common tangent.

Figure 5.3 shows the tangent y = LV (v) in purple, the line Lµ,γ0 in red and the line Lµ,γ2 in

green.

When µ > 0 the lines Lµ,γj (v) for each j = 0, 2 cut the curve y = ϕ(v) at two points v1,γi

and v2,γi with v1,γi < V < v2,γi for each i = 0, 2. Since vc < V < vb there is only one

possible solution to each equation.

(γi − γ1 )ϕ (V ) + γi µ

si (µ) = , for i = 0, 2.

γi − γ1 + µ

Chapter 5. Hold-power-hold for a single steep uphill gradient 66

y y M ( v) y LV (v)

x P

0

xP

2

vc V vb v

Since γi − γ1 > 0 and γi < 0 for then we can easily see that si is a monotone decreasing

function. So if µ increases the slopes of the two lines y = L µ,γ0 (v) and y = Lµ,γ2 (v)

decrease. It follows that the solution v b to the equation ϕ(vb ) = Lµ,γ0 (vb ) increases and the

solution vc to the equation ϕ(vc ) = Lµ,γ2 (vc ) decreases as shown in Figure 5.3. However

from the constraint (5.24) we can see if vb increases then vc also increases. Therefore there

is precisely one value of µ for which the necessary conditions (5.39), (5.40) and (5.24) are

satisfied. Thus the solution to equations (5.39), (5.40) and (5.24) is unique.

For an optimal strategy we must satisfy the conditions (5.24), (5.39) and (5.40). It is not easy

to solve this system explicitly so we use a numerical iteration. Given a value of v b we can

use (5.24) to calculate vc . Now we can calculate µ = M(vc ) from (5.40)

M(vc ) = . (5.45)

P − ϕ(vc ) + γ2 vc

If vb , vc and µ are optimal they must satisfy (5.39). That is, we require f (v b ) = 0 where

Chapter 5. Hold-power-hold for a single steep uphill gradient 67

f (vb ) = 0

where f is defined by (5.46) and vb is the speed at x = b, exists in its domain (V, v̄ b ).

Proof:

Since vc < V < vb , the possible upper bound v̄b for vb can be determined by setting vc = V

and using (5.24) to calculate the corresponding v b . Thus vb = v̄b is the solution to the

equation vb

v 2 dv

c−b= .

V v(r(v) − γ1) − P

The minimum possible value for v b is V and the domain of f (vb ) is (V, v̄b ). The speed profile

when vb = V is illustrated in Figure 5.4.

vb

V V

b c

We can prove the existence by observing that f is a continuous function of v b , and showing

that either f (V ) < 0 and f (v̄b ) > 0 or f (V ) > 0 and f (v̄b ) < 0 . First we need to check the

sign of the two ends of the range of vb . At vb = V we have

f (V ) = [P − ϕ(V ) + γ0 V ]M(vc ).

Chapter 5. Hold-power-hold for a single steep uphill gradient 68

P − ϕ(V ) + γ0 V > 0.

[ϕ(vc ) − LV (vc )](γ2 − γ1 )

M(vc ) = .

P − ϕ(vc ) + γ2 vc

Recall that γ2 is also non-steep gradient acceleration at speed v ≤ V . Since vc < V ,

P − ϕ(vc ) + γ2 vc > 0.

Note that the maximum speed at b, v̄ b might be greater than the limiting speed at b, v L (P, γ0).

If that is the case then we need to set v̄b = vL (P, γ0). Since

then

f (vL (P, γ0)) = −[ϕ(vL (P, γ0)) − LV (vL (P, γ0))](γ1 − γ0 ) < 0.

Therefore there exists at least one solution to f (v b ) = 0 in the interval vb ∈ (V, v̄b ).

unique. Consider

df (vb ) dM(vc ) dvc

= [P −ϕ(vb ) + γ0 vb ] · −(ϕ (vb ) −γ0 )M(vc ) −(γ0 −γ1 )(ϕ (vb ) −ϕ (V )).

dvb dvc dvb

(5.49)

Chapter 5. Hold-power-hold for a single steep uphill gradient 69

dM(vc ) ϕ (vc )[P + ψ(V ) − ϕ (V )vc ] − ϕ (V )[P − ϕ(vc )] − γ2 [ψ(V ) − ψ(vc )]

= (γ2 −γ1 ) .

dvc [P − ϕ(vc ) + γ2 vc ]2

(5.50)

The numerator N of (5.50) is

Let

π(v) = (ϕ (v) − γ2 )(ψ(V ) + P ) − (ϕ (V ) − γ2 )(ψ(v) + P ). (5.51)

dM π(vc )(γ2 − γ1 )

= . (5.52)

dvc [P − ϕ(vc ) + γ2 vc ]2

Since

ψ (v) = vϕ (v)

and

P > v[r(v) − γ2 ] = ϕ(v) − vγ2

and

vϕ (v) = ψ(v) + ϕ(v)

then we have

π (v) = ϕ (v)(ψ(V ) + P ) − (ϕ (V ) − γ2 )ψ (v)

= 0.

Chapter 5. Hold-power-hold for a single steep uphill gradient 70

Since π (v) > 0 and, from (5.51), π(V ) = 0 we can conclude that π(v) > 0 for v > V and

π(v) < 0 for v < V . Since vc < V then π(vc ) < 0. Hence using (5.52) we obtain

dM(vc )

< 0.

dvc

By differentiating (5.24) with respect to vc we have

vc2 vb2 dvb

= ·

ϕ(vc ) − γ1 vc − P ϕ(vb ) − γ1 vb − P dvc

and hence 2

dvc vb ϕ(vc ) − γ1 vc − P

= · > 0.

dvb vc ϕ(vb ) − γ1 vb − P

So the first term of (5.49) is

dM(vc ) dvc

[P − ϕ(vb ) + γ0 vb ] · < 0.

dvc dvb

Now consider

[ϕ(vc ) − LV (vc )](γ2 − γ1 )

M(vc ) = .

P − ϕ(vc ) + γ2 vc

Since ϕ(v) is convex then ϕ(vc ) − LV (vc ) > 0 . Hence M(vc ) > 0, and therefore the second

term of (5.49) is negative. Since vb > V and ϕ(v) is convex then

ϕ (vb ) > ϕ (V )

and so the last term of (5.49) is also negative. So from (5.49) we have

df (vb )

< 0.

dvb

Therefore, there is only one solution to the equation f (v b ) = 0.

We want to solve equations (5.24), (5.39) and (5.40) for v b , vc and µ. For convenience we

write them here again. They are

Chapter 5. Hold-power-hold for a single steep uphill gradient 71

and vb

v 2 dv

c−b=

vc v[r(v) − γ1 ] − P

respectively. From (5.39) we define the function f (vb ) by the formula

From the previous section, we know that f (V ) > 0 and f (v̄ b ) < 0, and that f is monotonic

decreasing. We can use a numerical method such as the Bisection Method [7] to find the

solution to f (vb ) = 0. For each candidate value of vb , we must calculate vc and µ before

we can evaluate f . The value for vc can be found using a numerical DE solver to solve the

equation of motion (5.24) forwards from (x = b, v = vb ) to x = c. The value for µ is

calculated using formula (5.45) which is derived from (5.40).

Evaluating f (v) requires many calculations. We could speed up the method by using the

regula falsi method or Brent’s method [7] to reduce the number of evaluations of f required.

5.6 Example

The non-steep and steep gradient accelerations are chosen based on limiting speeds as dis-

cussed in Chapter 3. The gradient acceleration γV is the gradient on which the train will

approach a limiting speed V under power. That is,

P

− r(V ) + γV = 0.

V

Therefore, we have

ϕ(V ) − P

γV = .

V

In our examples we use holding speed V = 20 and P = 3. The gradient acceleration that

gives speed V as a limiting speed is γ V = −0.1233. If γ < γV then the track is steep uphill.

Chapter 5. Hold-power-hold for a single steep uphill gradient 72

In this example we simulate a train powering over a constant gradient uphill section. This

section starts at x = 5000 and ends at x = 6000. The gradient of the track is

⎧

⎪

⎪

⎪

⎪ −0.075 if x < 5000

⎪

⎨

g(x) = −0.2 if x ∈ [5000, 6000] (5.55)

⎪

⎪

⎪

⎪

⎪

⎩−0.09 if x > 6000 .

First, we plotted f (vb ) for various vb ∈ [20, 24]. The left side of Figure 5.5 shows the result.

We then used the Bisection Method to find the solution to f (v b ) = 0. The optimal speed

profile is shown on the right of Figure 5.5.

24 24

23 23

22 22

21 21

v

b

20 20

19 19

18 18

17 17

−10 −5 0 5 4000 5000 6000 7000

f(vb) −3

x 10 distance

Chapter 5. Hold-power-hold for a single steep uphill gradient 73

p vb J f (vd )

3904.15 22.000000 1.5435219085 -0.00080804

4527.70 21.000000 1.6125591341 0.00120800

4238.99 21.500000 1.4985675595 0.00026211

4078.01 21.750000 1.4983069060 -0.00025739

4160.02 21.625000 1.4931503194 0.00000624

4119.40 21.687500 1.4943599371 -0.00012460

4139.81 21.656250 1.4934189882 -0.00005893

4149.94 21.640625 1.4932013580 -0.00002628

4154.98 21.632812 1.4931551063 -0.00001000

4157.50 21.628906 1.4931475411 -0.00000187

4158.76 21.626953 1.4931476388 0.00000218

4158.13 21.627929 1.4931472669 0.00000015

4157.82 21.628417 1.4931473232 -0.00000086

4157.97 21.628173 1.4931472749 -0.00000035

4158.05 21.628051 1.4931472658 -0.00000010

4158.09 21.627990 1.4931472651 0.00000002

The sequence of estimates for the optimal vb are shown in the table 5.1. Recall that J is the

objective function for our problem, from (5.18).

5.7 Conclusion

For a track with a single steep uphill section, we have used an algebraic argument and a

geometry argument to show that there is a unique optimal location before the start of the

steep gradient at which the power phase should begin. We have developed a new set of

Chapter 5. Hold-power-hold for a single steep uphill gradient 74

necessary conditions for an optimal power phase for a steep uphill section by minimising a

cost function which is a compromise of energy used and time taken. We have also developed

a new method for calculating the optimal power phase for the steep uphill section. This

method converges quickly to the unique solution.

In the next chapter we consider a more complicated uphill section where the steep section

has two gradients.

Chapter 6

with two steep gradients

In the previous chapter we developed an optimal strategy for a steep uphill section with a

single constant gradient. In this chapter, we present the same analysis for a steep uphill

section with two gradients. We will formulate the problem, present a new condition for

optimality and derive key necessary conditions. The additional gradient section introduces

significant difficulties to the analysis. We are able to prove the existence but not uniqueness

of a solution. However, we can demonstrate uniqueness in our numerical examples.

75

Chapter 6. Hold-power-hold on an uphill section with two steep gradients 76

In this chapter we consider a track with four gradients, of which the middle two are steep

uphill. The acceleration due to gradient is

⎧

⎪

⎪ if x ∈ (−∞, b)

⎪

⎪ γ0

⎪

⎪

⎪

⎪

⎨γ11 if x ∈ (b, d)

g(x) = (6.1)

⎪

⎪

⎪

⎪ γ12 if x ∈ (d, c)

⎪

⎪

⎪

⎪

⎩γ if x ∈ (c, ∞).

2

We assume that

P

γ0 > − + r(V )

V

and

P

γ2 > − + r(V ).

V

That is, the track is non-steep at speed V for x ∈

/ [b, d]. We also assume that

P

γ1j < − + r(V )

V

for each j = 1, 2. Thus the track is steep at speed V for x ∈ (b, d). This is illustrated in

Figure 6.1.

The equation of motion and adjoint equation are the same as in Chapter 5. As before, we

wish to find the optimal interval [p, q] for the power phase. If γ 12 < γ11 < 0 (i.e. the second

section is more steeply uphill) then the limiting speed on the second slope will be less than

the speed at d, and so speed will decrease on the second slope, as illustrated in Figure 6.1.

On the other hand, if γ11 < γ12 < 0 then v(d) may be above or below the limiting speed on

the second slope, and so speed can either decrease or increase on the second slope. Figure

6.2 shows the case where speed increases on the second slope.

Chapter 6. Hold-power-hold on an uphill section with two steep gradients 77

Limiting speeds

vb

V V

vd

vc

J2

J 12

J 11

J0

b d c

Figure 6.1: Speed profile on a steep uphill section with γ12 < γ11 < 0.

Limiting speeds

vb

V V

vd

vc

J2

J 12

J 11

J0

p b d c q

Figure 6.2: Speed profile on a steep uphill section with γ11 < γ12 < 0.

Chapter 6. Hold-power-hold on an uphill section with two steep gradients 78

Lemma 6.2.1 The necessary conditions for minimising the cost function (5.18) of a train

travelling on a section described in (6.1) are

(ϕ(vd ) − γ11 vd − P )µ2 − (ϕ(vd ) − γ12 vd − P )µ1 = [ϕ(vd ) − LV (vd )](γ12 − γ11 )

and

(ϕ(vc ) − γ0 vc − P )µ2 = (ϕ(vc ) − LV (vc ))(γ12 − γ2 )

where

LV (v) = ϕ (V )(v − V ) + ϕ(V )

Proof:

We have three fixed points b < d < c where the gradient acceleration changes. For a given

power phase, the speeds of the train at these points are vb , vc and vd . Using a similar argument

to the previous chapter, the starting point of the power phase is determined by

vb

v 2 dv

p=b− (6.2)

V P − v[r(v) − γ0 ]

V

v 2 dv

q =c+ . (6.3)

vc P − v[r(v) − γ2 ]

vb

v 2 dv

d−b= (6.4)

vd v[r(v) − γ11 ] − P

and vd

v 2 dv

c−d = . (6.5)

vc v[r(v) − γ12 ] − P

Chapter 6. Hold-power-hold on an uphill section with two steep gradients 79

We use the same procedure that we used in Chapter 5 to obtain the cost function. This time

the cost function J depends on vb , vc and vd and has the form

vb

v 2 dv

J(vb , vd , vc ) = [ψ(V ) + P ]A(vb , vd , vc ) + γ0 + γ11 (d − b)

V P − v[r(v) − γ0 ]

V

v 2 dv

+γ12 (c − d) + γ2 − ϕ (V )(q − p)

vc P − v[r(v) − γ2 ]

where

q vb vd

dx vdv vdv

A(vb , vd , vc ) = = +

p v V P − v[r(v) − γ0 ] vb P − v[r(v) − γ11 ]

vc V

vdv vdv

+ +

vd P − v[r(v) − γ12 ] vc P − v[r(v) − γ2 ]

and

vb vb

v 2 dv v 2 dv

q−p = +

V P − v[r(v) − γ0 ] vd v[r(v) − γ11 ] − P

vd V

v 2 dv v 2 dv

+ + .

vc v[r(v) − γ12 ] − P vc P − v[r(v) − γ2 ]

In order to find the optimal speed profile we need to minimise J(v b , vc , vc ) with respect to

the two distance constraints (6.4) and (6.5). We define a Lagrangian function

vb

v 2 dv

J (vb , vc , vd ) = J(vb , vc ) + λ1 d − b −

vd v[r(v) − γ11 ] − P

vd

v 2 dv

+λ2 c − d −

vc v[r(v) − γ12 ] − P

∂J ∂J ∂J

= 0 and = 0 and = 0.

∂vb ∂vd ∂vc

Chapter 6. Hold-power-hold on an uphill section with two steep gradients 80

We have

∂J 1 1

= [ψ(V ) + P ]vb −

∂vb P − vb [r(vb ) − γ0 ] P − vb [r(vb ) + γ11 ]

ϕ (V ) − γ0 λ1

−vb2 −

P − vb [r(vb ) + γ0 ] P − vb [r(vb ) + γ11 ]

∂J 1 1

= vd [ψ(V ) + P ] −

∂vd P − vb [r(vb ) − γ11 ] P − vb [r(vb ) − γ12 ]

λ1 λ2

−vd2 +

P − vb [r(vb ) − γ0 ] P − vb [r(vb ) − γ11 ]

which gives

(ϕ(vd ) − γ12 vd − P )λ1 − (ϕ(vd ) − γ11 vd − P )λ2 = (γ11 − γ12 )(ψ(V ) + P ). (6.8)

Let

µi = λi − ϕ (V ) + γ1i . (6.9)

Chapter 6. Hold-power-hold on an uphill section with two steep gradients 81

(P −ϕ(vb )+γ0 vb )(µ1 +ϕ (V )−γ11 ) = (ψ(V )+P )(γ0 −γ11 )−(ϕ (V )−γ0 )(ϕ(vb )−γ11 vb −P )

So,

The equations (6.4), (6.5), (6.10), (6.11) and (6.12) are necessary conditions for minimising

the cost function.

Now we wish to prove µ1 and µ2 are positive. Because γ0 is non-steep uphill gradient

acceleration then P − ϕ(vb ) + γ0 vb > 0 and also γ0 > γ11 =⇒ γ0 − γ11 > 0. Hence, from

(6.10), we have µ1 > 0. Similarly, from (6.11), we also have µ2 > 0.

Chapter 6. Hold-power-hold on an uphill section with two steep gradients 82

We want to solve equations (6.4), (6.5), (6.10) and (6.11) for v b , vd , vc , µ1 and µ2 . Suppose

we have a given value of vb . We can calculate vd , vc , M1 (vb ) and M2 (vc ) using equations

(6.4), (6.5), (6.10) and (6.11) respectively where

[ϕ(vb ) − LV (vb )](γ0 − γ11 )

µ1 = M1 (vb ) = (6.13)

P − ϕ(vb ) + γ0 vb

which is derived from (6.10) and

[ϕ(vc ) − LV (vc )](γ2 − γ11 )

µ2 = M2 (vc ) = (6.14)

P − ϕ(vc ) + γ2 vc

which is derived from (6.11). There is one remaining equation to be satisfied—equation

(6.12). If the calculated values satisfy this equation, they are the optimal values. If we define

f (vd ) = 0. (6.15)

This is a necessary condition for an optimal strategy on an uphill section with two adjoining

steep gradients.

6.3.1 Existence

To prove the existence of an optimal solution we will show that the values of the function f at

the two ends of its domain differ in sign. The possible maximum value of v d can be obtained

by setting vc = V and the possible minimum values of v d can be obtained by setting vb = V .

We consider two cases: γ11 < γ12 < 0 and γ12 < γ11 < 0.

Chapter 6. Hold-power-hold on an uphill section with two steep gradients 83

dv P

v = − r(v) + γ11 < 0.

dx v

That is,

P − ϕ(v) + γ11 v < 0 or ϕ(v) − γ11 v − P > 0.

Recall that ϕ(v) is convex and LV (v) is a tangent to the curve y = ϕ(v) at v = V and so

ϕ(v) − LV (v) > 0. As defined in (6.14) we have

M2 (vc ) =

P − ϕ(vc ) + γ2 vc

which is positive because P − ϕ(vc ) + γ2 vc > 0 for a non-steep uphill gradient acceleration

γ2 . Hence,

f (vd ) = (ϕ(vd ) − γ11 vd − P )M2 (vc ) + [ϕ(vd ) − LV (vd )](γ11 − γ12 ) > 0.

f (vd ) = (ϕ(vd ) − γ12 vd − P )M1 (vb ) − [ϕ(vd ) − LV (vd )](γ12 − γ11 ). (6.16)

M1 (vb ) = .

P − ϕ(vb ) + γ0 vb

dM1 (vb ) ϕ (vb )[P + ψ(V ) − ϕ (V )vb ] − ϕ (V )[P − ϕ(vb )] − γ0 [ψ(V ) − ψ(vb )]

= (γ0 −γ11 ) .

dvb [P − ϕ(vb ) + γ0 vb ]2

(6.17)

Chapter 6. Hold-power-hold on an uphill section with two steep gradients 84

dM (vc )

Recall that ψ(V ) = V 2 r (V ). Using a procedure similar to that used to prove dvc

< 0 in

Section 5.4.2 we can obtain

dM1 (vb )

< 0.

dvb

So with vd < vb we have M1 (vd ) > M1 (vb ), and so (6.16) can be written as

f (vd ) < (ϕ(vd ) − γ12 vd − P )M1 (vd ) − [ϕ(vd ) − LV (vd )](γ12 − γ11 ).

f (vd ) <

P − ϕ(vd ) + γ0 vd

(P − ϕ(vd ) + γ0 vd )[ϕ(vd ) − LV (vd )](γ11 − γ12 )

− .

P − ϕ(vd ) + γ0 vd

< 0

because P − ϕ(vd ) + γ11 vd < 0 and ϕ(vd ) − LV (vd ) > 0 as proved before, and so we have

γ12 < γ0 < 0 =⇒ γ0 − γ12 > 0.

So, vb = V =⇒ f (vd ) > 0 and vc = V =⇒ f (vd ) < 0. The function f (vd ) is continuous

so it has at least one solution on its domain.

> (ϕ(vd ) − γ11 vd − P )M2 (vd ) + [ϕ(vd ) − LV (vd )](γ11 − γ12 ) (6.18)

Chapter 6. Hold-power-hold on an uphill section with two steep gradients 85

because we can prove similarly M2 (vc ) is a monotone decreasing function as in the previous

case and vc < vd . As seen in (6.14) M2 (vc ) is

M2 (vc ) = .

P − ϕ(vc ) + γ2 vc

f (vd ) >

P − ϕ(vd ) + γ2 vd

(P − ϕ(vd ) + γ2 vd )[ϕ(vd ) − LV (vd )](γ11 − γ12 )

+ .

P − ϕ(vd ) + γ2 vd

When vc = V from (6.14) we have M2 (vc ) = 0. Since γ12 is a steep uphill gradient acceler-

ation then ϕ(vd ) − γ12 − P > 0 and γ12 − γ11 > 0 then

f (vd ) = −(ϕ(vd ) − γ12 − P )M1 (vb ) − [ϕ(vd ) − LV (vd )](γ12 − γ11 ) < 0.

So when γ11 > γ12 the function f (vd ) has at least one solution on its domain.

Note that we need to take into account the limiting speed at point d, v L (P, γ11). If the possible

maximum speed at d is greater than vL (P, γ11 ), we need to set the possible maximum speed

at d to this limiting speed. We can easily see that the new upper bound of v d will not change

the result of our proof above.

Chapter 6. Hold-power-hold on an uphill section with two steep gradients 86

6.3.2 Uniqueness

is either strictly increasing, strictly decreasing, convex or concave. However we were unable

to prove any of these hypotheses. However, we can use numerical examples to demonstrate

that the solution is unique in many situations.

dv P

v = − r(v) + g(x)

dx v

vb

v 2 dv

d−b=

vd v[r(v) − γ11 ] − P

v 2 dv

c−d=

vc v[r(v) − γ12 ] − P

as defined in (6.5). As shown in the previous section, the necessary conditions for an optimal

power phase defined in (6.10), (6.11) and (6.12) are

(ϕ(vd ) − γ11 vd − P )µ2 − (ϕ(vd ) − γ12 vd − P )µ1 = [ϕ(vd ) − LV (vd )](γ12 − γ11 ),

and

(ϕ(vc ) − γ0 vc − P )µ2 = [ϕ(vc ) − LV (vc )](γ12 − γ2 ).

We want to solve the two constraints and the three necessary conditions shown above for v b ,

vc , vd , µ1 and µ2 . Since it is not straightforward to solve these equations analytically, we

Chapter 6. Hold-power-hold on an uphill section with two steep gradients 87

vb vd vc

P1 f P2

developed a numerical algorithm to find the solution and to demonstrate that the solution is

unique.

then equation (6.12) for the optimal values of v b , vc , vd , µ1 and µ2 can be rewritten as

f (vd ) = 0.

If we know speed vb , we can calculate the other variables vd , vc , µ1 and µ2 . We can then use

a numerical method such as the Bisection Method [7] to find the solution to f (v d ) = 0. For

each candidate value of vb , we must calculate vd , then vc , µ2 and µ1 before we can evaluate

f . The value for vd can be found using a numerical DE solver to solve the equation of motion

(6.4) forwards from (x = b, v = vb ) to x = d. The value for vc is calculated in a similar way

to vd using equation (6.5). The values for µ1 and µ2 are calculated from (6.13) and (6.14)

respectively.

Figure 6.3 shows the variable dependencies in the algorithm; the variable at the head of each

arrow depends on the variable at the tail.

Chapter 6. Hold-power-hold on an uphill section with two steep gradients 88

6.5 Example

In this section we use our numerical algorithm to calculate optimal power phases for two

examples. In the example, the second part of the steep section is steeper than the first.

Example 6.5.1 In this example we have hold speed V = 20, and γ12 < γ11 < 0. The points

at which the gradient acceleration changes are

To find the optimal journey, we must first find values of v b that give f < 0 and f > 0. If we

set vb = V then we get f > 0. By trial and error, we find that setting vb = 24 gives f < 0.

We now use the Bisection method to find the optimal solution. They are

Figure 6.4 shows how f varies with vb . We can see that f = 0 when vb = 21.77. The

corresponding speed profile is shown on the right hand side of the figure. The detailed

results obtained from the iteration are shown in Table 6.1. Recall that J is our objective

function (5.18), to be minimised.

6.6 Conclusion

For a steep uphill section with two gradients we are unable to find a theoretical proof of the

uniqueness of the optimal power phase but we are able to prove the existence of the solution.

It is quite easy to extend the numerical calculation scheme developed in Chapter 5 to handle

Chapter 6. Hold-power-hold on an uphill section with two steep gradients 89

Table 6.1: Experimental results of hold-power-hold on a double steep uphill section, Example 6.5.1.

p vb J f

3510.69 22.500000 1.9157012441 -0.00611095

4388.49 21.250000 1.7754693693 0.00239745

3992.79 21.875000 1.6890111592 -0.00065734

4199.87 21.562500 1.6998701516 0.00109906

4098.81 21.718750 1.6856190813 0.00028531

4046.44 21.796875 1.6850097169 -0.00016888

4072.78 21.757812 1.6847509847 0.00006236

4059.65 21.777343 1.6847379085 -0.00005220

4066.23 21.767578 1.6847090363 0.00000534

4062.94 21.772460 1.6847145949 -0.00002336

4064.58 21.770019 1.6847095994 -0.00000899

4065.41 21.768798 1.6847087642 -0.00000182

4065.82 21.768188 1.6847087619 0.00000176

4065.61 21.768493 1.6847087284 -0.00000002

the additional gradient. The calculation method still converges quickly to the solution. We

have run many example journeys, of which two are given. In every example, the equation

f (vd ) = 0 only has one solution.

In the next chapter, we expand the analysis to handle any number of gradient acceleration

changes before, on, and after the steep uphill section.

Chapter 6. Hold-power-hold on an uphill section with two steep gradients 90

25 25

24 24

23 23

22 22

v

b

21 21

20 20

19 19

18 18

17 17

−0.06 −0.04 −0.02 0 0.02 4000 5000 6000 7000

f(v ) distance

d

Chapter 7

with piecewise constant gradient

In the previous chapters we considered tracks with an initial non-steep gradient followed by

one or two steep uphill gradients, then a final non-steep gradient. In this chapter, we consider

the optimal control strategy when a holding phase is interrupted by a steep uphill section on

a track with many gradient changes before the steep section, on the steep section and after

the steep section. We formulate the problem and derive the key necessary conditions for an

optimal power phase. As in Chapter 6 we are unable to prove analytically the uniqueness

of an optimal solution. However, we are able to develop a numerical scheme for calculating

power phases that satisfy the necessary conditions for an optimal strategy, and demonstrate

the algorithm using an example.

91

Chapter 7. Hold-power-hold on an uphill section with piecewise constant gradient 92

steep part

J1 J n 1

f p1 p2 pg 1 pg pr ps ph ph 1 pn 1 pn f

gradients that are non-steep at the hold speed V , a sequence of gradients that are steep at

speed V , and a final sequence of gradients that are non-steep at speed V .

Let

• pr and ps be the starting point and ending point of the steep part and 1 ≤ r, s ≤ n;

• pg−1 ≤ a ≥ pg+1 where pg is the first gradient change point during the power phase;

and

• ph ≤ b ≥ ph+1 where ph is the last gradient change point during the power phase.

Chapter 7. Hold-power-hold on an uphill section with piecewise constant gradient 93

b

ψ(V )

J= + r(v) − ϕ (V ) dx. (7.1)

a v

dv P

v = − r(v) − γj

dx v

for x ∈ (pj , pj+1 ). By integrating the equation of motion as we did in Chapters 5 and 6, we

have

b b

h−1

P

r(v)dx = dx + γi (pi+1 − pi ) + γg (pg − a) + γh (b − ph ). (7.2)

a a v i=g+1

vg

v 2 dv

J(vg , . . . , vh ) = [ψ(V ) + P ]A(vg , . . . , vh ) + γ1

V P − v[r(v) − γg ]

h−1 V

v 2 dv

+ γi−1 (pi+1 − pi ) + γh

i=g+1 vh P − v[r(v) − γh ]

−ϕ (V )B(vg , . . . , vh )

where

vg V

vdv vdv

A(vg , . . . , vh ) = +

V P − v[r(v) − γg ] vh P − v[r(v) − γh ]

g−1 vi+1

vdv

+

i=h+1 vi

P − v[r(v) − γi]

and

r−1

vi+1 h−1 vi+1

v 2 dv v 2 dv

B(vg , . . . , vh ) = ps − pr + +

i=g vi

P − v[r(v) − γi] i=s vi P − v[r(v) − γi ]

vg V

v 2 dv v 2 dv

+ + .

V P − v[r(v) − γg ] vh P − v[r(v) − γh ]

Chapter 7. Hold-power-hold on an uphill section with piecewise constant gradient 94

The optimal velocities at each pair of adjacent points p i and pi+1 must satisfy the constraint

vi+1

v 2 dv

pi+1 − pi = . (7.3)

vi P − [ϕ(v) − vγi]

To minimise J(v1 , v2 , . . . , vn ) subject to (7.3) we define the Lagrangian function

J (v1 , v2 , . . . , vn ) = J(v1 , v2 , . . . , vn )

s−1 vi+1

v 2 dv

+ λi−1 pi+1 − pi − (7.4)

i=r+1 vi P − v[r(v) − γi ]

where λi−1 are Lagrange multipliers. In order to minimise J we apply the Karush-Kuhn-

Tucker conditions as we did before. That is we put

∂J

=0 (7.5)

∂vi

where i = g, . . . , h. Evaluating equation (7.5) at each point i = g + 1, . . . , h−1, we obtained

an equation in vi , µi and µi−1

where

µi = λi − ϕ (V ) + γi+1 .

Speed vi can be found by solving the equation (7.3) forward from v i−1 or backward from

vi+1 using a numerical DE solver. Given an initial guess for the speed v r at the bottom of the

steep section, we can calculate vi by solving equation (7.3) from v r forward if r < i ≤ h or

backward if g ≤ i < r. The values of µi can be computed using the formula

[ϕ(vi ) − LV (vi )][γi+1 − γi ] + [ϕ(vi ) − γi+1 vi − P ]µi−1

µi = Mi (vi ) = (7.8)

ϕ(vi ) − γi vi − P

derived from (7.6) for i = g + 1, . . . , h − 1 or

[ϕ(vi ) − LV (vi )](γi+1 − γi )

µi = Mi (vi ) = (7.9)

P − ϕ(vi ) − γi vi

Chapter 7. Hold-power-hold on an uphill section with piecewise constant gradient 95

from (7.7) for j = g, h. During the calculation we use all of the equations (7.3), (7.6) and

(7.7) at every point except the equation (7.6) at point r + 1. This remaining equation can be

written as f (vr+1 ) = 0, where

The values of vr+1 , µr+1 and µr that satisfy the equation f (vr+1 ) = 0 are optimal. The

sequence of calculations is illustrated in Figure 7.2.

vg v g 1 vr vr 1 vr 2 vh1 vh

Pg P g 1 Pr f Pr+1 Ph 2 Ph 1

In the next section we discuss a numerical algorithm for finding v r+1 satisfying f (vr+1 ) = 0.

Before we can search for the value of vr+1 that satisfies the equation f (vr+1 ) = 0, we must

find a suitable interval [v r , v̄r ] in which to search. As in previous Chapter, we evaluate f at

vr+1 , but search for the optimal value of vr .

We require a lower bound vr for which f (vr+1 ) > 0 and an upper bound v̄r for which

f (vr+1 ) < 0. In previous chapters we were able to prove that such bounds could be found.

We have not proved that such bounds could be found in the more general case. However, our

numerical experiments show that we can find suitable bounds.

Chapter 7. Hold-power-hold on an uphill section with piecewise constant gradient 96

vJ 1

V vJ 2 V

Figure 7.3: Speed can sometimes decrease on a non-steep section before the start of the steep section.

We cannot start the steep section with a speed that is less than the hold speed V . Setting

vr = V gives a lower bound.

• the maximum speed that can be achieved at the bottom of the hill; and

• the speed v(pr ) of the speed profile v that finishes at the top of the steep section at the

hold speed; that is, with v(p s ) = V .

The maximum speed that can be achieved at the beginning of a steep section depends on the

gradients before the steep section, and is not necessarily the limiting speed of the gradient

immediately before the steep section. For example, Figure 7.3 shows an example where the

optimal speed of the train at the beginning of the steep part is greater than the limiting speed

of the gradient immediately before the start of the steep section.

To find the maximum speed achievable at the beginning of the steep section, we:

Chapter 7. Hold-power-hold on an uphill section with piecewise constant gradient 97

V V

vJ 2

vJ 1

7.2.1 Calculating f

Let γV be the gradient acceleration of the steepest gradient on which the train can hold speed

V . It can be determined from

P − ϕ(V )

ϕ(V ) + γV V = P =⇒ γV = . (7.11)

V

Input: [p1 , p2 , . . . , pn ]; [γ1 , γ2, . . . , γn+1 ]; holding speed V ; r, index of the point where steep

part begins; vr .

Output: f (vr+1 )

1. Calculate forward vr+1 , . . . , vh using equation (7.3).

2. Calculate backward vr−1 , . . . , vg using equation (7.3).

3. Calculate µh−1 using equation (7.7).

4. Calculate µg using equation (7.7).

5. Calculate µi−1 using equation (7.6) and µi for i = h, . . . , r + 1.

6. Calculate µi+1 using equation (7.6) and µi for i = g, . . . , r.

7. Calculate f (vr+1 ) using vr+1 , µr and µr+1.

8. return f (vr+1 ).

Chapter 7. Hold-power-hold on an uphill section with piecewise constant gradient 98

The algorithm for calculating the optimal power phase is defined below.

Input: [ph , . . . , pg ];[γg , . . . , γh ];

Output: all optimal velocities vg , . . . , vh ; all optimal Lagrange multipliers λ i .

1. Calculate γV , the maximum gradient of the steep section where the train can hold speed

V using (7.11).

2. Find the point r where the steep part begins by comparing the gradient acceleration to

γV . The first gradient change point whose gradient acceleration is greater than γ V is

point r.

3. Find the acceptable range [v̄r , vr ] for vr as discussed in Section 7.2.

4. Apply the Bisection method to find optimal value of v r where f (vr+1 ) = 0.

5. Calculate all optimal speed vi for i = g, . . . , h using optimal value of vr .

6. return all optimal speeds.

7.3 Examples

We will use the method described above to solve three example problems. In the first exam-

ple, the train slows on the approach to the section that is steep uphill at the hold speed V . In

the second example, the train speeds up on the part of the section that is steep uphill at the

hold speed V . The final example has many gradients before, on and after the steep section.

In the first example we consider a train with two non-steep gradients before the steep section,

one steep gradient on the steep section, and one non-steep gradient after the steep section.

The gradient immediately before the steep section has a limiting speed that is only slightly

greater than the holding speed V . The gradient acceleration that gives a limiting speed of

Chapter 7. Hold-power-hold on an uphill section with piecewise constant gradient 99

22

21.5

21

20.5

20

v 19.5

19

18.5

18

17.5

17

3500 4000 4500 5000 5500 6000 6500 7000 7500

x

V = 20 is γ = −0.12325.

(p3 , p4 ) and (p4 , ∞) are

The optimal speed profile is shown in Figure 7.5. The track section [4600, 5000] is non-steep

at hold speed V = 20. However, speed decreases on this section because the limiting speed

for the section, indicated in red in Figure 7.5, is less than v(4600).

In the second example, we consider a track consisting of one non-steep gradient before the

steep section, four steep gradients on the steep section, and one non-steep gradient after the

Chapter 7. Hold-power-hold on an uphill section with piecewise constant gradient 100

23

22

21

20

19

v 18

17

16

15

14

13

3000 4000 5000 6000 7000 8000 9000

x

steep section. The third of the steep gradients is steep at speed V = 20, but the commencing

speed is less than the limiting speed on this section, and so the speed of the train increases

on this section.

The optimal speed profile is shown in Figure 7.6. The limiting speed on the interval from

6000 to 6500 is 17.45, which is greater than v(6000) = 16.79, and so the speed of the train

increases on this track interval. Speed decreases on the next interval because the limiting

speed on the interval is 13.85 which is less than v(6500) = 16.98.

Chapter 7. Hold-power-hold on an uphill section with piecewise constant gradient 101

Table 7.1: Optimal speeds and limiting speeds for Example 7.3.2.

p γ v vL

−∞ -0.075 25.976

5000 -0.22 22.627 12.77

5600 -0.27 19.60 10.623

6000 -0.15 16.79 17.445

6500 -0.2 16.98 13.865

6800 -0.09 16.26 23.927

∞ -0.09

The final example has fifteen gradients: three non-steep gradients before the steep section,

nine steep gradients on the steep section, and three non-steep gradients after the steep section.

The gradient change points, gradients, optimal speeds and limiting speeds are given in table

7.2. Function f (v4 ) is shown in Figure (7.7), which shows the convexity of the function f

and confirms the uniqueness of the optimal solution in this case. The zero of the function is

at v3 = 22.50. The optimal speed profile is shown in Figure 7.8. Note that speed decreases

on the second gradient, before the steep hill, and increases on the second-to-last gradient on

the steep section.

Chapter 7. Hold-power-hold on an uphill section with piecewise constant gradient 102

Table 7.2: Track data for the example of hold-power-hold on multi steep uphill section.

p γ v vL

−∞ -0.075 25.978

4600 -0.120 22.39 20.34

5000 -0.080 22.09 25.28

5400 -0.200 22.50 13.87

6000 -0.250 20.02 11.39

6400 -0.150 17.59 17.45

6900 -0.230 17.55 12.29

7200 -0.190 16.25 14.48

7700 -0.220 15.59 12.77

8100 -0.260 14.57 10.99

8400 -0.170 13.27 15.85

8900 -0.225 14.35 12.52

9200 -0.080 13.76 25.28

9600 -0.110 16.39 21.46

10100 -0.090 17.69 23.93

∞

When the limiting speed is less than the speed at the beginning of the interval, speed de-

creases even on a non-steep section. If limiting speed is greater than the speed at the begin-

ning of the interval, speed will increase even on a steep section. The two cases where speed

increases on a particular gradient section in this example can be seen in Figure 7.8 and are

shown in bold in table 7.2.

Chapter 7. Hold-power-hold on an uphill section with piecewise constant gradient 103

0.1

−0.1

−0.2

−0.3

f

−0.4

−0.5

−0.6

−0.7

−0.8

20 20.5 21 21.5 22 22.5 23 23.5 24 24.5 25

v

3

23

22

21

20

19

v 18

17

16

15

14

13

3000 4000 5000 6000 7000 8000 9000 10000 11000 12000

x

Chapter 7. Hold-power-hold on an uphill section with piecewise constant gradient 104

7.4 Conclusion

The new numerical method for finding an optimal power phase for a steep uphill track can be

extended to handle any number of gradients. Although we have not been able to prove that

the solution found using our method is unique, we have used our numerical method to plot

the function f for many examples; in each example f = 0 appears to have only one solution

on the domain of feasible speeds.

Chapter 8

downhill gradient

In this chapter we consider the optimal strategy when a holding phase is interrupted by a

single steep downhill gradient section. We want to show that an optimal speed profile exists,

and that it is unique.

We first formulate the problem and present the necessary conditions for an optimal strategy

obtained by Howlett [20]. We then derive alternative necessary conditions using an argument

similar to that used in Chapter 5. Next we prove the existence and uniqueness of the optimal

strategy. Finally we calculate an optimal strategy with an example.

For a steep downhill section, the train must start coasting before the steep section and main-

tain the coast phase beyond the end of the steep section. Speed will decrease before the steep

section, increase on the steep section, then decrease back to the hold speed after the steep

section.

105

Chapter 8. Hold-coast-hold for a single steep downhill gradient 106

vc

V V

J0

vb

J1

J2

p b c q

dv

v = −r(v) + g(x). (8.1)

dx

dθ ψ(v) ψ(V )

= 3 θ− .

dx v v3

As in previous chapters, we let η = θ − 1 so that the optimal coast phase starts and finishes

with η = 0. The adjoint equation becomes

− 3 η= . (8.2)

dx v v3

Suppose the track is steep downhill on the interval [b, c], and non-steep everywhere else. It

is known from Howlett [20] that the switch from speed hold to coast must occur at some

point p before the steep section [b, c] begins, and the switch back to speed hold must occur at

some point q after the steep section finishes, as shown in Figure 8.1. We want to find optimal

switching points p and q.

Chapter 8. Hold-coast-hold for a single steep downhill gradient 107

Howlett [20] has shown that an optimal coast phase must have

dη

η= = 0 and v = V (8.3)

dx

at the start p and the end q.

Let v0 (x) be the optimal speed profile. Integrating the adjoint equation over [p, q] gives

q

ψ(v) − ψ(V )

I0 (x)dx = 0 (8.4)

p v3

where the integrating factor I0 (x) is defined by

x

ψ(v0 )

I0 (x) = C exp dξ . (8.5)

p0 v03

Equation (8.4) is a necessary condition for an optimal coast phase on a steep downhill sec-

tion. It is similar to the condition used in Chapter 5. We want to find an alternative necessary

condition using a variational argument.

We will use the same cost function and the same variation as we used in Chapter 5, because

the derivative of J is the same. The cost function is

q

ψ(V )

J(v) = + r(v) − ϕ (V ) dx. (8.6)

p v

Using a similar argument to that used in Chapter 5 we have the perturbation formula

q0

ψ(V )

δJ = − 2 + r (v0 ) δv · dx

p0 v0

where v0 is the optimal trajectory and δv is an allowable variation. From the alternative

optimality condition given in equation (5.11) it follows that δJ = 0 for the optimal speed

profile. Hence the optimal speed profile v0 (x) is the one that minimises the functional J(v).

Chapter 8. Hold-coast-hold for a single steep downhill gradient 108

9.1778

9.1778

9.1778

9.1778

9.1778

J

9.1778

9.1778

9.1778

9.1778

9.1778

1060 1062 1064 1066 1068 1070 1072

Coasting points

Example 8.3.1 Suppose the desired holding speed is V = 20 and we have track with gradi-

ent acceleration ⎧

⎪

⎪

⎪

⎪γ0 = 0.01, x < b,

⎪

⎨

g(x) = γ1 = 0.2, x ∈ [b, c], (8.7)

⎪

⎪

⎪

⎪

⎪

⎩γ2 = 0.012, x > c

where b = 5000 is the start of the steep downhill section and c = 6000 is the end of the steep

section. The train resistance parameters are r 0 = 6.75 × 10−3 , r1 = 0, and r2 = 5 × 10−5 .

For any start location p < b we calculate J by first calculating a coasting profile v starting

with v(p) = V and finishing at some location q > c with v(q) = V . We then calculate J for

the speed profile v using (8.6). The result is shown in Figure 8.2.

Chapter 8. Hold-coast-hold for a single steep downhill gradient 109

Alternatively, we can find the optimal solution by using a numerical differential equation

solver to calculate v and θ trajectories for various starting points, and then use the bisection

method to find the starting point that gives v and θ trajectories that satisfy the necessary

conditions (8.3). This is essentially the method used by Howlett et al [24]. Using this

method, we find that the optimal starting point for the coast phase is p = 1065. The plot of

function J shown in Figure 8.2 illustrates that J is minimised at this point.

In this section we analyse the optimal coast phase when a hold phase is interrupted by a

single steep downhill gradient and derive alternative necessary conditions for the optimal

coast phase.

Suppose the hold speed for the journey is V . The gradient acceleration is

⎧

⎪

⎪

⎪

⎪ γ0 if x < b

⎪

⎨

g(x) = γ1 if x ∈ [b, c] (8.8)

⎪

⎪

⎪

⎪

⎪

⎩γ2 if x > c .

We assume γ0 and γ2 are non-steep gradient accelerations at speed V , and that the gradient

acceleration γ1 is steep downhill at speed V . That is, γ 0 − r(V ) < 0, γ1 − r(V ) > 0, and

γ2 − r(V ) < 0.

q

ψ(V )

J(v) = + r(v) − ϕ (V ) dx.

P v

Using separation of variables for the equation of motion of the train (8.1), we obtain

V

vdv

p=b− (8.9)

vb r(v) − γ0

Chapter 8. Hold-coast-hold for a single steep downhill gradient 110

where vb is the speed of the train at the top of the steep section, and

vc

vdv

q =c+ (8.10)

V r(v) − γ2

where vc is the speed of the train at the bottom of the steep section. Integrating (8.1) from b

to c gives vc

vdv

c−b= . (8.11)

vb γ1 − r(v)

Integrating (8.1) from p to b we have

b b vb

vb2 − V 2 vdv

=− r(v)dx + γ0 (b − p) = − r(v)dx + γ0 . (8.12)

2 p p V γ0 − r(v)

From b to c we have c

vc2 − vb2

=− r(v)dx + γ1 (c − b). (8.13)

2 b

From c to q, we obtain

q q vc

V 2 − vc2 vdv

=− r(v)dx + γ2 (q − c) = − r(v)dx + γ2 . (8.14)

2 c c V γ2 − r(v)

By adding (8.12), (8.13) and (8.14) and then rearranging the result, we obtain

q vb vc

vdv vdv

r(v)dx = γ0 + γ1 (c − b) + γ2 . (8.15)

p V γ0 − r(v) V γ2 − r(v)

⎧

⎪

⎪

dv

if x ∈ [p, b)

⎪

⎪

⎪

⎪ γ0 − r(v)

⎪

⎪

⎪

⎪

⎪

⎪

⎪

⎨

1 dv

dx = if x ∈ [b, c] (8.16)

v ⎪

⎪ γ1 − r(v)

⎪

⎪

⎪

⎪

⎪

⎪

⎪

⎪

⎪

⎪

⎪

⎩

dv

if x ∈ (c, q].

γ2 − r(v)

By substituting (8.15) and (8.16) into the cost functional

q

ψ(V )

J(v) = + r(v) − ϕ (V ) dx

p v

Chapter 8. Hold-coast-hold for a single steep downhill gradient 111

we obtain

V vc vc

dv dv dv

J(vb , vc ) = ψ(V ) + +

vb r(v) − γ0 vb γ1 − r(v) V r(v) − γ2

vb V

vdv vdv

+ γ0 + γ1 (c − b) + γ2

V γ0 − r(v) vc γ2 − r(v)

vc V

vdv vdv

− ϕ (V ) c − b + + . (8.17)

V r(v) − γ2 vb r(v) − γ0

We want to minimise J subject to (8.11). We define the Lagrangian function

vc

vdv

J (vb , vc ) = J(vb , vc ) + λ c − b − . (8.18)

vb γ1 − r(v)

∂J ∂J

= 0 and =0

∂vb ∂vc

and the complementary slackness condition

vc

vdv

λ c−b− = 0.

vb γ1 − r(v)

If we weaken condition (8.11) to

vc

vdv

c−b− ≤0 (8.19)

vb γ1 − r(v)

the solution remain the same because to minimise fuel consumption we will not travel further

than the required distance [b, c]. For the weakened problem we can guarantee that λ ≥ 0. We

now have

∂J 1 1 γ0 − ϕ (V ) λ

= ψ(V ) − + vb [ +

∂vb γ0 − r(v) γ1 − r(v) γ0 − r(v) γ1 − r(v)

Chapter 8. Hold-coast-hold for a single steep downhill gradient 112

Let

µ = λ − ϕ (V ) + γ1 .

and

[ϕ(vc ) − γ2 vc ] µ = [ϕ(vc ) − LV (vc )] (γ1 − γ2 ) (8.23)

Equations (8.22) and (8.23) along with the constraint (8.11) are necessary conditions for

minimising cost function (8.6) for a train coasting on a single steep downhill section.

We now wish to show that an optimal coast phase exists, and is unique. As before, we use

two approaches: a geometric approach, and an algebraic approach.

ϕ(vb ) = vb +

µ − γ1 + γ0 µ − γ1 + γ0

Chapter 8. Hold-coast-hold for a single steep downhill gradient 113

(ϕ (V ) − γ0 )(γ1 − γ0 ) ψ(V )(γ1 − γ0 )

ϕ(vb ) = γ0 − vb + .

µ − γ1 + γ0 µ − γ1 + γ0

(ϕ (V ) − γ2 )(γ1 − γ2 ) ψ(V )(γ1 − γ2 )

ϕ(vc ) = γ2 − vc + .

µ − γ1 + γ2 µ − γ1 + γ2

Define

(ϕ (V ) − γ0 )(γ1 − γ0 ) ψ(V )(γ1 − γ0 )

Lγ0 ,γ1 ,µ (vb ) = γ0 − vb + . (8.25)

µ − γ1 + γ0 µ − γ1 + γ0

and

(ϕ (V ) − γ2 )(γ1 − γ2 ) ψ(V )(γ1 − γ2 )

Lγ2 ,γ1 ,µ (vc ) = γ2 − vc + . (8.26)

µ − γ1 + γ2 µ − γ1 + γ2

We can see the functions (8.25) and (8.26) are linear functions of vb and vc respectively.

ψ(V ) ψ(V )

P1 = , γ0 (8.27)

ϕ (V ) − γ0 ϕ (V ) − γ0

and

ψ(V ) ψ(V )

P2 = , γ2 (8.28)

ϕ (V ) − γ2 ϕ (V ) − γ2

respectively, as shown in Figure 8.3. By substituting these two points into (8.24), we can see

that these two points also lie on the tangent line L V , as shown in brown in Figure 8.3. Since

γ0 is a non-steep gradient acceleration, we have

dv

v = −r(v) + γ0 < 0.

dx

So

ϕ(V ) > γ0 V.

Similarly,

ϕ(V ) > γ2 V.

Chapter 8. Hold-coast-hold for a single steep downhill gradient 114

We can see that the two fixed points P1 and P2 have the form (W0 , W0 γ0 ) and (W2 , W2 γ2 )

where

ψ(V ) ψ(V )

W0 = and W2 = .

) − γ0

ϕ (V ϕ (V ) − γ2

This means that the points (8.27) and (8.28) are below the curve y = ϕ(v) as shown in the

Figure 8.3.

(ϕ (V ) − γi )(γ1 − γi)

Si (µ) = γi −

µ − γ1 + γi

of each line is a monotone increasing function of µ, so when µ increases, the slope also

increases. Note that vb < V < vc . When µ increases, the line (8.25) rotates anticlockwise

around point (8.27), and so vb decreases as shown in Figure 8.3. Meanwhile the line (8.26)

also rotates anticlockwise around point (8.28) but v c increases. However, by the constraint

(8.11), if vb decreases then vc also decreases. That implies there is only one value of µ that

satisfies condition (8.11). Therefore there is only one optimal solution to the system.

We want to find an optimal speed profile that satisfies equations (8.11), (8.22) and (8.23).

To solve these equations for vb , vc and µ, we use a method similar to that used in Chapter 5.

Note that µ can be calculated using equation (8.23

[ϕ(vc ) − LV (vc )](γ1 − γ2 )

µ = M(vc ) = . (8.29)

ϕ(vc ) − γ2 vc

Using (8.22), we define

Chapter 8. Hold-coast-hold for a single steep downhill gradient 115

y M ( v) y LV (v)

y

xP

2

P1 x

vb V vc v

Note that vc can be expressed as a function of vb . The optimal solutions v b , vc and M(vc )

must satisfy the equation

f (vb ) = 0. (8.31)

To prove the existence of the optimal solution, we want to show that function f is monotone

in the range of vb . We know that the maximum value v b can have is the holding speed V .

There are two cases for the minimum bound v b , illustrated in Figures 8.4 and 8.5. If there

exists a speed profile v on [b, c] with v(c) = V and v(b) ≥ 0 then v b = v(b) is a lower

bound for the domain of f as illustrated in Figure 8.4. In this case we can find v b by solving

equation (8.11) backwards from (x, v) = (c, V ). Any speed profile with v(b) < v b will have

v(c) < V, and the speed profile will not return to the holding speed after the steep section.

If the speed profile v on [b, c] with v(b) = 0 has v(c) ≥ V the v b = 0 is a lower bound for

the domain of f (vb ) as illustrated in Figure 8.5.

Chapter 8. Hold-coast-hold for a single steep downhill gradient 116

v

V

vb

0 b c x

v(c) > V

V

0 b c x

Chapter 8. Hold-coast-hold for a single steep downhill gradient 117

We now check the signs of the function at the two ends of its domain.

When vb = V , we have

f (V ) = [ϕ(V ) − γ0 V ]M(vc ).

ϕ(V ) − γ0 V > 0.

M(vc ) = .

ϕ(vc ) − γ2 vc

ϕ(vc ) − γ2 vc > 0.

The curve y = ϕ(v) is convex and y = LV (v) is the tangent at v = V and so we have

ϕ(v) − LV (v) > 0. Hence M(vc ) > 0 and so f (V ) > 0.

Then

f (vb ) = −[ϕ(v b ) − LV (v b )](γ1 − γ0 ).

We know

ϕ(v b ) − LV (v b ) > 0

because LV (v) is tangent to the convex function y = ϕ(v), and since γ 1 > γ0 then f (v b ) < 0.

If v b = 0, we have

f (0) = −(γ1 − γ0 )ψ(V ) < 0.

The function f is positive when v(b) = V and negative when v(b) = v b and is continuous.

Therefore there exists at least one solution to f (v b ) = 0 in the domain of f , [v b , V ].

Chapter 8. Hold-coast-hold for a single steep downhill gradient 118

To prove uniqueness we need to show that the function f from (8.30) is a strictly increasing

function. We will prove that the first derivative of the function is positive. We have

df dM(vc ) dvc

= [ϕ(vb ) − γ0 vb ] . +[ϕ (vb ) − γ0 ] M(vc )+[ϕ (V )−ϕ (vb )](γ1 −γ0 ). (8.32)

dvb dvc dvb

Consider ϕ (v) − γ0 . Recall that ϕ(v) = vr(v). Because r(v) − γ0 > 0 we have

Recall that, from the result of the previous section, M(v c ) > 0 and so then the second term

[ϕ (vb ) − γ0 ] M(vc ) > 0. The third term is also positive because V > v b and ϕ(v) is convex.

We now consider dM(vc )/dvc . Taking derivative of (8.29) we have

dM(vc ) (γ1 − γ2 )

= · A(vc ) (8.33)

dvc (ϕ(vc ) − γ2 vc )2

where

Let

Chapter 8. Hold-coast-hold for a single steep downhill gradient 119

[ϕ (V ) − γ2 ]v + ϕ(V ) − V ϕ (V ) = 0.

V ϕ (V ) − ϕ(V )

v0 = .

ϕ (V ) − γ2

and so

V ϕ (V ) − ϕ(V ) < V ϕ (V ) − γ2 V = V (ϕ (V ) − γ2 ).

V ϕ (V ) − ϕ(V )

V > = v0 .

ϕ (V ) − γ2

π(V ) = 0.

dµ(vc )

> 0.

dvc

vb vc dvc

= ·

γ1 − r(vb ) γ1 − r(vc ) dvb

and so

dvc vb γ1 − r(vc )

= · > 0.

dvb vc γ1 − r(vb )

Chapter 8. Hold-coast-hold for a single steep downhill gradient 120

df

> 0.

dvb

That means f is a monotone increasing function of v b . Therefore the solution to the equation

f (vb ) = 0

is unique.

To find an optimal coast phase we need to solve equations (8.22), (8.23) and (8.11) for v b , vc

and µ. The equations are

and vc

vdv

c−b=

vb γ1 − r(v)

respectively. These equations cannot be solved analytically. Instead we define a function as

in (8.30). It is

The domain of the function is [v b , V ] as discussed in Section 8.5.2. We proved in the previous

section that the values of the function at the two ends of the domain are different in sign, and

that there is only one solution in the interval, and so we can use the Bisection method to find

the solution, as we have done in Chapters 5, 6 and 7.

Chapter 8. Hold-coast-hold for a single steep downhill gradient 121

8.6 Example

⎧

⎪

⎪

⎪

⎪ 0.01, x < 5000

⎪

⎨

g(x) = 0.2 x ∈ [5000, 6000] (8.35)

⎪

⎪

⎪

⎪

⎪

⎩0.012 x > 6000.

The hold speed is V = 20. The gradient accelerations 0.01 and 0.012 are non-steep; 0.2 is

steep at the holding speed V.

We use a calculation scheme similar to that used in Chapter 5 for v b ∈ [13, 20]. In Figure 8.6

the optimal speed profile is displayed on the right hand side and function f is shown on the

left. The optimal speed at the top of the steep section is 17.06 which is also the zero of the

function f as seen in the Figure.

The results of the numerical iteration are shown in Table 8.1. J is the objective function to

be minimised.

8.7 Conclusion

For a train approaching a steep downhill section with a single gradient, there is a unique

optimal location at which to start coasting. We can use a numerical procedure similar to

that developed in the previous chapters to calculate the optimal speed profile for the steep

downhill section. The calculation scheme again converges quickly to the unique solution.

In the next chapter, we will consider a steep downhill section with two gradients.

Chapter 8. Hold-coast-hold for a single steep downhill gradient 122

26 26

25 25

24 24

23 23

22 22

vb21 21

20 20

19 19

18 18

17 17

16 16

15 15

−0.1 −0.05 0 0.05 0.1 0 5000 10000

f(v ) distance

b

Chapter 8. Hold-coast-hold for a single steep downhill gradient 123

p vb J f (vd )

197.95 16.500000 9.5838272984 -0.00280125

2770.89 18.250000 10.6524352617 0.00545279

1534.68 17.375000 9.2928020903 0.00150987

880.01 16.937500 9.1960529377 -0.00059866

1210.61 17.156250 9.1888353298 0.00046724

1046.15 17.046875 9.1779579444 -0.00006278

1128.58 17.101562 9.1798505852 0.00020295

1087.42 17.074218 9.1780084420 0.00007026

1066.79 17.060546 9.1777580628 0.00000378

1056.47 17.053710 9.1778015735 -0.00002948

1061.63 17.057128 9.1777657291 -0.00001284

1064.21 17.058837 9.1777583760 -0.00000452

1065.50 17.059692 9.1777573397 -0.00000036

1066.15 17.060119 9.1777574813 0.00000170

1065.83 17.059906 9.1777573555 0.00000066

1065.67 17.059799 9.1777573339 0.00000014

1065.58 17.059745 9.1777573333 -0.00000011

1065.63 17.059772 9.1777573327 0.00000002

Chapter 9

with two steep gradients

In this chapter we consider the optimal strategy when a holding phase is interrupted by a steep

downhill section with two constant gradients. The structure of this chapter is similar to that

of Chapter 8: we formulate the problem, derive necessary conditions for an optimal control,

prove the existence of an optimal solution, develop a numerical procedure for calculating an

optimal control, and give some examples. As in Chapter 6, the second gradient in the steep

section increases the complexity the problem and means that we can no longer prove that

the optimal coast phase is unique. However, we develop the new necessary conditions for an

optimal coast phase and use them to construct the new numerical method for calculating an

optimal coast phase.

124

Chapter 9. Hold-coast-hold on a downhill section with two steep gradients 125

The track compromises two steep downhill gradients between two non-steep gradients. The

gradient acceleration is given by

⎧

⎪

⎪

⎪

⎪ γ0 if x < b

⎪

⎪

⎪

⎪

⎨γ11 if x ∈ [b, d)

g(x) = (9.1)

⎪

⎪

⎪

⎪ γ12 if x ∈ [d, c)

⎪

⎪

⎪

⎪

⎩γ if x > c

2

where assume that γ1j > r(V ) for each j = 1, 2 and γi < r(V ) for i = 0, 2.

dv

v = −r(v) + g(x).

dx

Using η = θ − 1, from equation (2.19), the equation of the modified adjoint variable η is

− 3 η= .

dx v v3

We need to start coasting at a point p before the steep section and switch back to speed hold

at a point q after the steep section. We wish to find the optimal interval [p, q] for the coast

phase.

Figure 9.1 shows a typical optimal speed profile for two steep downhill gradients. However,

if the speed on the first steep gradient increases above the limiting speed of the second steep

gradient, speed will decrease on the second steep gradient, as shown in Figure 9.2.

Chapter 9. Hold-coast-hold on a downhill section with two steep gradients 126

vc

V V

vd

J0

vb

J 11

J 12

J2

p b d c q

Figure 9.1: Speed profile on a steep downhill section with two steep gradients.

Limiting speed

vd

vc

V Limiting speed V

J0 vb

J 11

J 12 J2

b d c

Figure 9.2: An alternative speed profile on a steep downhill section with two steep gradients.

Chapter 9. Hold-coast-hold on a downhill section with two steep gradients 127

We want to find necessary conditions for minimising the cost function (8.6) for a train coast-

ing on a downhill section with two steep gradients. We will use a method similar to that used

in Chapter 8.

V

vdv

p=b−

vb r(v) − γ0

and vc

vdv

q =c+

V r(v) − γ2

where p and q are the starting and ending points of the coast phase. By integrating equation

(9.9) on [b, d] and [d, c] we obtain the distance constraints

vd

vdv

d−b= (9.2)

vb γ11 − r(v)

and vc

vdv

c−d= . (9.3)

vd γ12 − r(v)

Integrating (9.2) from p to b we have

b b vb

vb2 − V 2 vdv

=− r(v)dx + γ0 (b − p) = − r(v)dx + γ0 , (9.4)

2 p p V γ0 − r(v)

from b to d we have d

vd2 − vb2

=− r(v)dx + γ11 (d − b), (9.5)

2 b

from d to c we have c

vc2 − vd2

=− r(v)dx + γ12 (c − d), (9.6)

2 d

from c to q, we obtain

q q vc

V 2 − vc2 vdv

=− r(v)dx + γ2 (q − c) = − r(v)dx + γ2 . (9.7)

2 c c V γ2 − r(v)

Chapter 9. Hold-coast-hold on a downhill section with two steep gradients 128

Adding (9.4), (9.5), (9.6) and (9.7) together, then rearranging, gives

q vb vc

vdv vdv

r(v)dx = γ0 + γ11 (d − b) + γ12 (c − d) + γ2 . (9.8)

p V γ0 − r(v) V γ2 − r(v)

⎪

⎪ dv

⎪

⎪ if x < b

⎪

⎪ r(v) − γ0

⎪

⎪

⎪

⎪ dv

⎨ if x ∈ [b, d)

dx = r(v) − γ11

1

(9.9)

v ⎪

⎪ dv

⎪

⎪ if x ∈ [d, c)

⎪

⎪ r(v) − γ12

⎪

⎪

⎪

⎪ dv

⎩ if x > c.

r(v) − γ2

q

ψ(V )

J(v) = + r(v) − ϕ (V ) dx

p v

we obtain

vb

vdv

J(vb , vd , vc ) = ψ(V )A(vb , vd , vc ) + γ0

V γ0 − r(v)

V

vdv

+γ11 (d − b) + γ12 (c − d) + γ2

vc γ2 − r(v)

vc V

vdv vdv

−ϕ (V ) c − b + + . (9.10)

V r(v) − γ2 vb r(v) − γ0

where

V vd vc vc

dv dv dv dv

A(vb , vd , vc ) = + + + .

vb r(v) − γ0 vb γ11 − r(v) vd γ12 − r(v) V r(v) − γ2

vd

vdv

J (vb , vc ) = J(vb , vc ) + λ1 d − b −

vb γ11 − r(v)

vc

vdv

+ λ2 c − d − (9.11)

vd γ12 − r(v)

Chapter 9. Hold-coast-hold on a downhill section with two steep gradients 129

we have

∂J ∂J ∂J

=0 , = 0 and =0

∂vb ∂vd ∂vc

and the complementary slackness conditions

vd

vdv

λ1 d − b − =0

vb γ11 − r(v)

and

vc

vdv

λ2 c − d − = 0.

vd γ12 − r(v)

As in the previous chapter, the Lagrange multipliers are still positive and our solution remains

unchanged when we weaken the conditions (9.2) and (9.3) to

vd

vdv

d−b− ≤0

vb γ11 − r(v)

and vc

vdv

c−d− ≤0

vd γ12 − r(v)

and hence we can guarantee that λ1 , λ2 ≥ 0. We have

∂J 1 1 γ0 − ϕ (V ) λ1

= ψ(V ) − + vb +

∂vb γ0 − r(v) γ11 − r(v) γ0 − r(v) γ11 − r(v)

and so

∂J

=0

∂vb

can be rearranged as

Chapter 9. Hold-coast-hold on a downhill section with two steep gradients 130

∂J 1 1 λ1 λ2

= ψ(V ) − − vd −

∂vd γ11 − r(vd ) γ12 − r(vd ) γ11 − r(vd ) γ11 − r(vd )

[ϕ(vd ) − γ11 vd ]λ2 − [ϕ(vd ) − γ12 vd ]λ1 = ψ(V )(γ12 − γ11 ). (9.14)

Let

µi = λi − ϕ (V ) + γ1i .

[ϕ(vd ) − γ11 vd ]µ2 − [ϕ(vd ) − γ12 vd ]µ1 = (γ12 − γ11 )[ϕ(vd ) − LV (vd )] (9.16)

and

[ϕ(vc ) − γ2 vc ] µ2 = [ϕ(vc ) − LV (vc )] (γ12 − γ2 ) (9.17)

Equations (9.15), (9.16) and (9.17) are necessary conditions for an optimal coast phase. By

deriving µ1 and µ2 from (9.15) and (9.17) as

µ1 = M1 (vb ) = (9.18)

ϕ(vb ) − γ0 vb

and

[ϕ(vc ) − LV (vc )](γ12 − γ2 )

µ2 = M2 (vc ) = (9.19)

ϕ(vc ) − γ2 vc

Chapter 9. Hold-coast-hold on a downhill section with two steep gradients 131

f (vd ) = [ϕ(vd )−γ11 vd ]M2 (vc )−[ϕ(vd )−γ12 vd ]M1 (vb )−(γ12 −γ11 )[ϕ(vd )−LV (vd )] (9.20)

µ2 must satisfies the equation

f (vd ) = 0. (9.21)

This is a alternative necessary condition for an optimal coast phase on a steep downhill track

with two steep sections of constant gradient.

In this section we want to prove existence and uniqueness of an optimal solution. We can

prove existence, but a proof of uniqueness eludes us.

We want to find an optimal speed profile that satisfies equations (9.2), (9.3), (9.15), (9.16)

and (9.17). To solve these equations for vb , vc , vd , µ1 and µ2 , we use a method similar to that

used in Chapter 8. That is, for a given vb we can calculate vd and vc using (9.2) and (9.3)

respectively. µ1 and µ2 can be calculated using (9.18) and (9.19) respectively. If they belong

to an optimal coast phase they must satisfy equation (9.21). Hence, we define a function f

as seen in (9.20).

To prove the existence of the optimal solution, we show that function f has different signs

at the two ends of its domain and that f is continuous on its domain. The domain of the

function can be calculated using speeds vb and vc . Since we start coasting before reaching

the steep section then the maximum possible value of v b is V. Speed vd is also maximised

Chapter 9. Hold-coast-hold on a downhill section with two steep gradients 132

when vb = V . The minimum possible of v d can be calculated as follows: if the coast phase

with vb = 0 has vc > V then this coast phase defines the minimum value of v d , otherwise

the coast phase that finishes with vc = V defines the minimum value of vd .

dv

v = γ − r(v)

dx

which is positive if γ is steep downhill and negative otherwise. So we have

and

γ12 − r(v) > 0 =⇒ γ12 v − ϕ(v) > 0. (9.23)

and

γ2 v − ϕ(v) < 0. (9.25)

We consider two cases: γ11 < γ12 and γ11 > γ12 .

[ϕ(vc ) − LV (vc )](γ12 − γ2 )

M2 (vc ) =

ϕ(vc ) − γ2 vc

We know that γ12 < γ2 and ϕ(vc ) − γ2 vc < 0. Hence µ2 (vc ) > 0. Since ϕ(vd ) − γ11 vd < 0

then f (vd ) < 0.

Chapter 9. Hold-coast-hold on a downhill section with two steep gradients 133

ϕ(vb ) − LV (vb )

M1 (vb ) = (γ11 − γ0 ) .

ϕ(vb ) − γ0 vb

Differentiating gives

dM1 γ11 − γ0

= A(vb )

dvb (ϕ(vb ) − γ0 vb )2

where

and

A (vb ) = ϕ (vb )[LV (vb ) − γ0 vb ].

ψ(V )

vb∗ = > 0.

) − γ0

ϕ (V

Since vb > vb∗ then A (vb ) > 0. Since A(V ) = 0 and vb < V then

That means

dM1

< 0.

dvb

Hence M1 (vb ) is a monotone decreasing function. That means we have M 1 (vd ) < M1 (vb )

Chapter 9. Hold-coast-hold on a downhill section with two steep gradients 134

We have

ϕ(vb ) − LV (vb )

M1 (vb ) = (γ11 − γ0 ) >0

ϕ(vb ) − γ0 vb

because γ11 > γ0 and ϕ(vb ) − γ0 vb > 0. Hence f (vd ) > 0 when vc = V.

Now consider

ϕ(vc ) − LV (vc )

M2 (vc ) = (γ12 − γ2 ) .

ϕ(vc ) − γ2 vc

Differentiating gives

dM2 γ12 − γ2

= B(vc )

dvc (ϕ(vc ) − γ2 vc )2

Chapter 9. Hold-coast-hold on a downhill section with two steep gradients 135

where

Differentiating gives

B (vc ) = ϕ (vc )(LV (vc ) − γ2 vc ).

Let

m(v) = LV (v) − γ2 v

and hence

m(V ) = ϕ(V ) − γ2 V > 0

and

m (v) = ϕ (V ) − γ2 > 0.

So m(vc ) > m(V ) > 0 because vc > V . That means B (vc ) > 0. Since B(V ) = 0 then

B(vc ) > B(V ) = 0. Hence, dM2 /dvc > 0. Because V < vd < vc then M2 (vd ) < M2 (vc ).

Recall that ϕ(vd ) − γ11 vd < 0, then we can have

Therefore in this case we also conclude that there exists at least one solution to f = 0 in the

domain.

Chapter 9. Hold-coast-hold on a downhill section with two steep gradients 136

vb vd vc

P1 f P2

Figure 9.3: Calculation sequence for f (vd ) in case of coasting over a 2 steep gradient section.

9.3.2 Uniqueness

Proving that the optimal solution is unique becomes much more complicated as the number

of steep gradients increases from one to two. We have not been able to construct a proof.

However, our numerical calculations indicate that the solution is unique.

We want to solve the system of equations (9.2), (9.3), (9.15), (9.16) and (9.17) for v b , vc , vd ,

µ1 and µ2 .

For convenience, we will search for the value of vb that gives f = 0, where vd is calculated

from vb by solving the differential equation (9.2) and where µ 1 = M1 (vb ) and µ2 = M2 (vc ).

First we need to find the feasible range for vb . The largest possible value of vb is the holding

speed V . The smallest value of vb is calculated by setting vc = V and solving (9.2) and (9.3)

from vc to vd and then to vb or vb = 0. For each candidate value of vb , we must calculate vd ,

then vc , µ2 and µ1 before we can evaluate f . The value for vd can be found using a numerical

DE solver to solve the equation of motion (9.2) forwards from (x = b, v = v b ) to x = d.

Then the value of vc is calculated by solving equation (9.3) forward from (x = d, v = v d )

to x = c. The value for µ1 and µ2 are calculated from (9.18) and (9.19) respectively. The

calculation sequence is illustrated in Figure 9.3.

Chapter 9. Hold-coast-hold on a downhill section with two steep gradients 137

9.5 Examples

⎧

⎪

⎪

⎪

⎪ 0.01, x < 5000

⎪

⎪

⎪

⎪

⎨0.22, x ∈ [5000, 5600]

g(x) = (9.26)

⎪

⎪

⎪

⎪ 0.2, x ∈ [5600, 6000]

⎪

⎪

⎪

⎪

⎩0.012, x > 6000.

The train parameters and holding speed are the same as for previous problem.

The range of vb computed is [13.5, 20]. The zero of function f that is graphed against v b is

vb = 16.94. This value matches the optimal speed v b as shown in Figure 9.4. The optimal

speed profile and graph of function f are displayed on the right and the left respectively in

Figure 9.4. The graph of function f shows the uniqueness of solution of equation f = 0 in

its domain. The results obtained from the iteration are displayed in the table 9.5.

9.6 Conclusion

For a steep downhill section with two gradients, we can prove the existence of an optimal

solution but are unable to find a theoretical proof of the uniqueness of the optimal coast

phase. However, we were able to develop a numerical scheme for calculating optimal coast

phases. We have shown two examples. These and other examples indicate that the necessary

condition f = 0 has only one solution. In the next chapter we will extend the problem for a

train coasting downhill a track of multiple constant gradient accelerations.

Chapter 9. Hold-coast-hold on a downhill section with two steep gradients 138

26 26

25 25

24 24

23 23

22 22

vb

21 21

20 20

19 19

18 18

17 17

16 16

−1 −0.5 0 0.5 1 0 2000 4000 6000 8000 10000 12000

f distance

Figure 9.4: f and the optimal speed profile for Example 9.5.1

Table 9.1: Experimental results of an optimal journey on a double steep downhill section, Example

9.5.1.

p vb J f (vd )

1350.28 17.25000 11.0372147786 -0.03266703

297.16 16.562500 11.1077618762 0.04660625

832.23 16.906250 10.9211120895 0.00372951

1093.30 17.07812 10.9437761122 -0.01521615

963.29 16.992187 10.9233032185 -0.00593756

897.89 16.949218 10.9198845774 -0.00115354

865.09 16.927734 10.9199127615 0.00127548

881.50 16.938476 10.9197528800 0.00005786

889.70 16.943847 10.9197823565 -0.00054861

885.60 16.941162 10.9197585159 -0.00024557

883.55 16.939819 10.9197534212 -0.00009390

Chapter 10

section with many gradients

In this chapter we consider the optimal control strategy when a holding phase is interrupted

by a steep downhill section with piecewise constant gradient where we allow many gradient

changes before the steep section, on the steep section, and after the steep section. We formu-

late the problem, derive the set of necessary conditions, then use them to develop a method

for numerical calculation of the optimal speed profile.

gradients that are non-steep at the hold speed V , followed by a sequence of gradients that are

steep downhill at speed V , then a final sequence of gradients that are non-steep at speed V .

139

Chapter 10. Hold-coast-hold on a steep downhill section with many gradients 140

steep part

J1 J n 1

f p1 p2 pg 1 pg pr ps ph ph 1 pn 1 pn f

Figure 10.1: Gradient change points for a general steep downhill section.

Let

[p1 , p2 ), . . . , [pn , ∞);

• pr and ps be the starting point and ending point of the steep part and 1 ≤ r, s ≤ n;

• a be the point where coasting starts and b the point where speedhold resumes;

• pg−1 ≤ a ≤ pg where pg is the first gradient change point during the coast phase;

• ph ≤ b ≤ ph+1 be the last gradient change point during the coast phase;

ψ(V )

J= + r(v) − ϕ (V ) dx. (10.1)

a v

The equation of motion for the coast phase is

dv

v = −r(v) + γj (10.2)

dx

for x ∈ (pj , pj+1 ). By integrating the equation of motion as we did in Chapters 8 and 9, we

obtain

b

h−1 vg vh

vdv vdv

r(v)dx = γi (pi+1 − pi ) + γg + γh . (10.3)

a i=g+1 V γg − r(v) V γh − r(v)

Chapter 10. Hold-coast-hold on a steep downhill section with many gradients 141

b

h−1

dx

J(vg , . . . , vh ) = ψ(V ) −γg (pg −a)− γi−1 (pi+1 −pi )−γh (b−ph )−ϕ (V )(b−a)

a v i=g+1

where

b V vh
h−1 vi+1

dx dv dv dv

= + + ,

a v vg r(v) − γg V r(v) − γh i=g vi −r(v) + γi

vg

vdv

pg − a = ,

V −r(v) + γg

V

vdv

b − ph = ,

vh −r(v) + γh

and so

V vg

vdv vdv

b − a = p h − pg + + . (10.4)

vh −r(v) + γh V −r(v) + γg

Hence the cost function can be written as

vh h−1 vi+1

V

dv dv
dv

J(vg , . . . , vh ) = ψ(V ) + +

vg r(v) − γg V r(v) − γh i=g vi −r(v) + γi

vg

h−1 V

vdv vdv

−γg − γi−1 (pi+1 − pi ) − γh

V −r(v) + γg i=g+1 vh −r(v) + γh

V vg

vdv vdv

−ϕ (V )(ph − pg + + ).

vh −r(v) + γh V −r(v) + γg

The optimal velocities at each pair of adjacent points p i and pi+1 must satisfy the constraint

vi+1

vdv

pi+1 − pi = . (10.5)

vi −v + γi

We want to minimise J(vg , vg+1 , . . . , vh ) subject to (10.5). First we define the Lagrange

function

h−1

vi+1

vdv

+ λi pi+1 − pi − (10.6)

i=g vi −r(v) + γi

Chapter 10. Hold-coast-hold on a steep downhill section with many gradients 142

∂J

=0

∂vi

and the complementary slackness condition

vi+1

vdv

λi pi+1 − pi − =0

vi γ1 − r(v)

for i = g + 1, . . . , h − 1 to minimise the cost function J. Note that our solution remains

unchanged if we weaken the conditions (10.5) to

vi+1

vdv

pi+1 − pi − ≤0 (10.7)

vi −v + γi

because in order to minimise fuel consumption we should not travel further than the required

distance pi+1 − pi . Thus we can guarantee that λi ≥ 0. By setting ∂J /∂vi = 0 as we did in

Chapter 8, we obtain at each point pi with g < i < h the equation

where

µi = λi − ϕ (V ) − γi+1 .

At the first and last gradient change points during the coast phase we get

where i = g, h. Speed vi can be found from speed vi−1 by solving equation (10.5) forward

or from vi+1 by solving (10.5) backward. Given an initial guess for the speed v r at the top of

the steep downhill section, we can calculate vi and µi that satisfy all equations except one.

The remaining equation can be written as f (vr+1 ) = 0, where

has the same form as (10.10). However for calculation consistency we choose the remaining

Chapter 10. Hold-coast-hold on a steep downhill section with many gradients 143

equation at the point r+1 where the steep section begins. The domain [v r+1 , v̄r+1 ] of function

f can be calculated based on the slowest and fastest possible coasting speed profiles. For

convenience and consistency we search for vr = v(pr ) that satisfies f (vr+1 ) = 0 in the

following section.

Before we can search for the value of vr for which f (vr+1 ) = 0, we must find a suitable

interval [v r , v̄r ] in which to search.

For a coast phase, we cannot start the steep downhill section with a speed that is greater than

the hold speed V . Suppose we start the steep downhill section with v r = V . The limiting

speed on each of the gradient sections on the steep section is greater than V , and so the speed

profile v with v(pr ) = vr = V will have v(ps ) > V ; that is, speed will start at the hold speed

V at the top of the steep section and will finish above the hold speed V at the bottom of the

steep section. So v̄r = V is a valid upper bound.

• if the speed profile v with v(pr ) = 0 at the top of the steep section reaches the bottom

of the steep section with v(ps ) > V then the lower bound for the speed vr is vr = 0;

otherwise

• the lower bound for the speed vr is vr = v(pr ), where v is the the speed profile that

reaches the bottom of the hill with v(p s ) = V .

For a given value vr , we can calculate forward all speeds at the points pr+1 , . . . , ph and

backward all speeds from point pr−1 to point pg using equation (10.5). From equation (10.9)

we can calculate µh−1 and µg using vh and vg respectively. Then µg+1 can be calculated from

equation (10.8) using vg+1 and µg . We can calculate µg+2 , . . . , µr and µh−1 , . . . , µr+1 in a

Chapter 10. Hold-coast-hold on a steep downhill section with many gradients 144

vg v g 1 vr vr 1 vr 2 vh1 vh

Pg P g 1 Pr f Pr+1 Ph 2 Ph 1

similar way. Finally we substitute v r+1 , µr and µr+1 into equation (10.10). The calculation

scheme is illustrated in Figure 10.2. We use the Bisection method to find v r that gives

f (vr+1 ) = 0.

10.2 Example

Example 10.2.1 In this example we use three gradients that are non-steep at speed V , then

thirteen gradients that are steep downhill at speed V , then three gradients that are non-steep

at speed V . The track data and optimal speed are shown in Table 10.1.

Figure 10.3 shows shows that f is monotonic and has a single minimum. The optimal speed

profile of Example 10.2.1 is displayed at the bottom of the figure. Notice that there is a non-

steep part where the speed increases and also some steep parts where the speed decreases.

The data of these cases are displayed in bold in Table 10.1.

Chapter 10. Hold-coast-hold on a steep downhill section with many gradients 145

Table 10.1: Track data and results of hold-coast-hold on a multi steep downhill section.

p γ v vL

−∞ 0.010 8.06225774829855

9900 0.020 17.16560752770548 8.06225774829855

10900 0.015 17.08320058289678 16.27882059609971

11500 0.050 16.86562787306989 12.84523257866513

12400 0.040 18.28706387803024 29.41088233970548

13500 0.070 19.20552524744577 25.78759391645525

14700 0.056 21.68382350711548 35.56683848755748

15600 0.030 22.68253608306716 31.38470965295043

16700 0.048 22.56859541912852 21.56385865284782

17600 0.060 23.16268231910735 28.72281323269014

18600 0.120 24.22400336900532 32.63433774416144

19500 0.075 27.04150185853915 47.59201613716318

20400 0.100 28.03193806777925 36.94590640382234

21200 0.050 29.47478912746264 43.18564576337837

22200 0.105 29.46871355930902 29.41088233970548

23100 0.040 31.02882053740335 44.32832051860300

23900 0.020 30.65766946886469 25.78759391645525

24900 0.010 29.59169082093850 16.27882059609971

26200 0.012 27.87192157428342 8.06225774829855

∞ 0.012 10.24695076595960

Chapter 10. Hold-coast-hold on a steep downhill section with many gradients 146

−3

x 10

3

f −1

−2

−3

−4

−5

16 16.5 17 17.5 18 18.5 19 19.5 20

v

3

32

30

28

26

v 24

22

20

18 steep downhill

16

0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5

x x 10

4

Figure 10.3: Plot of f (vr+1 ) (top) and speed profile of Example 10.2.1 (bottom).

Chapter 10. Hold-coast-hold on a steep downhill section with many gradients 147

10.3 Conclusion

We have shown that the new numerical method for finding an optimal coast phase for a steep

downhill track can be extended to handle any number of gradients. Although we have not

been able to prove that the solution found using our method is unique, we have used our

numerical method to plot the function f for many examples; in each example f = 0 appears

to have only one solution on the domain of feasible speeds.

Part III

Phase trajectories

148

Chapter 11

section

In this chapter we take an alternative view of the necessary conditions for an optimal power

phase on a steep uphill section. By constructing (v, η) phase trajectories where η = θ −1 and

θ is the modified adjoint variable defined in Chapter 2, we are able to gain further insights

into optimal strategies.

We assume piecewise constant gradient and use an exact integration of the adjoint equation

to find an explicit relation between v and η. We then form alternative necessary conditions

for an optimal power phase by following this relation along the various sections of constant

gradient between the switching points, and consider properties of the relationship between v

and η. Finally, we investigate phase diagrams of v and η for various track configurations.

149

Chapter 11. Phase trajectories on a steep uphill section 150

The speed of a train powering along a section with constant gradient acceleration γ is given

by the equation

dv P r(v) − γ

= 2− . (11.1)

dx v v

The modified adjoint equation of a train in power mode, derived in Chapter 2, is

dθ P + ψ(v) P + ψ(V )

− · θ = (−1) .

dx v3 v3

By substituting η = θ − 1 we obtain an alternative adjoint equation

dη ψ(v) + P ψ(v) + P ψ(V ) + P

− 3

·η = 3

− . (11.2)

dx v v v3

Using η as the adjoint variable, an optimal power phase for a steep uphill section must start

and finish with η = 0.

We will find a direct relationship between the speed v and the modified adjoint variable η.

The integrating factor for the adjoint equation (11.2) is

ψ(v) + P

IF = exp − dx

v3

from which we deduce

d ψ(v) + P ψ(v) + P ψ(V ) + P ψ(v) + P

η. exp − dx = − exp − dx .

dx v3 v3 v3 v3

(11.3)

If we neglect the arbitrary constant of integration we can show that IF = vdv/dx where

v = v(x) is the solution to (11.1). This gives us a useful link between the equation of motion

and the adjoint equation. We start by differentiating (11.1), which gives

d2 v 2P r (v) r(v) − γ dv

= − 3 − + .

dx2 v v v2 dx

Dividing by dv/dx gives

d2 v/dx2 1 P r(v) − γ P r (v)

= − − − −

dv/dx v v2 v v3 v

1 dv P r (v)

= − · − 3− . (11.4)

v dx v v

Chapter 11. Phase trajectories on a steep uphill section 151

ψ(v) + P 1 dv d2 v/dx2

− = + .

v3 v dx dv/dx

ψ(v) + P dv dv

− 3

dx = ln v + ln = ln (v )

v dx dx

and we obtain

ψ(v) + P dv

exp − 3

dx = v . (11.5)

v dx

Since

d ψ(v) + P ψ(v) + P ψ(v) + P

exp − dx =− exp − dx

dx v3 v3 v3

d dv ψ(v) + P ψ(v) + P

v =− exp − dx . (11.6)

dx dx v3 v3

d dv ψ(v) + P ψ(v) + P ψ(V ) + P dv

v ·η = 3

exp − 3

dx − 3

·v

dx dx v v v dx

ψ(v) + P ψ(v) + P ψ(V ) + P dv

= 3

exp − 3

dx − ·

v v v2 dx

d dv d ψ(V ) + P

= − v +

dx dx dx v

and hence

dv dv ψ(V ) + P

· η = −v

v + +C

dx dx v

P P ψ(V ) + P

=⇒ − r(v) + γ η = − + r(v) − γ + +C

v v v

=⇒ [P − ϕ(v) + γv] η = ϕ(v) − γv + ψ(V ) + Cv. (11.7)

Since

ψ(V ) = −ϕ(V ) + V ϕ (V ),

Chapter 11. Phase trajectories on a steep uphill section 152

we have

η= . (11.9)

P − ϕ(v) + γv

Equation (11.9) shows the dependence of η on v for power phases on a track section with

constant gradient acceleration γ. By selecting different values for the constant C we can

select different curves (v, η). We will use this feature later to ensure that η is continuous at

gradient change points.

We can use (11.9) to develop necessary conditions for an optimal power phase for a steep

uphill section. Note that η is non-negative during an optimal power phase. If we let

Ci = ϕ (V ) − γi + C (11.10)

where γi is the gradient acceleration on the interval [xi , xi+1 ] then (11.9) can be rewritten on

this interval in the general form

η= = (11.11)

P − ϕ(v) + γi v hi (v)

where

εV (v) = ϕ(v) − LV (v) (11.12)

and

hi (v) = P − ϕ(v) + γi v. (11.13)

Chapter 11. Phase trajectories on a steep uphill section 153

The constant Ci will be different on different gradient sections, but η must be continuous at

points where the gradient changes. Note that dη/dv may have a jump discontinuity at these

points but will be continuous elsewhere.

Suppose a power phase starts on track section j with gradient acceleration γ j . We can use

this continuity property to calculate a sequence of values {C j , Cj+1 , Cj+2, . . .} that define

a feasible speed profile for the steep uphill section. Later, we will show that C j = 0 gives

a speed profile that satisfies the necessary condition η = 0 at the starting point x = p ∈

(pj , pj+1) for an optimal power phase.

First we consider a simple case of a track with three constant gradient sections. The first and

last are non-steep and the middle section is steep at speed V . Thus

for i = 0, 2 and

P − ϕ(V ) + γ1 V < 0.

The steep section starts at x1 and ends at x2 . The track is non-steep on (−∞, x1 ] and [x2 , ∞).

The train powers from point p < x1 to point q > x2 , as shown in Figure 11.1.

First consider the interval [p, x1 ). We rewrite (11.11) for i = 0 in the form

εV (V ) = 0 equation (11.14) shows that C 0 = 0. Hence (11.14) becomes

Chapter 11. Phase trajectories on a steep uphill section 154

v1

V V

v2

J2

J1

J0

p x1 x2 q

Figure 11.1: Speed and elevation profiles with one steep gradient.

At x = x1 we have

h1 η1 = εV (v1 ) + C1 v1 . (11.18)

Equation (11.16) gives η1 in terms of v1 and if we substitute this expression into (11.18) we

obtain

h1 (v1 )

· εV (v1 ) = εV (v1 ) + C1 v1 .

h0 (v1 )

Hence we express C1 in terms of v1 :

1 h1 (v1 )

C1 = − 1 εV (v1 ). (11.19)

v1 h0 (v1 )

At x = x2 we obtain

εV (v1 )

h1 (v2 )η2 = εV (v2 ) + (γ1 − γ0 ) · · v2 . (11.20)

h0 (v1 )

Now continue in the same way on the next interval to find C 2 . On the interval [x2 , ∞) using

(11.11) for i = 2 we have

h2 (v)η = εV (v) + C2 v. (11.21)

Chapter 11. Phase trajectories on a steep uphill section 155

At x = x2 we have

h2 (v2 )η2 = εV (v2 ) + C2 v2 . (11.22)

From (11.20) we find η2 and then substitute into (11.22) to express C 2 in term of v2 , giving

h2 (v2 ) εV (v1 )

εV (v2 ) + (γ1 − γ0 ) · v2 = εV (v2 ) + C2 v2 .

h1 (v2 ) h0 (v1 )

=⇒ C2 = (γ2 − γ1 ) · + (γ1 − γ0 ) · · . (11.23)

h1 (v2 ) h1 (v2 ) h0 (v1 )

An optimal strategy finishes at x = q with v = V and η = 0. At x = q we have ε V (V ) = 0,

and so from (11.21) we have C2 = 0.

εV (v2 ) εV (v1 )

(γ2 − γ1 ) · + (γ1 − γ0 ) = 0.

h2 (v2 ) h0 (v1 )

Therefore a necessary condition for an optimal strategy is

εV (v2 ) εV (v1 )

(γ2 − γ1 ) + (γ1 − γ0 ) = 0. (11.24)

h2 (v2 ) h0 (v1 )

We will now show that the necessary conditions (11.24) is equivalent to condition (5.46) in

Chapter 5. The condition (5.46) is

Recall that

hi (v) = P − ϕ(v) + γiv

and

= ϕ(v) − vϕ (V ) + ψ(V ).

ϕ(v2 ) − v2 ϕ (V ) + ψ(V ) ϕ(v1 ) − v1 ϕ (V ) + ψ(V )

(γ2 − γ1 ) + (γ1 − γ0 ) = 0.

P − ϕ(v2 ) + γ2 v2 P − ϕ(v1 ) + γ1 v1

Chapter 11. Phase trajectories on a steep uphill section 156

ϕ(v2 ) − v2 ϕ (V ) + ψ(V )

(γ2 − γ1 )[P − ϕ(v1 ) + γ1 v1 ]

P − ϕ(v2 ) + γ2 v2

Note that v1 and v2 are equivalent to vb and vc used in Chapter 5. From (6.14) we have

ϕ(vc ) − ϕ (V )vc + ψ(V )

µ = (γ2 − γ1 )

P − ϕ(vc ) + γ2 vc

and hence (11.25) can be rewritten as

C0 = C2 = 0 ⇐⇒ (11.24) ⇐⇒ (5.46).

Note that

h1 (v1 ) P + γ1 v1 − ϕ1 (v1 ) − P − γ0 v1 + ϕ(v1 ) (γ1 − γ0 )v1

−1 = =

h0 (v1 ) P + γ0 v1 − ϕ(v1 ) h0 (v1 )

and hence (11.19) shows that

(γ1 − γ0 )εV (v1 )

C1 = < 0.

h0 (v1 )

This is consistent with the fact that we cannot switch from power back to speedhold on the

steep section (since we cannot speedhold on the steep section).

In this section our aim is to find new necessary conditions for an optimal strategy on a track

that consists of two steep sections with constant gradient accelerations γ 1 and γ2 and two

Chapter 11. Phase trajectories on a steep uphill section 157

v1

V v2 V

v3

J3

J2

J1

J0

p x1 x2 x3 q

Figure 11.2: Speed and elevation profile with two steep gradients.

non-steep sections having gradient accelerations γ 0 and γ3 . We assume that [x1 , x2 ] and

[x2 , x3 ] are steep at speed V and (−∞, x1 ] and [x3 , ∞) are non-steep. The track is shown in

Figure 11.2.

h0 (v)η = εV (v).

h1 (v)η = εV (v) + C1 v

and

εV (v1 )

C1 = (γ1 − γ0 ) (11.26)

h0 (v1 )

and v1 = v(x1 ). On (x2 , x3 ) we have

h2 (v)η = εV (v) + C2 v

and by substituting v = v 2 in the expressions for h1 (v) and h2 (v) we can see that

εV (v2 ) h2 (v2 )

C2 = (γ2 − γ1 ) + C1

h1 (v2 ) h1 (v2 )

εV (v2 ) h2 (v2 ) εV (v1 )

= (γ2 − γ1 ) + (γ1 − γ0 ) (11.27)

h1 (v2 ) h1 (v2 ) h0 (v1 )

Chapter 11. Phase trajectories on a steep uphill section 158

and by substituting v = v 3 in the expressions for h2 (v) and h3 (v) we see that

εV (v3 ) h3 (v3 )

C3 = (γ3 − γ2 ) + C2

h2 (v3 ) h2 (v3 )

εV (v3 ) h3 (v3 ) εV (v2 )

= (γ3 − γ2 ) + (γ2 − γ1 ) ·

h2 (v3 ) h2 (v3 ) h1 (v2 )

h3 (v3 ) h2 (v2 ) εV (v1 )

+(γ1 − γ0 ) · · (11.29)

h2 (v3 ) h1 (v2 ) h0 (v1 )

and v3 = v(x3 ). As in Subsection 11.2.1, in order to obtain an optimal strategy we must have

v = V and η = 0 at x = q, and since εV (V ) = 0 it follows that from (11.28) that C 3 = 0.

εV (v3 ) h3 (v3 ) εV (v2 ) h3 (v3 ) h2 (v2 ) εV (v1 )

(γ3 −γ2 ) +(γ2 −γ1 ) · +(γ1 −γ0 ) · · = 0. (11.30)

h2 (v3 ) h2 (v3 ) h1 (v2 ) h2 (v3 ) h1 (v2 ) h0 (v1 )

(6.15) can be written as

[ϕ(vd ) − γ11 vd − P ]µ2 − [ϕ(vd ) − γ12 vd − P ]µ1 − [ϕ(vd ) − LV (vd )](γ12 − γ11 ) = 0. (11.31)

Using the notation of (11.12) and (11.13) and equations (6.10) and (6.11) we have

εV (v)

µ1 = (γ0 − γ1 )

h0 (v)

and

εV (v)

µ2 = (γ3 − γ2 )

h3 (v)

and so (11.31) is the same as (11.30).

C0 = C3 = 0 ⇐⇒ (11.30) ⇐⇒ (6.15)

Chapter 11. Phase trajectories on a steep uphill section 159

In this section we use the relationship (11.11) between v and η to show how η(v) behaves on

various parts of a power phase.

Lemma 11.3.1 Consider a track section with constant gradient acceleration γ. Let

ϕ(v) − LV (v) + Cv

η= (11.32)

P − ϕ(v) + γv

dη

2. the solution to the equation dv

= 0 is given by v = V if and only if C = 0; and

3. the function η(v) has a maximum turning point on a steep uphill section of track with

P − ϕ(V ) + γV < 0 and a minimum turning point on a non-steep section of track with

P − ϕ(V ) + γV > 0.

Proof:

First, we show that dη/dv = 0 has a unique solution for each value of C.

= . (11.33)

dv [P − ϕ(v) + γv]2

ϕ (v) − γ ϕ (V ) − γ − C

= (11.34)

ψ(v) + P ψ(V ) + P

which can be rewritten as

ϕ (V ) − γ − C

f (v) − =0 (11.35)

ψ(V ) + P

where

ϕ (v) − γ

f (v) = . (11.36)

ψ(v) + P

Chapter 11. Phase trajectories on a steep uphill section 160

Recall that

ϕ(v) = vr(v) =⇒ vϕ (v) = ϕ(v) + ψ(v)

and

ψ(v) = v 2 r (v) =⇒ ψ (v) = vϕ (v).

f (v) = −

ψ(v) + P (ψ(v) + P )2

ϕ (v)(ψ(v) + P ) − (ϕ (v) − γ)vϕ (v)

=

(ψ(v) + P )2

ϕ (v)[P − ϕ(v) + vϕ (v) − vϕ (v) + γv]

=

(ψ(v) + P )2

ϕ (v)[P + γv − ϕ(v)]

=

(ψ(v) + P )2

> 0 if P − ϕ(v) + γv > 0.

This means f (v) is a continuous monotone increasing function and so equation (11.34) has

only one solution for each value of C. Therefore, for any given value of C, there is only one

value of v that gives dη/dv = 0.

If dη/dv = 0 then we obtain equation (11.34). We can easily see that equation (11.34) is

satisfied with v = V and C = 0. So dη/dv = 0 if and only if v = V and C = 0.

We now check the nature of the optimal switching point (η, v) = (0, V ).

Chapter 11. Phase trajectories on a steep uphill section 161

dη

d2 η ϕ (v)(ψ(V ) + P ) − (ϕ (V ) − γ − C)vϕ (v) 2 dv · (ϕ (v) − γ)

= +

dv 2 [P − ϕ(v) + γv]2 P − ϕ(v) + γv

dη

ϕ [(P − ϕ(v) + γv) + ϕ(v) − LV (v) + Cv] 2 dv · (ϕ (v) − γ)

= +

(P − ϕ(v) + Cv)2 P − ϕ(v) + γv

ϕ (v)[η + 1] + 2 dη

dv

· (ϕ (v) − γ)

= . (11.37)

P − ϕ(v) + γv

But dη/dv = 0 at v = V , and so

d2 η ϕ (V )[η + 1]

(V ) = . (11.38)

dv 2 P − ϕ(V ) + γV

Recall that η > 0 for a power phase and ϕ(v) is a convex function.

d2 η

If dη/dv = 0 at v = V on a steep section with P − ϕ(V ) + γV < 0 then dv2

< 0 and

we have a maximum turning point. If dη/dv = 0 at v = V on a non-steep section with

d2 η

P − ϕ(V ) + γV > 0 then dv2

> 0 and we have a minimum turning point.

We can use the results of Lemma 11.3.1 to analyse the behaviour of η(v) during a power

phase on a steep uphill section.

The power phase must start on a non-steep section with v = V . From the Lemma, we know

that this implies that C = 0 and dη/dv = 0. In Section 11.2.1 we showed that C = 0 is a

necessary condition for the start of the power phase, and so dη/dv = 0 is also a necessary

condition for the start of the power phase.

Similarly, the power phase must start on a non-steep section with v = V , C = 0 and

dη/dv = 0.

Figure 11.3 shows η(v) for the start (blue) and finish (green) of an optimal power phase. To

get from the start of the power phase to the end of the power phase we require an η curve as

shown in red. Speed must decrease on this section, and so the gradient must be steep uphill.

Furthermore, part 3 of the Lemma says that this η curve has a maximum turning point, as

shown in the diagram.

Chapter 11. Phase trajectories on a steep uphill section 162

−3

x 10

20

15

10

−5

17.5 18 18.5 19 19.5 20 20.5 21 21.5 22

v

Figure 11.3: Phase diagram of a power phase on a single steep uphill section.

To help us to construct optimal strategies, we want to plot the curves η = η(v) for all possible

values of C.

To understand the behaviour of η, we first consider (11.11) as the speed v approaches the

limiting speed for the gradient. When x → ∞ we have v → W , the limiting speed of the

train on the gradient γ where P = ϕ(W ) − γW . Note that since γ is a non-steep gradient

acceleration then W > V . If η has a limit as v → W then because

ϕ(v) − LV (v) + Cv

η=

P − ϕ(v) + γv

and because the denominator is zero when v = W the numerator must also be zero. Thus

ϕ(W ) − LV (v) + CW = 0

1

=⇒ C = [LV (W ) − ϕ(W )].

W

Chapter 11. Phase trajectories on a steep uphill section 163

v

ϕ(v) − LV (v) − [ϕ(W ) − LV (W )] · W

η= . (11.39)

γ(v − W ) + ϕ(W ) − ϕ(v)

Since

v v

LV (v) − LV (W ) = [ϕ(V ) + ϕ (V )(v − V )] − [ϕ(V ) + ϕ (V )(W − V )] ·

W W

v v

= ϕ(V )(1 − ) + ϕ (V ) v − V − (W − V )

W W

v v

= ϕ(V )(1 − ) − V ϕ (V )(1 − )

W W

v

= −ψ(V )(1 − )

W

1

W

[(W ϕ(v) − vϕ(W )) + ψ(V )(W − v)]

η =

γ(v − W ) + ϕ(W ) − ϕ(v)

1 W ϕ(v)−vϕ(W )

W

· W −v

+ ψ(V )

= ϕ(W )−ϕ(v)

. (11.40)

W −v

−γ

Now we consider the limit of this part of the numerator of (11.40). Using L’Hopitals rule we

have

lim · = lim · =− (11.41)

v→W W W −v v→W W −1 W

lim = lim = ϕ (W ).

v→W W −v v→W −1

So we have

ψ(V ) − ψ(W )

lim η = . (11.42)

v→W W (ϕ (W ) − γ)

If γ is a non-steep gradient acceleration then V < W and ϕ (W ) − γ > 0, and so the limit

is negative. If γ is a steep gradient acceleration then W > V and ϕ (W ) − γ < 0, and hence

the limit is positive.

Chapter 11. Phase trajectories on a steep uphill section 164

We now want to consider η when C takes values on either side of the critical value C ∗ . When

C = C ∗ equation (11.34) becomes

ϕ (v) − γ ϕ (V ) − γ − C ∗

= . (11.43)

ψ(v) + P ψ(V ) + P

If

LV (W ) − ϕ(W )

C < C∗ =

W

then from (11.43) we obtain

ϕ (v) − γ ϕ (V ) − γ − C

<

ψ(v) + P ψ(V ) + P

ϕ (v) − γ ϕ (V ) − γ − C

=⇒ − < 0,

ψ(v) + P ψ(V ) + P

and hence from (11.33) we have

dη

< 0.

dv

1

Substituting C = C ∗ − ε = W

[LV (W ) − ϕ(W )] − ε into (11.32) we have

)−ϕ(W )

− ε]v

η= . (11.44)

P + γv − ϕ(v)

When v → W we have

P = ϕ(W ) − γW

ψ(V ) ϕ(W )

N = ϕ(W ) − LV (W ) + ϕ (V ) − γ − − + γ W − εW

W W

= −εW.

when v → W + , P − ϕ(v) + γv = ϕ(W ) − γW − ϕ(W + ) + γW + > 0 then η ↑ ∞.

If

LV (W ) − ϕ(W )

Cγ > C ∗ =

W

Chapter 11. Phase trajectories on a steep uphill section 165

For both steep and non-steep gradient accelerations γ we have

ψ(V )

η=

P

when v = 0 and the limit of η when v tends to infinity can be obtained by applying L’Hopitals

rule

ϕ(v) − LV (v) + Cv

lim η = lim

v→∞ v→∞ P + γv − ϕ(v)

ϕ (v) − ϕ (V ) + C

= lim

v→∞ γ − ϕ (v)

ϕ (v)

= lim = −1. (11.45)

v→∞ −ϕ (v)

The behaviour of η on non-steep and steep gradients is illustrated in Figure 11.4. In both

cases, the η curves move up with increasing values of C when v < W and move down when

v > W. For example, when γ = −0.075 and P = 3, the limiting speed is 25.9765 and the

critical value C ∗ = −0.0045. For γ = −0.2 and P = 3, the limiting speed is 13.8656 and

the critical value C ∗ = −0.0073. The curves passing through v = W are the critical curves

with C = C ∗ .

d2 η

<0

dv 2

because P + γV − ϕ(V ) < 0 for a steep gradient. Therefore η has its maximum value of 0

at v = V when γ is a steep gradient acceleration. Similarly η has a minimum of 0 at v = V

for a non-steep gradient acceleration γ.

Figure 11.5 shows the phase diagram of η against speed v of a train powering over a steep

uphill section comprising two constant slopes with gradient accelerations γ 11 = 0.5 and

Chapter 11. Phase trajectories on a steep uphill section 166

1.5

C= − 0.05

C= − 0.025

C=0

C=0.025

1 C=0.05

C=C*

0.5

η

0

−0.5

−1

−1.5

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50

v

1.5

C= − 0.01

C= − 0.005

C=0

C=0.005

1 C=0.01

C=C*

0.5

η

0

−0.5

−1

−1.5

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

v

Figure 11.4: Phase plot with different values of C for the case of non-steep gradient (top) and steep

gradient (bottom).

Chapter 11. Phase trajectories on a steep uphill section 167

0.14

0.12

0.1

0.08

η

0.06

0.04

0.02

−0.02

10 15 20 25

v

Figure 11.5: Phase diagrams of an optimal strategy obtained obtained using the traditional method

and the explicit formula of η

γ12 = 0.2. The holding speed is V = 20. The optimal power phase plotted in this diagram

was calculated by solving the equation of motion (11.1) and the adjoint equation (11.2)

simultaneously using a Runga-Kuta method and then using a shooting method to find the

starting point of the power phase which satisfies the necessary conditions at the switching

points.

The thin lines on each edge of the diagram are plots of η calculated using (11.32); these lines

coincide with the optimal phase plot on each track section.

Chapter 11. Phase trajectories on a steep uphill section 168

0.15

0.1

η

0.05

−0.05

12 14 16 18 20 22 24

v

Figure 11.6: Phase diagrams for one optimal and two non-optimal strategies

Figure 11.6 shows phase plots for one optimal and two non-optimal profiles. The thick blue

line is optimal. The green profile starts powering too soon, and returns to v = V with η > 0.

The red profile starts powering too late, and returns to v = V with η < 0.

The critical curve of a gradient acceleration γ is calculated using the formula (11.32) with

the limiting speed W of that gradient and the critical value of C

LV (W ) − ϕ(W )

C∗ = .

W

Figure 11.7 shows the critical curves for each of the steep uphill gradients in the previous

example. The blue curve is the original phase plot for the optimal power phase. The green

curve is the phase plot for a steep section where the first gradient is lengthened by a factor

of two. The pink curve is the phase plot for a steep section where the second gradient is

lengthened by a factor of four.

Chapter 11. Phase trajectories on a steep uphill section 169

0.3

0.25

0.2

0.15

η

0.1

0.05

−0.05 11

−0.1

5 10 15 20 25 30

v

Chapter 11. Phase trajectories on a steep uphill section 170

sections

In this section we systematically vary the lengths L 11 and L12 of steep uphill sections to see

the effect on the optimal strategy. We consider eight cases, summarised in table 11.5. In each

case, we have γ0 = γ2 = 0.075. For each of the examples, we calculate the phase trajectories

Figure γ11 γ12 L11 L12

11.8 0.3 0.2 500 {400, 1000, 1600, . . . , 3400}

11.9 0.3 0.2 1500 {200, 600, . . . , 2200}

11.10 0.3 0.2 {200, 600, . . . , 2200} 1000

11.11 0.3 0.2 {700, 1200, . . . , 3200} 1600

11.12 0.2 0.3 1200 {200, 600, . . . , 2200}

11.13 0.2 0.3 4000 {200, 600, . . . , 2200}

11.14 0.2 0.3 {600, 1400, . . . , 4600} 400

11.15 0.2 0.3 {200, 600, . . . , 2200} 1200

In the figure for each example, the trajectory on the first gradient is shown in blue and the

trajectory on the second gradient is shown in red.

Chapter 11. Phase trajectories on a steep uphill section 171

11.5.1 γ11 = 0.3, L11 = 500, γ12 = 0.2, L12 ∈ {400, 1000, . . . , 3400}

Figure 11.8 shows phase trajectories where the length of the second, less steep section is

varied. As the length of the second section is increased:

• the trajectory on the second steep section (red) approaches the critical curve;

• the speed of the optimal trajectory increases in the first section; and

• the starting location for the optimal power phase occurs further before the start of the

steep sections.

0.3

0.25

0.15

η

0.1 critical curve of the second slope

0.05

−0.05

−0.1

5 10 15 20 25 30

v

Figure 11.8: Phase diagrams for optimal power phases for tracks with γ11 = 0.3, L11 = 500,

γ12 = 0.2, L12 ∈ {400, 1000, . . . , 3400}.

Chapter 11. Phase trajectories on a steep uphill section 172

11.5.2 γ11 = 0.3, L11 = 1500, γ12 = 0.2, L12 ∈ {200, 600, . . . , 2200}

In Figure 11.9, the first steep section is longer than in the previous example. As the length

of the second steep section is increased:

• the trajectory on the second steep section (red) approaches the critical curve;

• the starting location for the optimal power phase occurs further before the start of the

steep sections.

0.3

limiting speed of the first slope

0.25

0.2

0.15

η

0.1

0.05

0

critical curve of the second slope

−0.05

limiting speed of the second slope

−0.1

5 10 15 20 25 30

v

Figure 11.9: Phase diagrams for optimal power phases with tracks γ11 = 0.3, L11 = 1500, γ12 = 0.2,

L12 ∈ {200, 600, . . . , 2200}.

Chapter 11. Phase trajectories on a steep uphill section 173

11.5.3 γ11 = 0.3, L11 ∈ {200, 600, . . . , 2200}, γ12 = 0.2, L12 = 1000

In Figure 11.10, the length of the first steep gradient varies while the length of the second

steep gradient is constant. As the length of the first steep gradient is increased:

• the trajectory on the first steep section (blue) approaches the critical curve;

• the speed of the optimal trajectory increases at the start of the first steep section, but

decreases at the end of this section;

• the speed of the optimal trajectory decreases at both ends of the second steep section;

and

• the starting location for the optimal power phase occurs further before the start of the

steep sections.

0.3

limiting speed of the first slope

0.25

0.2

critical curve of the first slope

0.15

η

0.1

0.05

0

critical curve of the second slope

−0.05

limiting speed of the second slope

−0.1

5 10 15 20 25 30

v

Figure 11.10: Phase diagrams for optimal power phases for tracks with γ11 = 0.3, L11 ∈

{200, 600, . . . , 2200}, γ12 = 0.2, L12 = 1000.

Chapter 11. Phase trajectories on a steep uphill section 174

11.5.4 γ11 = 0.3, L11 ∈ {700, 1200, . . . , 3200}, γ12 = 0.2, L12 = 1600

Figure 11.11 shows phase trajectories of optimal power phases where the length of the second

steep section is longer. As the length of the first steep gradient is increased:

• the trajectory on the first steep section (blue) approaches the critical curve;

• the speed of the optimal trajectory increases at the start of the first steep section, but

decreases at the end of the first steep section;

• the speed of the optimal trajectory decreases at both ends of the second steep section;

and

• the starting location for the optimal power phase occurs further before the start of the

steep sections.

0.3

limiting speed of the first slope

0.25

0.2

critical curve of the first slope

0.15

η

0.1

0.05

0

critical curve of the second slope

−0.05

limiting speed of the second slope

−0.1

5 10 15 20 25 30

v

Figure 11.11: Phase diagrams for optimal power phases for tracks with γ11 = 0.3, L11 ∈

{700, 1200, . . . , 3200}, γ12 = 0.2, L12 = 1600.

Chapter 11. Phase trajectories on a steep uphill section 175

11.5.5 γ11 = 0.2, L11 = 1200, γ12 = 0.3, L12 ∈ {200, 600, . . . , 2200}

• the trajectory on the second steep section (red) approaches the critical curve;

• the speed of the optimal trajectory increases at the both ends of the first section;

• the speed of the optimal trajectory increases at the start of the second steep section, but

decreases at the end of the second steep section; and

steep sections.

0.3

0.25

0.2

critical curve of the second slope

0.15

η

0.1

0.05

0

critical curve of the first slope

−0.05

−0.1

5 10 15 20 25 30

v

Figure 11.12: Phase diagrams for optimal power phases for tracks with γ11 = 0.2, L11 = 1200,

γ12 = 0.3, L12 ∈ {200, 600, . . . , 2200}.

Chapter 11. Phase trajectories on a steep uphill section 176

11.5.6 γ11 = 0.2, L11 = 4000, γ12 = 0.3, L12 ∈ {200, 600, . . . , 2200}

In Figure 11.13, the first steep section is longer. As the length of the second steep section is

increased:

• the trajectory on the second steep section (red) approaches the critical curve;

• the speed of the optimal trajectory increases at the start of the second section, and

decreases at the end of the second section; and

steep sections.

0.3

0.25

0.2

critical curve of the second slope

0.15

η

0.1

0.05

0

critical curve of the first slope

−0.05

−0.1

5 10 15 20 25 30

v

Figure 11.13: Phase diagrams for optimal power phases for tracks with γ11 = 0.2, L11 = 4000,

γ12 = 0.3, L12 ∈ {200, 600, . . . , 2200}.

Chapter 11. Phase trajectories on a steep uphill section 177

11.5.7 γ11 = 0.2, L11 ∈ {600, 1400, . . . , 4600}, γ12 = 0.3, L12 = 400

In Figure 11.14, the length of the first steep gradient varies while the length of the second

steep gradient is constant. As the length of the first steep gradient is increased:

• the trajectory on the first steep section approaches the critical curve;

• the speed of the optimal trajectory increases at the start of the first steep section, but

decreases at the end of the first steep section;

• the speed of the optimal trajectory decreases at the end of the second steep section;

steep sections.

0.3

0.25

0.2

critical curve of the second slope

0.15

η

0.1

0.05

0

critical curve of the first slope

−0.05

−0.1

5 10 15 20 25 30

v

Figure 11.14: Phase diagrams for optimal power phases for tracks with γ11 = 0.2, L11 ∈

{600, 1400, . . . , 4600}, γ12 = 0.3, L12 = 400.

Chapter 11. Phase trajectories on a steep uphill section 178

11.5.8 γ11 = 0.2, L11 ∈ {200, 600, . . . , 2200}, γ12 = 0.3, L12 = 1200

Figure 11.15 displays the results when the second steep gradient is steeper and the length

of the first is allowed to vary. In this case, something unexpected happens as the length of

the first gradient is increased. Initially, the optimal speed at the bottom of the steep section

increases with the length of this part, and the optimal trajectories (blue) of the first gradient

move away from its critical curve. But as the length of the first gradient increases further,

the trajectories regress towards the critical curve. That is, the length of the run-up for the

steep sections initially increases with the length of the first gradient, but then decreases as

the length of the first gradient continues to increase. It is not obvious why this happens.

0.3

0.25

0.2

critical curve of the second slope

0.15

η

0.1

0.05

0

critical curve of the first slope

−0.05

−0.1

5 10 15 20 25 30

v

Figure 11.15: Phase diagrams for optimal power phases for tracks with γ11 = 0.2, L11 ∈

{200, 600, . . . , 2200}, γ12 = 0.3, L12 = 1200.

Chapter 11. Phase trajectories on a steep uphill section 179

11.6 Conclusion

Integrating the adjoint equation gives a direct relationship between speed v and adjoint vari-

able η on any gradient. The (v, η) trajectory followed by the train depends on a constant

Ci that can be chosen for each gradient section i. To construct an optimal power phase for

a steep uphill section, we must find a sequence of constants C i starting and finishing with

Ci = 0, such that speed v and adjoint variable η are continuous at each gradient change

point.

By studying the optimal power phase trajectories, we can gain further insights into the nature

of an optimal journey.

Chapter 12

section

In this chapter we repeat the analysis of Chapter 11, but this time for an optimal coast phase

on a steep downhill section of track.

The speed of a train coasting on a track section with constant gradient acceleration γ is given

by the equation

dv r(v) − γ

=− . (12.1)

dx v

As seen in Chapter 2, the modified adjoint equation is

dθ ψ(v) ψ(V )

− 3 ·θ =− 3 . (12.2)

dx v v

By substituting η = θ − 1, we obtain the alternative adjoint equation

dη ψ(v) ψ(v) − ψ(V )

− 3 ·η = . (12.3)

dx v v3

180

Chapter 12. Phase trajectories on a steep downhill section 181

Proceeding as we did in Section 11.1, we can show that the integrating factor for (12.2) is

r (v) dv

IF = exp − dx = v (12.4)

v dx

and the modified adjoint variable η is an expression in terms of v, similar to the one we found

in Chapter 11

ϕ(v) − LV (v) + (ϕ (V ) − γ + C)v

η= . (12.5)

γv − ϕ(v)

If we define

Ci = ϕ (V ) − γi + C (12.6)

ϕ(v) − LV (v) + Ci v εV (v) + Ci v

η= = (12.7)

γi v − ϕ(v) hi (v)

where

εV (v) = ϕ(v) − LV (v) (12.8)

and

hi (v) = γiv − ϕ(v). (12.9)

If the coast phase starts on track section i, we need to have v = V and η = 0. Because v

and η are continuous, given Ci we can calculate the sequence of values {Ci, Ci+1 , Ci+2 , . . . }.

The values of the sequence {C}k+1

i can be used as an alternative condition for an optimal

strategy.

As in Chapter 11, suppose a coast phase starts on track section i with gradient acceleration

γi . We wish to find a sequence of values {Ci , Ci+1 , . . .} that define a continuous speed profile

for the coast phase.

Chapter 12. Phase trajectories on a steep downhill section 182

v2

V V

J0

v1

J1

J2

p x1 x2 q

First, we consider a track with a non-steep gradient acceleration γ0 on the interval (−∞, x1 ),

a single steep downhill gradient acceleration γ 1 on the interval [x1 , x2 ], and a non-steep

gradient acceleration γ2 on the interval (x2 , ∞). The train starts coasting at p < x1 and

finishes coasting at q > x2 , as shown in Figure 12.1.

Using the same argument as Subsection 11.2.1, we can show that the necessary condition for

an optimal coast phase is

εV (v2 ) εV (v1 )

(γ2 − γ1 ) + (γ1 − γ0 ) =0 (12.10)

h2 (v2 ) h0 (v1 )

which is equivalent to condition (8.31),

We now consider a track with two steep gradient accelerations γ1 and γ2 lying between two

non-steep gradient accelerations γ0 and γ3 as seen in Figure 12.2. The coast phase starts at p

Chapter 12. Phase trajectories on a steep downhill section 183

v3

V V

v2

J0 v1

J1

J2

J3

p x1 x2 x3 q

Figure 12.2: Coast phase for a track with two steep downhill gradients.

and ends at q.

Using a similar argument to that of Subsection 11.2.1, we can show that the necessary con-

dition for an optimal coast phase is

εV (v3 ) εV (v2 ) h3 (v3 ) εV (v1 ) h2 (v2 ) h3 (v3 )

(γ3 −γ2 ) + (γ2 −γ1 ) · + (γ1 −γ0 ) · · = 0 (12.11)

h2 (v3 ) h1 (v2 ) h2 (v3 ) h0 (v1 ) h1 (v2 ) h2 (v3 )

which is equivalent to the necessary condition (9.21), (9.18) and (9.19)

[ϕ(vd ) − γ11 vd ]M2 (vc ) − [ϕ(vd ) − γ12 vd ]M1 (vb ) − (γ12 − γ11 )[ϕ(vd ) − LV (vd )] = 0

obtained by minimising the cost function J as seen in Chapter 9. Once again, the optimal

coast phase has C0 = C3 = 0.

In this section we observe that an optimal coast phase starts and finishes on a non-steep

section only and at the switching points, C = 0. The following lemma is more or less

identical to the corresponding lemma in Chapter 11.

Lemma 12.3.1 If

ϕ(v) − LV (v) + Cv

η= (12.12)

γv − ϕ(v)

Chapter 12. Phase trajectories on a steep downhill section 184

then

dη

2. dv

(V ) = 0 ⇐⇒ C = 0.

3. The function η(v) has a minimum turning point when dη/dv = 0 at v = V on a steep

downhill track with γV − ϕ(V ) > 0, and a maximum turning point when dη/dv = 0

at v = V on non-steep gradients with γV − ϕ(V ) < 0.

The proof of this Lemma is similar to the proof of Lemma 11.3.1. We can also use the results

of Lemma 12.3.1 to analyse the behaviour of η(v) during a coast phase on a steep downhill

section, similar as we did in Chapter 11.

The coast phase must start on a non-steep section with v = V . From the Lemma, we know

that this implies that C = 0 and dη/dv = 0. In Section 12.2.1 we showed that C = 0 is a

necessary condition for the start of the power phase, and so dη/dv = 0 is also a necessary

condition for the start of the coast phase. Similarly, the coast phase must start on a non-steep

section with v = V , C = 0 and dη/dv = 0.

Figure 11.3 shows η(v) for the start (blue) and finish (green) of an optimal coast phase. To

get from the start of the coast phase to the end of the coast phase we require an η curve

as shown in red. Speed must increase on this section, and so the gradient must be steep

downhill. Furthermore, part 3 of the Lemma says that this η curve has a minimum turning

point, as shown in the diagram.

Chapter 12. Phase trajectories on a steep downhill section 185

−0.02

−0.04

−0.06

η

−0.08

−0.1

−0.12

−0.14

−0.16

17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26

v

Figure 12.3: Phase diagram of a coast phase on a single steep downhill section.

We now consider the function η(v) for different values of C. As in Chapter 11, we find that

there is a critical value

LV (W ) − ϕ(W )

C∗ =

W

for which the adjoint variable η approaches a limit as speed v approaches the limiting speed

W for the gradient.

and η ↑ +∞ as v → W + ; if C > C ∗ , η ↑ +∞ as v → W − and η ↓ −∞ as v → W + . Note

that since

ϕ(v) − LV (v) + Cv

η=

γv − ϕ(v)

then

lim η = +∞.

v→0

Chapter 12. Phase trajectories on a steep downhill section 186

ϕ(v) − LV (v) + Cv + εv

lim η = lim

v→∞ v→∞ γv − ϕ(v)

ϕ (v) − ϕ (V ) + C + ε

= lim

v→∞ γ − ϕ (v)

ϕ (v)

= lim = −1. (12.13)

v→∞ −ϕ (v)

The characteristics of η are illustrated in Figure 12.4. The η curves have been plotted for

various values of C. The critical curve of η is the one obtained when v = W and the

corresponding C ∗ . This critical curve is shown in pink. The black vertical line is the limiting

speed, W . The dashed horizontal line is the limit of η when v → ∞.

Figure 12.5 shows the optimal coast phase for an example track with two steep downhill

gradients. The blue curve is calculated by solving the state and adjoint equations using a

numerical solver, then using a shooting method to find initial conditions which satisfy the

necessary conditions for an optimal coast phase. The thin curves are calculated using (12.5).

Figure 12.6 shows an example phase plots of an optimal coast phase and two non-optimal

coast phases: one starts coasting too late and one starts coasting too early. The phase plot

of the coast phase that starts too late is shown in red. On the steep section, the η curve of

this strategy is below than the optimal η curve. At the point where v = V , η < 0 and so

we cannot switch back to speed hold. The η curve of the coast phase that starts too early is

shown in green. On the steep section the η curve is above than the optimal η curve. Hence

the train cannot switch back to speed hold when v = V because η > 0 at that moment.

Chapter 12. Phase trajectories on a steep downhill section 187

C= − 0.3

140 C= − 0.2

C=−0.1

C=0

120 C=0.1

C=0.2

C=0.3

C=C*

100

80

η

60

40

20

0 W

−20

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

v

6

C= − 0.3

C= − 0.2

C=−0.1

4 C=0

C=0.1

C=0.2

C=0.3

2 C=C*

0

W

η

−2

−4

−6

−8

−10

0 20 40 60 80 100 120

v

Chapter 12. Phase trajectories on a steep downhill section 188

−0.2

−0.4

η

−0.6

−0.8

−1

−1.2

10 20 30 40 50 60

v

Figure 12.5: An example phase plot calculated using shooting method and using (12.5).

0.02

−0.02

−0.04

−0.06

η

−0.08

−0.1

−0.12

−0.14

−0.16

16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26

v

Figure 12.6: Optimal and non-optimal profiles η. Too early: green, too late: red.

Chapter 12. Phase trajectories on a steep downhill section 189

steep downhill gradients.

Figure γ11 γ12 L11 L12

12.7 0.2 0.4 1200 {800, 4000, . . . , 23200}

12.8 0.2 0.4 30000 {1600, 3200, . . . , 8000}

12.9 0.2 0.4 {18000, 19200, . . . , 24000} 400

12.10 0.2 0.4 {12000, 18000, . . . , 42000} 1600

12.11 0.4 0.2 1800 {2400, 4800, . . . , 14400}

12.12 0.4 0.2 32000 {2400, 4800, . . . , 14400}

12.13 0.4 0.2 {1800, 5400, . . . , 19800} 800

12.14 0.4 0.2 {5600, 9400, 13000, 198000} 8000

In all eight figures the blue curve indicates the adjoint variable values on the first steep section

and the red part indicates the one on the second steep section. The green part presents the

remainder of the coast phase. The limiting speeds and critical curves of the two slope are

presented in the same colour code as above. In each case, we have γ0 = γ2 = 0.01.

Chapter 12. Phase trajectories on a steep downhill section 190

12.5.1 γ11 = 0.2, L11 = 1200; γ12 = 0.4, L12 ∈ {800, 4000, . . . , 23200}.

Since γ11 < γ12 then the limiting speed of the first slope is less than the limiting speed of the

second slope. When we increase the length of the second slope

• the trajectory of the first slope goes past its critical curve even all speed on this slope

is far from its liming speed.

• The speed at the start of the second slope slightly decreases but the speed at the end of

the second slope quickly increases.

• the speed decreases at the start but increases at the end of the second slope.

• the starting location for the optimal coast phase occurs further before the start of the

steep sections.

−0.1

−0.2

−0.3

−0.4

η

limiting speed of the second slope

−0.5

−0.6

−0.7

critical curves

−0.8

−0.9

−1

10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90

v

Figure 12.7: Phase diagrams for optimal coast phases for tracks with γ11 = 0.2, L11 = 1200,

γ12 = 0.4, L12 ∈ {800, 4000, . . . , 23200}.

Chapter 12. Phase trajectories on a steep downhill section 191

12.5.2 γ11 = 0.2, L11 = 3000; γ12 = 0.4, L12 ∈ {1600, 3200, . . . , 8000}.

In Figure 12.8 the length of the first slope is longer and kept constant while the length of the

second slope is varied and longer than that represented by Figure 12.7. Since the length of

the first slope is very long then the trajectory on this slope approaches the critical curve(in

blue). When we increase the length of the second slope

• the speed decreases at the start but increases at the end of the first slope, however the

rate of change is very small.

• the speed increases at the start of the second slope and also increases at the end of the

slope but the rate of change is much larger.

−0.1

limiting speed for the first slope

limiting speed for the second slope

−0.2

−0.3

−0.4

η

−0.5

−0.6

−0.7

−0.8

−1

10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

v

Figure 12.8: Phase diagrams for optimal coast phases for tracks with γ11 = 0.2, L11 = 3000,

γ12 = 0.4, L12 ∈ {1600, 3200, . . . , 7200}.

Chapter 12. Phase trajectories on a steep downhill section 192

12.5.3 γ11 = 0.2, L11 ∈ {18000, 19200, . . . , 24000} ; γ12 = 0.4, L12 =

400.

In this case we vary the length of the first slope and keep the length of the second slope

constant. When the length of the first slope is changed

• the speed increases at the start of the first slope and also increases but faster at the end

of this slope.

• the speed increases at both ends of the second slope at nearly the same rate.

−0.1

−0.2

limiting speed of the first slope

−0.3

limiting speed of the second slope

−0.4

η

−0.5

−0.6

−0.7

−0.8

−1

10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

v

Figure 12.9: Phase diagrams for an optimal coast phase for tracks with γ11 = 0.2, L11 ∈

{18000, 19200, . . . , 24000} , γ12 = 0.4, L12 = 400.

Chapter 12. Phase trajectories on a steep downhill section 193

12.5.4 γ11 = 0.2, L11 ∈ {12000, 18000, . . . , 42000} , γ12 = 0.4, L12 =

1600.

In Figure 12.10 we made the length of the second slope longer compared to the one in Figure

12.9. The trajectories appear to be similar to those in Figure 12.9.

−0.1

limiting speed of the first slope

−0.3

−0.4

η

−0.5

−0.6

−0.7

−0.8

−1

10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

v

Figure 12.10: Phase diagrams for optimal coast phases for tracks with γ11 = 0.2,L11 ∈

{12000, 18000, . . . , 42000} , γ12 = 0.4, L12 = 1600.

Chapter 12. Phase trajectories on a steep downhill section 194

12.5.5 γ11 = 0.4, L11 = 1800; γ12 = 0.2, L12 ∈ {2400, 4800, . . . , 14400}.

In Figure 12.11 the length of the first slope is constant while the length of the second slope

is varied. When we increase the length of the second slope

• the speed decreases at the start and the end of the first slope at slow rates.

• the speed decreases at the start but increases at the end of the second slope at a faster

rate.

−0.1

limiting speed of the second slope

−0.2

−0.3

−0.4

η

−0.5

−0.6

−0.7

−0.8

−1

10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80

v

Figure 12.11: Phase diagrams for optimal coast phases for tracks with γ11 = 0.4, L11 = 1800 ,

γ12 = 0.2, L12 ∈ {2400, 4800, . . . , 14400}.

Chapter 12. Phase trajectories on a steep downhill section 195

12.5.6 γ11 = 0.4, L11 = 3200; γ12 = 0.2, L12 ∈ {2400, 4800, . . . , 14400}.

In Figure 12.12 we make the length of the first slope very long compared to the one in Figure

12.11. Hence the trajectories of the first slope go past the limiting speed of the second slope.

Recall that we now have limiting speed of the first slope is bigger than that of the second

slope. When the length of the first slope increases

• the speed decreases at the start and the end of the first slope at slow rates.

• the speed at the end of the second slope decreases faster than at the start of the slope.

−0.1

limiting speed of the second slope

−0.2

−0.3

−0.4

η

−0.5

−0.6

−0.7

−0.8

−0.9

critical curves

−1

10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

v

Figure 12.12: Phase diagrams for optimal coast phases for tracks with γ11 = 0.4, L11 = 3200 ,

γ12 = 0.2, L12 ∈ {2400, 4800, . . . , 14400}.

Chapter 12. Phase trajectories on a steep downhill section 196

12.5.7 γ11 = 0.4, L11 ∈ {1800, 5400, . . . , 19800}; γ12 = 0.2, L12 = 800.

We now vary the length of the first slope and keep the length of the second slope unchanged.

When we increase the length of the first slope

• the speed increases at the start of the second slope and also increases at the end of the

second slope but at a very much faster rate.

• the speed decreases at the start of the first slope and increases very much faster at the

end of the slope.

−0.2

−0.3

−0.4

η

−0.5

−0.6

−0.7

−0.8

−1

10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

v

Figure 12.13: Phase diagrams for optimal coast phases for tracks with γ11 = 0.4, L11 ∈

{1800, 5400, . . . , 19800} , γ12 = 0.2, L12 = 800.

Chapter 12. Phase trajectories on a steep downhill section 197

12.5.8 γ11 = 0.4, L11 ∈ {5600, 9400, 13000, 19800}; γ12 = 0.2, L12 =

5600.

This time we make the length of the second slope longer than to that in Figure 12.13 but still

keep it unchanged. The trajectories in Figure 12.14 are similar to those in Figure 12.13.

−0.1

limiting speed of the second section

−0.2

−0.3

−0.4

η

−0.5

−0.6

−0.7

−0.8

critical curves

−0.9

−1

10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

v

Figure 12.14: Phase diagrams for optimal coast phases for tracks with γ11 = 0.4, L11 ∈

{5600, 9400, 13000, 19800} , γ12 = 0.2, L12 = 5600.

Chapter 12. Phase trajectories on a steep downhill section 198

12.6 Conclusion

Constructing the direct relationship of v and η by integrating the adjoint variable gives an

alternative view to how to obtain an optimal strategy and reveals some new properties of

this relationship. This new approach leads us to a new set of necessary conditions that is

equivalent to those conditions obtained in Chapters 8 and 9. To construct an optimal coast

phase for a steep downhill section, we must find a sequence of constants {C j }k+1

j starting

with Ci = 0 and finishing with Ck+1 = 0, given that speed v and adjoint variable η are

continuous at each gradient change point.

Chapter 13

journey

In Chapters 11 and 12 we found a direct relationship between train speed v and the adjoint

variable η = θ − 1 for a power phase on a steep uphill section and for a coast phase on a

steep downhill section. We also showed how this direct relationship can be used to determine

necessary conditions for optimal journey segments.

In this chapter we find a relationship between the train speed v and the adjoint variable θ

for the final coast and brake phases of a journey on a track with piecewise constant gradient,

and show how this relationship can be used to derive necessary conditions for optimal coast

and brake phases. Using that relationship we construct a nice relationship between coasting

speed VC and braking speed VB of a journey on a track with a constant non-steep gradient.

This result extends the result obtained by Howlett [20] for level tracks.

Recall from Chapter 2 that an optimal journey finishes with a coast phase followed by a brake

phase. It is convenient to use θ rather than η because the optimal control changes from coast

to brake at θ = 0. The coast phase starts with v = VC and θ = 1 and finishes with v = VB

199

Chapter 13. Coasting and braking at the end of a journey 200

and θ = 0; the brake phase starts with v = VB and θ = 0 and finishes with v = 0. In this

chapter we will consider the final coast phase and find a recursive relationship between the

speed where the final coast phase begins and the speeds at which gradients changes occur

and the speed where the final coast phase ends.

In this section we consider the relationship between v and θ as the train coasts and brakes on

a track with constant gradient acceleration γ. We assume that the speed of the train decreases

during the brake phase, but may increase or decrease during the coast phase. The equation

of motion during the brake phase is

dv

v = −Q + γ − r(v) (13.1)

dx

and the adjoint equation is

dθ ψ(v) ψ(V )

− 3 ·θ =− 3 . (13.2)

dx v v

By arguing as we did in Section 11.1 we can show that

dv ψ(v)

v = exp − dx (13.3)

dx v3

d dv ψ(V ) dv d ψ(V )

=⇒ v θ =− 3 v = (13.4)

dx dx v dx dx v

dv ψ(V )

=⇒ v θ= + C. (13.5)

dx v

From (13.1), (13.2) and (13.3) it follows that

on the braking interval. Let VB be the speed at which braking starts. Since θ = 0 at the start

of braking, we have

−ψ(V )

ψ(V ) + CVB = 0 =⇒ C = .

VB

Chapter 13. Coasting and braking at the end of a journey 201

The equation of motion of the train when coasting on a track with constant gradient acceler-

ation γ is

dv

v = γ − r(v). (13.7)

dx

By using the same technique as we did in Section 11.1 and in (13.3)–(13.5), we get

dv ψ(V )

v ·θ = +C

dx v

ψ(V )

[γ − r(v)]θ = + C. (13.8)

v

At the end of the coast phase, we have v = VB and θ = 0, and so

−ψ(V )

C= ,

VB

which is consistent with the constant C obtained for the adjoint equation (13.6) of the brake

phase. Hence,

1 1

[γ − r(v)]θ = ψ(V ) − . (13.9)

v VB

At the point where coasting begins, we have v = V C and θ = 1, and so

1 1

γ − r(VC ) = ψ(V ) − . (13.10)

VC VB

This gives a relationship between the coasting speed V C and the braking speed VB for optimal

final coast and brake phases on a constant gradient.

The following lemma shows that for the typical case where the final coast phase starts at the

hold speed V , as V increases so does VB .

Lemma 13.1.1 Let V and VB be the holding speed and braking speed for an optimal driving

strategy of a train travelling on a track with constant gradient acceleration γ. If the track is

non-steep and the final coast phase starts at the hold speed V then as the holding speed V

increases, so does the braking speed V B .

Chapter 13. Coasting and braking at the end of a journey 202

1 dVC 1 r (VC ) dVC [γ − r(VC )]ψ (V ) dV

− = − − −

VC2 dVB VB2 ψ(V ) dVB [ψ(V )]2 dVB

which can be rearrange to give

ψ(V ) − ψ(VC ) dVC 1 [γ − r(VC )]ψ (V ) dV

= + . (13.11)

VC2 ψ(V ) dVB VB2 [ψ(V )]2 dVB

Since the train starts coasting from the hold speed V then (13.11) becomes

[γ − r(V )]ψ (V ) dV 1

− = 2.

[ψ(V )]2 dVB VB

Since γ − r(V ) < 0 then dV /dVB > 0.

In the next section we consider coasting and braking on a track with piecewise constant

gradient acceleration.

stant gradient

Suppose now we have piecewise constant gradient. The gradient changes at locations x 1 , x2 ,

. . . , xn . The train is required to stop at point x = X where X ∈ [xn , xn+1 ]. The gradient

acceleration on (xi , xi+1 ) is γi . The gradient sections are shown in Figure 13.1.

Let Vn = v(xn ) and θn = θ(xn ) where v is the optimal speed trajectory and θ is the corre-

sponding adjoint trajectory. From (13.9) we have

1 1

[γn − r(Vn )]θn = ψ(V ) − . (13.12)

Vn VB

Chapter 13. Coasting and braking at the end of a journey 203

J0 J1 Jn2 Jn1 Jn

x1 x2 x3 xn2 xn1 xn xB X xn1

ψ(V )

[γn−1 − r(Vn )]θn = + Cn−1 (13.13)

Vn

at point xn and at point xn−1 we have

ψ(V )

[γn−1 − r(Vn−1)]θn−1 = + Cn−1 . (13.14)

Vn−1

From (13.13) and (13.12) we obtain

ψ(V )

Cn−1 = [γn−1 − r(Vn )]θn −

Vn

1 1

ψ(V ) Vn

− VB ψ(V )

= [γn−1 − r(Vn )] −

γn − r(Vn ) Vn

γn−1 − r(Vn ) 1 1 1

= ψ(V ) − − .

γn − r(Vn ) Vn VB Vn

Substituting into (13.14) gives

γn−1 − r(Vn ) 1 1 1 1

[γn−1 − r(Vn−1 )]θn−1 = ψ(V ) − + −

γn − r(Vn ) Vn VB Vn−1 Vn

1 1 γn−1 − r(Vn ) 1 1

= ψ(V ) − + ψ(V ) · −

Vn−1 Vn γn − r(Vn ) Vn VB

1 1

= ψ(V ) − + [γn−1 − r(Vn )]θn . (13.15)

Vn−1 Vn

By applying the same formulae we used in (13.13) and (13.14) on the interval [x n−2 , xn−1 ]

at the point xn−1 we obtain

ψ(V )

[γn−2 − r(Vn−1 )]θn−1 = + Cn−2 (13.16)

Vn−1

Chapter 13. Coasting and braking at the end of a journey 204

ψ(V )

[γn−2 − r(Vn−2)]θn−2 = + Cn−2 . (13.17)

Vn−2

By similar arguments to those above

ψ(V )

Cn−2 = [γn−2 − r(Vn−1)] · ·

γn−1 − r(Vn−1)

γn−1 − r(Vn ) 1 1 1 1

− + −

γn − r(Vn ) Vn VB Vn−1 Vn

γn−2 − r(Vn−1 ) γn−1 − r(Vn ) 1 1

= ψ(V ) · −

γn−1 − r(Vn−1 ) γn − r(Vn ) Vn VB

γn−2 − r(Vn−1 ) 1 1 ψ(V )

+ψ(V ) − − (13.18)

γn−1 − r(Vn−1 ) Vn−1 Vn Vn−1

and

1 1

[γn−2 − r(Vn−2)]θn−2 = ψ(V ) − + [γn−2 − r(Vn−1)]θn−1 . (13.19)

Vn−2 Vn−1

In general, on the interval [xn−j , xn−j+1] we have

1 1

[γn−j − r(Vn−j )]θn−j = ψ(V ) − + [γn−j − r(Vn−j+1)] θn−j+1 (13.20)

Vn−j Vn−j+1

and finally on [xn−j−1 , xn−j ], where the train starts coasting, we have

1 1

[γn−j−1 − r(V )] = ψ(V ) − + [γn−j−1 − r(Vn−j )]θn−j . (13.21)

V Vn−j

We can use these equations to calculate an optimal final phase. First, we pick a braking

speed VB , then use (13.9) to calculate Vn . We then apply (13.20) to calculate Vn−1 , Vn−2 , . . . ,

Cn−1 , Cn−2 , . . . and θn−1 , θn−2 , . . . until we reach an interval on which we can have θ = 1.

We can then calculate the coasting speed VC . If we require VC = V then we may need to use

a shooting method to find V B that gives VC = V .

Lemma 13.2.1 Let V and VB be the holding speed and braking speed for an optimal driving

strategy of a train on a piecewise constant gradient section comprising a sequence of gradi-

ent accelerations {γ1, γ2 , . . . , γn−1, γn }. Assume that the train starts coasting from holding

Chapter 13. Coasting and braking at the end of a journey 205

speed V on a section γn−1 and starts and finishes braking on the interval [x n , xn−1 ] as shown

in Figure 13.2. If we increase the holding speed then the braking speed also increases; that

is

dV

> 0.

dVB

Let v be the optimal speed trajectory and θ be the corresponding adjoint trajectory. The final

coast phase starts at xC with v(xC ) = VC = V . Speed decreases on the non-steep interval

[xC , xn ]. Speed increases on the interval [xn , xB ] as shown in Figure 13.2 if γn is a steep

downhill gradient acceleration. If γn is non-steep then speed continues decreasing on the last

section as shown in Figure 13.3. The final braking phase starts at x B with speed v(xB ) = VB .

The braking phase finishes at X with v(X) = 0.

VB

V

Vn

J n 1

Jn

v 0

xC xn xB X

Figure 13.2: Track and speed profile for the case γn is steep.

ψ(V )

[γn−1 − r(v)]θ = + Cn−1

v

where

ψ(V )

Cn−1 = [γn−1 − r(Vn )]θn − .

Vn

Therefore

1 1

[γn−1 − r(v)]θ = ψ(V ) − + [γn−1 − r(Vn )]θn .

v Vn

Chapter 13. Coasting and braking at the end of a journey 206

V

Vn

VB

J n 1

Jn v 0

xC xn xB X

Figure 13.3: Track and speed profile for the case γn is non-steep.

At xn , (13.12) gives

1 1

ψ(V ) Vn

− VB

θn =

γn − r(Vn )

where VB is the speed at which braking begins, and so

[γn−1 − r(Vn )]ψ(V ) 1

− 1

1 1 Vn VB

[γn−1 − r(v)]θ = ψ(V ) − +

v Vn γn − r(Vn )

1 γn−1 − r(Vn ) 1 γn−1 − γn 1

= ψ(V ) − · + · .

v γn − r(Vn ) VB γn − r(Vn ) Vn

For all points in this interval we have γ n−1 < r(v). At the start of the coast phase θ = 1 and

so

1 γn−1 − r(Vn ) 1 γn−1 − γn 1

[γn−1 − r(V )] = ψ(V ) − · + ·

V γn − r(Vn ) VB γn − r(Vn ) Vn

which we rearrange to obtain

− = · − ·

V ψ(V ) γn − r(Vn ) VB γn − r(Vn ) Vn

1 γn−1 − γn 1 1

= + · − .

VB γn − r(Vn ) VB Vn

Chapter 13. Coasting and braking at the end of a journey 207

1 dV r (V ) dV γn−1 − r(V ) dV

− + + · ψ (V ) · =

2

V dVB ψ(V ) dVB [ψ(V )]2 dVB

1 γn−1 − γn dVn 1 1 γn−1 − γn 1 1 dVn

− 2+ · r (Vn ) · · − + − 2+ 2

VB [γn − r(Vn )]2 dVB VB Vn γn − r(Vn ) VB Vn dVB

and so we have

· ψ (V ) · = ·

[ψ(V )]2 dVB γn − r(Vn ) VB2

γn−1 − γn 1 1 γn − r(Vn ) dVn

− · r (Vn ) − + · . (13.22)

[γn − r(Vn )]2 VB Vn Vn2 dVB

dVB

VB = −Q − r(VB ) + γn . (13.23)

dxB

The speed profile on the interval [xn , xB ] must satisfy the condition

VB

vdv

= xB − xn .

Vn γn − r(v)

VB dVB

dxB

dVn

Vn dx

− B

= 1.

γn − r(VB ) γn − r(Vn )

dV

VB Vn dVBn −VB

− =

γn − r(VB ) γn − r(Vn ) Q + r(VB ) − γn

and hence

dVn

Vn dV QVB

B

=

γn − r(Vn ) [γn − r(VB )](Q + r(VB ) − γn )

from which

dVn QVB (γn − r(Vn ))

= .

dVB Vn [γn − r(VB )](Q + r(VB ) − γn )

Chapter 13. Coasting and braking at the end of a journey 208

Let

Q

C= . (13.24)

Q + r(VB ) − γn

Hence we have

dVn CVB (γn − r(Vn ))

= . (13.25)

dVB Vn (γn − r(VB ))

1 1 γn − r(Vn )

A(VB , Vn ) = r (Vn ) − +

VB Vn Vn2

ψ(Vn ) − VB Vn r (Vn ) + VB (γn − r(Vn ))

=

VB Vn2

ψ(Vn ) + VB γn − VB ϕ (Vn )

=

VB Vn2

VB γn − LVn (VB )

=

VB Vn2

VB (γn − r(VB ))

>

VB Vn2

γn − r(VB )

> . (13.26)

Vn2

· ψ (V ) · > · 2+ · . (13.27)

[ψ(V )]2 dVB γn − r(Vn ) VB γn − r(Vn ) Vn3

If γn is a steep gradient acceleration then γn −r(B) > 0 and so from (13.24) we have C > 1.

We can write (13.27) in the form

r(V ) − γn−1 dV γn − γn−1 1 γn − γn−1 CVB

· ψ (V ) · > 1− 2

+ ·

[ψ(V )]2 dVB γn − r(Vn ) VB γn − r(Vn ) Vn3

γn − γn−1 CVB 1 1

= − 2

+ .

γn − r(Vn ) Vn3 VB VB2

We have

CVB VB Vn 1

> > 3 = 2

Vn3 Vn3 Vn Vn

Chapter 13. Coasting and braking at the end of a journey 209

CVB 1

3

− 2 > 0.

Vn VB

So we have

r(V ) − γn−1 dV 1 dV

· ψ (V ) · > 2 > 0 =⇒ >0 (13.28)

[ψ(V )]2 dVB VB dVB

because r(V ) − γn−1 > 0 and ψ (V ) > 0. So for the case γn−1 is non-steep and γn is steep,

dV

we have proved dVB

> 0.

We now consider the case where γn is non-steep. We use a perturbation analysis similar to

that in Chapter 4. Suppose v∗ is an optimal strategy on a non-steep track with piecewise

constant gradient and suppose that the point x C at which coasting begins lies in the interval

(xn−1 , xn ) and the point xB at which braking begins lies in the interval (x n , ∞). Now let

ψ(V ) 1 1

θ∗ = · −

r(v∗ ) − γn VB v∗

for v∗ < Vn and

ψ(V ) 1 1 r(Vn ) − γn−1 1 1

θ∗ = − + −

r(v∗ ) − γn−1 Vn v∗ r(Vn ) − γn VB Vn

for v∗ > Vn . By the same perturbation analysis as we used in Chapter 4 we have

d ψ(v∗ ) ψ (v∗ ) 3ψ(v∗ ) 3ψ(V ) ψ (V )

(δθ) − δθ = − θ∗ + δv − δV

dx v∗3 v∗3 v∗4 v∗4 v∗3

where we note that

ψ (v∗ ) 3ψ(v∗ ) 3ψ(V ) ψ (V )

m = − θ∗ + δv − δV

v∗3 v∗4 v∗4 v∗3

ψ (v∗ ) ψ (V )

≥ δv − δV

v∗3 v∗3

> 0

change on the perturbed profile. The integrating factor for the DE

d ψ(v∗ )

(δθ) − (δθ) = m

dx v∗3

Chapter 13. Coasting and braking at the end of a journey 210

is

ψ(v∗ )

I(x) = e− v∗ dx

dv∗

= v∗

dx

⎧

⎪

⎨−[r(v∗ ) − γn ] for x > xn ,

=

⎪

⎩−[r(v∗ ) − γn−1] for x < xn−1

d

[I(x)δθ] = I(x)m.

dx

Although we have written I = I(x), δθ = δθ(x) and m = m(x), we can regard all of these

expressions as functions of v∗ . Thus

⎧

⎪

⎨−[r(v∗ ) − γn ] for v∗ < Vn ,

I(v∗ ) =

⎪

⎩−[r(v∗ ) − γn−1 ] for v∗ > Vn

and

ψ (v∗ ) 3ψ(v∗ ) 3ψ(V ) ψ (V )

m(v∗ ) = − θ∗ + δv − δV

v∗3 v∗4 v∗4 v∗3

where θ∗ is given by the expression above. Now we have

d dx

[I(v∗ )δθ(v∗ )] = I(v∗ ) · m(v∗ ) · .

dv∗ dv∗

But v∗ dv

dx

∗

= I(v∗ ) and so

d

[I(v∗ ) · δθ(v∗ )] = v∗ m(v∗ ).

dv∗

By integrating from v∗ = VB and δθ(VB ) = 0 to v∗ = VC we have

VC

I(VC )δθ(VC ) = v∗ m(v∗ )dv∗ > 0.

VB

Since I(VC ) = (−1)[r(VC ) − γn−1 ] < 0 it follows that δθ(VC ) < 0. Hence it is not possible

to have [θ + δθ](V + δV ) = 1 if δV ≤ 0, and so θ∗ (x) must be associated with holding speed

dV

W > V . This means dVB

> 0.

Chapter 13. Coasting and braking at the end of a journey 211

13.3 Example

In this example we consider a track with a non-steep gradient acceleration γ 0 = 0.01 for

x < 4000 and steep gradient acceleration γ 1 = 0.22 for x > 4000. The train must start at

X0 = −10000 and stop on the steep section at X = 6000.

For a given hold speed V , we choose braking speed VB , then solve (13.7) to get V1 = v(x1 ).

We then use (13.12) to find

1 1

ψ(V ) V1

− VB

θ1 = θ(x1 ) = .

γ1 − r(V 1)

ψ(V )

Cn−1 = [γ0 − r(V1 )]θ1 − .

V1

ψ(V )

Vn−1

+ C1

θ = θ(xC ) =

γ0 − r(V )

and check if θ = 1. If not, we adjust VB and repeat the procedure. The result is shown

in Figure 13.4. The trips with holding speed V ∈ {20, 22, 25} have coasting points at

−4766.81, −4527.08, and −4277.20 respectively.

Chapter 13. Coasting and braking at the end of a journey 212

30

25

20

v 15

10

0

−10000 −8000 −6000 −4000 −2000 0 2000 4000 6000

x

Figure 13.4: Speed profiles of the journeys of three different holding speeds {20, 22, 25}.

Chapter 13. Coasting and braking at the end of a journey 213

13.4 Conclusion

For a track with a constant gradient acceleration γ there is a direct relationship between the

speed VC at which the final coast phase starts, and the speed VB at which the final coast

phase finishes. If the final coast phase starts from the hold speed V C = V then VB increases

as V increases. For a track with piecewise constant gradient acceleration we have derived a

recursive relationship between the final coasting speed VC and the braking speed VB . For the

case where we start coasting with VC = V and has one gradient change before braking, we

can show that VB increase as V increases. More general cases are more difficult to prove.

Part IV

Parameter estimation

214

Chapter 14

Parameter estimation

The University of South Australia and TMG International have developed an in-cab system,

called FreightMiser, which calculates optimal driving strategies for long-haul trains and dis-

plays driving advice to help the driver stay on time and minimise energy use. The location

and speed of the train are determined from GPS measurements. The system uses a shooting

method to find a driving strategy from the current location and speed to the next scheduled

stop that satisfies the necessary conditions described in subsection 2.2.1 in Chapter 2. If the

train strays from the ideal speed profile, the strategy is recalculated. The information dis-

played to the driver is shown in Figure 1.1 in Chapter 1. In trials of the system conducted

between Adelaide and Melbourne, a distance of over 800km, drivers using FreightMiser

achieved fuel savings of about 12%.

For the FreightMiser system to provide the best possible driving advice, it needs the best pos-

sible estimates for the parameters in the train performance model. These parameters include

a rolling resistance coefficient and an aerodynamic drag coefficient. Estimating values for

these parameters is difficult because they depend on the length and mass of the train, which

will vary from one journey to the next. Furthermore, the aerodynamic drag on the train will

depend on prevailing winds, which can change even during a journey.

215

Chapter 14. Parameter estimation 216

One way to overcome this difficulty is to estimate the parameter values in real-time from

observations of the actual train performance, and then to use the estimated parameter values

in the journey optimisation calculations to give a driving strategy tailored to the prevailing

conditions. When we calculate an optimal control profile we assume that the estimated

parameters will remain constant for the remainder of the journey, because we do not have

any information about how the parameters might change in the future. However, the optimal

speed profiles are recalculated regularly, each time using the most recent estimate of the

resistance parameter values. In this chapter we formulate the parameter estimation problem,

and introduce some mathematical filters that could be used to solve the problem.

dv P

m = − r(v) + g(x)

dt v

where m is the mass of the train, v is the speed of the train, t is time, P is the power of the

locomotives, r(v) is the resistance to motion at speed v, and g(x) is the force on the train

due to the track gradient at location x. Train mass and locomotive power are known before

the train departs. Speed and location can be determined with good accuracy using GPS, and

gradient force can be determined from location and route data. Resistance, however, is more

difficult to predict.

r(v) = r0 + r1 v + r2 v 2 . (14.1)

If there is no wind, then the coefficient r0 depends mainly on the mass of the train and on the

rolling resistance of the wheels, the coefficient r1 depends mainly on the weight on each axle

and the type, design and lubrication of the wheel bearings, and the coefficient r 2 depends

mainly on the aerodynamic drag of the train.

Chapter 14. Parameter estimation 217

One way to determine rolling resistance coefficients is to allow the train to coast from high

speed down to low speed on a long, level track with no wind and to record a sequence of

(t, v) pairs. In this simple case, the equation of motion is

dv

m = −[r0 + r1 v + r2 v 2 ].

dt

(t, v) points and differentiating. The coefficients r0 , r1 and r2 can then be found using a

least-squares method.

In practice, the term r1 v is small compared to the other two terms, and so will be ignored.

Clearly, it is not practical to do a coast-down test on every train before its journey. Instead,

we must estimate parameter values from observations of the performance of the train during

the journey, and refine our estimates with each new observation. We can do this using a

mathematical filter.

Consider the simplest case where we assume that r1 = 0, and wish to estimate coefficients

r0 and r2 from observations of speed while the train is coasting. The state variables are v, r 0

and r2 . Train mass m and gradient force g(x) are known. Furthermore, we will assume that

the mass is m = 1. The state equations are

αdr0 = 0 dt +dϕ2

dr2 = 0 dt +dϕ3

where ϕ1 represents the error in our equation of motion, and ϕ 2 and ϕ3 represent the errors

in our assumption that r 0 and r2 are constants. Our observation of the system at time t is

where v(t) is the true speed of the train at time t, and ν(t) is the observation noise at time t.

Chapter 14. Parameter estimation 218

tk+1

v(k + 1) = v(k) + tk

[g(x) − r0 − r2 v 2 ]dt +ϕ1 (k)

r0 (k + 1) = r0 (k) +ϕ2 (k)

r2 (k + 1) = r2 (k) +ϕ3 (k)

xk+1 = f (xk ) + ϕk (14.2)

where x = [v, r0 , r2 ]T is the state vector and ϕ = [ϕ1 , ϕ2 , ϕ3 ]T is the process noise vector.

Similarly, the observation equation can be written as

yk = g(xk ) + νk (14.3)

The state of the system is not known precisely, and so is represented, in general, by a prob-

ability density function. A particular mathematical filter may use a simpler approximation,

such as a mean and covariance, to represent the state. The general filter process is:

1. Apply the process function f to the state distribution x k to obtain x̂k+1 , the predicted

state at time k + 1.

3. Use the difference between the actual observation yk+1 and the predicted observation

ŷk+1 to form a correction to x̂k+1 , giving the corrected state estimate xk+1 .

The Kalman Filter [31, 32] is an algorithm for calculating a sequence of state estimates {x k }

from a sequence of observations {yk } when the process model and observation model are

Chapter 14. Parameter estimation 219

xk+1 = F xk + ωk

yk = Hxk + νk .

The process noise ω and the observation noise ν are assumed to be Gaussian with probability

distributions

p(ω) ∼ N(0, Q),

In practice, the process noise covariance matrix Q and measurement noise covariance matrix

R might change with each time step or measurement. However, they are are often assumed

to be constant.

The Kalman filter is not directly applicable to a nonlinear problem. However, many nonlinear

filters are based on the Kalman filter.

The Kalman filter operates as follows. The state probability distribution at time k is repre-

sented by a mean xk and covariance matrix Pk . The predicted next state is given by

x̂k+1 = F xk

After taking a measurement yk+1 we perform a correction to give the corrected state

Pk+1 = (I − Kk H)P̂k+1

Kk = Pk H (HPk H + R)−1 .

Chapter 14. Parameter estimation 220

For a nonlinear system with Gaussian noise, an extended Kalman filter (EKF) is often used.

The EKF is a Kalman filter that linearizes about the current mean and covariance.

Suppose the nonlinear stochastic system has state x k ∈ Rn with state equation

yk = h(xk , νk )

where ωk+1 and νk+1 are Gaussian random variables representing the process and measure-

ment noise respectively. The predicted next state and predicted measurement are given by

the linearised equations

x̂k+1 = Axk

and

ŷk+1 = H x̂k+1

where A and H are the Jacobian matrix of partial derivatives of f and h with respect to x

respectively. The correction step is the same as with the Kalman filter.

The operation of the EKF is similar to the Kalman filter, but the mathematical justification is

questionable.

The Nonlinear Projection Filter (NPF) was first proposed by Beard et al in 1999 [3].

The state of a stochastic dynamical system is a conditional probability density function that

evolves between observations according to Kolmogorov’s forward equation. At each mea-

Chapter 14. Parameter estimation 221

surement, the state function is updated using Bayes formula to incorporate the information

provided by the new measurement.

The NPF uses Galerkin’s method [6, 38] to approximate the evolution of the state function

between measurements. The state density function is approximated by a finite cosine se-

ries. The evolution of the state between measurements can then be found by straightforward

solution of a system of ordinary differential equations. Galerkin’s method is also used to cal-

culate the measurement update. In practice, one would expect the filter to be implemented

using Fast Fourier Transforms.

The NPF is described in more detail in Chapter 15. However, the method is computationally

expensive, and difficult to implement for systems with more than one state variable.

The Unscented Kalman Filter (UKF) for nonlinear systems was developed by Julier and

Uhlmann [28] in 1997. According to Julier and Uhlmann [30], the UKF is far superior to the

EKF, both in theory and practice. The key idea of the UKF is that the state density function

can be approximated by a few well-chosen points that have the same mean and variance (and

possibly higher-order moments) as the true density function. The evolution of the state can

be calculated by simply applying the nonlinear state equation to each of the points. The

UKF does not have the linearisation errors of the EKF, nor does it require the computation

of Jacobians, and it is easy to implement [28, 30].

The UKF has been shown to be superior to the EKF in many state estimation, dual estimation

and parameter estimation problems [47, 48]. It has been used in applications, such as state

estimation for road vehicles [29], induction motors [1], quaternion motion of human orien-

tation [26], visual contour tracking [37], and parameter estimation for time series modelling

[47] and neural network training [15, 46].

Chapter 14. Parameter estimation 222

Lefebvre et al [36] note that the UKF ‘sigma points’, used to approximate the state distribu-

tion, correspond to the regression points in their Linear Regression Kalman filter (LRKF),

and that the UKF is a special case of the LRKF. The UKF is able to approximate Gaussian

state functions with third-order accuracy, and non-Gaussian state functions to at least second

order [48].

The Unscented Kalman Filter is used to solve the train problem in Chapter 16.

14.6 H∞ Filter

The H∞ filter is also called the minimax filter [44]. Its aim is to minimise the maximum of

the estimation error. In other words, the minimax filter minimises the maximum value of the

transfer function from the system noise to the estimation error. Unlike the Kalman filter and

EKF, the H∞ filter does not require the noise to have any particular structure.

with observations

yk = Cxk + νk

where A, B and C are known matrices, u is the known input to the system, and ω and ν are

process noise and observation noise respectively. The H ∞ filter finds the state estimate x̂

that solves

min max J.

x̂ ω,ν

Suppose we are given the worst possible values of ν and ω, we want to find an estimate x̂

that will minimise the maximum estimation error caused by ν and ω. Hence, the H ∞ filter is

sometimes called the minimax filter. The function J is defined as

ave xk − x̂k Q

J=

ave wk W + ave vk V

Chapter 14. Parameter estimation 223

where ave xk − x̂k Q is the average taken over all time samples k and is defined as

1

n

ave xk − x̂k Q = (xk − x̂k )Q.

n

k=1

To minimise the maximum estimate error, the matrices Q, W and V are chosen for use in the

weighted norms so that the desired trade-off is obtained. This problem is not easy to solve.

Instead the related problem

1

find x̂k such that J <

γ

where γ is some chosen constant is solved. That is, we wish to find a state estimate such that

no matter what the values of noise ω and ν, the maximum of J is always less than 1/γ. The

H∞ filter equations are

Kk = APk Lk C T V −1

Pk+1 = APk Lk AT + W

where x̂k is the estimated mean of the state at step k, P k is the estimated covariance of the

state at time k, and Kk is the H∞ gain matrix applied to the observation error at time k.

The initial state covariance matrix P0 must be carefully chosen to obtain acceptable filter

performance, and the constant γ should be set such that all eigenvalues of the P matrix

have magnitudes less than one. If we choose very large γ then the solution of the H ∞

problem does not exist. So while the H ∞ seems easy to use and promises good performance,

we encountered some difficulties associated with ‘tuning’ the filter when we tried to apply

the filter for our train problem. The filter performance depends on the initial value of a

covariance matrix for each particular application. This tuning work is very time consuming

and quite insensitive compared to the tuning of UKF. Thus we preferred the UKF for our

problem.

Chapter 14. Parameter estimation 224

14.7 Conclusion

To calculate optimal driving strategies for a train, we need to identify the rolling resistance

and aerodynamic drag coefficients of the train as each journey progresses. One way to do

this is to use a mathematical filter. The train performance model is nonlinear in the param-

eters, and so we require a nonlinear state estimator. The Nonlinear Projection Filter and the

Unscented Kalman Filter were thought to be promising approaches, and will be discussed in

more detail in the next two chapters.

Chapter 15

15.1 Introduction

In the previous chapter we described the general filter process, and some of the methods used

to solve the filtering problem. In this chapter we consider the use of the Nonlinear Projection

Filter (NPF) [3], which is designed to estimate the state of a continuous nonlinear dynamic

system with discrete nonlinear observations.

For a linear dynamic system, the probability density function used to describe the state of

the system is Gaussian and so can be described by just two parameters: the mean and the

standard deviation. For nonlinear dynamic systems, however, the state probability density

function may not be able to be described by a finite number of parameters.

As discussed in Chapter 14, the filter process comprises two stages: prediction and cor-

rection. The NPF uses a partial differential equation, Kolmogorov’s forward equation, to

describe the evolution of the state probability density function between observations. Bayes

formula is then used to describe how the probability density function is modified by the in-

formation from each observation. The NPF uses Galerkin’s method to solve Kolmogorov’s

225

Chapter 15. Nonlinear Projection Filter 226

forward equation, expanding the exact solution to an infinite sum of basis functions. An

approximate solution is found by projecting the true solution into the space spanned by a

truncated, finite set of basis functions. The algorithm and more details of the filter can be

found in [3].

Because of the generally stable nature of projection we felt that this filter may provide a

useful technique for our parameter estimation problems. Unfortunately, as the discussion

below will show, we were unable to convince ourselves that the prediction stage of the filter

could be implemented.

The NPF uses Kolmogorov’s forward equation in the prediction stage to determine the evolu-

tion of the state probability density function between measurements. Kolmogorov’s forward

equation is

∂p ∂ σ2 ∂2

= − (f p) + (p) (15.1)

∂t ∂x 2 ∂x2

where p is the probability density function of the state, f is the known process operator

and σ is the covariance of the process noise. The Kolmogorov equation is a well-known

partial differential equation but it is not easy to solve. In this section we consider a simple

dynamic system where the true solution is known, and use three different numerical methods

to solve Kolmogorov’s forward equation: a Fast Fourier Transform (FFT), a Discrete Cosine

Transform (DCT), and a Fourier Cosine Series (FCS). Our main purpose was to consider

equations where an analytic solution was known to see how well the proposed method would

work. In retrospect we found the method was not sufficiently specified for it to be used on

equations where the solution was not known beforehand.

The system we are considering is a wave travelling with unit velocity (f = 1) and no diffu-

Chapter 15. Nonlinear Projection Filter 227

sion, (σ = 0),

dx = dt. (15.2)

∂p ∂p

=− (15.3)

∂t ∂x

We consider the Kolmogorov equation (15.3) in the region x ∈ (−π, π) and t ∈ [0, ∞). We

use a Fourier series to find the solution. Substitute

p(x, t) = ck (t)eikx (15.4)

k∈Z

where π

1

ck (t) = p(x, t)eikx dx

2π −π

ck

[ + ikck (t)]eikx ] = 0

k∈Z

dt

ck (t) = ck (0)e−ikt (15.5)

where π

1

ck (0) = p(x, 0)e−ikx dx. (15.6)

2π −π

p(x, t) = ck (0)eik(x−t)

k∈Z

= p(x − t, 0). (15.7)

Chapter 15. Nonlinear Projection Filter 228

The solution is a travelling wave with the same shape as the initial probability. Note that

the induced periodicity means that the portion of the wave that appears to exit from the right

hand of the interval simultaneously appears to enter from the left hand end. The condition

π

p(x, 0)dx = 1

−π

1

c0 (0) =

2π

which, in turn, from (15.5) means that

1

c0 (t) =

2π

and hence ensures that π

p(x, t)dx = 1.

−π

In this section we will use a Fast Fourier Transform (FFT) to approximate the solution to the

KFE for our simple example. The solution to (15.3) can be approximated by

1

N

p̂(xj , t) = ck (t)e2πi(j−1)(k−1)/N (15.8)

N

k=1

(2j − 1)π

xj = −π +

N

and where ck (t) is Fourier coefficients. For convenience and ease of calculating we rewrite

j in terms of xj to give

N(xj + π) + π

j=

2π

and substitute this into (15.8) to obtain

1

N

p̂(xj , t) = ck (t)ei[xj +(1−1/N )π](k−1) . (15.9)

2N k=1

Chapter 15. Nonlinear Projection Filter 229

N

ck

[ + i(k − 1)ck (t)]ei[xj +(1−1/N )π](k−1) = 0

k=1

dt

ck

+ i(k − 1)ck (t) = 0 (15.10)

dt

1

N

ck (0) = p(xj , 0)e−i[xj +(1−1/N )π](k−1)

N j=1

and

N

p̂(x, 0) = ck (0)ei[x+(1−1/N )π](k−1)

k=1

theorem for the FFT. Note that in general we will have p(x, 0) = p̂(x) for x = xj . Using the

above expression for ck (t) and (15.9) it follows that

N

p(xj , t) = ck (0)ei[(xj −t)+(1−1/N )π](k−1) = p̂(xj − t) (15.11)

k=1

for each j = 1, 2, . . . , N. Therefore the solution is a travelling wave with the same shape as

the initial representation p̂(x). If xj − t = xm for some m ∈ Z then

This means the values of the probability density function at the sample points may be differ-

ent to the true solution depending on the time step we choose. This is illustrated in Figures

15.1, 15.2, 15.3 and 15.5.

Chapter 15. Nonlinear Projection Filter 230

Figure 15.1 shows an initial probability distribution on the interval [0, 6]. We represent this

distribution by a vector of 250 sample points.

Figure 15.2 shows an approximating function after one iteration of the method, where the

time step is such that each initial sample point x j maps onto another sample point x m . The

value of the approximating function is correct at each of the sample points. Note that the

approximating function has p̂(x) = p(x) for x = xj .

Figure 15.3 shows the approximating function after two iterations of the method. Once again,

the value of the approximating function is correct at each of the sample points.

Figure 15.4 shows the initial probability density function (blue) and the approximating so-

lution (green) of the KFE at t = 0. We solve the KFE using 10 sample points (blue). The

approximating solution using FFT goes through all sample points.

Figure 15.5 shows the true solution (blue) and the approximating solution (green) at time t =

x2 − x1 . The true solution has the same shape as the initial condition since the approximating

solution is correct at each of the sample points (green).

The approximating solution (red) is not correct at all sample points when we use t = x m −xj .

Hence the true solution has values (blue) that are quite different from the ones (red) we

expected at the sample points as seen in Figure 15.6

Chapter 15. Nonlinear Projection Filter 231

1.4

1.2

0.8

probability

0.6

0.4

0.2

−0.2

0 1 2 3 4 5 6

x

1.4

1.2

0.8

probability

0.6

0.4

0.2

−0.2

0 1 2 3 4 5 6

x

Figure 15.2: Solution to KFE using FFT without diffusion after one iteration.

Chapter 15. Nonlinear Projection Filter 232

1.4

1.2

0.8

probability

0.6

0.4

0.2

−0.2

0 1 2 3 4 5 6

x

Figure 15.3: Solution to KFE using FFT without diffusion after two iterations.

0.6

0.5

0.4

0.3

probability

0.2

0.1

−0.1

0 1 2 3 4 5 6

x

Chapter 15. Nonlinear Projection Filter 233

0.6

0.5

0.4

0.3

probability

0.2

0.1

−0.1

0 1 2 3 4 5 6

x

Figure 15.5: Results using FFT without diffusion after one evolution such that time t = xj − xm .

0.6

0.5

0.4

0.3

probability

0.2

0.1

−0.1

0 1 2 3 4 5 6

x

Figure 15.6: Results using FFT without diffusion after one evolution such that time t = xj − xm .

Chapter 15. Nonlinear Projection Filter 234

In this section we use a Fourier Cosine Series (FCS) to approximate the evolution of our

example.

∂p ∂p

(x, t) = (−1) (x, t) (15.12)

∂t ∂x

∞

p(x, t) = c0 (t) + cm (t) cos mx (15.13)

m=1

∞

dc0 dcm

+ cos mx − cm (t)m sin mx = 0. (15.14)

dt m=1

dt

Solving equation (15.14) is not straightforward. To overcome the obvious difficulty we write

∞

sin mx = am0 + amn cos nx

n=1

where ⎧

⎪

⎪ 2

⎪

⎨ mπ

for m odd

am0 = (15.15)

⎪

⎪

⎪

⎩ 0 otherwise

and ⎧

⎪

⎪ 2 1 1

for m − k odd

⎪

⎨ π m+k

+ m−k

amk = (15.16)

⎪

⎪

⎪

⎩ 0 otherwise

which leads us to the equation

dc0 dcm

∞ ∞ ∞

− an0 ncn (t) + − anm ncn (t) cos mx = 0.

dt n=1 m=1

dt n=1

Chapter 15. Nonlinear Projection Filter 235

It follows that

dcm

∞

= anm ncn (t) (15.17)

dt n=1

⎡ ⎤ ⎡ ⎤

c (t) 0 0 0 ···

⎢ 0 ⎥ ⎢ ⎥

⎢ ⎥ ⎢ ⎥

⎢ c1 (t) ⎥ ⎢ 0 1 0 ··· ⎥

c(t) = ⎢ ⎥, D = ⎢ ⎥

⎢ ⎥ ⎢ ⎥

⎢ c2 (t) ⎥ ⎢ 0 0 2 ··· ⎥

⎣ ⎦ ⎣ ⎦

.. .. .. .. ..

. . . . .

and ⎡ ⎤

0 0 0 0 ···

⎢ ⎥

⎢ ⎥

⎢ 1 0 ( 13 − 1) 0 ··· ⎥

⎢ ⎥

⎢ ⎥

2⎢ 0 ( 13 + 1) 0 ( 15 − 1) ··· ⎥

⎢

A= ⎢ ⎥

π⎢ 1 ⎥

0 ( 15 + 1) 0 ··· ⎥

⎢ 3 ⎥

⎢ ⎥

⎢ 0 ( 15 + 13 ) 0 ( 17 + 1) ··· ⎥

⎣ ⎦

.. .. .. .. ..

. . . . .

then equation (15.17) can be written in operator form as

dc

= AT Dc(t).

dt

T Dt

c(t) = eA c0 . (15.18)

In order to compute this solution, we want to show A T DAT = −D. That is,

⎧

⎪

⎪ −n, k = m

⎪

⎨

∞

anm nakn = (15.19)

⎪

⎪

n=1 ⎪

⎩ 0 k = m.

We notice that when m = 0 and k is an odd number then from (15.15) and (15.16) we have

Chapter 15. Nonlinear Projection Filter 236

∞

a2k,n an0 n

n=1

2 1 1 2 2 1 1 2

= + · ·1+ + · ·3

π 2k + 1 2k − 1 π π 2k + 3 2k − 3 3π

2 1 1 2 2 1 1 2

+ + · ·5+ + · ·7

π 2k + 5 2k − 5 5π π 2k + 7 2k − 7 7π

..

.

∞

4 1 1 1 1

= ·1·1+ − · · (2p + 1)

π 2 (2k + 1) p=1

2p + 2k + 1 2p − 2k − 1 (2p + 1)

4 1 1 1 1 1

= + + + + +···

π 2 (2k + 1) (2k + 3) (2k − 1) (2k + 5) (2k − 3)

1 1 1 1

+ +1 + −1 + − +···

(4k + 1) (4k + 3) (4k + 5) 3

1 1 1 1

+ − + −

(6k + 1) (2k − 1) (6k + 3) (2k + 1)

1 1

+ − +···

(6k + 5) (2k + 3)

= 0

it follows that

∞

amn an0 n = 0

n=1

for all m = 1, 2, . . .. Hence the top row of the matrix AT DAT is all zeros. That means

dc0

∞

= an0 ncn (t) (15.20)

dt n=1

as required in (15.17).

Chapter 15. Nonlinear Projection Filter 237

m = 2r + 1 and k = 2s + 1 then

∞

a2p,2r+1 · 2p · a2s+1,2p

p=1

∞

8 1 1 1 1

= + − ·p

π 2 p=1 2p + 2r + 1 2p − 2r − 1 2p + 2s + 1 2p − 2s − 1

8

∞

1 1

= p +

2

π p=1 (2p + 2r + 1)(2p + 2s + 1) (2p − 2r − 1)(2p + 2s + 1)

1 1

− − .

(2p + 2r + 1)(2p − 2s − 1) (2p − 2r − 1)(2p − 2s − 1)

analysis we have

∞

a2p,2r+1 · 2p · a2s+1,2p

p=1

∞

2 1 1 1 1

= (2s + 1) + · −

π 2 p=1 (s − r) (s + r + 1) 2p + 2s + 1 2p − 2s − 1

1 1 1 1

+(2r + 1) + · − .

(s − r) (s + r + 1) 2p − 2r − 1 2p + 2r + 1

Since

∞

1 1 −1

− =

p=1

2p + 2s + 1 2p − 2s − 1 2s + 1

and

∞

1 1 1

− =

p=1

2p − 2r − 1 2p + 2r + 1 2r + 1

it follows that

∞

a2p,2r+1 · 2p · a2s+1,2p = 0

p=1

when r = s.

Chapter 15. Nonlinear Projection Filter 238

If r = s then

∞

a2p,2s+1 · 2p · a2s+1,2p

p=1

∞

8 1 1 1 1

= + − ·p

π 2 p=1 2p + 2s + 1 2p − 2s − 1 2p + 2s + 1 2p − 2s − 1

8

∞

1 1

= p −

π 2 p=1 (2p + 2s + 1)2 (2p − 2s − 1)2

8 1 1 1 1

= − +2 − +···

π2 (2s + 3)2 (2s − 1)2 (2s + 5)2 (2s − 3)2

1 1 1 1

+s − 1 + (s + 1) − 1 + (s + 2) − +···

(4s + 1)2 (4s + 3)2 (4s + 5)2 9

1 1 1 1

+2s − + (2s + 1) −

(6s + 1)2 (2s − 1)2 (6s + 3)2 (2s + 1)2

1 1

+(2s + 2) − +···

(6s + 5)2 (2s + 3)2

8 ∞

1

= 2

(−1)(2s + 1)

π p=0

(2p + 1)2

= (−1)(2s + 1).

⎧

⎪

⎪ −n if k = m

⎪

⎨

∞

anm nakn = (15.21)

⎪

⎪

n=1 ⎪

⎩ 0 otherwise

Chapter 15. Nonlinear Projection Filter 239

AT Dt T (AT D)2 t2 (AT D)3 t3

c(t) = e c0 = I + A Dt + + + . . . c0

2! 3!

D2 t2 D 4 t4 T D3 t3

= I− + −... + A D − + ... c0

2! 4! 3!

= cos Dt + AT sin Dt c0 .

AT Dc(t) = AT D cos Dt + AT sin Dt c0

= AT D cos Dt + AT DAT sin Dt c0

= AT D cos Dt − D sin Dt c0

dc

= .

dt

dcm

∞

= anm ncn (t)

dt n=1

as required in (15.17). Hence the FCS method produces the expected solution.

To do numerical calculations we truncate the FCS. Figure 15.7 shows the solutions of the

KFE using Fourier Cosine Series. The initial probability is a step function shown in red; its

approximation calculated using Fourier Cosine Series is shown in green in the top part of

Figure 15.7. The solution of equation 15.3 after one iteration with time step 0.5, shown in

blue in the bottom part of the figure, is clearly the green curve shifted to the right 0.5 units.

Chapter 15. Nonlinear Projection Filter 240

0.5

probability

1

0.5

x

Chapter 15. Nonlinear Projection Filter 241

∂p ∂p

(x, t) = − (x, t) (15.22)

∂t ∂x

by approximating p as a Discrete Cosine Series

N

p̂(xj , t) = ck (t) cos (k − 1)xj . (15.23)

k=1

As we proved in the previous section that if (15.13) is a solution to (15.12) then it follows

that

dc T

= AT Dc(t) =⇒ c(t) = eA Dt c0 (t). (15.24)

dt

We can use a similar method using Discrete Cosine Transform (DCT). If (15.23) is a solution

to (15.22) then

dc T

= B T Ec(t) =⇒ c(t) = eB Et c0 (t) (15.25)

dt

where B and E are calculated using a DCT.

Before beginning we review the derivation of the Discrete Cosine Transform (DCT) and

introduce some important notation. Define

(2j − 1)π

xj = , for j = 1, 2, . . . , N

2N

and

N

f (xj ) = fk cos (k − 1)xj .

k=1

So,

N

N

N

f (xj ) cos (h − 1)xj = cos (h − 1)xj fk cos (k − 1)xj

j=1 j=1 k=1

N

fk

N

= [cos (h − k)xj + cos (h + k − 2)xj ] .

k=1

2 j=1

Chapter 15. Nonlinear Projection Filter 242

When 1 ≤ s ≤ N we have

N

N

cos sxj = ei(2j−1)πs/2N

j=1 j=1

iπs

N

= e 2n ei(j−1)πs/N

j=1

1 − (−1)s

= iπs iπs

e− 2N − e 2N

= 0

since

1 − (−1)s

iπs iπs

e− 2N − e 2N

is pure imaginary while [·] is the real part of a complex number.

When s = 0 we have

N

cos sxj = N.

j=1

Hence

N

1

N

f (xj ) = Nf1 =⇒ f1 = f (xj )

j=1

N j=1

and

N

fk 2

N

f (xj ) cos(k − 1)xj = N =⇒ fk = f (xj ) cos (k − 1)xj .

j=1

2 N j=1

We now return to equation (15.22). After substituting (15.23) into (15.22), we obtain

N

dck

N

cos (k − 1)xj = ck (t)(k − 1) sin (k − 1)xj .

k=1

dt k=1

N

sin (k − 1)xj = skn cos (n − 1)xj

n=1

Chapter 15. Nonlinear Projection Filter 243

where

1

N

sk1 = sin (k − 1)xj

N j=1

1 i(2j−1)(k−1)π/2N

N

= e

N j=1

1 1 − (−1)k−1

=

N e−iπ(k−1)/2N − eiπ(k−1)/2N

⎧

⎪

⎪

⎪

⎨

0 if k odd

= (15.26)

⎪

⎪

⎪

⎩ 1/(N sin π(k−1) ) otherwise

2N

and

2

N

skn = sin (k − 1)xj cos (n − 1)xj

N j=1

1

N

= [sin (k − n)xj + sin (k + n − 2)xj ]

N j=1

1 1 − (−1)k−n 1 − (−1)k+n−2

= . + −iπ(k+n−2)/2N

N e−iπ(k−n)/2N − eiπ(k−n)/2N e − eiπ(k+n−2)/2N

⎧

⎪

⎪ 0 if k − n is even

⎪

⎨

1

= (15.27)

N⎪ ⎪

⎪

⎩ 1 1

π(k−n) + π(k+n−2) if k − n is odd

sin 2N

sin 2N

where [·] is the imaginary part of a complex number. From (15.27), in general we have

1 1

skn = π(k−1)

N sin

2N

cos 2N − cos π(k−1)

π(n−1)

2N

sin π(n−1)

2N

1 1

+ π(k−1)

N sin

2N

cos 2N + cos π(k−1)

π(n−1)

2N

sin π(n−1)

2N

1 1 1

= +

N s(k)c(n) − c(k)s(n) s(k)c(n) + c(k)s(n)

2 s(k)c(n)

= (15.28)

N [s(k)c(n)]2 − [c(k)s(n)]2

Chapter 15. Nonlinear Projection Filter 244

2N

and c(n) = cos π(n−1)

2N

. Hence we have

2 s(n)c(k)

snk = ·

N [s(n)c(k)]2 − [c(n)s(k)]2

s(n)c(k)

= (−1) · skn

s(k)c(n)

or

c(n) c(k)

· snk = (−1) · skn . (15.29)

s(n) s(k)

That is

t(p)sqp = −t(q)spq .

⎡ ⎤

0 0 0 0 ···

⎢ ⎥

⎢ ⎥

⎢ 0 t(1) 0 0 ··· ⎥

⎢ ⎥

⎢ ⎥

⎢ 0 0 t(2) 0 ··· ⎥

E = ⎢ ⎥

⎢ ⎥

⎢ 0 0 0 t(3) · · · ⎥

⎢ ⎥

⎢ ⎥

⎢ 0 0 0 0 ··· ⎥

⎣ ⎦

.. .. .. ..

. . . .

and

⎡ ⎤

0 0 0 0 ···

⎢ ⎥

⎢ 1 1 1 ⎥

⎢ s(1) 0 − 0 ··· ⎥

⎢ s(3) s(1) ⎥

⎢ 1 1 1 1 ⎥

⎢ 0 + 0 − ··· ⎥

B = [skn ] = ⎢

⎢ 1

s(3) s(1) s(5) s(1) ⎥.

⎥

⎢ s(3) 1 1

0 + 0 ··· ⎥

⎢ s(5) s(1) ⎥

⎢ ⎥

⎢ 0 1

+ 1

0 1 1

+ s(1) ··· ⎥

⎣ s(5) s(1) s(7) ⎦

.. .. .. ..

. . . .

(15.30)

Chapter 15. Nonlinear Projection Filter 245

Now we consider a general skew symmetric W that has pure imaginary eigenvalues. The

eigenvalues are

kπ

±i tan

N

for k = 1, . . . , N2 − 1 if N is even and the eigenvalues are

(2k − 1)π

±i tan

2N

for k = 1, . . . , N2 if N is odd.

We know that the eigenvalues of a skew symmetric matrix are pure imaginary and the eigen-

vectors can be chosen to form an orthonormal set [12, 16]. Thus for any skew symmetric

matrix W we have RH W R = iM where R = P + iQ is the matrix of eigenvectors and M

is an eigenvalue matrix. Hence,

(P T − iQT )W (P + iQ) = iM

=⇒ P T W P + QT W Q = 0 and P T W Q − QT W P = M.

Now the properties follow. Since (P T − iQT )(P + iQ) = I it follows that (P T − iQT ) =

(P + iQT )−1 and hence

W = (P + iQ)iM(P T − iQT ).

Therefore

Wt W 2 t2 W 3 t3

c(t) = e = I + Wt + + + ...

2! 3!

M 2 t2 iM 3 t3 M 4 t4

= (P + iQ)[I + iMt − − + + . . . ](P T − iQT )

2! 3! 4!

= (P + iQ)(cos Mt + i sin Mt)(P T − iQT )

Chapter 15. Nonlinear Projection Filter 246

obtain

dc

= . (15.33)

dt

Recall that B T E is skew symmetric, and so (15.33) can be applied. Setting W = B T E and

substituting c(t) = eW t from (15.32) into (15.33) gives

dc

B T Ec(t) = .

dt

For convenience of numerical calculation we now try to compute eW t without using any

imaginary terms. Since

= −P M 2 P T − QM 2 QT

Chapter 15. Nonlinear Projection Filter 247

= −P MP T QM 2 P T + QM(I − QT Q)M 2 P T

−P M(I − P T P )M 2 QT + QMQT P M 2 QT

= QM 3 P T − P M 3 QT .

Similarly we have

W 4 = P M 4 P T + QM 4 QT .

In general we have

⎧

⎪

⎨(−1)n/2 (P M n P T + QM n QT ) if n is even,

Wn = (15.34)

⎪

⎩(−1)n/4+1 (P M n QT − QM n P T ) if n is odd.

So,

W 2t W 3t W 4t

eW t = I + W t + + + + ...

2! 3! 4!

1

= I + (P MtQT − QMtP T ) + (−P M 2 tP T − QM 2 tQT )

2!

1 1

+ (QM tP − P M tQ ) + (P M 4 tP T + QM 4 tQT ) + . . .

3 T 3 T

3! 4!

M 2t M 4t M 2t M 4t

= P (I − + + . . . )P T + Q(I − + + . . . )QT

2! 4! 2! 4!

M 3t T M 3t

+P (Mt − + . . . )Q − Q(Mt − + . . . )P T

3! 3!

= P cos MtP + P cos MtQ + P sin MtQT − Q sin MtP T .

T T

(15.35)

Note that B T E is a skew symmetric matrix. So we can calculate the approximate solution

T Et

p̂(xj , t) by substituting c(t) = e B to give

N

B T Et

p̂(xj , t) = e cos (k − 1)xj

k=1

T Et

where eB is calculated using (15.35).

Chapter 15. Nonlinear Projection Filter 248

Figure 15.8 shows an initial probability distribution (blue) and its transformation (green) at

the top; the approximation of probability density function after one iteration is shown in red

at the bottom of the figure. We evaluated this distribution using N = 201 sample points in

the interval [0, π]. The points are transformed using formula (15.35). The time step used in

the example is a multiple of the step size of the sample points, π/200. If the time step is not

a multiple of the sample step size, t = xj − xm where xj and xm are some of the sample

points, then p(x − t) = p(x, 0).

1.2

0.8

0.6

0.4

0.2

0

probability

0.8

0.6

0.4

0.2

−0.2

0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5

x

Figure 15.9 shows the solution of the KFE by applying the algorithm of the Nonlinear Projec-

tion Filter and using the DCT built-in function in MATLAB. The initial probability function

Chapter 15. Nonlinear Projection Filter 249

T Dt

after being transformed into coefficients c0 using DCT then is evolved by c(t) = eA c0 to

calculate c(t) where A and D are calculated using the formula in [3]. The evolved coeffi-

cients are then transformed back using the inverse DCT function to obtain the solution. We

can see the solution obtained contains unexpected oscillations.

∂p ∂p σ2 ∂2 p

(x, t) = (−1) (x, t) + (x, t) (15.36)

∂t ∂x 2 ∂x2

with diffusion in the region x ∈ (−π, π) and t ∈ [0, ∞). We use a Fast Fourier Transform

(FFT) and sample points

(2j − 1)π

xj = −π +

N

for each j = 1, 2, . . . , N. Substituting

N

p(xj , t) = ck (t)ei[xj +(1−1/N )π](k−1)

k=1

N

dck σ 2 (k − 1)2

+ i(k − 1) + ck (t) ei[xj +(1−1/N )π](k−1) = 0

k=1

dt 2

2 (k−1)2 /2]t

and hence we deduce that ck (t) = ck (0)e−[i(k−1)+σ . It follows that

N

2 (k−1)2 t/2

p(xj , t) = ck (0)e−σ · ei[(xj −t)+(1−1/N )π](k−1) → ck (0)

k=1

as t → ∞.

Figure 15.10 shows the initial uniform distribution (red) and its solution (blue) after one time

step. The process covariance is 0.1 and time step is 2.

Chapter 15. Nonlinear Projection Filter 250

0.8

0.6

probability

0.4

0.2

−0.2

0 1 2 3 4 5 6

x

0.8

0.6

probability

0.4

0.2

−0.2

0 1 2 3 4 5 6

x

Figure 15.9: Initial condition and the solution to the KFE using DCT at t= 0.5

Chapter 15. Nonlinear Projection Filter 251

1.4

1.2

0.8

probability

0.6

0.4

0.2

−0.2

0 1 2 3 4 5 6

x

Figure 15.10: FFT solution to Kolmogorov’s equation with diffusion after one time step

We use Kolmogorov’s forward equation to solve equation (15.37) to see how the probability

density function of speed evolves between measurements. In this state equation, for sim-

plicity, we assume the parameter r2 is known. We also assume that the train starts coasting

at v = 20. The diffusion coefficient is σ = 0.1. We will calculate the probability density

function of speed at equal time steps. We set the initial probability density function as the

normal distribution shown in Figure 15.11.

To solve the Kolmogorov equation we use a DCT. We solve the KFE for several times; the

results are shown in Figures 15.11 and 15.12. We can see that the solutions after two steps

appears as normal, but after three steps something unexpected happens as seen at the right

end of Figure 15.12. We are unable to explain this bizarre behaviour.

Chapter 15. Nonlinear Projection Filter 252

0.5

0.4

0.3

Probability

0.2

0.1

-0.1

-0.2

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Velocity

0.5

0.4

0.3

Probability

0.2

0.1

-0.1

-0.2

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Velocity

Figure 15.12: The results of the train example after four iterations.

Chapter 15. Nonlinear Projection Filter 253

15.5 Conclusions

The NPF has high computational cost and is hard to implement because of difficulties in

solving Kolmogorov’s forward equation with Galerkin’s method even for a simple model as

in our example. We can solve the KFE in our example because we know the true solution

is p(x − t, 0). If we don’t know the true solution then there are too many uncertainties

in the numerical calculation for us to have any confidence in the results. Furthermore, the

computing complexity of the filter increases rapidly with the dimension of the state variable.

The authors [3] claimed that the filter can be implemented efficiently for low order system

using Fast Fourier Transform. However our experimental results did not support this claim.

Chapter 16

16.1 Introduction

The Unscented Kalman Filter (UKF) for non-linear systems was proposed by Julier and

Uhlmann [28] in 1997. The filter has a special feature that distinguishes it from others

in that it uses a new transformation, the Unscented Transformation, to predict the state of

the system. The detailed description of this transformation will be presented later. This

transformation is believed to help the filter outperform other filters and reduce computational

cost.

The UKF is one of many variations of the well-known Kalman filter. Details of the Kalman

filter appear in Chapter 14. In this chapter we first describe the Unscented Transformation

and use the UKF to estimate train resistance parameters. During this experiment we found

that filter performance depends significantly on the initial values of the covariance matrix

for the errors of the state variables. The covariance matrix is guaranteed to be non-negative

semi-definite provided the weights are non-negative. How to initiate this matrix to obtain

best result from the filter is an important issue we want to discuss. Our particular aim is to

254

Chapter 16. Unscented Kalman Filter 255

choose the covariance matrix that is best for our problem in this chapter.

The Unscented Transformation (UT) is a method for calculating the statistics of a random

variable which undergoes a nonlinear transformation and builds on the principle that it

is easier to approximate a probability distribution than an arbitrary non-linear function

[27]. The Unscented Transform is similar to a Monte Carlo method in that it applies the

process transformation to points representing the state distribution. Unlike the Monte Carlo

method, the Unscented Transform uses a few carefully chosen points called “sigma points” to

represent the state distribution instead of thousands of points. For the n-dimensional random

variable x with mean x̄ and covariance Pxx , we need 2n + 1 sigma points and the same

number of weighted points to approximate the state. Those points are given by

χ0 = x̄ W0 = κ/(n + κ)

χi = x̄ + (n + κ)Pxx , Wi = 1/2(n + κ) (16.1)

i

χi+n = x̄ − (n + κ)Pxx , Wi+n = 1/2(n + κ).

i

These points have sample mean x̄ and sample covariance Pxx . In the above equations, the

parameter κ is an extra degree of freedom to “fine tune” the higher order moments of the

approximation and can be used to reduce the prediction errors. According to the authors [3]

when κ satisfies the equation

n+κ=3

then the UKF gives a better approximation than the EKF [28]. The term (n + κ)Pxx

i

is the ith row or column of (n + κ)P xx and Wi is the weight for the point i. The process

function is applied to each point to yield the set of transformed sigma points

Yi = f [χi ].

Chapter 16. Unscented Kalman Filter 256

2n

ȳ = Wi Yi.

i=0

Finally the covariance is defined as the weighted outer product of the transformed points,

2n

Pyy = Wi {Yi − ȳ}{Yi − ȳ}T .

i=0

The motion of a train along a track can be described by the stochastic differential equation

P

mdv = − R(v) + G(x) dt + dω (16.2)

v

where m is the mass of the train, P is the tractive power applied at the wheels, v is the speed

of the train, R is the resistance force acting on the train, G is the gradient force acting on the

train, t is time, and ω is the process noise. The gradient force G(x) is

where θ(x) is the elevation angle of the gradient and the resistive force R(v) is

R(v) = r0 + r2 v 2 (16.4)

where r0 and r2 are resistance parameters. The parameter r0 typically depends on the mass

of the train and on the rolling resistance of the wheels; the parameter r 2 depends on the

aerodynamic drag of the train. Resistance is often modelled with an additional term r 1 v, but

in practice this term is small compared to the other two terms. The parameters r 0 and r2 are

generally unknown. We wish to estimate their values from (noisy) measurements of speed

Chapter 16. Unscented Kalman Filter 257

filter.

The state equations for our problem are the set of stochastic differential equations

1 P

dv = − R(v) + G(x) dt + dω (16.5)

m v

dr0 = dη0 (16.6)

where ω, η0 and η2 are process noise variables that represent errors in the model.

For simplicity we assume that the train mass m is known, and scale the other variables so

that m = 1. We also assume that the filter is used only when the train is coasting, and so we

set P = 0. This gives us the simplified system

16.2.2 Implementation

We implemented the Unscented Kalman Filter in Matlab. To test the filter, we simulated

the motion of the train for known values of r 0 and r2 , then added observation noise to the

calculated speed sequence. The noisy speed sequence was then used as an input to the filter,

which calculated a sequence of estimates {(rˆ0 , rˆ2 )}.

For simplicity, we tested the filter for the train coasting on a flat track and with no process

Chapter 16. Unscented Kalman Filter 258

noise. This means G(x) = 0 and ω = η0 = η2 = 0, and so the state equations are simply

dr0 = 0 (16.12)

dr2 = 0 (16.13)

This set of equations was used to generate a sequence of speeds {vk , k = 0 . . . 300} at one

second intervals for nine sets of parameters

We also generated ten observation noise sequences which are drawn from a normal distribu-

tion N(0, 0.2). The ten observation noise sequences were added to each of the nine speed

sequences, giving a total of 90 observation sequences.

The filter requires us to specify an initial guess for (r̂ 0 (0), r̂0 (2) and an initial guess for the

covariance matrix P of the difference between the estimated and true states. In each case

we set the initial guess for (r̂0 (0), r̂0 (2) to (0.001, 0.0001). We start by setting the initial

covariance to ⎡ ⎤

1 0 0

⎢ ⎥

⎢ ⎥

P1 = ⎢ 0 10−5 −10−7 ⎥.

⎣ ⎦

0 −10−7 10−5

Figure 16.1 shows a (r0 , r2 ) phase plot. The nine red circles represent the nine true values

of (r0 , r2 ). The 90 black circles represent the final estimates (rˆ0 , rˆ2 ) from each of the 90

observation sequences. The red paths represent the paths taken from the initial guess to the

final estimate.

Figure 16.2 shows r̂0 (t) and r̂2 (t) for a single observation sequence. The red lines indicate

the true values of the observation and (r0 , r2 ); the blue lines indicate the estimated values.

Notice that rˆ2 converges very quickly to the correct value.

Chapter 16. Unscented Kalman Filter 259

−3

x 10

2.5

1.5

r

2

0.5

0

−0.01 −0.005 0 0.005 0.01 0.015 0.02 0.025 0.03

r0

Figure 16.1: 90 estimations on flat track with no process noise, initial covariance matrix P1 .

Chapter 16. Unscented Kalman Filter 260

Estimate of velocity

30

20

10

0

0 50 100 150 200 250 300

Estimate of r0

0.02

0.015

0.01

0.005

0

0 50 100 150 200 250 300

−3

Estimate of r2

x 10

2

1.5

0.5

0

0 50 100 150 200 250 300

Figure 16.2: Estimations of v, r0 and r2 on flat track with no process noise, initial covariance matrix

P1 .

Chapter 16. Unscented Kalman Filter 261

P (i|j) = E {x(i) − x̂(i)}{x(i) − x̂(i)}T |Z j

where x(i) is the (unknown) true state at time i, x̂(i) is the estimated state at time i, i > j

and Z j is the set of observations {z(1), z(2), . . . , z(j)}T .

To start the filter process, we must guess the initial state value (v(0), r 0(0), r2 (0)) and the

initial value of the state covariance matrix P0 . Changing the initial state does not have a

large influence on the ability of the filter to converge to the correct values of r0 and r2 . The

state covariance matrix P used to initialise the filter, however, has significant influence on

the performance of the filter. We wish to find a value for P that gives good results for a wide

range of trains and observation noise sequences.

⎡ ⎤

σ 0 0

⎢ v ⎥

⎢ ⎥

P0 = ⎢ 0 σr0 0 ⎥

⎣ ⎦

0 0 σr2

where σv ,σr0 and σr2 are the variances of the state estimates of v, r0 and r2 respectively. The

filter was tested with each combination of the three standard deviations whose values are

With each initial covariance matrix the filter was run for the nine combinations of r 0 and r2

described previously, and with 10 observation noise sequences for each (r 0 , r2 ) combination.

As before, the initial guesses of r̂0 and r̂2 were 0.01 and 0.001 respectively.

Chapter 16. Unscented Kalman Filter 262

For each test we let the filter run for 300 time steps. At the end of each run we calculated the

maximum relative error in the resistance function,

r̂(v) − r(v)

= max

v∈[3,30] r(v)

where r(v) = r0 + r2 v 2 and r̂(v) = r̂0 + r̂2 v 2 , and where r̂0 and r̂2 were the final estimates

of r0 and r2 .

For each initial P we calculated 90 relative errors. The mean of these 90 errors is given in

table 16.1. Figure 16.3 shows the same results in a parallel coordinates plot. We can see

from the table and the plot that the lowest relative error occurs with the covariance matrix

⎡ ⎤

10−1 0 0

⎢ ⎥

⎢ ⎥

P =⎢ 0 10 −5

0 ⎥.

⎣ ⎦

−8

0 0 10

The result of the test with 90 journeys using this initial covariance matrix is presented in

figure 16.4. Figure 16.5 shows the sequence of parameter estimates for a single journey with

initial covariance matrix P . We are also interested in how σv , σr0 and σr2 evolve at each time

step; their evolution in time is shown in Figure 16.6.

Chapter 16. Unscented Kalman Filter 263

Table 16.1: Relative errors for different values of the initial covariance matrix P .

σr 2

σv σr 0 10−10 10−9 10−8 10−7 10−6

10−7 0.086 0.078 0.075 0.069 0.0706

10−6 0.078 0.067 0.059 0.024 0.0219

10−5 0.087 0.025 0.026 0.0264 0.0252

10−4 0.115 0.027 0.026 0.0255 0.0256

10−7 0.086 0.126 0.111 0.111 0.0707

10−6 0.087 0.094 0.082 0.082 0.0218

10−5 0.089 0.025 0.026 0.068 0.0251

10−4 0.115 0.0253 0.0265 0.060 0.0255

10−7 0.088 0.126 0.112 0.071 0.0714

10−6 0.092 0.021 0.021 0.021 0.021

10−5 0.092 0.023 0.023 0.023 0.023

10−4 0.105 0.024 0.024 0.024 0.0247

10−7 0.096 0.114 0.113 0.113 0.0724

10−6 0.107 0.083 0.0807 0.0808 0.0201

10−5 0.107 0.0206 0.018 0.0178 0.0222

10−4 0.128 0.0216 0.019 0.0183 0.0227

10−7 0.1003 0.078 0.0759 0.076 0.0736

10−6 0.116 0.0223 0.0169 0.0169 0.0195

10−5 0.115 0.0209 0.0144 0.0146 0.0203

10−4 0.135 0.0215 0.0146 0.0148 0.0217

Chapter 16. Unscented Kalman Filter 264

Figure 16.3: Mean filter error plotted using parallel coordinates. The smallest error occurs when

σv = 10−1 , σr0 = 10−5 and σr2 = 10−8 .

−3

x 10

2.5

1.5

r2

0.5

0

−0.01 −0.005 0 0.005 0.01 0.015 0.02 0.025 0.03

r0

Figure 16.4: Estimations on flat track with no process noise, initial covariance matrix P .

Chapter 16. Unscented Kalman Filter 265

Estimate of velocity

30

20

10

0

0 50 100 150 200 250 300

Estimate of r

0

0.02

0.015

0.01

0.005

0

0 50 100 150 200 250 300

−3

Estimate of r2

x 10

2

1.5

0.5

0

0 50 100 150 200 250 300

Figure 16.5: Estimations on flat track with no process noise, initial covariance matrix P .

Chapter 16. Unscented Kalman Filter 266

0.1

0.08

σ 0.06

v

0.04

0.02

0

0x 10−5 50 100 150 200 250 300

1.5

1

σ

r

0

0.5

0

0 −8 50 100 150 200 250 300

x 10

1

0.8

σr 0.6

2

0.4

0.2

0

0 50 100 150 200 250 300

t

16.2.4 Conclusion

The Unscented Kalman Filter is easy to implement and fast enough that it can be run in

real-time with observations made every second. With a suitably chosen initial covariance

matrix, the method gives adequate results for our test problems. We found a suitable initial

covariance matrix by trial-and-error and searching; more work is required to find a more

rigorous method for initialising the filter. In the future we will employ the filter for the case

of a train coasting on an undulating track using real data.

Chapter 17

Conclusions

In attempting to prove the uniqueness of the optimal strategy to a power phase or a coast

phase interrupting a speedhold phase we came up with two new forms of the necessary con-

ditions. They are of course equivalent but were obtained by looking at the problem from

different perspectives. The original necessary condition developed by Howlett was derived

directly from Pontryagin’s Maximum Principle. One can interpret an optimal strategy intu-

itively by realising that if we start full power too soon before a steep section we can drive

over the steep section more quickly but the energy used is increased; by contrast, if we start

full power too late, we use less energy but the time taken will be increased. Hence between

the two extremes it seems there must be a unique point which is an optimal point for starting

full power.

Our revised necessary conditions were based on Howlett’s result. They were obtained by

minimising a special functional which is a trade-off between the energy used and time spent

on a power or coast phase between two speed holding phases. A new numerical method of

finding an optimal strategy was developed from our new necessary conditions. The optimal

solution was found using the bisection method. This iteration was shown to be effective

in a wide range of examples. The calculation also confirmed the uniqueness of an optimal

267

Chapter 17. Conclusions 268

We also showed that for a track with a piecewise constant gradient we could find an explicit

algebraic relationship for the adjoint variable η in terms of the state variable v for every

specific strategy. By applying Pontryagin’s Maximum Principle we obtained a third form for

the necessary conditions. Although we have not been able to prove the uniqueness of the

optimal strategy at this stage we believe that this final form has some potential to provide

a constructive proof of uniqueness. Such a proof would depend on showing that the η(v)

curves for different decision profiles could never intersect. The phase trajectories of v and η

plotted for both non-optimal strategies and optimal strategies provided valuable information

about the evolution of the key state and adjoint variables.

The estimation of resistance in our train model is a non-linear estimation problem and re-

quires a non-linear filter. Of all the non-linear filters we tested for our problem, the Unscented

Kalman Filter has shown the best convergence and the least computational cost. Despite the

promising initial results, we are still looking for a better theoretical basis for the estimation

process.

Appendix A

ordinary differential equation

The main objective of this appendix is to present a standard theory relating to the uniqueness

of solution of a system of differential equations and perturbation equations or variational

equations as described in the text [5] by Birkhoff and Rota.

X and t ∈ T for i = 1, . . . , n and consider a system of n ordinary differential equations

x(a) = c. (A.2)

Definition A.1.1 A vector function X(x, t) satisfies a Lipschitz condition in the region R ⊆

269

Chapter A. First variation equation 270

We have the following theorem on existence of a solution to the system (A.1) and (A.2).

Theorem A.1.2 (Peano existence theorem) If the function X(x, t) is continuous for

|x − c| ≤ K, |t − a| ≤ T,

and if |X(x, t)| ≤ M there, then the vector DE (A.1) has at least one solution x(t), defined

for

|t − a| ≤ min(T, K/M),

We also have a corresponding uniqueness theorem for solution of the system (A.1) and (A.2).

Theorem A.1.3 (Uniqueness Theorem) If the function X(x, t) satisfies a Lipschitz condi-

tion in a domain R ⊆ X × T , there is at most one solution x(t) of the differential equation

(A.1) and (A.2) which satisfies a given initial condition x(a) = c in R.

By the theorem A.1.3 if x(t) and y(t) are both solutions of (A.1) and at a point t in the

domain, say t = a, x(a) = y(a) then x(t) ≡ y(t) in the entire domain.

The solutions of a first-order normal system depend continuously on their initial values.

Recall that a normal system is an n equation system with n unknowns.

Theorem A.1.4 (Continuity Theorem) Let x(t) and y(t) be any two solutions of the vec-

tor differential equation (A.1) with initial condition (A.2), where X(x, t) is continuous and

satisfies the Lipschitz condition (A.3). Then

Chapter A. First variation equation 271

Let x = f (t, c) be the solution to the system (A.1) and (A.2) with initial condition x(a) = c.

Assume that f (t, c) is analytic in t, c then f can be expressed as a convergent power series

in c around c = 0. That means we have

∂ ∂f ∂ ∂f ∂

= = [X(f (t, c), t)]

∂t ∂c ∂c ∂t ∂c

∂X ∂f

= (f (t, c), t) · (t, c) . (A.5)

∂x ∂c

Using a Taylor series expansion for f (t, c) around c = 0 gives us

c2 cn

f (t, c) = f0 (t) + cf1 (t) + f2 (t) + . . . , + fn (t) + · · · (A.6)

2! n!

where fi (t) = ∂ i f /∂ci (t, 0). By (A.6) we have

∂ ∂f ∂

= [f1 (t) + cf2 (t) + . . . ] = f1 (t) + cf2 (t) + . . .

∂t ∂c ∂t

and so (A.5) becomes

∂X

f1 (t) + cf2 (t) +··· = (f (t, c), t) (f1 (t) + cf2 (t) + . . . ) .

∂x

With c = 0, f1 (t) satisfies the linear perturbation equation

∂X

f1 (t) = (f0 (t), t) f1 (t), (A.7)

∂x

with the initial condition f 1 (0) = 0. If we change the initial conditions, (A.7) can be used

to approximate the change of the solution. So it is called the perturbation equation or varia-

tional equation of the normal system (A.1).

Theorem A.2.1 Let the vector function X be continuous, and let x(t, c) be the solution of

the normal system (A.1), taking the initial value c at t = a. Then x(t, c) is a continuously

differentiable function of each of the components c j of c.

Chapter A. First variation equation 272

Corollary A.2.2 If x(t, c) is a solution of the normal system (A.1) satisfying the initial con-

dition x(a) = c for each c, and if each component of the function X is of class C 1 , then for

each j the partial derivative ∂x(t, c)/∂cj is a solution of the perturbation equation

n

= hk + Hi (h, t, c, ηj ) (A.8)

dt k=1

∂x k

where x(t, c) is the solution of the normal system (A.1) for which x(t, a) = c; the functions

Hi are bounded and tends to zero as η j → 0 uniformly for t − a ≤ T and h − δ j ≤ K;

and δ j is the vector whose components are the Kronecker delta δij .

Bibliography

[1] B. Akin, U. Orguner, and A. Ersak. State estimation of induction motor using unscented

kalman filter. submitted to IEEE on january 31, 2003.

[2] I.A Anis, A.V. Dmitruk, and N.P Osmolovskii. Solution of the problem of the ener-

genetically optimal control of a train by the maximum principle. Coput. Math. Math.

Phys., 25(6), 1985.

[3] R. Beard, J. Kenney, J. Gunther, J. Lawton, and W. Stirling. Non-linear projection filter

based on the galerkin approximation. Journal of Guidance, Control and Dynamics.,

22(2), March-April 1999.

[4] B.R. Benjamin, I.P Milroy, and P.J. Pudney. Energy-efficient operation of long haul

trains. Proceedings of the Fourth International Heavy Haul Railway Conference., pages

369–372, 1989.

[5] G. Birkhoff and G-C. Rota. Ordinary Differential equation. John Wiley and Sons, Inc.,

3rd edition edition, 1978.

[6] R. Booue and R. Definlippi. A galerkin multiharmonic procedure for nonlinear multidi-

mentional random vibration. International Journal of Engineering Science., 25(6):723–

733, 1987.

[7] R.G Burden and J.D. Faires. Numerical Analysis. Brooks/Cole Publishing Company.,

6th edition edition, 1997.

273

Bibliography

[8] J. Cheng. Analysis of optimal driving strategies for train control problems. PhD.

Thesis, 1997.

[9] J. Cheng and P. G. Howlett. Application of critical velocities to the minimisation in the

control of trains. Automatica, 28(1):165–169, 1992.

[10] J. Cheng and P. G. Howlett. A note on the calculation of optimal strategies for the min-

imisation of fuel consumption in the control of trains. IEEE transaction on Automatic

Control, 38(11):1730–1734, 1993.

[11] Y. Davydova, J. Cheng, P. G. Howlett, and J. P. Pudney. Optimal driving strategies for

a train journey with non-zero track gradient and speed limits. Technical Report Report

no. 8, 1996.

[12] H. Eves. Elementary Matrix Theory. Dover Publications, New York, 1980.

[13] J. Figuera. Automatic optimal control of trains with frequent stops. Dyna (Spain),

45(7):263–269, 1970.

[14] Howlett P. G. Optimal strategies for the control of train. Automatica, 32(4):519–532,

1996.

and the unscented kalman filter in online non-linear system identification. IASTED

International Conference on Intelligent System and Control (ISC 2001)., November.

2001.

[16] R. Hill. Elementary Linear Algebra with Applications. Harcourt Brace College Pub-

lishers, New York, third edition edition, 1996.

[17] H. H. Hoang, M. P. Polis, and A. Haurie. Reucing energy consumption through tra-

jectory optimazation for a metero network. IEEE Transaction on Automatic Control,

20(5):590 – 595, 1975.

Bibliography

[18] P. Howlett and P. Pudney. Energy-efficient driving strategies for long-haul trains. Pro-

ceedings of CORE 2000 Conference on Railway Engineering., May 2000.

[19] P. G. Howlett. An optimal strategy for the control of a train. J. Austral. Math. Soc.

series B, 31:454 – 471, 1990.

[20] P. G. Howlett. The optimal control of a train. Annals of Operations research., 98:65–87,

2000.

[21] P. G. Howlett and J. Cheng. Optimal driving strategies for a train on a track with

continuously varying gradient. J. Austral. Math. Soc. Series B., 38:388–410, 1995.

[22] P. G. Howlett and A. Leizarowitz. Optimal strategies for vehicle control problems

with finite control sets. Dynamic of Continuous, Discrete and Impulsive Systems B,

Application and Algorithms., 8:41–69, 2001.

[23] P. G. Howlett and P. J. Pudney. An optimal driving for a solar powered car on an

undulating road. Dynamics of Continuous, Discrete and Impulsive System., 4:553–567,

1998.

for a solar car on a level road. IMA journal of Mathematics Applied in Business and

Industry, 8:59–81, 1997.

[25] P.G. Howlett and P.J. Pudney. Energy-efficient Train Control. Springer–Verlag London

Ltd., 1995.

[26] J. Joseph and Jr. LaViola. A comparison of unscented and extended kalman filtering for

estimating quaternion motion. Proceedings of the 2003 American Control Conference,

IEEE Press, pages 2435–2440, June 2003.

[27] S. Julier and J. Uhlmann. A general method for approximating nonlinear transformation

of probability distributions. Technical report, 1996.

[28] S. Julier and J. Uhlmann. A new extension of the kalman filter to nonlinear systems.

Bibliography

Sensing, Simulation and Controls, 1997.

of high speed road vehicles. Robotics and Automation Conference, pages 101–105,

1995.

[30] S. Julier, J. Uhlmann, and H. F. Durrant-Whyte. A new method for the nonlinear trans-

formation of means and covariances in filters and estimators. IEEE transactions on

Automatic Control, March 2000.

[31] R. E. Kalman. A new approach to linear filtering and prediction problems. Journal of

Basic Engineering., pages 35–45, 1960.

[32] R. E. Kalman and R. S. Bucy. New results in linear filering and prediction theory.

Journal of Basic Engineering, pages 95–107, March 1961.

on Automatic Control, 45(7):1257–1266, July 2000.

[34] P. Kokotovic and G. Singh. Minimum-energy control of a traction motor. IEEE trans-

action on Automatic Control., 17(1):92–95, 1972.

[35] E. B. Lee and L. Markus. Foundations of Optimal Control Theory. John Wiley and

Sons, New York, 1967.

[36] T. Lefebvre, H. Bruyninckx, and De Schutter J. Comment on “a new method for the

nonlinear transformation of means and covariances in filters and estimators” . IEEE

Transactions on Automatic Control, 47(8):1406–1408, August 2002.

[37] Peihua Li and Tianwen Zhang. Unscented kalman filter for visual curve tracking. Pro-

ceedings of Statistical Methods in Video Processing, June 2002.

[38] F. H. Ling and X. X. Wu. Fast garlekin method and its application to determine peri-

Bibliography

22(2):89–98, 1987.

Research, 37:917–932, 2003.

[40] DG Luenberger. Optimization by Vector Space Methods. Jonh Wiley and Sons, New

York, 1969.

dynamic train control. Control in Transportaion System, proceedings of the 5th

IFAC/IFIP/IFORS conference:173–177, 1986.

[42] P. J. Pudney. Optimal energy management for solar powered cars. PhD thesis, 2000.

[43] P. J. Pudney and P. G. Howlett. Optimal driving strategy for a train journey with speed

limits. J. Austral. Maths. Soc. Series B, 36:38–49, 1994.

[44] D. Simon. From here to infinity. Embbeded Systems Programming, October 2001.

[45] H. Strobel and P. Horn. Energy optimum on board microcomputer control of train

operation. Bridge between Control and Science and Technology., 16(3):219–230, 1985.

[46] R. van der Merwe and E.A. Wan. Efficient derivative-free kalman filters for online

learning. European Symposium on Artificial Neural Networks(ESANN), ESANN2001

proceedings, April 2001.

[47] E. A. Wan and R. van der Merwe. The unscented kalman filter for nonlinear estimation.

Proc. of IEEE Symposium 2000 (AS-SPCC)., October 2000.

[48] E. A. Wan, R. van der Merwe, and A. T. Nelson. Dual estimation and the unscented

transformation. Neural information Processing Systems., pages 666–672, December

2000.

- Analysis of bogie suspension systemUploaded byKrishnaSingh
- Incremental Train Control System 2007Uploaded byNBPat
- Railway TechnicalUploaded byFrancisco Abraham Baeza
- Communications Based Train Control (CBTC)Uploaded byv2brother
- Glossary of International Freight TermsUploaded byAnand Khisti.
- AREMA Shoring GuidelinesUploaded byKCHESTER3
- Advanced Train Control System B Neing-Book ResumenUploaded bypoketupi
- (Sky-Tel) Smart Railroads- 200 Wide Band+ High Accuracy Location, By Federal Railroad Admin, 2008Uploaded bySkybridge Spectrum Foundation
- 2015 08 Federal Railroad Administration Positive Train Control Status ReportUploaded byHelen Bennett
- Rail Wheel Int. TOTPUploaded bykr_abhijeet72356587
- Trends in Intermodal Freight TransportUploaded byKavitha Reddy
- AREMA_MRE_2013_TOC-Vol2_Ch9.pdfUploaded byalaajabbar
- Wheel-Rail Interface HandbookUploaded byisarries@ya.com
- Freight Rail Location Alternatives AnalysisUploaded byKSTPTV
- Arema Mre 2013 Toc-Vol1 Ch30Uploaded byNdoro Bei
- AREMA_MRE_2013_TOC-Vol2_Ch7.pdfUploaded byalaajabbar
- On Positive Train Control leveraged into Advanced Railroad Wireless, and ARW spectrumUploaded bySkybridge Spectrum Foundation
- Rail Wheel Interaction 02Uploaded bykr_abhijeet72356587
- Canadian National Railway Company (SAP Business Transformation Study)Uploaded byAbhishek Thakur
- AREMA_MRE_2013_TOC-Vol2_Ch10.pdfUploaded byalaajabbar
- RTB 1 02 Bogie DesignsUploaded bySuraj Kadam
- Unit-III Railway EngineeringUploaded byShanmugaraj Muthuraj
- Positive Train Control-Towards a Better Understanding.pdfUploaded bypoketupi
- Study About Freight WagonsUploaded bySemih Demirkoparan
- Meeting the Communication Challenges for Positive Train ControlUploaded byFernando Reyes
- Quality of Rail FreightUploaded byEKAI Center
- Evans Iwnicki - Vehicle Dynamics and the Wheel Rail InterfaceUploaded byAbhey Dogra
- Positive Train Control OverviewUploaded byhamidsa81
- Introduction to TrackUploaded bykr_abhijeet72356587
- UIC 725Uploaded byEnmanuel Guzman Perez

- The Influence of Islamic Core ValuesUploaded byAbdulhmeed Mutalat
- 1 KPIs Rail FreightUploaded byAbdulhmeed Mutalat
- Key Performance Indicators for Dummies Cheat SheetUploaded byAbdulhmeed Mutalat
- CROR English May 18 2018 Web ServicesUploaded byAbdulhmeed Mutalat
- 17-Marketing Mangement [Compatibility Mode]Uploaded byAbdulhmeed Mutalat
- Strategic Management LectUploaded byAbdulhmeed Mutalat
- IT Polish RailwayUploaded byAbdulhmeed Mutalat
- RLX Incident Costing Model1Uploaded byAbdulhmeed Mutalat
- Quality LectureUploaded byAbdulhmeed Mutalat
- Transport Accident CostsUploaded byAbdulhmeed Mutalat
- ERTMS Level 1 - Bombardier TransportationUploaded byAbdulhmeed Mutalat
- Scrap Material Theft Prevention Act 79Uploaded byAbdulhmeed Mutalat
- تأثر أداء الوحدات الحكومیة بالبنیات الأساسیة للإدارة العلمیةUploaded byAbdulhmeed Mutalat
- continuous assessment of students' performanceUploaded byAbdulhmeed Mutalat
- A New Approach to Crew Scheduling in Rapid Transit Networks 2015 Transportation Research ProcediaUploaded byAbdulhmeed Mutalat
- Railway Infrastructure Maintenance a Survey of Planning Problems and Conducted Research 2015 Transportation Research ProcediaUploaded byAbdulhmeed Mutalat
- Rail WheelUploaded byAbdulhmeed Mutalat
- A Comparison Between Latent Roots and Least Squares Regression Methods Using Simulation TechniqueUploaded byAbdulhmeed Mutalat
- ATmega8 TextUploaded byRuchit Sankhesara
- 45283397-Hydro-Mechanical-Systems-in-Simulink-in-SL-part-2.pdfUploaded byAbdulhmeed Mutalat
- BSC StepbystepUploaded byAbdulhmeed Mutalat
- The Balanced Scorecard as a Strategical management performance toolUploaded byAbdulhmeed Mutalat
- Arab Railway - Executive Summary _October 2012Uploaded byAbdulhmeed Mutalat
- 24-165-paper_enc-gnss2010Uploaded byAbdulhmeed Mutalat
- Sudan DevelopementUploaded byAbdulhmeed Mutalat
- Credit Suisse - Independent Review of ESIAs for Ethiopian Railway 100614Uploaded byAbdulhmeed Mutalat
- Arbara Portsudan LayoutUploaded byAbdulhmeed Mutalat
- Management FundamentalsUploaded byAbdulhmeed Mutalat
- F5-01Project-based Organizations toward Strategy Implementation: Integrating BSC and Six Sigma ApproachesUploaded byAbdulhmeed Mutalat

- PID Controller back upUploaded byluli_pedrosa
- Lecture 16Uploaded bySulthan Cader
- Modern Control AREUploaded byMohsin Rizwan
- DT12FDRUploaded byChristine Sani
- FeedbackUploaded byTrinh Dieu
- PID Gain KpUploaded bymohan
- RLC Low-pass Filter Design Tool - Result -_1000hz_cut_offUploaded byShrinath Kannan
- Sliding Mode ManualUploaded byAshik Ahmed
- st rev fUploaded byLaza Urosevic
- 4Uploaded byJessica Ross
- Lecture13 Minimum-Phase SystemsUploaded byFadhlan
- 2015 Flight Dynamics Simulation and Control - VepaUploaded byavionics54g
- Learning Spoken EnglishUploaded bySarah JT
- 7 Modeling Ferrite Core LossesUploaded byPhạm Văn Tưởng
- Report ControlUploaded byajwadalfatani
- AM_LQRUploaded byErre Rodríguez
- 15MH330E Mechatronics Ug Reg 2015 LpUploaded byS-Karthik
- PID MatlabUploaded bycleyber navarro
- 312304722Uploaded bySafiya Vachiat
- Nonlinear Model of DC MotorUploaded byjgreenguitars
- ct1-2013Uploaded byKeelediwe Keel Keelediwe
- Sensorless Speed and Flux Control Scheme for an Induction Motor With an Adaptive Backstepping ObserverUploaded byWalid Abid
- contol sUploaded byanon-60280
- Adaptive Control of a Two Axis Gimbal System Using Auxiliary Error StructureUploaded byreza
- p c f Ch 2 OtqUploaded bykibrom atsbha
- Humanoid Robot: Development of a simulation environment of an entertainment humanoid robotUploaded byPedroTeodoro
- servo motorUploaded byVaibhav Patil
- Process Control 2Uploaded byEjay Bildan
- IET-Books-2017-LowRes-2.pdfUploaded byMaria Da Graça Romão
- SecondOrderFilters.pdfUploaded byMysonic Nation