1 Linear MPC

Model Predictive Control
Alberto Bemporad
imt.lu/ab
Course page: http://cse.lab.imtlucca.it/~bemporad/mpc_course.html

Course structure
• Basic concepts of model predictive control (MPC) and linear MPC
• Linear time-varying and nonlinear MPC
• Quadratic programming (QP) and explicit MPC
• Hybrid MPC
• Stochastic MPC
• Learning-based MPC
• Numerical examples:
– MPC Toolbox for MATLAB (linear/explicit/parameter-varying MPC)
– Hybrid Toolbox for MATLAB (explicit MPC, hybrid systems)
"Model Predictive Control" - © A. Bemporad. All rights reserved. 2/132

Course structure
• For additional background:
– Linear Systems:
http://cse.lab.imtlucca.it/~bemporad/intro_control_course.html
– Numerical Optimization:
http://cse.lab.imtlucca.it/~bemporad/optimization_course.html
– Machine Learning:
http://cse.lab.imtlucca.it/~bemporad/ml.html

Model Predictive Control: Basic Concepts
Model Predictive Control (MPC)
optimization
prediction model
algorithm
model-based optimizer
process
set-points inputs outputs

r(t) u(t) y(t)
measurements
simplified likely
Use a dynamical model of the process to predict its future
evolution and choose--------------------
the “best” control action
a good

Model Predictive Control
• MPC problem: find the best control sequence over a future horizon of N steps
X
N −1
2 2 past future
min ∥yk − r(t)∥2 + ρ∥uk − ur (t)∥2 r(t)
u0 , . . . , uN −1 k=0 yk
predicted outputs
s.t. xk+1 = f (xk , uk ) prediction model uk
yk = g(xk ) manipulated inputs
umin ≤ uk ≤ umax constraints t t+k t+N

ymin ≤ yk ≤ ymax
x0 = x(t) state feedback
numerical optimization problem

t+1 t+1+k t+N+1
1 estimate current state x(t)

2 optimize wrt {u0 , . . . , uN −1 }
3 only apply optimal u0 as input u(t)
Repeat at all time steps t

Daily-life examples of MPC
• MPC is like playing chess !
• Online (event-based) re-planning used in GPS navigation
• You use MPC too when you drive !

MPC in industry
• The MPC concept dates back to the 60’s
(Rafal, Stevens, AiChE Journal, 1968)
(Propoi, 1963)
• MPC used in the process industries since the 80’s
(Qin, Badgewell, 2003) (Bauer, Craig, 2008)
Today APC (advanced process control) = MPC
©SimulateLive.com

MPC in industry
(Qin, Badgewell, 2003)
S.J. Qin, T.A. Badgwell / Control Engineering Practice 11 (2003) 733–764 745
Table 6
• Industrial
Summary of linearsurvey of MPC
MPC applications by areasapplications conducted
(estimates based on vendor indomid
survey; estimates 1999
not include applications by companies who have
licensed vendor technology)a
Area Aspen Honeywell Adersab Invensys SGSc Total

Technology Hi-Spec
Refining 1200 480 280 25 1985

Petrochemicals 450 80 — 20 550
Chemicals 100 20 3 21 144
Pulp and paper 18 50 — — 68
Air & Gas — 10 — — 10
Utility — 10 — 4 14
Mining/Metallurgy 8 6 7 16 37
Food Processing — — 41 10 51
Polymer 17 — — — 17
Furnaces — — 42 3 45
Aerospace/Defense — — 13 — 13
Automotive — — 7 — 7
Unclassified 40 40 1045 26 450 1601
Total 1833 696 1438 125 450 4542
First App. DMC:1985 PCT:1984 IDCOM:1973
IDCOM-M:1987 RMPCT:1991 HIECON:1986 1984 1985
OPC:1987
Largest App. 603 ( 283 225 ( 85 — 31 ( 12 —
a
The numbers reflect a snapshot survey conducted in mid-1999 and should not be read as static. A recent update by one vendor showed 80%
increase in the number of applications.
b
Adersa applications through January 1, 1996 are reported here. Since there are many embedded Adersa applications, it is difficult to accurately
Estimates based
report their number on vendor
or distribution. survey
Adersa’s product literature indicates over 1000 applications of PFC alone by January 1, 1996.
c
The number of applications of SMOC includes in-house applications by Shell, which are unclassified. Therefore, only a total number is estimated
here.
"Model Predictive Control" - © A. Bemporad.

Nonlinear
All rights reserved. The PFC algorithm can be used with several different
8/132
model types. The most general of these is a discrete-time
MPC in industry
M. Bauer, I.K. Craig / Journal of Process Control 18 (2008) 2–18 5 (Bauer, Craig, 2008)
• EconomicM.assessment ofof Advanced
Bauer, I.K. Craig / Journal Process
Process Control 18 (2008) 2–18 Control (APC) 5
Petrochemical North America

Petrochemical North America
Chemicals Africa
Chemicals Africa
leum refining Europe
Petroleum refining Europe
alsprocessing
Mineralsprocessing Asia Pacific
Asia Pacific
Oil & Gas
Oil & Gas South America
South America
wer & utilities
Power & utilities
0% 0%
10% 20%
10%
30%
20%I.K. 30%
Pulp & paper Pulp & paper M. Bauer, Craig / Journal of Process Control 18 18
(2008)
M. Bauer, I.K. Craig / Journal of Process Control (2008)2–18
2–18
dustrial gasesIndustrial gases
Coal products Coal products Suppliers Suppliers Model predictive controlcontrol
Model predictive Standard
Standard
& wastewater
Water & wastewater Users Users Constraint controlcontrol
Constraint Frequently
Frequently
Other Other Split-range

Split-range controlcontrol Rarely
Rarely
Linear programming Never
Never
0% 20%0% 20%
40% 40%
60% 60%
80% 80%
100% 100% Linear programming (LP) (LP)
Don'tknow
Don't know
Nonlinear Nonlinear control algorithms or models
controlwere
algorithms or for
models
ofParticipants
APC survey of APC survey by
by industry andindustry and by (total:
by continent continent
66 (total: 66 participants).
participants). Several Several
answersanswers
were allowedallowed industry
for industry sectors.
sectors.
participants of APC survey by industry (worldwide) Dead-time compensation
Dead-time compensation
entify the respondent and capture the size of the the estimation of qualitative, non-monetary
Statistical process control benefits
espondent and capture the size of the the estimation of qualitative, non-monetary
Statistical process control benefits
well as the use of control technology within the (15%) as well as rules of thumb [47],
Neuralsuch
networks suchbasedas that a new con-
use of control technology within the (15%) as well as rules of thumb Neural [47],
networks based thatcontrol
ascontrol a new con-
on. The third section queries the use of APC trol scheme will increase the throughput by a fixed percent-
yird
andsection queries four
the use of are
APCkey to trol
the scheme will increase
For the the throughput bybaseda fixed
Expert system controlpercent-
tools. Sections to six age (7%). water and
Expert waste-water
system based controlindustries, Lant
.assessment
Sections four to six
process. are Section
While key to fourthe coversage (7%). andFor the water
Steffens and waste-water
[48] provide a qualitative Fuzzy industries,
logic control
self-assessment Lant form
Fuzzy logic control
process.
erial processWhile Section
by asking aboutfour
reporting, and Steffens
covers decision [48] provide
to establish how good a qualitative
the process self-assessment
Internal model
controlcontrolis.(IMC) form
The disadvan-
ss by
nd asking about
budgeting, Section reporting, decisionwith to
five is concerned theestablish
tage of how good
such a table isInternal
the process itmodel
control
that Adaptive control
is industry is.(IMC)
/ selftuningThe
related disadvan-
control and has to
gg,process
Sectionand five
theisestimation
concerned of with
cost and tage of be
thebenefits. such a table
updated withis that it is industry
the development
Adaptive ofrelated
/ selftuning new
control
Directsynthesis
and has to
technologies.
(DS)
nd the estimation
x requests of cost and
the respondents benefits.
opinion about be theupdated Thewith the development
questionnaire of new technologies.
resultsDirectsynthesis
support the(DS)industry–univer-
mportance and satisfaction
the respondents opinionwith aboutthe current
the esti-The sity study by Marlin
questionnaire results and support co-workers [49], which
the industry–univer- 0% 20%
high- 40% 60% 80% 100%
ocess in place as well
and satisfaction withasthe
about future
current trends.sity study
esti- lightedby the
Marlin importance of determining
and co-workers [49],
Fig. the
0% base
which
4. Industrial 20%ofcase
high-
use APC40%methods:60%survey80%
results.100%
ace as well as about future trends. lighted operation
the importancethrough in-depth
of determining analysis the of historical
Fig. 4. Industrial base
use ofcase
plant
APC methods: survey results.
ork – the engineering process data.through
An important consideration for
of 5,the base APCcase identi-
operation
point closer is
fication to then in-depth
a limit Dl,Industrial
by analysis
xLselection
the seeofFig.the
use
[43].of
historical
appropriate
methods:
plant
The reduc-
process mance survey
that results
is expected from the new
ngineering process data.tionAninimportant
variance isconsideration
often assumed for
to betheabase case identi- Pb after
"ModelofPredictive
estimate Control" that
the performance - © will
A. Bemporad.
result from
point All rights
closer toreserved.
variables
a limitfrom which
by Dl, see
xLselection the Fig.variance isfixed
5,appropriate
[43].
percentage.
estimated.
The reduc- Latourmance av .that
This improvement can 9/132
be expresse
is expected from the new
fication is then the of the process
process control requires process insight as well as Several industrial and
[19] recommends theacademic
analysis authors assume avariables:
of the following reduc- b after
computed from the variance reduction ac
the performance that will result from tionvariables
in variance is often
from whichassumed to be aisfixed
the variance Latour P av . This improvement can be expresse
percentage.
estimated.
MPC in industry
(Samad, IEEE CS Magazine, 2017)
• Impact of advanced control technologies in industry

MPC in industry
: (a) percentage by decade, (b) absolute numbers by decade. See text for explanation.
Table 2
The percentage of survey respondents indicating whether a control technology had
demonstrated (“Current Impact”) or was likely to demonstrate over the next five
(Samad et al., 2020)
years (“Future Impact”) high impact in practice.
Current Impact Future Impact
Control Technology %High %High

PID control 91% 78%
System Identification 65% 72%
Estimation and filtering 64% 63%
Model-predictive control 62% 85%
Process data analytics 51% 70%
Fault detection and identification 48% 78%
Decentralized and/or coordinated control 29% 54%
Robust control 26% 42%
Intelligent control 24% 59%
Discrete-event systems 24% 39%
Nonlinear control 21% 42%
Adaptive control 18% 44%
Repetitive control 12% 17%
Hybrid dynamical systems 11% 33%
Other advanced control technology 11% 25%
Game theory 5% 17%
As can be observed, MPC is clearly considered more impactful,

and likely to be more impactful, vis-à-vis other control technolo-
"As can be observed, MPC is clearly considered more impactful, and likely to be more impactful,
gies, especially those that can be considered the “crown jewels” of
vis-à-vis other control technologies, especially those that can be considered the "crown jewels"
of control theory - robust control, adaptive control, and nonlinear control."

Typical use of MPC
strategic planner
high-level optimizer
reference • Static optimizer of steady-
€ optimization
state (static I/O models)
• Reference trajectory
generator
reference-signal r(t)
tactical planner
dynamic optimizer
• optimize transient response
MPC • ensure reference tracking
• handle constraints
• coordinate multiple inputs
measurements y(t) u(t) actuator set-points

regulators
low-level • fast sampling
controllers • single loops

MPC of automotive systems
(Bemporad, Bernardini, Borrelli, Cimini, Di Cairano, Esen, Giorgetti, Graf-Plessen, Hrovat, Kolmanovsky
Levijoki, Livshiz, Long, Pattipati, Ripaccioli, Trimboli, Tseng, Verdejo, Yanakiev, ..., 2001-present)
Powertrain Ford Motor Company

engine control, magnetic actuators, robotized gearbox,
power MGT in HEVs, cabin heat control, electrical motors
Jaguar
DENSO Automotive
Vehicle dynamics Fiat
traction control, active steering, semiactive suspensions, General Motors
autonomous driving
Model predictive control toolset 1 / 8
suspension deflection
tire deflection
suspension deflection
tire deflection
 4

Most automotive OEMs are looking into MPC solutions today 4

MPC for autonomous driving (R&D)
MPC for autonomous driving
• Coordinate torque request and steering to achieve safe and
comfortable autonomous driving in the presence of other
• Coordinate torque request and steering to achieve safe and
vehicles and obstacles
comfortable autonomous driving with no collisions
• •MPC combines
Combine path path planning,
planning, path tracking,
path tracking and obstacle
and obstacle avoidance
avoidance
• •Stochastic
Employ stochastic MPC
prediction to take
models into
are account
used uncertainty
to account and
for uncertainty
driver’s behavior
and driver’s behavior

MPC of gasoline turbocharged engines
• Control throttle, wastegate, intake & exhaust cams to make engine torque
track set-points, with max efficiency and satisfying constraints
MPC Engine
Desired Actuators Achieved

torque commands Torque
Measurements
numerical optimization problem

solved in real-time on ECU
(Bemporad, Bernardini, Long, Verdejo, 2018)
engine operating at low pressure (66 kPa)

Supervisory MPC of powertrain with CVT
• Coordinate engine torque request and continuously variable transmission

(CVT) ratio to improve fuel economy and drivability
• Real-time MPC is able to take into account coupled dynamics and constraints,
optimizing performance also during transients
Engine
torque
request
Desired
axle torque
Engine Control
nowcar.com
MPC
CVT US06 Double Hill driving cycle
ratio
request CVT Control (Bemporad, Bernardini, Livshiz, Pattipati, 2018)

MPC in automotive production
The MPC developed by General Motors and ODYS for torque tracking in
turbocharged gasoline engines is in high-volume production since 2018
• Multivariable system, 4 inputs, 4 outputs.

QP solved in real time on ECU
(Bemporad, Bernardini, Long, Verdejo, 2018)
• Supervisory MPC for powertrain control

also in production since 2018
(Bemporad, Bernardini, Livshiz, Pattipati, 2018)
First known mass production of MPC in the automotive industry
http://www.odys.it/odys-and-gm-bring-online-mpc-to-production

Aerospace applications of MPC

• MPC capabilities explored in new space applications
cooperating UAVs powered descent planetary rover
  
(Bemporad, Rocchi, 2011) (Pascucci, Bennani, Bemporad, 2016) (Krenn et. al., 2012)

MPC In Aeronautic Industry
http://www.pw.utc.com/Press/Story/20100527-0100/2010

MPC for Smart Electricity Grids
(Patrinos, Trimboli, Bemporad, 2011)
transmission grid
coal 1 ? ?
photovoltaic
coal 2
? ? ? hydro-storage
? ? ?
demand
natural gas
? ? ? wind farm
Dispatch power in smart distribution grids, trade energy on energy markets
Challenges: account for dynamics, network topology, physical constraints, and

stochasticity (of renewable energy, demand, electricity prices)
FP7-ICT project “E-PRICE - Price-based Control of Electrical Power Systems”
(2010-2013)
MPC of drinking water networks
(Sampathirao, Sopasakis, Bemporad, Patrinos, 2017)
Drinking water
network of
Barcelona:
63 tanks
114 controlled flows
17 mixing nodes
• ≈5% savings on energy costs w.r.t. current practice

• Demand and minimum pressure requirements met, smooth control actions
• Computation time: ≈20 s on NVIDIA Tesla 2075 CUDA (sample time = 1 hr)
FP7-ICT project “EFFINET - Efficient Integrated Real-time Monitoring and Control of Drinking Water Networks”
(2012-2015)

MPC for dynamic hedging of financial options
(Bemporad, Bellucci, Gabbriellini, Quantitative Finance, 2014)
• Goal: find a dynamic hedging policy of a portfolio replicating a synthetic

option, so to minimize risk that payoff̸=portfolio wealth at expiration date
• A simple linear stochastic model describes the dynamics of portfolio wealth
• Stochastic MPC results:

Portfolio wealth vs. payoff at expiration Portfolio wealth vs. payoff at expiration
100 0.2
80
0.15
Final wealth in portfolio

60
0.1
40
0.05
20
0
0
−20 −0.05
0 50 100 150 200 −0.05 0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2
Stock price at expiration Payoff
( )
x(ti ) − x(ti−1 )
p(T ) = max{w(T ) − K, 0} p(T ) = max 0, C + min
i∈{1,...,Nfix } x(ti−1 )
European call Napoleon cliquet

MPC research is driven by applications
• Process control → linear MPC (some nonlinear too) 1970-2000
• Automotive control → explicit, hybrid MPC 2001-2010
• Aerospace systems and UAVs → linear time-varying MPC >2005
• Information and Communication Technologies (ICT)

(wireless nets, cloud) → distributed/decentralized MPC >2005
• Energy, finance, automotive, water → stochastic MPC >2010
• Industrial production → embedded optimization solvers for MPC >2010
• Machine learning → data-driven MPC today

MPC design flow
High-fidelity simulation model (simplified) control-oriented performance index
prediction model & constraints
u y
G(z)
closed-loop simulation
MPC
design
physical modeling +
parameter estimation
real-time
system code
identification
/* z=A*x0; */
for (i=0;i<m;i++) {
z[i]=A[i]*x[0];
for (j=1;j<n;j++) {
z[i]+=A[i+m*j]*x[j];
}
}
experiments
physical process
MPC toolboxes
• MPC Toolbox (The Mathworks, Inc.): (Bemporad, Ricker, Morari, 1998-today)
– Part of Mathworks’ official toolbox distribution

– All written in MATLAB code
– Great for education and research
• Hybrid Toolbox: (Bemporad, 2003-today) 10,000+ downloads

– Free download: http://cse.lab.imtlucca.it/~bemporad/hybrid/toolbox 1.5 downloads/day
– Great for research and education
odys.it/embedded-mpc
• ODYS Embedded MPC Toolset: (ODYS, 2013-today)
– Very flexible MPC design and seamless integration in production

– Real-time MPC code and QP solver written in plain C
– Support for nonlinear models and deep learning
– Designed and adopted for industrial production

Benefits of MPC
• Long history (decades) of success of MPC in industry
• MPC is a universal control methodology:
– to coordinate multiple inputs/outputs, arbitrary models (linear, nonlinear, ...)

– to optimize performance under constraints
– intuitive to design, easy to calibrate and reconfigure = short development time
• MPC is a mature technology also in fast-sampling applications (e.g. automotive)
– modern ECUs can solve MPC problems in real-time

– advanced MPC software tools are available for design/calibration/deployment
Ready to learn how MPC works ?

Basics of Constrained Optimization
See more in “Numerical Optimization” course

http://cse.lab.imtlucca.it/~bemporad/optimization_course.html
Mathematical programming
minx f (x)
f(x)
s.t. g(x) ≤ 0
x ∈ Rn , f : Rn → R, g : Rn → Rm
g(x)  0
x
   
x1 g1 (x1 , x2 , . . . , xn )
 .   .. 
x= 
 ..  , f (x) = f (x1 , x2 , . . . , xn ), g(x) = 
 .


xn gm (x1 , x2 , . . . , xn )
In general, the problem is difficult to solve use software tools

Optimization software
• Comparison on benchmark problems:
http://plato.la.asu.edu/bench.html
• Taxonomy of many solvers for different classes of optimization problems:

http://www.neos-guide.org
• NEOS server for remotely solving optimization problems:
http://www.neos-server.org
• Good open-source optimization software:
http://www.coin-or.org/
• GitHub , MATLAB Central , Google ,...

Convex sets
• A set S ⊆ Rn is convex if for all x1 , x2 ∈ S
λx1 + (1 − λ)x2 ∈ S, ∀λ ∈ [0, 1]
convex set
nonconvex set
S x1 x2
x1 x2

Convex functions
• A function f : S → R is a convex function if S is convex and
f (λx1 + (1 − λ)x2 ) ≤ λf (x1 ) + (1 − λ)f (x2 )

Jensen’s inequality
∀x1 , x2 ∈ S, λ ∈ [0, 1]

Convex optimization problem
The optimization problem
min f (x)
s.t. x ∈ S
is a convex optimization problem if S is a convex set S

x1 x2
and f : S → R is a convex function
• Often S is defined by linear equality constraints Ax = b and convex inequality

constraints g(x) ≤ 0, g : Rn → Rm convex
• Every local solution is also a global one (we will see this later)
• Efficient solution algorithms exist
• Often occurring in many problems in engineering, economics, and science
Excellent textbook: “Convex Optimization” (Boyd, Vandenberghe, 2002)

Polyhedra
• Convex polyhedron = intersection of a finite set of half-spaces of Rn
• Convex polytope = bounded convex polyhedron
v3
b 2
x=
A2
• Hyperplane (H-)representation: v2 A
A2 1
P = {x ∈ R : Ax ≤ b} n
v3
v1 A
1 x=
b1
A3x=b3 A3
• Vertex (V-)representation:
X
q X
p Convex hull = transformation
P = {x ∈ Rn : x = αi vi + β j rj } from V- to H-representation
i=1 j=1
Vertex enumeration =
∑ q
αi , βj ≥ 0, αi = 1, vi , rj ∈ Rn transformation from H- to
i=1
V-representation
when q = 0 the polyhedron is a cone
vi = vertex, rj = extreme ray

Linear programming
• Linear programming (LP) problem:
-c
min c′ x
x*
s.t. Ax ≤ b, x ∈ Rn
Ex = f George Dantzig
(1914–2005)
′
• LP in standard form: min cx
s.t. Ax = b
x ≥ 0, x ∈ Rn
• Conversion to standard form:
1. introduce slack variables
X
n X
n
aij xj ≤ bi ⇒ aij xj + si = bi , si ≥ 0
j=1 j=1
2. split positive and negative part of x

 n  n
 X  X
 aij xj + si = bi  + −
aij (xj − xj ) + si = bi
⇒


j=1  + −

j=1
xj free, si ≥ 0 x j , x j , si ≥ 0

Linear programming (LP)
• Converting maximization to minimization
max c′ x = −(min −c′ x) (more generally: max f (x) = − min{−f (x)})

x x x x
• Equalities to double inequalities (not recommended)

( P
X
n n
aij xj ≤ bi
aij xj = bi ⇒ Pj=1
n
j=1 j=1 aij xj ≥ bi
• Change direction of an inequality
X
n X
n
aij xj ≥ bi ⇒ −aij xj ≤ −bi
j=1 j=1
An LP can be always formulated using “min” and “≤”

Quadratic programming (QP)
• Quadratic programming (QP) problem:
1 ′
min x Qx + c′ x Ax  b
2 x*
s.t. Ax ≤ b, x ∈ Rn
1 x0 Qx + c0 x = constant
Ex = f 2
• Convex optimization problem if Q ⪰ 0 (Q = positive semidefinite matrix) 1

• Without loss of generality, we can assume Q = Q′ :
′
1 ′ 1 ′ Q+Q Q−Q′ ′
2 x Qx = 2x ( 2 ′ + 2 )x = 12 x′ ( Q+Q 1 ′ 1 ′ ′ ′
2 )x + 4 x Qx − 4 (x Q x)
1 ′ Q+Q
= 2 x ( 2 )x
• Hard problem if Q ̸⪰ 0 (Q = indefinite matrix)

1 A matrix P ∈ Rn×n is positive semidefinite (P ⪰ 0) if x′ P x ≥ 0 for all x.
It is positive definite (P ≻ 0) if in addition x′ P x > 0 for all x ̸= 0.

It is negative (semi)definite (P ≺ 0, P ⪯ 0) if −P is positive (semi)definite.
It is indefinite otherwise.

Mixed-integer programming (MIP)
1 ′
min c′ x min x Qx + c′ x
2
s.t. Ax ≤ b, x = [ xxcb ] s.t. Ax ≤ b, x = [ xxcb ]
xc ∈ Rnc , xb ∈ {0, 1}nb xc ∈ Rnc , xb ∈ {0, 1}nb
mixed-integer linear program (MILP) mixed-integer quadratic program (MIQP)
• Some variables are real, some are binary (0/1)
• MILP and MIQP are N P -hard problems, in general
• Many good solvers are available (CPLEX, Gurobi, GLPK, FICO Xpress, CBC, ...)
For comparisons see http://plato.la.asu.edu/bench.html

Modeling languages for optimization problems
• AMPL (A Modeling Language for Mathematical Programming) most used

modeling language, supports several solvers
• GAMS (General Algebraic Modeling System) is one of the first modeling

languages
• GNU MathProg a subset of AMPL associated with the free package GLPK
(GNU Linear Programming Kit)
• YALMIP MATLAB-based modeling language
• CVX (CVXPY) Modeling language for convex problems in MATLAB ( )

Modeling languages for optimization problems
• CASADI + IPOPT Nonlinear modeling + automatic differentiation, nonlinear
programming solver (MATLAB, , C++)
• Optimization Toolbox’ modeling language (part of MATLAB since R2017b)
• PYOMO -based modeling language
• GEKKO -based mixed-integer nonlinear modeling language
• PYTHON-MIP -based modeling language for mixed-integer linear

programming
• PuLP A linear programming modeler for
• JuMP A modeling language for linear, quadratic, and nonlinear constrained

optimization problems embedded in

Linear MPC
Linear MPC - Unconstrained case
• Linear prediction model
( x ∈ Rn Notation:
xk+1 = Axk + Buk x0 = x(t)
u ∈ Rm
yk = Cxk xk = x(t + k|t)
y ∈ Rp
uk = u(t + k|t)
X
k−1
• Relation between input and states: xk = Ak x0 + Aj Buk−1−j
j=0
• Performance index
 u0 
X
N −1 R = R′ ≻0 u1
J(z, x0 ) = x′N P xN + x′k Qxk +u′k Ruk Q = Q′ ⪰0 z= .. 
.
k=0 P = P ′ ⪰0 uN −1
• Goal: find the sequence z ∗ that minimizes J(z, x0 ), i.e., that steers the state x
to the origin optimally

Computation of cost function
Q̄
z }| {
 ′   
x1 Q 0 0 ... 0 x1
 x2   0 Q 0 ... 0   
     x2 
 .   . . . .   . 
x0 Qx0 +    . .   
′ ..
J(z, x0 ) =  .   . . . .
 .   . . . . 

 . 

 xN −1   0 ... 0 Q 0   xN −1 
xN 0 0 ... 0 P xN
 ′   
u0 R 0 ... 0 u0
 u1   0 R ... 0   
     u1 
+  .   .
  . . .   . 
 .   . . ..
.

.   . 

. . . .
uN −1 0 ... 0 R uN −1
| {z }
R̄
      
x1 B 0 ... 0 u0 A
 x2   AB B ... 0   u1   A2 
      
 .  =  . . .   . + .  x0
 .   . . .. 
.  .   . 
 .   . . . .  .   . 
xN AN −1 B AN −2 B ... B uN −1 AN
| {z }| {z } | {z }
S̄ z T̄
′ ′
J(z, x0 ) = (S̄z + T̄ x0 ) Q̄(S̄z + T̄ x0 ) + z R̄z + x′0 Qx0
1 ′ 1
= z 2(R̄ + S̄ ′ Q̄S̄) z + x′0 2T̄ ′ Q̄S̄ z + x′0 2(Q + T̄ ′ Q̄T̄ ) x0
2 | {z } | {z } 2 | {z }
H F′ Y
Linear MPC - Unconstrained case
 u0 
u1
1 1 condensed
J(z, x0 ) = z ′ Hz+x′0 F ′ z+ x′0 Y x0 z= .. 
2 2 . form of MPC
uN −1
• The optimum is obtained by zeroing the gradient
∇z J(z, x0 ) = Hz + F x0 = 0
 u∗

0
u∗
 1 
and hence z ∗ =  ..  = −H −1 F x0 (“batch” solution)
∗
.
uN −1
• Alternative #1: find z ∗ via dynamic programming (Riccati iterations)

• Alternative #2: keep also x1 , . . . , xN as optimization variables and the equality
constraints xk+1 = Axk + Buk (non-condensed form, which is very sparse)

Unconstrained linear MPC algorithm
@ each sampling step t: past future r(t)
yk
predicted outputs
uk
manipulated inputs
t t+k t+N
• Minimize quadratic function (no constraints)

 u0 
u1
1
min f (z) = z ′ Hz + x′ (t)F ′ z z= .. 
z 2 .
uN −1
• solution: ∇f (z) = Hz + F x(t) = 0 ⇒ z ∗ = −H −1 F x(t)

h i
u(t) = − I 0 ... 0 H −1 F x(t) = Kx(t)
unconstrained linear MPC = linear state-feedback!

Constrained Linear MPC
( x ∈ Rn
xk+1 = Axk + Buk
• Linear prediction model: u ∈ Rm
yk = Cxk
y ∈ Rp
• Constraints to enforce:
(
umin ≤ u(t) ≤ umax umin , umax ∈ Rm
ymin ≤ y(t) ≤ ymax ymin , ymax ∈ Rp
• Constrained optimal control problem (quadratic performance index):

X
N −1
min x′N P xN + x′k Qxk + u′k Ruk  u0 
z R = R′ ≻0
k=0 u1
Q = Q′ ⪰0 z= .. 
′ .
s.t. umin ≤ uk ≤ umax , k = 0, . . . , N − 1 P = P ⪰0 uN −1
ymin ≤ yk ≤ ymax , k = 1, . . . , N

Constrained Linear MPC
X
k−1
k
• Linear prediction model: xk = A x0 + Ai Buk−1−i
i=0
• Optimization problem (condensed form):

V (x0 ) = 12 x′0 Y x0 + min 1 ′
2 z Hz + x′0 F ′ z (quadratic objective)
z
s.t. Gz ≤ W + Sx0 (linear constraints)
convex Quadratic Program (QP)

 u0 
u1
• z= ..  ∈ RN m is the optimization vector z*
.
uN −1
• H = H ′ ≻ 0, and H, F, Y, G, W, S depend on weights Q, R, P upper and lower

bounds umin , umax , ymin , ymax and model matrices A, B, C .

Computation of constraint matrices
• Input constraints umin ≤ uk ≤ umax , k = 0, . . . , N − 1
   
1 0 ... 0 umax
 0 0   u 
 1 ...   max 
     
 .. .. .   . 
 . . . 
.   .
.  u0
(     
≤  0     u1 
uk umax  ... 0 1   umax 
 z ≤   z=
 . 

−uk ≤ −umin  −1 0 ... 0   −umin   . 
    .
 0 −1 ... 0   −umin 
    uN −1
 . 
.   . 
 . .. .   . 
 . . .  . 
0 ... 0 −1 −umin
X
k−1
• Output constraints yk = CAk x0 + CAi Buk−1−i ≤ ymax , k = 1, . . . , N
i=0
     
CB 0 ... 0 ymax CA
 CAB CB ... 0   ymax   CA2 
     
 . . z ≤  .  −  .  x0
 . .   .   . 
 . .   .   . 
CA −1 B
N ... CAB CB ymax CAN

Linear MPC algorithm
past future r(t)
yk
predicted outputs
@ each sampling step t: uk
manipulated inputs
t t+k t+N
• Measure (or estimate) the current state x(t)

  
 feedback
u∗  z }| {
0


 u∗
1  
 min
1 ′
2 z Hz + x′ (t)F ′ z
• Get the solution z ∗ =  ..  of the QP z
.
∗ 

uN −1

 s.t. Gz ≤ W + S x(t)

 |{z}

feedback
• Apply only u(t) = u∗0 , discarding the remaining optimal inputs u∗1 , . . . , u∗N −1

Double integrator example
Pt−1 Pt−1
• System: x2 (t) = x2 (0) + j=0 u(j), y(t) = x1 (0) + j=0 x2 (j)
• Sample time: Ts = 1 s
(
x(t + 1) = [ 10 11 ] x(t) + [ 01 ] u(t)
• State-space realization:
y(t) = [ 1 0 ] x(t)
• Constraints: −1 ≤ u(t) ≤ 1
P
+ x′2 [ 10 01 ] x2
1 1 2
• Performance index: min k=0 yk2 + 10 uk (N = 2)
• QP matrices:
H = [ 4.2 2 26
2 2.2 ] , F = [ 0 2 ]
1 ′ 1 0
cost: 2 z Hz + x′ (t)F ′ z + 12 x′ (t)Y x(t)
6 ] , G = −1 0
Y = [ 46 12 0 1
1 0 00 −1
constraints: Gz ≤ W + Sx(t)
W = 11 , S = 00 00
1 00

x1
x2
u x2
x1
go to demo linear/doubleint.m (Hybrid Toolbox)

(see also mpcdoubleint.m in MPC Toolbox)

• Add constraint on second state at prediction time t + 1:
x2,k ≥ −1, k = 1
• New QP matrices:
H = [ 4.2 2 26 4 6
2 2.2 ] , F = [ 0 2 ] , Y = [ 6 12 ]
" −1 0 # "1# "0 1#
1 0 1 0 0
G= −1 0 ,W = 1 ,S= 0 0
0 1 1 0 0
0 −1 1 0 0

x1
x2
u x2
x1
• State constraint x2 (t) ≥ −1 is satisfied

Linear MPC - Tracking
• Objective: make the output y(t) track a reference signal r(t)
• Let us parameterize the problem using the input increments
∆u(t) = u(t) − u(t − 1)
• As u(t) = u(t − 1) + ∆u(t) we need to extend the system with a new state
xu (t) = u(t − 1)
(
x(t + 1) = Ax(t) + Bu(t − 1) + B∆u(t)
xu (t + 1) = xu (t) + ∆u(t)
 h i h i
 x(t+1) x(t)
= [ A0 BI ] xu (t) + [ BI ] ∆u(t)
xu (t+1) h i
 x(t)
y(t) = [ C 0 ] xu (t)
• Again a linear system with states x(t), xu (t) and input ∆u(t)

Linear MPC - Tracking
• Optimal control problem (quadratic performance index):
X
N −1
min ∥W y (yk+1 − r(t))∥22 + ∥W ∆u ∆uk ∥22    
z ∆u0 u0
k=0
 ∆u1   
[∆uk ≜ uk − uk−1 ], u−1 = u(t − 1)    u1 
z=
 .  or z = 
  . 

 .   . 
s.t. umin ≤ uk ≤ umax , k = 0, . . . , N − 1 . .
ymin ≤ yk ≤ ymax , k = 1, . . . , N ∆uN −1 uN −1
∆umin ≤ ∆uk ≤ ∆umax , k = 0, . . . , N − 1
weight W (·) = diagonal matrix, or Cholesky factor of Q(·) = (W (·) )′ W (·)

1 ′
min J(z, x(t)) = + [x′ (t) r ′ (t) u′ (t − 1)]F ′ z
z Hz
z 2

 convex
x(t) Quadratic
 
s.t. Gz ≤ W + S  r(t) 
u(t − 1)
Program
• Add the extra penalty ∥W u (uk − uref (t))∥22 to track input references
• Constraints may depend on r(t), such as emin ≤ yk − r(t) ≤ emax

Linear MPC tracking example
1.6
1.4
1.2
1
• System: y(t) = s2 +0.4s+1 u(t) 1
0.8
d2 y
(or equivalently dt2 + 0.4 dy
dt + y = u) 0.6
0.4
0.2
• Sampling with period Ts = 0.5 s: 0

0 10 20 30
( 1.597 −0.8187
x(t + 1) = 1 0 x(t) + [ 0.5
0 ] u(t)
y(t) = [ 0.2294 0.2145 ] x(t)
go to demo linear/example3.m (Hybrid Toolbox)

• Performance index:
X
9 input
min (yk+1 − r(t))2 + 0.04∆u2k tf(1,[1 .4 1])
LTI System output

k=0
Step
Linear Constrained
Controller
• Closed-loop MPC results:

u(t) y(t)

• Impose constraint 0.8 ≤ u(t) ≤ 1.2 (amplitude)
u(t) y(t)
• Impose instead constraint −0.2 ≤ ∆u(t) ≤ 0.2 (slew-rate)
u(t) y(t)

Measured disturbances
• Measured disturbance v(t) = input that is measured but not manipulated
(
manipulated
xk+1 = Axk + Buk + Bv v(t) u(t) variables
yk = Cxk + Dv v(t) outputs
process
y(t)
measured
∑
k−1 v(t) disturbances
xk = Ak x0 + Aj Buk−1−j + Aj Bv v(t)
state
j=0
x(t)
• Same performance index, same constraints. We still have a QP:
1 ′
min 2
+ [x′ (t) r′ (t) u′ (t − 1) v ′ (t)]F ′ z
z Hz
z  
x(t)
 r(t) 
 
s.t. Gz ≤ W + S  
 u(t − 1) 
v(t)
• Note that MPC naturally provides feedforward action on v(t) and r(t)

Anticipative action (a.k.a. "preview")
∑
N −1
min ∥W y (yk+1 − r(t + k))∥22 + ∥W ∆u ∆u(k)∥22
∆U
k=0
• Reference not known in advance • Future refs (partially) known in

(causal): advance (anticipative action):
rk ≡ r(t), ∀k = 0, . . . , N − 1 rk = r(t + k), ∀k = 0, . . . , N − 1
output / reference output / reference
use r(t) use r(t+k)
input input
go to demo mpcpreview.m (MPC Toolbox)
• Same idea also applies for preview of measured disturbances v(t + k)

Example: Cascaded MPC
• We can use preview also to coordinate multiple MPC controllers
• Example: cascaded MPC
speed process #1 torque process #2 throttle

y(t) actual u1(t) u2(t)
r(t) MPC #1 MPC #2

uref,1 (t), uref,1(t+1), …, uref,1(t+N-1)
reference
speed future desired u1(t)
• MPC #1 commands set-points to MPC #2

Example: Decentralized MPC
• Example: decentralized MPC
process #1 process #2
y1(t) y2(t) u2(t)
u1(t)
r1(t) r2(t)
MPC #1 MPC #2
u1 (t), u1(t+1), …, u1(t+N-1)
u2 (t), u2(t+1), …, u2(t+N-1)
• Commands generated by MPC #1 are measured dist. in MPC#2, and vice versa

Soft constraints
• Relax outputNconstraints to prevent QP infeasibility
−1 ∑
min ∥W y (yk+1 − r(t))∥22 + ∥W ∆u ∆uk ∥22 + ρϵ ϵ2
z
k=0  ∆u(0)

..
subj. to xk+1 = Axk + Buk , k = 0, . . . , N − 1 z= .

∆u(N −1)
umin ≤ uk ≤ umax , k = 0, . . . , N − 1 ϵ
∆umin ≤ ∆uk ≤ ∆umax , k = 0, . . . , N − 1

ymin − ϵVmin ≤ yk ≤ ymax + ϵVmax , k = 1, . . . , N
• ϵ = “panic” variable, with weight ρϵ ≫ W y , W ∆u

• Vmin , Vmax = vectors with entries ≥ 0. The larger the i-th entry of vector V , the
relatively softer the corresponding i-th constraint
• Infeasibility can be due to:

– modeling errors
– disturbances
– wrong MPC setup (e.g., prediction horizon is too short)

Delays - Method #1
• Linear model with delays
x(t + 1) = Ax(t) + Bu(t − τ )
y(t) = Cx(t)
u(t 1) ... u(t ⌧) y(t)

u(t) x(t)
A, B C
• Map delays to poles in z = 0:

xk (t) ≜ u(t − k) ⇒ xk (t + 1) = xk−1 (t), k = 1, . . . , τ
 x   A B 0 0 ... 0   x   0 
xτ 0 0 Im 0 ... 0 xτ 0
 xτ −1   0 0 0 Im ... 0   xτ −1   0 
 .  (t + 1) =  . . . . . .   .  (t) +  .  u(t)
.. .. .. .. . . .. .. .. ..
x 1 x0 0 0 I 0 ... 0 1 m
• Apply MPC to the extended system
• Note: we must have the prediction horizon N ≥ τ , otherwise no input

u0 , . . . , uN −1 has an effect on the output!
Delays - Method #2
(
x(t + 1) = Ax(t) + Bu(t − τ )
• Linear model with delays:
y(t) = Cx(t)
(
x̄(t + 1) = Ax̄(t) + Bu(t)
• Delay-free model: x̄(t) ≜ x(t + τ )
ȳ(t) = C x̄(t)
• Design MPC for delay-free model, u(t) = fMPC (x̄(t))
• Compute the predicted state
X
τ −1
x̄(t) = x̂(t + τ ) = Aτ x(t) + Aj B u(t − 1 − j)
| {z }
j=0
past inputs!
• Compute the MPC control move u(t) = fMPC (x̂(t + τ ))
• For better closed-loop performance and improved robustness, x̂(t + τ ) can be

computed by a more complex model than (A, B, C)

Good models for (MPC) control
• Computation complexity depends on chosen prediction model
• Good models for MPC must be
– Descriptive enough to capture the most significant dynamics of the system
– Simple enough for solving the optimization problem
“Things should be made as simple as possible, but not any simpler.”
Albert Einstein
(1879–1955)

MPC theory
• After the industrial success of MPC, a lot of research done:
– linear MPC ⇒ linear prediction model

– nonlinear MPC ⇒ nonlinear prediction model
– robust MPC ⇒ uncertain (linear) prediction model
– stochastic MPC ⇒ stochastic prediction model
– distributed/decentralized MPC⇒ multiple MPCs cooperating together
– economic MPC ⇒ MPC based on arbitrary (economic) performance indices
– hybrid MPC ⇒ prediction model integrating logic and dynamics
– explicit MPC ⇒ offline (exact/approximate) computation of MPC
– solvers for MPC ⇒ online numerical algorithms for solving MPC problems
– data-driven MPC ⇒ machine learning methods tailored to MPC design
• Main theoretical issues: feasibility, stability, solution algorithms (Mayne, 2014)

Feasibility
X
N −1
min ∥W y (yk+1 − r(t))∥2 + ∥W ∆u ∆uk ∥2
z
k=0
subj. to umin ≤ uk ≤ umax , k = 0, . . . , N − 1 QP problem
ymin ≤ yk ≤ ymax , k = 1, . . . , N
∆umin ≤ ∆uk ≤ ∆umax , k = 0, . . . , N − 1
• Feasibility: Will the QP problem be feasible at all sampling instants t?
• Input constraints only: always feasible if u/∆u constraints are consistent
• Hard output constraints:

– When N < ∞ there is no guarantee that the QP problem will remain feasible at all
t, even in the nominal case
– N = ∞ ok in the nominal case, but we have an infinite number of constraints!
– Maximum output admissible set theory: N < ∞ is enough (Gutman, Ckwikel, 1987)
(Gilbert, Tan, 1991) (Chmielewski, Manousiouthakis, 1996) (Kerrigan, Maciejowski, 2000)

Predicted and actual trajectories
• Consider predicted and actual trajectories
x(t) x(t)
x*(t+2|t) x*(t+2|t)
x*(t+1|t)=x(t+1) x*(t+1|t)=x(t+1)
0 t t+N 0 t t+N
x(t) x*(t+2|t+1)=x(t+2) x(t) x*(t+2|t+1)=x(t+2)
x*(t+2|t) x*(t+2|t)
x*(t+1|t)=x(t+1) x*(t+1|t)=x(t+1)
0 t t+N 0 t t+N
• Even assuming perfect model and no disturbances, predicted open-loop

trajectories and actual closed-loop trajectories can be different

Predicted and actual trajectories
optimal state x (k)
• Special case: when the horizon is infinite, open-loop
trajectories and closed-loop trajectories coincide.
time
x(t) k N
0
x*(t+2|t)=x*(t+2|t+1)=x(t+2) optimal input u (k)
x*(t+1|t)=x(t+1)
0 t +1 time
• This follows by Bellman’s principle of optimality: 0 k N
“Given the optimal sequence u∗ (0), . . . , u∗ (N − 1) and the cor-

responding optimal trajectory x∗ (0), . . . , x∗ (N ), the subsequence
u∗ (k), . . . , u∗ (N − 1) is optimal for the subproblem on the horizon
[k, N ], starting from the optimal state x∗ (k).”
Richard Bellman
"An optimal policy has the property that, regardless of the decisions taken to enter a particular state, (1920–1984)
the remaining decisions made for leaving that stage must constitute an optimal policy."
(Bellman, 1957)
Convergence and stability
X
N −1
min x′N P xN + x′k Qxk + u′k Ruk
z
k=0
QP problem
s.t. umin ≤ uk ≤ umax , k = 0, . . . , N − 1
ymin ≤ Cxk ≤ ymax , k = 1, . . . , N
Q = Q′ ⪰ 0, R = R′ ≻ 0, P = P ′ ⪰ 0
• Stability is a complex function of the model (A, B, C) and the MPC parameters
N, Q, R, P, umin , umax , ymin , ymax
• Stability constraints and weights on the terminal state xN can be imposed over
the prediction horizon to ensure stability of MPC

Basic convergence properties
(Keerthi, Gilbert, 1988) (Bemporad, Chisci, Mosca, 1994)
• Theorem: Let the MPC law be based on

∑
N −1
V ∗ (x(t)) = min x′k Qxk + u′k Ruk
k=0
s.t. xk+1 = Axk + Buk
umin ≤ uk ≤ umax
ymin ≤ Cxk ≤ ymax
xN = 0 ← “terminal constraint”
with R, Q ≻ 0, umin < 0 < umax , ymin < 0 < ymax .

If the optimization problem is feasible at time t = 0 then
lim x(t) = 0, lim u(t) = 0

t→∞ t→∞
and the constraints are satisfied at all time t ≥ 0, for all R, Q ≻ 0.
• Many more convergence and stability results exist (Mayne, 2014)

Convergence proof
Proof: Main idea: use the value function V ∗ (x(t)) as a Lyapunov-like function
• Let zt = optimal control sequence at time t, zt = [ut0 . . . utN −1 ]′
• By construction z̄t+1 = [ut1 . . . utN −1 0]′ is a feasible sequence at time t + 1
• The cost of z̄t+1 is V ∗ (x(t)) − x′ (t)Qx(t) − u′ (t)Ru(t) ≥ V ∗ (x(t + 1))
• V ∗ (x(t)) is monotonically decreasing and ≥ 0, so ∃ limt→∞ V ∗ (x(t)) ≜ V∞
• Hence
0 ≤ x′ (t)Qx(t) + u′ (t)Ru(t) ≤ V ∗ (x(t)) − V ∗ (x(t + 1)) → 0 for t → ∞
• Since R, Q ≻ 0, limt→∞ x(t) = 0, limt→∞ u(t) = 0
Reaching the global optimum exactly is not needed to prove convergence

More general convergence result - Output weights
(Keerthi, Gilbert, 1988) (Bemporad, Chisci, Mosca, 1994)
• Theorem: Consider the MPC control law based on optimizing

∑
N −1
V ∗ (x(t)) = min yk′ Qy yk + u′k Ruk
k=0
umin ≤ uk ≤ umax
ymin ≤ yk ≤ ymax
either N = ∞ or xN = 0
If the optimization problem is feasible at time t = 0 then for all R = R′ ≻ 0,

Qy = Q′y ≻ 0
lim y(t) = 0, lim u(t) = 0
t→∞ t→∞
and the constraints are satisfied at all time t ≥ 0. Moreover, if (C, A) is a
detectable pair then limt→∞ x(t) = 0.

Convergence proof
Proof:
• The shifted optimal sequence z̄t+1 = [ut1 . . . utN −1 0]′ (or z̄t+1 = [ut1 ut2 . . .]′ in
case N = ∞) is feasible sequence at time t + 1 and has cost
V ∗ (x(t)) − y ′ (t)Qy y(t) − u′ (t)Ru(t) ≥ V ∗ (x(t + 1))

• Therefore, by convergence of V ∗ (x(t)), we have that
0 ≤ y ′ (t)Qy y(t) + u′ (t)Ru(t) ≤ V ∗ (x(t)) − V ∗ (x(t + 1)) → 0

for t → ∞
• Since R, Qy ≻ 0, also limt→∞ y(t) = 0, limt→∞ u(t) = 0
• For all k = 0, . . . , n − 1 we have that
X
k−1
′
0 = lim y (t+k)Qy y(t+k) = lim ∥LC(A x(t)+ k
Aj Bu(t+k −1−j))∥22
t→∞ t→∞
j=0
where Qy = L′ L (Cholesky factorization) and L is nonsingular

Convergence proof (cont'd)
• As u(t) → 0, also LCAk x(t) → 0, and since L is nonsingular CAk x(t) → 0 too,
for all k = 0, . . . , n − 1
• Hence Θx(t) → 0, where Θ is the observability matrix of (C, A)
• If (C, A) is observable then Θ is nonsingular and hence limt→∞ x(t) = 0
• If (C, A) is only detectable, we can make a canonical observability

decomposition and show that the observable states converge to zero
• As also u(t) → 0 and the unobservable subsystem is asymptotically stable, the

unobservable states must converge to zero asymptotically too

Extension to reference tracking
• We want to track a constant reference r. Assume xr and ur exist such that
xr = Axr + Bur
(equilibrium state/input)
r = Cxr
• Formulate the MPC problem (assume umin < ur < umax , ymin < r < ymax )
∑
N −1
min (yk − r)′ Qy (yk − r) + (uk − ur )′ R(uk − ur )
k=0
umin ≤ uk ≤ umax , ymin ≤ Cxk ≤ ymax
xN = xr
• We can repeat the convergence proofs in the shifted-coordinates

xk+1 − xr = A(xk − xr ) + B(uk − ur ), yk − r = C(xk − xr )
• Drawback: the approach only works well in nominal conditions, as the input
reference ur depends on A, B, C (inverse static model)

Stability constraints
1. No stability constraint, infinite prediction horizon N →∞

(Keerthi, Gilbert, 1988) (Rawlings, Muske, 1993) (Bemporad, Chisci, Mosca, 1994)
2. End-point constraint xN = 0
(Kwon, Pearson, 1977) (Keerthi, Gilbert, 1988) (Bemporad, Chisci, Mosca, 1994)
3. Relaxed terminal constraint xN ∈ Ω

(Scokaert, Rawlings, 1996)
4. Contraction constraint ∥xk+1 ∥ ≤ α∥x(t)∥, α < 1

(Polak, Yang, 1993) (Bemporad, 1998)
All the proofs in (1,2,3) use the value function V ∗ (x(t)) = minz J(z, x(t)) as a
Lyapunov function.

Control and constraint horizons
X
N −1
min ∥W y (yk − r(t))∥22 + ∥W ∆u ∆uk ∥22 + ρϵ ϵ2
z
k=0
subj. to umin ≤ uk ≤ umax , k = 0, . . . , N − 1

∆umin ≤ ∆uk ≤ ∆umax , k = 0, . . . , N − 1
∆uk = 0, k = Nu , . . . , N − 1
ymin − ϵVmin ≤ yk ≤ ymax + ϵVmax , k = 1, . . . , Nc
• The input horizon Nu limits the number ymax

of free variables yk
– Reduced performance
– Reduced computation time uk
typically Nu = 1 ÷ 5
t t+Nu t+Nc t+N
• The constraint horizon Nc limits the number of constraints

– Higher chance of violating output constraints but reduced computation time
• Other variable-reduction methods exist (Bemporad, Cimini, 2020)

MPC and Linear Quadratic Regulation (LQR)
PN −1
• Special case: J(z, x0 ) = x′N P xN + k=0 x′k Qxk + u′k Ruk , Nu = N , with
matrix P solving the Algebraic Riccati Equation
P = A′ P A − A′ P B(B ′ P B + R)−1 B ′ P A + Q
Jacopo Francesco Riccati
(1676–1754)
(unconstrained) MPC = LQR for any choice of the prediction horizon N
Proof: : Easily follows from Bellman’s principle of optimality (dynamic

programming): x′N P xN = optimal “cost-to-go” from time N to ∞.

MPC and Constrained LQR
• Consider again the constrained MPC law based on minimizing
∑
N −1
min x′N P xN + x′k Qxk + u′k Ruk
z
k=0
s.t. umin ≤ uk ≤ umax , k = 0, . . . , N − 1
ymin ≤ yk ≤ ymax , k = 1, . . . , N
uk = Kxk , k = Nu , . . . , N − 1
• Choose matrix P and terminal gain K by solving the LQR problem

K = −(R + B ′ P B)−1 B ′ P A
P = (A + BK)′ P (A + BK) + K ′ RK + Q
• In a polyhedral region around the origin, constrained MPC = constrained LQR

for any choice of the prediction and control horizons N , Nu
(Sznaier, Damborg, 1987) (Chmielewski, Manousiouthakis, 1996) (Scokaert, Rawlings, 1998)
(Bemporad, Morari, Dua Pistikopoulos, 2002)
• The larger the horizon N , the larger the region where MPC ≡ constrained LQR

MPC and Constrained LQR
• Some MPC formulations also include the terminal constraint xN ∈ X∞

X∞ = x : [ uymin
min
] ≤ [K umax
C ] (A + BK) x ≤ [ ymax ] , ∀k ≥ 0
k
that is the maximum output admissible set for the closed-loop system
(A + BK, B, C) and constraints umin ≤ Kx ≤ umax , ymin ≤ Cx ≤ ymax
• This makes MPC ≡ constrained LQR where the MPC problem is feasible
• Recursive feasibility in ensured by the terminal constraint for all x(0) such that
the MPC problem is feasible @t = 0
• The domain of feasibility may be reduced because of the additional constraint

Example: AFTI-F16 aircraft
Linearized model:
 " # " #
 −0.0151 −60.5651 0 −32.174 −2.516 −13.136

 ẋ = −0.0001 −1.3411 0.9929 0
x+ −0.1689 −0.2514
u
0.00018 43.2541 −0.86939 0 −17.251 −1.5766
0 0 1 0 0 0

 0 1 0 0

y = 0001 x (Kapasouris, Athans, Stein, 1988)
:); 80*79
/0'$%+1
• Inputs: elevator and flaperon (=flap+aileron) angles
!"##$%
• Outputs: attack and pitch angles -').,
&'$()*+%,
• Sampling time: Ts = 0.05 sec (+ ZOH) !+''
• Constraints: ±25◦ on both angles /0'$%+1

2+130*"#01)'4)50,
• Open-loop unstable, poles are 6$%*07)'4)50,

2)*$%)'4)50,
−7.6636, −0.0075 ± 0.0556j, 5.4530
go to demo linear/afti16.m (Hybrid Toolbox)
see also afti16.m (MPC Toolbox)
Wednesday, June 2, 2010
• Prediction horizon N = 10, control horizon Nu = 2
• Input weights W ∆u = [ 0.1 0 u

0 0.1 ], W = 0
25◦
• Input constraints umin = −umax = 25◦
30
20
20
15
10
y1 (t) 10
u(t) 0
W y = [ 10 01 ]
y2 (t) 5
-10
-20
0
-30
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4
30
20
20
15
10
y1 (t) 10
u(t) 0
W y = [ 100 0
0 1]
y2 (t) 5 -10
-20
0
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4

• Add output constraints y1,min = −y1,max = 0.5◦
30
20
20
15
y1 (t) 10
10
u(t) 0
W y = [ 10 01 ]
y2 (t) 5
-10
0
-20
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4
• Soft output constraint = convex penalty with dead zone
min ρϵ2
s.t. y1,min − ϵV1,min ≤ y1 ≤ y1,max − ϵV1,max

• Linear control (=unconstrained MPC) + input clipping
10 4 30
20
3
10
y1 (t) 2
u(t) 0
W y = [ 10 01 ]
y2 (t) 1
-10
-20
0
-30
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4
unstable!
Saturation needs to be considered in the control design!

Saturation
• Saturation is dangerous because it can break the control loop
saturation
r(t) ua(t)
linear x(t)
controller process
• MPC takes saturation into account and handles it automatically (and optimally)
saturation
r(t) ua(t)
MPC x(t)
controller process

Tuning guidelines
X
N −1
∆U
k=0
subj. to ∆umin ≤ ∆uk ≤ ∆umax , k = 0, . . . , Nu − 1

∆uk = 0, k = Nu , . . . , N − 1
umin ≤ uk ≤ umax , k = 0, . . . , Nu − 1
ymin − ϵVmin ≤ yk ≤ ymax + ϵVmax , k = 1, . . . , Nc
• weights: the larger the ratio W y /W ∆u the more aggressive the controller
• input horizon: the larger Nu , the more “optimal” but more complex the controller
• prediction horizon: the smaller N , the more aggressive the controller
• constraints horizon: the smaller Nc , the simpler the controller
• limits: controller less aggressive if ∆umin , ∆umax are small
• penalty ρϵ : pick up smallest ρϵ that keeps soft constraints reasonably satisfied
Always try to set Nu as small as possible!

Tuning guidelines - Effect of sampling time
• Let Ts = sampling time used in MPC predictions
• For predicting Tp time units in the future we must set

4
Tp
N= 3
Ts
2
0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6
time (s)
• Slew-rate constraints u̇min ≤ du

dt ≤ u̇max on actuators are related to Ts by
∆u ∆umax
du uk − uk−1 z }|min{ z }| {
u̇ ≜ ≈ Ts u̇min ≤ ∆uk ≤ Ts u̇max
dt Ts

Tuning guidelines - Effect of sampling time
• The MPC cost to minimize can be thought in continuous-time as
Z Tp
J= ∥W y (y(τ ) − r)∥22 + ∥W u (u(τ ) − ur )∥22 + ∥W u̇ u̇(τ )∥22 dτ + ρϵ ϵ2
0
 
N −1
X 
≈ Ts  ∥W y (yk+1 − r)∥22 + ∥W u (uk − ur )∥22 + ∥ W u̇ Ts−1 ∆uk ∥22 + ρϵ Ts−1 ϵ2 
| {z }
k=0
W ∆u
• Hence, when changing the sampling time from T1 to T2 , can can keep the same
MPC cost function by leaving W y , W u unchanged and simply rescaling
W u̇ T1 W u̇ T1 ∆u ρϵ T 1 ρϵ T1
W2∆u = = = W1 ρϵ2 = = = ρϵ1
T2 T2 T1 T2 T2 T2 T1 T2
• Note: Ts used for controller execution can be ̸= than Ts used in prediction
• Small controller Ts ⇒ fast reaction to set-point changes / disturbances

Scaling
• Humans think infinite precision …computers do not !
• Numerical difficulties may arise if variables assume very small/large values
• Example:
y1 ∈ [−1e − 4, 1e − 4] [V] y1 ∈ [−0.1, 0.1] [mV]

y2 ∈ [−1e4, 1e4] [Pa] y2 ∈ [−10, 10] [kPa]
• Ideally all variables should be in [−1, 1]. For example, one can replace y with
y/ymax
• Scaling also possible after formulating the QP problem (=preconditioning)

Pre-stabilization of open-loop unstable models
• Numerical issues may arise with open-loop unstable models
X
k−1
• When condensing the QP we substitute xk = Ak x0 + Aj Buk−1−j that
j=0
may lead to a badly conditioned Hessian matrix H
 B 0 ... 0
′  Q 0 0 ... 0

B 0 ... 0
 "R #
0 Q 0 ... 0 0 ... 0
  
AB B ... 0 AB B ... 0 0 R ... 0
H= .
.
.
. . . ..  ... ... .. . .
. .. ..  .
.
.
. . . .. + . . . .
. . .. .
. . . . . . . . . . .
0 ... 0 Q 0
AN −1 B AN −2 B ... B AN −1 B AN −2 B ... B 0 ... 0 R
0 0 ... 0 P
• Pre-stabilizing the system with uk = Kxk + vk leads to xk+1 = AK xk + Bvk ,

X
k−1
AK ≜ A + BK , and therefore xk = AkK x0 + AjK Bvk−1−j
j=0
• Input constraints become mixed constraints umin ≤ Kxk + vk ≤ umax
• K can be chosen for example by pole-placement or LQR

Observer design for MPC
State observer for MPC
r(t) u(t) y(t)
Optimizer Process measured
reference x(t) outputs
x(t)
Observer
state estimate
• Full state x(t) of process may not be available, only outputs y(t)
• Even if x(t) is available, noise should be filtered out
• Prediction and process models may be quite different
• The state x(t) may not have any physical meaning
(e.g., in case of model reduction or subspace identification)
We need to use a state observer
• Example: Luenberger observer x̂(t + 1) = Ax̂(t) + Bu(t) + L(y(t) − C x̂(t))

Extended model for observer design
manipulated variables
u(t)
yu(t)
v(t) measured disturbances plant controlled variables unmeasured
outputs
nd(t) unmeasured d(t) model

disturbance
model unmeasured
white noise
disturbances
zm(t)
nm(t) m(t) + +
measurement ym(t)
white noise noise model measured
outputs
unmeasured disturbance model measurement noise model

( (
xd (t + 1) = Āxd (t) + B̄nd (t) xm (t + 1) = Ãxm (t) + B̃nm (t)
d(t) = C̄xd (t) + D̄nd (t) m(t) = C̃xm (t) + D̃nm (t)
• Note: the measurement noise model is not needed during optimization

Kalman filter design
• Plant model
{
x(t + 1) = Ax(t) + Bu u(t) + Bv v(t) + Bd d(t)
y(t) = Cx(t) + Dv v(t) + Dd d(t)
Rudolf Emil Kalman
• Full model for designing Kalman filter (1930–2016)
[ ] [ ][ ]
[B ] [B ]
x(t+1) ABd C̄ 0 x(t)
u v
xd (t+1) = 0 Ā 0 xd (t) + 0 u(t) + 0 v(t)+
xm (t+1) [ 0 ] 0 Ã xm (t)
[0]
0
[B ]
0
Bd D̄ u
B̄ nd (t) + 0 nm (t) + 0 nu (t)
0 [ B̃ ] 0
x(t)
ym (t) = [ Cm Ddm C̄ C̃ ] xd (t) + Dvm v(k) + D̄m nd (t) + D̃m nm (t)
xm (t)
• nd (k) = source of modeling errors

• nm (k) = source of measurement noise
• nu (k) = white noise on input u (added to compute the Kalman gain)

Observer implementation
• Measurement update
ŷm (t|t − 1) = Cm x̂(t|t − 1)
x̂(t|t) = x̂(t|t − 1) + M (ym (t) − ŷm (t|t − 1))
• Time update
x̂(t + 1|t) = Ax̂(t|t − 1) + Bu(t) + L(ym (t) − ŷm (t|t − 1))
• Note that if L = AM then x̂(t + 1|t) = Ax̂(t|t) + Bu(t)
• The separation principle holds (under certain assumptions)

(Muske, Meadows, Rawlings, 1994)

I/O feedthrough
• We always assumed no feedthrough from u to measured y
yk = Cxk +Duk + Dv vk + Dd dk , Dm = 0
• This avoids static loops between state observer, as x̂(t|t) depends on u(t) via
ŷm (t|t − 1), and MPC (u(t) depends on x̂(t|t))
• Often D = 0 is not a limiting assumption as

– often actuator dynamics must be considered (u is the set-point to a low-level
controller of the actuators)
– most physical models described by ordinary differential equations are strictly
causal, and so is the discrete-time version of the model
• In case D ̸= 0, we can assume a delay in executing the commanded u

yk = Cm xk + Duk−1 yk
yk-1
and treat u(t − 1) as an extra state uk-1
uk
t
• Not an issue for unmeasured outputs (k-1)Ts kTs (k+1)Ts
Integral action in MPC
Output integrators
manipulated variables
u(t)
yu(t)
v(t) measured disturbances plant controlled variables
unmeasured
outputs
nd(t) unmeasured d(t) model +

zm(t)
disturbance
model unmeasured +
white noise
disturbances
ni(t) output
white noise integrators
nm(t) m(t) +
measurement +
noise model
ym(t)
white noise measured
outputs
• Introduce output integrators as additional disturbance models

• Under certain conditions, observer + controller provide zero offset in
steady-state

Output integrators and offset-free tracking
• Add constant unknown disturbances on measured outputs:


 xk+1 = Axk + Buk
dk+1 = dk

 yk = Cxk + dk
• Use the extended model to design a state observer (e.g., Kalman filter) that
ˆ from y(t)
estimates both the state x̂(t) and disturbance d(t)
• Why we get offset-free tracking in steady-state (intuitively):

ˆ → y(t)
– the observer makes C x̂(t) + d(t) (estimation error)
ˆ → r(t)
– the MPC controller makes C x̂(t) + d(t) (predicted tracking error)
– the combination of the two makes y(t) → r(t) (actual tracking error)
ˆ compensates for model mismatch

• In steady state, the term d(t)
• See more on survey paper (Pannocchia, Gabiccini, Artoni, 2015)

Output integrators and offset-free tracking
(Pannocchia, Rawlings, 2003)
• More general result: consider the disturbance model



 xk+1 = Axk + Buk + Bd dk
dk+1 = dk special case: output integrators

 Bd = 0 , D d = I
yk = Cxk + Dd dk
Theorem
Let the number nd of disturbances be equal to the number ny of measured outputs.
Then all pairs (Bd , Dd ) satisfying
" #
I − A −Bd
rank = nx + n y
C Dd
guarantee zero offset in steady-state (y = r), provided that constraints are not
active in steady-state and the closed-loop system is asymptotically stable.

Disturbance model example
1 −1 −2 1 1
0 −2 3 2 0
• Open-loop system: A = 0 2 −1 −1 , B = 1 , Cm = [ 1 1 0 0 ]
0 2 0 −2 1
• We cannot add an output integrator since the pair ([ A 0

0 1 ] , [ C 1 ]) is not
observable
A Bd

• Add an input integrator: Bd = B , Dd = 0, rank C m Dd = 5 = nx + ny


 x(t + 1) = Ax(t) + B(u(t) + d(t))
d(t + 1) = d(t)

 y(t) = Cx(t) + 0 · d(t)

Error feedback
(Kwakernaak, Sivan, 1972)
• Idea: add the integral of the tracking error as an additional state (original idea
developed for integral action in state-feedback control)
• Extended prediction model:



 x(t + 1) = Ax(t) + Bu u(t) + 0 · r(t) ← r(t) is seen as a meas. disturbance

 q(t + 1) = q(t) + Cx(t) − r(t) ← integral action
| {z }

 tracking error


y(t) = Cx(t)
• ∥W i q∥22 is penalized in the cost function, otherwise it is useless. W i is a new

tuning knob
• Intuitively, if the MPC closed-loop is asymptotically stable then q(t) converges

to a constant, and hence y(t) − r(t) converges to zero.

Reference / Command Governor
(Bemporad, Mosca, 1994) (Gilbert, Kolmanovsky, Tan, 1994) (Garone, Di Cairano, Kolmanovsky, 2016)
actual control
reference input
constrained
r(t) w(t) u(t) variables
local c(t)
desired
feedback y(t) ¼ r(t)
reference reference process
governor controlled outputs
primal system
x(t)
estimated plant + controller states
• MPC manipulates set-points to a linear feedback loop to enforce constraints

• Separation of problems:
– Local feedback guarantees offset-free tracking y(t) − w(t) → 0 in steady-state
in the absence of constraints
– Actual reference w(t) generated by MPC to take care of constraints
• Advantages: small-signal properties preserved, fewer variables to optimize
w(t) = arg minw ∥w − r(t)∥22

s.t. ct+k ∈ C
Integral action and ∆u-formulation
• In control systems, integral action occurs if the controller has a

transfer-function from the output to the input of the form
B(z)
u(t) = y(t), B(1) ̸= 0
(z − 1)A(z)
• One may think that the ∆u-formulation of MPC provides integral action ...
... is it true ?
• Example: we want to regulate the output y(t) to zero of the scalar system
x(t + 1) = αx(t) + βu(t)

y(t) = x(t)

• Design an unconstrained MPC controller with horizon N = 1
∆u(t) = arg min∆u0 ∆u20 + ρy12

s.t. u0 = u(t − 1) + ∆u0
y1 = x1 = αx(t) + β(∆u0 + u(t − 1))
• By substitution, we get
∆u(t) = arg min∆u0 ∆u20 + ρ(αx(t) + βu(t − 1) + β∆u0 )2

= arg min∆u0 (1 + ρβ 2 )∆u20 + 2βρ(αx(t) + βu(t − 1))∆u0
ρβ 2
= − 1+ρβ
βρα
2 x(t) − 1+ρβ 2 u(t − 1)
• Since x(t) = y(t) and u(t) = u(t − 1) + ∆u(t) we get the linear controller
ρβα
1+ρβ 2 z
u(t) = − y(t) No pole in z = 1
z − 1+ρβ
1
2
• Reason: MPC gives a feedback gain on both x(t) and u(t − 1), not just on x(t)

• Numerical test (with MPC Toolbox)
alpha=.5;
beta=3;
sys=ss(alpha,beta,1,0);sys.ts=1;
rho=1;p=1;m=1;
weights=struct('OV',rho,'MVRate',1);
mpc1=mpc(sys,1,p,m,weights);
setoutdist(mpc1,'remove',1); % no output disturbance model
mpc1tf=tf(mpc1);
sum(mpc1tf.den{1})
ans = 0.9000
• Now add an output integrator as disturbance model

setoutdist(mpc1,'integrators'); % add output disturbance model
mpc1tf=tf(mpc1);
sum(mpc1tf.den{1})
ans = -6.4185e-16

MPC and internal model principle
• Assume we have an internal model of the reference signal r(t)
xr (t + 1) = Ar xr (t)
r(t) = Cr xr (t)
• Consider the augmented prediction model

" # " #" # " #
xk+1 A 0 xk B
= + uk
xrk+1 0 Ar xrk 0
r
• Design
h i a state observer
h i(e.g., via pole-placement) to estimate x(t), x (t) from
y(t) C 0
x(t)
r(t)
= 0 Cr xr (t)
xk
• Design an MPC controller with output ek = yk − rk = [ C −Cr ] xrk

MPC and internal model principle
X
N
0.5
output
• Penalize ek (+small penalty on u or ∆u)

k=1 0
• Set control horizon Nu = N

-0.5
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50
input
2
• Example: r(t) = r0 sin(ωt + ϕ0 ), ω = 1 rad/s 1
-1
h 1.6416 −0.7668 0.2416 i -2
A= 1 0 0
-3
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50
h 0.50i 0.125 0
B= 0
0
observer poles placed in
C = [ 0.1349 0.0159 −0.1933 ]
{0.3, 0.4, 0.5, 0.6, 0.7}
1.7552 −1 sample time Ts = 0.5 s
Ar = 1 0
Cr = [ .2448 .2448 ] input saturation −2 ≤ u(t) ≤ 2

Model Predictive Control Toolbox
(Bemporad, Ricker, Morari, 1998-present)
• Several MPC design features available:

– explicit MPC
– time-varying/adaptive models, nonlinear models, weights, constraints
– stability/frequency analysis of closed-loop (inactive constraints)
– …
• Prediction models can be generated by the Identification Toolbox or
automatically linearized from Simulink
• Fast command-line MPC functions

(compiled EML-code)
• Graphical User Interface
• Simulink library (compiled EML-code)

MPC Simulink Library
>> mpclib

MPC Simulink block

MPC Simulink block

MPC Simulink block

MPC Graphical User Interface
>> mpcDesigner (old version: >> mpctool)
See video on Mathworks’ web site (link)

Example: MPC of a DC servomotor
R
µM Tr
V e µ
JM s T µL
bM r JL
bL
Symbol Value (MKS) Meaning >> mpcmotor

LS 1.0 shaft length
dS 0.02 shaft diameter
JS negligible shaft inertia
JM 0.5 motor inertia
βM 0.1 motor viscous friction coefficient
R 20 resistance of armature see also
kT 10 motor constant linear/dcmotor.m
ρ 20 gear ratio
kθ 1280.2 torsional rigidity (Hybrid Toolbox)
JL 50JM nominal load inertia
βL 25 load viscous friction coefficient
Ts 0.1 sampling time

DC servomotor model
 
0 1 0 0  
 − kθ  0
 JL − βJL
L kθ
0    [ θL ]
 ρJL
  0 
ẋ =  0 0 0 1 x +  V θ̇L
   0  x= θM
  kT θ̇M
2
βM +kT /R
kθ
0 − ρ2kJθ − RJM
[ ρJM ] M JM
θL = 1 0 0 0 x [θ ]
y= L
T
[ ]
T = kθ 0 − kρθ 0 x
>> [plant, tau] = mpcmotormodel;

>> plant = setmpcsignals(plant,'MV',1,'MO',1,'UO',2);

DC servomotor constraints
• The input DC voltage V is bounded withing the range
|V | ≤ 220 V
• Finite shear strength τadm = 50N/mm2 requires that the torsional torque T
satisfies the constraint
|T | ≤ 78.5398 N m
• Sampling time of model/controller: Ts = 0.1s
>> MV = struct('Min',-220,'Max',220);
>> OV = struct('Min',{-Inf,-78.5398},'Max',{Inf,78.5398});
>> Ts = 0.1;

DC servomotor - MPC setup
∑
p−1
∆U
k=0
subj. to ∆umin ≤ ∆uk ≤ ∆umax , k = 0, . . . , m − 1

∆uk = 0, k = m, . . . , p − 1
umin ≤ uk ≤ umax , k = 0, . . . , m − 1
ymin − ϵVmin ≤ yk ≤ ymax + ϵVmax , k = 1, . . . , p
>> Weights = struct('MV',0,'MVRate',0.1,'OV',[0.1 0]);

>> p = 10;
>> m = 2;
>> mpcobj = mpc(plant,Ts,p,m,Weights,MV,OV);

DC servomotor - Closed-loop simulation
R
µM Tr
V e µ
JM s T µL
bM r JL
bL
Closed-loop simulation using

the sim command
>> Tstop = 8; % seconds

>> Tf = round(Tstop/Ts); % simulation iterations
>> r = [pi*ones(Tf,1) zeros(Tf,1)];
>> [y1,t1,u1] = sim(mpcobj,Tf,r);

closed-loop
simulation in
Simulink
>> mdl = 'mpc_motor';

>> open_system(mdl)
>> sim(mdl)

θL (t) T (t) V (t)
4 100 400
3 300
2 50 200
1 100
0 0 0
-1 -100
-2 -50 -200
-3 -300
-4 -100 -400
0 5 10 15 20 0 5 10 15 20 0 5 10 15 20
• same MPC tuning parameters
• setpoint r(t) = π sin(0.4t) deg

Example: MPC of active suspensions
θ
Lf Lr
• Take simulation model sldemo_suspn in MATLAB z
uf ur
h
Ff ront = 2Kf (Lf θ − (z + h)) + 2Cf (Lf θ̇ − ż) + uf
Ff ront , Frear = upward force on body from front/rear suspension

Kf , Kr = front and rear suspension spring constant
Cf , Cr = front and rear suspension damping rate
Lf , Lr = horizontal distance from c.g. to front/rear suspension
θ, θ̇ = pitch (rotational) angle and its rate of change
z, ż = bounce (vertical) distance and its rate of change
• For control purposes we add external forces uf , ur as manipulated variables
• The system has 4 states: θ, θ̇, z , ż
• Measured disturbances: road height h, pitch moment from vehicle acceleration

• Step #1: get a linear discrete-time model (4 inputs, 3 outputs, 4 states)
>> plant_mdl = 'suspension_model';

>> op = operspec(plant_mdl);
>> [op_point, op_report] = findop(plant_mdl,op);
>> sys = linearize(plant_mdl, op_point);
>> Ts = 0.025; % sample time (s)
>> plant = c2d(sys,Ts);
>> plant = setmpcsignals(plant,'MV',[1 2],'MD',...

[3 4],'MO',[1 2],'UO',3);

• Step #2: design the MPC controller
>> dfmax = .1/.1; % [kN/s]

>> MV = struct('RateMin',-Ts*dfmax, Ts*dfmax,...
'RateMax',Ts*dfmax,Ts*dfmax);
>> OV = [];
>> Weights = struct('MV',[0 0], 'MVRate',[.01 .01],...
'OV',[.01 0 10]);
>> p = 50; % Prediction horizon

>> m = 5; % Control horizon
>> mpcobj = mpc(plant,Ts,p,m,Weights,MV,OV);

Vehicle Suspension Model ?
1/Iyy 1 1 Theta
My s Thetadot s Theta
1/(Body Inertia) THETAdot THETA
Pitch moment
induced by
vehicle acceleration Thetadot
signal1 signal1
-Front Pitch Moment Rear Pitch Moment
FrontForce RearForce signal2 signal2
Front Suspension Rear Suspension h

Road Height
1/Mb 1 1 Z+h
s Zdot s Z Z+h
1/(Body Mass) Zdot Z
-9.81
Zdot
acceleration Zdot
due to gravity
cm
signal1 100
1000
mo Theta
Gain2
Gain4 uf
mv MPC ref y0 1/1000
ur
1000
reference Gain5
Gain3 signal1
md signal2 100
MPC Controller Gain1 Copyright 1990-2015 The MathWorks, Inc.

• Closed-loop MPC results 6
#10 -3 3_ (rad/s)
Open-loop
2
z_ (cm/s)
Closed-loop
4 0
2 -2
0 -4
Open-loop
Closed-loop
-2 -6
0 2 4 6 8 10 0 2 4 6 8 10
MPC Front Force uf (N) MPC Rear Force ur (N)

150 20
0
100
-20
50
-40
0
-60
-50 -80
0 2 4 6 8 10 0 2 4 6 8 10
My (Nm) h, Z+h (cm)

100 5
road height h
80 relative displacement Z+h
0
60
-5
40
-10
20
0 -15
0 2 4 6 8 10 0 2 4 6 8 10

Frequency analysis of MPC (for small signals)
• Unconstrained MPC gain + linear observer = linear dynamical system
• Closed-loop MPC analysis can be performed using standard frequency-domain

tools (e.g., Bode plots for sensitivity analysis)
process ym(t)
x(t)
u(t)
MPC
^
x(t) r(t)
>> sys=ss(mpcobj) returns the LTI object of the MPC controller

>> sys=tf(mpcobj) (when constraints are inactive)

Controller matching
• Given a desired linear controller u = Kd x, find a set of weights Q, R, P
defining an MPC problem such that
h i
− I 0 . . . 0 H −1 F = Kd
i.e., the MPC law coincides with Kd when the constraints are inactive
• Recall that the QP matrices are H = 2(R̄ + S̄ ′ Q̄S̄), F = 2S̄ ′ Q̄T̄ , where
Q 0 0 ... 0 
 R 0 ... 0     
B 0 ... 0 A
0 Q 0 ... 0
A2
. . . . . 0 R ... 0 AB B ... 0
Q̄ =  . . . . .  , R̄ =  .. .. . . ..  , S̄ =  .. .. . . ..  , T̄ =  .. 
. . . . . . . . . . . . . .
0 ... 0 Q 0 N −1 N −2
0 0 ... 0 P
0 ... 0 R A B A B ... B AN
• The above inverse optimality problem can be cast to a convex problem

(Di Cairano, Bemporad, 2010)
• More general result: see (Zanon, Bemporad, 2020)

Controller matching - Example
(Di Cairano, Bemporad, 2010)
• Open-loop process: y(t) = 1.8y(t − 1) + 1.2y(t − 2) + u(t − 1)
• Constraints: −24 ≤ u(t) ≤ 24, y(t) ≥ −5
• Desired controller = PID with gains KI = 0.248, KP = 0.752, KD = 2.237

" y(t−1) #
u(t) = − KI I(t) + KP y(t) + KD
Ts (y(t) − y(t − 1)) y(t−2)
x(t) = I(t−1)
I(t) = I(t − 1) + Ts y(t) u(t−1)
• Matching result (using inverse LQR):

6.401 0.064 −0.001 0.020
422.7 241.7 50.39 201.4
Q∗ = 0.064
−0.001
6.605
0.006
0.006
6.647
0.080
−0.020 , R∗ = 1, P ∗ = 241.7 151.0 32.13 120.4
50.39 32.13 19.85 26.75
0.019 0.080 −0.020 6.378 201.4 120.4 26.75 106.6

Controller matching - Example
20
10
0
y
−10
−20
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20
t
50 matched MPC
25
u1
−25
−50
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20
t
what PID would apply 20

0
−20
y2
−40
−60
−80
• Note: This is not trivially a −100

0 2 4 6 8 10
t
12 14 16 18 20
saturation of a PID controller. 50
In this case saturating the PID 25

u2
output leads to closed-loop −25
instability! −50
0 2 4 6 8 10
t
12 14 16 18 20

Linear MPC based on linear programming
Linear MPC based on LP
(Propoi, 1963) (Bemporad, Borrelli, Morari, 2003)
( x ∈ Rn
xk+1 = Axk + Buk
• Linear prediction model: u ∈ Rm
yk = Cxk
y ∈ Rp
• Constraints to enforce:
(
umin ≤ u(t) ≤ umax
ymin ≤ y(t) ≤ ymax
• Constrained optimal control problem (∞-norms): ∥v∥∞ ≜ max |vi |

i=1,...,n
X
N −1
min ∥P xN ∥∞ + ∥Qxk ∥∞ + ∥Ruk ∥∞  u0 
z
u1
k=0 R, Q, P
z= .. 
full rank .
s.t. umin ≤ uk ≤ umax , k = 0, . . . , N − 1 uN −1
ymin ≤ yk ≤ ymax , k = 1, . . . , N

• Basic trick: introduce slack variables (Qi = i-th row of Q)
ϵxk ≥ Qi xk i = 1, . . . , n
ϵxk ≥ −Qi xk k = 0, . . . , N − 1
ϵxk ≥ ∥Qxk ∥∞
ϵuk ≥ R i uk i = 1, . . . , m
ϵuk ≥ ∥Ruk ∥∞
ϵuk ≥ −Ri uk k = 0, . . . , N − 1
ϵxN ≥ ∥P xk ∥∞
ϵxN ≥ P i xN i = 1, . . . , n
ϵxN ≥ −P i xN
• Example:
minx |x| → minx,ϵ ϵ
s.t. ϵ ≥ x
ϵ ≥ −x

X
k−1
• Linear prediction model: xk = Ak x0 + Ai Buk−1−i
i=0
• Optimization problem:
V (x0 ) = min [1 . . . 1 0 . . . 0]z (linear objective)
z
s.t. Gz ≤ W + Sx0 (linear constraints)
Linear Program (LP)
• optimization vector: z ≜ [ϵu0 . . . ϵuN −1 ϵx1 . . . ϵxN u′0 , . . . , u′N −1 ]′ ∈ RN (nu +2)
• G, W , S are obtained from weights Q, R, P , and model matrices A, B , C
• Q, R, P can be selected to guarantee closed-loop stability

(Bemporad, Borrelli, Morari, 2003)

Extension to arbitrary convex PWA functions
a04x + b4
Result `(x)
a01x + b1
Every convex piecewise affine function
ℓ : Rn → R can be represented as the a03x + b3
max of affine functions, and vice versa

(Schechter, 1987)
x
a02x + b2
Example: ℓ(x) = |x| = max{x, −x}
ℓ(x) = max {a′1 x + b1 , . . . , a′4 x + b4 }
• Constrained optimal control problem
ℓk , ℓN , gk , gN are arbitrary
X
N −1
min ℓN (xN ) + ℓk (xk , uk ) convex piecewise affine (PWA)
U functions
k=0
s.t. gk (xk , uk ) ≤ 0, k = 0, . . . , N − 1
gN (xN ) ≤ 0

Convex PWA optimization problems and LP
• Minimization of a convex PWA function ℓ(x):
ϵ
minϵ,x ϵ

 ϵ ≥ a′1 x + b1

 ϵ ≥ a′ x + b
2 2
s.t.
 ϵ ≥ a′3 x + b3



x
ϵ ≥ a′4 x + b4
• By construction ϵ ≥ max{a′1 x + b1 , a′2 x + b2 , a′3 x + b3 , a′4 x + b4 }
• By contradiction it is easy to show that at the optimum we have that
ϵ = max{a′1 x + b1 , a′2 x + b2 , a′3 x + b3 , a′4 x + b4 }
• Convex PWA constraints ℓ(x) ≤ 0 can be handled similarly by imposing

a′i x + bi ≤ 0, ∀i = 1, 2, 3, 4

LP-based vs QP-based MPC
• QP- and LP-based share the same set of feasible inputs (Gz ≤ W + Sx)
• When constraints dominate over performance there is little difference

between them (e.g., during transients)
• Small-signal response, however, is usually less smooth with LP than with QP,
because in LP an optimal point is always on a vertex
LP optimizer QP optimizer
always on a same feasible set may lie
vertex anywhere
( )
Gz ≤ W + Sx
z: {z : Gz ≤ W + Sx}
Ḡz + Ēϵ ≤ W̄ + S̄x
ϵ = additional slack variables introduced
to represent convex PWA costs

1 Linear MPC

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

1 Linear MPC

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Model Predictive Control

Course page: http://cse.lab.imtlucca.it/~bemporad/mpc_course.html

• Linear time-varying and nonlinear MPC

• Quadratic programming (QP) and explicit MPC

– MPC Toolbox for MATLAB (linear/explicit/parameter-varying MPC)

– Hybrid Toolbox for MATLAB (explicit MPC, hybrid systems)

"Model Predictive Control" - © A. Bemporad. All rights reserved. 2/132

• For additional background:

"Model Predictive Control" - © A. Bemporad. All rights reserved. 3/132

set-points inputs outputs

"Model Predictive Control" - © A. Bemporad. All rights reserved. 4/132

umin ≤ uk ≤ umax constraints t t+k t+N

x0 = x(t) state feedback

numerical optimization problem

1 estimate current state x(t)

Repeat at all time steps t

• Online (event-based) re-planning used in GPS navigation

• You use MPC too when you drive !

"Model Predictive Control" - © A. Bemporad. All rights reserved. 6/132

(Rafal, Stevens, AiChE Journal, 1968)

Today APC (advanced process control) = MPC

"Model Predictive Control" - © A. Bemporad. All rights reserved. 7/132

Area Aspen Honeywell Adersab Invensys SGSc Total

Refining 1200 480 280 25 1985

"Model Predictive Control" - © A. Bemporad.

Petrochemical North America

Other Other Split-range

• Impact of advanced control technologies in industry

"Model Predictive Control" - © A. Bemporad. All rights reserved. 10/132

Current Impact Future Impact

Control Technology %High %High

As can be observed, MPC is clearly considered more impactful,

"Model Predictive Control" - © A. Bemporad. All rights reserved. 11/132

measurements y(t) u(t) actuator set-points

"Model Predictive Control" - © A. Bemporad. All rights reserved. 12/132

Powertrain Ford Motor Company

Model predictive control toolset 1 / 8

Most automotive OEMs are looking into MPC solutions today 4

"Model Predictive Control" - © A. Bemporad. All rights reserved. 13/132

"Model Predictive Control" - © A. Bemporad. All rights reserved. 14/132

Desired Actuators Achieved

numerical optimization problem

(Bemporad, Bernardini, Long, Verdejo, 2018)

engine operating at low pressure (66 kPa)

• Coordinate engine torque request and continuously variable transmission

"Model Predictive Control" - © A. Bemporad. All rights reserved. 16/132

• Multivariable system, 4 inputs, 4 outputs.

• Supervisory MPC for powertrain control

First known mass production of MPC in the automotive industry

"Model Predictive Control" - © A. Bemporad. All rights reserved. 17/132

Aerospace applications of MPC

cooperating UAVs powered descent planetary rover

"Model Predictive Control" - © A. Bemporad. All rights reserved. 18/132

"Model Predictive Control" - © A. Bemporad. All rights reserved. 19/132

Dispatch power in smart distribution grids, trade energy on energy markets

Challenges: account for dynamics, network topology, physical constraints, and

• ≈5% savings on energy costs w.r.t. current practice

"Model Predictive Control" - © A. Bemporad. All rights reserved. 21/132

• Goal: find a dynamic hedging policy of a portfolio replicating a synthetic

• A simple linear stochastic model describes the dynamics of portfolio wealth

• Stochastic MPC results:

Final wealth in portfolio

European call Napoleon cliquet