22nd International Conference on Process Control, June 11–14, 2019, Štrbské Pleso, Slovakia
Robust event-triggered networked MPC with active
set updates
Patrik Berner♦
Ruhr-Universität Bochum
Automatic Control and Systems Theory
Email: patrik-simon.berner@rub.de
Michal Kvasnica
Slovak University of Technology Bratislava
Information Engineering, Automation, and Mathematics
Email: michal.kvasnica@stuba.sk
Abstract—We extend a recently proposed robust event-
triggered MPC approach that exploits the piecewise affine struc-
ture of the solution. Robust optimal feedback laws and their
regions of validity are calculated on a central compute node on
demand. These regional laws are used by one or more local nodes
in local feedback loops. Whenever one of the local systems detects
that the region of validity of the current optimal control law has
been left, it requests a new law from the central node. The present
paper uses a particular variant of updating the control laws in
a way that reduces the number of requests to the central node.
Index Terms—model predictive control, linear systems, robust
control
I. I NTRODUCTION
Many approaches have been proposed to reducing the com-
putational effort of model predictive controllers. The present
paper extends a method that exploits the piecewise-affine
structure of the underlying control law without ever calculating
this underlying law explicitly. In fact, the solution to the
optimal control problem at the current state (i.e., a point in the
space of the state variables) does not only yield the optimal
signal (i.e., a point in the space of the input variables), but
it provides an affine feedback law that is valid on a full-
dimensional region (i.e., not just a point) in the space of the
state variables. Because this feedback law is optimal on a
polytope P, it can be reused as long as the controlled system
stays in P. In other words, there is no need to solve another
optimal control problem until the controlled system leaves the
current polytope [1]. The sketched idea results in an event-
triggered approach, where leaving the current polytope is the
event that triggers the solution of a new quadratic program.
Note that this type of event-triggered MPC differs from other
event-triggered MPC approaches, where the deviation of the
predicted from the actual trajectory (see, e.g., [2]–[6]) or the
rate of change of the cost function are exploited (see, e.g.,
[7], [8]).
♦ These authors contributed equally to this work. Support by the Alexander
von Humboldt Foundation and the Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft (DFG)
under the grant MO 1086/15-1 is gratefully acknowledged.
c
978-1-7281-3758-2/19/$31.00
2019 IEEE 7
Authorized licensed use limited to: Trial User - Xian Univ of Architecture and Tech. Downloaded on March 25,2021 at 13:40:44 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
Kai König♦
Ruhr-Universität Bochum
Automatic Control and Systems Theory
Email: kai.koenig-h4d@rub.de
Martin Mönnigmann
Ruhr-Universität Bochum
Automatic Control and Systems Theory
Email: martin.moennigmann@rub.de
An implementation of the proposed event-triggered ap-
proach in a networked setting was proposed in [9], where
the current control law and its polytope are calculated on a
powerful central node and transmitted to a local node. The
local node then only needs to evaluate the optimal affine law,
which amounts to a few simple matrix-vector multiplications
and additions. Whenever the local node detects that the
controlled system has left the current polytope of validity,
it request a new law and polytope from the central node.
The approach presented in [9] was improved in [10]. It is the
idea to forecast the future affine control laws that have to be
evaluated on the local node, which can be done based on the
open-loop optimal solution. The central node then transmits
information that enables the local node to calculate not only
one, but several feedback laws without solving new QPs on
the central node. It is shown that both the number of requests
to the central node and the amount of transmitted data can be
reduced. In [11], the event-triggered approach from [1] was
extended to systems with additive disturbances. The event-
triggered setup, however, has not been investigated for the
case with additive disturbances.
It is the purpose of the present paper to combine the robust
approach from [11] with the idea presented in [10]. The central
node transmits information that enables the local node to
calculate not only optimal but robust optimal feedback laws.
As a result the new approach guarantees robust state and
input constraint satisfaction and robust exponential stability.
We compare the new robust approach to the approach in [11]
with respect to the number of avoided QPs, the transmitted
bits, and the computational effort on the local node.
We state the system and problem class along with some
preliminaries in Sect. II. The new approach is presented in
Sect. III and applied to an example in Sect. IV. In Sect. V we
give a short conclusion.
A. Notation
Let N[i,k] be short for {j ∈ N|i ≤ j ≤ k}. We often use
the abbreviations N = N[1,n] and M = N[n+1,n+m] . For an
 arbitrary matrix M ∈ Ra×b , let M L with L ⊆ {1, . . . , a}
describe the submatrix with the rows indicated by L. If L
contains only one element, say L = {i}, we write M i . For
any polytope P there exist T ∈ Rr×n and d ∈ Rr such that
P = {x ∈ Rn |T x ≤ d}. The hyperplane Hi is understood
to be {x ∈ Rn |T i x = di }. P ∩ Hc is called a facet F of
the polytope if P ∩ Hc is (n − 1)-dimensional. Whenever two
polytopes have a common facet they are called neighbouring.
II. PROBLEM STATEMENT AND PRELIMINARIES
A. Robust model predictive control problem
We treat disturbed linear time-invariant, discrete-time sys-
tems of the form
x(k + 1) = Ax(k) + Bu(k) + d(k)
with system matrices A ∈ Rn×n , B ∈ Rn×m , state variables
x(k) ∈ Rn , input variables u(k) ∈ Rm and disturbances
d(k) ∈ Rn . The system is subject to state, input and distur-
bance constraints x(k) ∈ X , u(k) ∈ U and d(k) ∈ D for all
k ≥ 0, where all sets are assumed to be convex and compact
polytopes that contain the origin in their interiors.
Systems of the considered type can be regulated to the origin
by solving the receding-horizon optimal control problem
N
X −1
min x̂(N )′ P x̂(N ) + (x̂(i)′ Qx̂(i) + û(i)′ Rû(i))
X,U
i=0
s.t. x − x̂(0) ∈ R,
x̂(i + 1) = Ax̂(i) + B û(i), i = 0, . . . , N − 1,
x̂(i) ∈ Xˆ, û(i) ∈ Û, i = 0, . . . , N − 1,
x̂(N ) ∈ T ,
with horizon length N , measured state x = x(0), state
sequence X = (x̂(0)′ , . . . , x̂(N )′ )′ , input sequence U =
(û(0)′ , . . . , û(N −1)′ )′ and the weighting matrices Q ∈ Rn×n ,
R ∈ Rm×m and P ∈ Rn×n [12]. Throughout the paper we
assume positive definiteness of Q and R, stabilizability of the
1
pair (A, B) and detectability of the pair (Q 2 , A). The terminal
weighting matrix P is set to the solution of the discrete time
Riccati equation. The set R is a robust positively invariant
(RPI) set for the system
x(k + 1) = (A + BK∞ )x(k) + d(k),
where we choose K∞ to be the LQR feedback gain matrix
K∞ = −(R + B T P B)−1 B T P A. We calculate polytopic RPI
sets R according to [13]. The state and input constraints in
(2) are defined by Xˆ = X ⊖ R and Û = U ⊖ KR. Note
that Xˆ and Û are polytopic since X , U and R are polytopes.
Moreover,
T = {x ∈ E|∀k ∈ N : (A + BK∞ )k x ∈ E},
where E = {x ∈ X̂ |K∞ x ∈ Û}. T is a polytope and
determined with the procedure described in [14].
Solving (2) for the current state in every time step results
in the model predictive control law
ǫ(x) = û⋆ (0) + K∞ (x − x̂⋆ (0)).
Authorized licensed use limited to: Trial User - Xian Univ of Architecture and Tech. Downloaded on March 25,2021 at 13:40:44 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
Choosing x = x̂(0), X̂ = X and Û = U problem (2)
results in a classical MPC problem for the undisturbed case.
The undisturbed case has been treated in [10].
B. Quadratic program and event-triggered MPC
The optimal control problem (2) can be stated as an equiv-
alent parametric quadratic program
1 T
min Z HZ s.t. GZ ≤ w + Ex (5)
Z 2
with the condensed decision variable Z = (x̂(0), U )′ and with
(1) H ≻ 0 under the assumptions stated in Sect. II-A, where we
omit details on the construction of H, G, E and w (see, e.g.,
[15]). We call a state x ∈ Rn feasible if a control input Z(x)
exists that satisfies the constraints in (5). The set of feasible
states is denoted Xf ⊆ Xˆ . The optimal solution to problem
(5) is denoted Z ⋆ (x) : Xf → Rn+mN with the associated
Lagrange multipliers λ⋆ (x) : Xf → Rq . We need the following
facts about (5) in the remainder of the paper (see [16], see also
[17], [11]).
Lemma 1 Consider (5) and let X̂ ∈ Rn be convex and
H ≻ 0. Then the optimizer Z ⋆ (x) and the Lagrange mul-
tipliers λ⋆ (x) are piecewise affine functions of the parameter
(2)
x. Moreover, Z ⋆ (x) is continuous and uniquely defined. There
exist a finite number p̄ of polytopes Pj⋆ with pairwise disjoint
p̄
Pj⋆ and
S
interiors such that Xf =
j=1
Z ⋆ (x) = Kj⋆ x + b⋆j if x ∈ Pj⋆ (6)
with Kj⋆ ∈ RmN ×n and b⋆j ∈ RmN .
We stress we never calculate (6) but only use some of its affine
pieces on demand.
Let A(x), I(x) and W(x) be the sets of active, inactive and
weakly active constraints, respectively. More precisely, let
A(x) = {i ∈ Q | Gi Z ⋆ (x) = wi + E i x},
I(x) = {i ∈ Q | Gi Z ⋆ (x) < wi + E i x} = Q\A(x), (7)
W(x) = {i ∈ A(x) | λ⋆i (x) = 0},
where Q := {1, . . . , q} and q is the number of constraints
in (5). We use A, I and W when the state x is clear from the
(3) context.
It follows from (6) that the optimal solution to problem (5)
for a point x ∈ Xf provides an affine law Kj⋆ x + b⋆j and its
region of validity Pj⋆ . This statement is summarized in Lemma
2, which follows from Theorem 2 in [16].
(4)
 Lemma 2 Let x ∈ Xf be arbitrary and A(x) the correspond- W2
W1
ing active set. Assume the matrix GA has full row rank. Let x2
V = (GA H −1 (GA )′ )−1 and W3
x̃(1)
K ⋆ = H −1 (GA )′ VE A , b⋆ = H −1 (GA )′ VwA , x(0) x̃(2)
L⋆ = −VE A , c⋆ = −VwA , P0⋆ P1⋆ P2⋆
A0
 I −1 A ′
G H (G ) VE A − E I

⋆
T = , (8) x̃(3)
VE A W4
 I −1 A ′ A
G H (G ) Vw − wI P4⋆

Ψ1 = {W1 } x̃(4)
d⋆ = − .
VwA Ψ2 = {W2 , W3 }
Ψ3 = {W4 } x1
Then Z ⋆ (x) = K ⋆ x + b⋆ is the affine optimizer and λ⋆A (x) =
Fig. 1: Constructing weakly active set sequence along the predicted closed-
L⋆ x + c⋆ are the corresponding active Lagrange multipliers loop trajectory on the central node (after Fig. 1 in [10]). The figure shows
on the polytope P ⋆ = {x ∈ Rn | T ⋆ x ≤ d⋆ }. the predicted closed loop-trajectory (blue trajectory), the polytopes along the
trajectory (red and green) and the intersected facets (white lines). The red
Note that we assume full row rank of GA in Lemma 2 for polytope results by solving QP (5). The dark green polytopes are constructed
by active set updates according to (10) without solving a QP. The light green
simplicity only. We refer to [11] for the case in which the full polytope does not contain a state of the predicted closed-loop trajectory and
row rank assumption does not hold. By substituting the affine need not be constructed on the local node.
optimizer Z ⋆ (x) in (4), the feedback law applied to system
(1) can be expressed as to result. In contrast to [10] we treat the tube-based MPC
u(x) = ǫ(x) = K † x + b† (9) problem in the present paper. In other words, we here have
the local node determine robust optimal feedback laws.
with K † = K ⋆M + K∞ − K∞ K ⋆N and b† = b⋆M − K∞ b⋆N . Technically, the central node calculates and transmits the
In [11] a robust affine control law calculated from the active set for the current system state and the weakly active
pointwise solution according to Lemma 2 is used as long as sets along a predicted state trajectory. Subsequently, the local
the closed-loop system stays in the corresponding polytope. node calculates (6) by using active set updates according to
After the state x leaves the current polytope, a new QP is Lemma 3 and only request new information from the central
solved to determine the active set of the next polytope. It is node when the active set updates fail to provide the correct
well-known that active sets of neighboring polytopes are often affine law. Since a single query to the central node enables
very similar to each other and differ in one element only [18]. the local node to compute more than one feedback law and
Therefore, instead of solving a QP, the active set of the next polytope, the number of requests to the central node can be
polytope can often be calculated by using the following update reduced. Figure 2 shows the robust approach from [11] in a
rule [19]. networked control setting and compares it to our new approach
with active set updates. Note that the transmitted weakly
Lemma 3 Let the conditions of Lemma 1 be fulfilled. Let Pj1 ⋆
active sets contain only a single constraint by construction
⋆
and Pj2 be two neighboring polytopes with the common facet (cf. Lemma 3). As a consequence, the amount of transmitted
⋆ ⋆
F . Let Aj1 and Aj2 refer to the active sets on Pj1 and Pj2 , data can be reduced by using Huffman encoding [20].
F F
respectively, and assume Aj1 is known. Let A and W be
F
the active and weakly active set on the common facet. If GA
has full row rank and the weakly active set W F = {i0 } Algorithm 1: Robust event-triggered networked MPC with
consists of exactly one constraint i0 , then active set updates, on local node (tube-based MPC variant
(
Aj1 ∪ {i0 } if i0 ∈ / Aj1 , of Alg. 1 in [10])
Aj2 = (10) 1 Input : QP Matrices acc. to (5).
Aj1 \ {i0 } if i0 ∈ Aj1 .
2 Initialization: k = 0.;
In [10] we proposed a networked MPC approach that uses 3 repeat
active set updates according to Lemma 3 in the undisturbed 4 Measure x(k) ;
case. It is the purpose of the present paper to extend the robust 5 Request A0 and Ψ1 , . . . , ΨnP −1 from central node (see
Algorithm 2).;
event-triggered MPC approach for the disturbed case presented 6 for j = 0; j ≤ nP − 1; j + + do
in [11] by the procedure proposed in [10]. 7 Calc. Kj⋆ , b⋆j and Pj⋆ from Aj with (8). ;
8 while x(k) ∈ Pj⋆ do
III. ROBUST EVENT- TRIGGERED NETWORKED MPC WITH
9 Apply uj (x) = Kj† x(k) + b†j acc. to (9). ;
ACTIVE SET UPDATES
10 k ← k + 1. ;
The basic idea of the approach proposed here is the same as 11 Measure x(k).;
in [10]. We transmit information from the central to the local 12 Aj+1 ← Update Aj with Ψj+1 acc. to (10). ;
node that enables the local node to autonomously determine 13 until True;
feedback laws and polytopes for future states x that are likely

Authorized licensed use limited to: Trial User - Xian Univ of Architecture and Tech. Downloaded on March 25,2021 at 13:40:44 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
 appr- computations on data transfer computations on
oach central node local node
a calc. K †, b†, T ⋆,d⋆ on demand (cf. (8), (9))
[11] solve QP (5) on de- A
mand, compute A for
the current state x x evaluate u(x) = K † x + b† and
only monitor x ∈ P ⋆ periodically

a solve QP (5) on
a demand, compute A A, {Ψ1 , . . . , ΨnP −1 }
here
and update sets Ψj
see Algorithm 1
x
along the predicted
state trajectory
Fig. 2: Comparison of new approach to [11] (after Fig. 2 in [10]). Dashed lines indicate transmission upon an event. The application of [11] to a networked
control setting is illustrated in the top figure. On the central node a QP is solved to determine the active set A for the current state x. The resulting A is then
sent to the local node, where the current robust optimal affine feedback law is determined according to (8) and (9) and reused as long as the system remains
in the corresponding polytope. In the approach presented here (bottom figure), not only the active set for the current state x is calculated and transmitted
but also the sequence of weakly active sets along the predicted closed loop-trajectory. As a consequence, more than one feedback law and polytope can be
calculated on the local node. The number of request to the central node and thus the number of QPs and the network traffic can be reduced.

Let us consider the closed-loop state-space trajectory pre-
dicted on the central node X̃ = (x̃(1)′ , . . . , x̃(N )′ )′ (see blue
trajectory in Fig. 1). By Wi with i ∈ {1, . . . , nF } we denote
the weakly active sets on the crossed facets along the trajectory
(white lines in Fig. 1), where nF is the number of crossed
facets from x(0) to x̃(N ). The order of the indices in Wi
matches the occurrence of the weakly active sets along the
trajectory.
Note that we distinguish between polytopes that contain a state
of the predicted trajectory (red and dark green polytopes in
Fig. 1) and those which do not (light green polytopes in Fig.
1). This classification is useful, because we do not reconstruct
polytopes marked in light green (i.e., we avoid to compute (8)
on the local node), thus reducing the computational effort on
the local node. Moreover, we distinguish between polytopes
that result by solving a QP (red) and those which can be
calculated with the update rule (10) without solving a QP
(dark green). The number of polytopes that contain a state of
the predicted trajectory is denoted by nP (red and dark green
polytopes in Fig. 1). We use Ψj with j ∈ {1, . . . , nP − 1}
to denote the update set of weakly active constraints that is
used to construct the polytope Pj from the active set of the
previous polytope. The set Ψj consists of the weakly active
sets on the crossed facets between these polytopes (see Fig.
1).
Algorithm 2: Robust event-triggered networked MPC
with active set updates, on central node (tube-based MPC
variant of Alg. 2 in [10])
1 Input : QP Matrices acc. to (5), x(k).
2 Output: A(x(k)) and Ψ1 , . . . , ΨnP −1 (for the calculation of
nP polytopes).
3 Calc. A(x(k)) by solving QP(x(k)).;
4 for j = 1; j ≤ nP − 1; j + + do
5 Ψj ← weakly active sets to construct polytope Pj from
Pj−1 (see [19] for details).
6 return A(x(k)), Ψ1 , . . . , ΨnP −1 ;
Algorithms 1 and 2 formalize our new approach. We
explain the algorithm based on the illustrative example in
Fig. 1. The local node measures the initial state x(0) and
requests the initial active set A0 = A(x(0)) as well as
the update sets along the predicted closed-loop trajectory
Ψ1 = {W1 }, Ψ2 = {W2 , W3 }, Ψ3 = {W4 } from the central
node. Details on the computation of the weakly active set
sequence along the trajectory can be found in [19]. A violation
of the conditions of Lemma 3 on a crossed facet can be
handled by transmitting those weakly active sets to the local
node that are available before this violation. Upon receiving
A0 and Ψ1 , Ψ2 , Ψ3 on the local node, the local robust feedback
law and corresponding polytope P0⋆ for x(0) are calculated
with A0 according to Lemma 2. The control law can be used
for all states within the polytope. If the system state leaves P0⋆ ,
solving a new QP on the central node can be avoided. Instead
robust feedback laws and polytopes in the upcoming time
steps are determined from the update sets Ψ1 , Ψ2 , Ψ3 . In the
present example, the active set for the unknown neighboring
polytope P1⋆ can be determined with the weakly active set
W1 contained in the set Ψ1 according to the update rule (10),
which applies by construction since the conditions of Lemma
3 have already been checked on the central node. The new
active set is used to compute the polytope P1⋆ and its robust
feedback law. As long as the measured state is located inside
P1⋆ , the corresponding control law can be reused. Otherwise,
the weakly active sets W2 and W3 within the set Ψ2 are used
one after the other to update the active set to compute the
next polytope P2⋆ . The procedure is repeated until the system
has been regulated to the set R. The measured states can
differ from the predicted ones illustrated in Fig. 1 due to
disturbances or model mismatch. Note that if the deviations are
within the set D then state and input constraint satisfaction can
be guaranteed nevertheless. Also robust exponential stability
to the set R is ensured. If a measured state is not located
in the polytope of the corresponding predicted state, or the
transmitted update sets are empty because of a violation of the
the conditions in Lemma 3, then the central node is requested

10

Authorized licensed use limited to: Trial User - Xian Univ of Architecture and Tech. Downloaded on March 25,2021 at 13:40:44 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
 to send a new active set and new update sets.
Note that the computational effort on the local node re-
sulting from active set updates is low since these updates
are simple set operations. The effort is reduced further by
not reconstructing polytopes that are skipped between two
successive states (light green polytope in Fig. 1).
IV. EXAMPLE
In this section the new approach is applied to an illustrative
example. We consider system (1) with the matrices

1 1
  
0.5
A= and B = . states. Specifically, it shows the number of requests to the
0 1 1
The state, input and disturbance constraints read X = {x ∈
R2 | − 20 ≤ x1 ≤ 50, −10 ≤ x2 ≤ 2}, U = {u ∈ R| − 1 ≤
u ≤ 1} and W = {w ∈ R2 | ||w||∞ ≤ 0.1}. The weighting
matrices are Q = I2 and R = 0.01 and the prediction horizon
is chosen to N = 9. The weighting matrix P , controller gain
K∞ , terminal set T and RPI set R are determined as explained
in Sect. II-A. The RPI set reads
     
∓0.2536 ∓0.0516 ±0.2536
R = conv , , .
±0.2519 ±0.2519 ∓0.0499
We simulate closed-loop trajectories until ||x(k)||2 ≤ 5 · 10−2 .
Figure 3 compares our new robust approach using active
set updates (bottom plot) to the robust approach from [11]
(top plot) for a random initial state. We regard the time-series
shown in the left figures first. If e(k) = 1, the central node
is requested to solve a QP and to send the sets A0 and Ψ to
the local node. If e(k) = 0, there is no data transfer between
the nodes. If r(k) = 1, update sets are used to reconstruct the
polytope at the current discrete time-step.
The system is regulated to the origin and satisfies the
constraints with both controllers. Both controllers result in the
same input sequences and state trajectories by construction.
However, with our approach the number of requests to the
central node can be cut in half for this example. Let us consider
Fig. 3 (c) in more detail. In time step k = 6, where e(k) = 1
and r(k) = 0, the rank condition of the update rule from
Lemma 3 is not fulfilled. This results in a new request to
the central node. In time step k = 9, where e(k) = 0 and
r(k) = 0, a previously calculated feedback law can be reused.
We now consider the state trajectories in the right plots. Red
and dark green polytopes and their corresponding feedback
laws are calculated with the active set according to (8) and
(9) on the local node. An active set is either determined by
solving a QP on the central node (red polytopes) or by active
set updates according to (10) (dark green polytopes). Polytopes
colored in light green do not contain a state of the closed-
loop trajectory and thus are not calculated on the local node.
Note that the corresponding active sets are still needed to use
updates according to Lemma 3. Furthermore note that active
set updates are computed with far less effort than the matrices
(8). Consequently, the number of operations on the local node
does not rise significantly.
A comparison of Fig. 3 (b) to (d) shows that our approach
uses more active sets as the approach from [11]. However,
11
Authorized licensed use limited to: Trial User - Xian Univ of Architecture and Tech. Downloaded on March 25,2021 at 13:40:44 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
TABLE I: Numerical results are obtained by steering the system from 1000
random initial states to the origin. We use 1Kib = 1024 bit, 1Mflop = 106
flop.
requests to transmitted calculations on
approach central node bits [Kib] local node [Mflop]
Robust reg. MPC [11] 8183 431.2 84.85
New robust approach 4561 546.6 85.29
fewer QPs have to be solved to determine the necessary
feedback laws and polytopes along the closed-loop trajectory.
Table I shows the simulation results for 1000 random initial
central node, transmitted bits and floating-point operations
(flops) on the local node for both approaches. The number of
transmitted bits results from transmitting the active and weakly
active sets using Huffman encoding [20] (see appendix). The
number of flops on the local node results from computing the
matrices K † , b† , T ⋆ and d⋆ according to (8) and (9) (see also
[9]). We assume that an active set update costs one flop.
It is obvious from Tab. I that our new approach reduces the
number of requests to the central node and thus the number
of solved QPs by about 44% compared to the approach from
[11]. Note that in a real-world setup connection establishments
and thus the overhead of the communication can be reduced
in this way. Simultaneously, the number of flops on the local
node is only slightly increased by less than 1% due to the
active set updates. The number of transmitted bits is increased
by approximately 27%. This is because the real polytopes
can deviate from the predicted ones due to the disturbances
resulting in unused update sets.
V. CONCLUSIONS AND FUTURE WORKS
We presented a robust networked event-triggered MPC
approach using active set updates. The new approach reduces
the number of solved QPs and thus the number of requests
to the central node. Further research has to investigate if the
computational effort on both the central and local node and
the amount of transmitted data can be further reduced.
VI. APPENDIX
The active and update sets are transmitted in our networked
control setting (see Fig. 2) using Huffman encoding. Specifi-
cally, we used the following codewords:
C = {0, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, , ; } ,
where ’ ’ and ’;’ are the delimiter to separate the update
sets Ψi and the weakly active sets within a single update set,
respectively. The corresponding relative weights are
p = {0.0128, 0.1282, 0.1154, 0.1026, 0.0897, 0.0769,
0.0641, 0.0513, 0.0385, 0.0256, 0.1538, 0.1410}.
We refer to [20] for more details.
 50

u(k) r(k) e(k) x(k)

0 0
-50
1 -1
0 -2

x2
1
0 -3
1 -4
0
-1 -5
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40
k x1
(a) (b)

50
u(k) r(k) e(k) x(k)

0 0
-50
1 -1
0 -2

x2
1 -3
0 -4
1
0 -5
-1
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40
k x
(c) (d) 1
Fig. 3: The left figures show the trajectories for states and inputs over time. Moreover, e(k) indicates whether new sets are requested by the local node
(e(k) = 1) and r(k) shows if the feedback law and polytope are reconstructed from active set updates (r(k) = 1). The polytopes in state-space are illustrated
in (b).

R EFERENCES IEEE Transactions on Automatic Control, vol. 50, no. 3, pp. 406–410,
2005.
[1] M. Jost, M. Schulze Darup, and M. Mönnigmann, “Optimal and subop- [14] E. G. Gilbert and K. T. Tan, “Linear systems with state and control
timal event-triggering in linear model predictive control,” in Proceedings constraints: the theory and application of maximal output admissible
of the 2015 European Control Conference, 2015, pp. 1147–1152. sets,” IEEE Transactions on Automatic Control, vol. 36, no. 9, pp. 1008–
[2] H. Li and Y. Shi, “Event-triggered robust model predictive control of 1020, 1991.
continuous-time nonlinear systems,” Automatica, vol. 50, no. 5, pp. [15] J. Maciejowski, Predictive Control with Constraints. Prentice Hall,
1507–1513, 2014. 2002.
[3] A. Ferrara, G. P. Incremona, and L. Magni, “Model-based event- [16] A. Bemporad, M. Morari, V. Dua, and E. N. Pistikopoulos, “The explicit
triggered robust MPC/ISM,” in European Control Conference (ECC), linear quadratic regulator for constrained systems,” Automatica, vol. 38,
2014, pp. 2931–2936. pp. 3–20, 2002.
[4] G. P. Incremona, A. Ferrara, and L. Magni, “Hierarchical model predic- [17] M. Zhao and X. Tang, “Robust tube-based MPC with piecewise affine
tive/sliding mode control of nonlinear constrained uncertain systems,” control laws,” Abstract and Applied Analysis, vol. 2014, p. 14, 2014,
IFAC-PapersOnLine, vol. 48, no. 23, pp. 102 – 109, 2015. article ID 358148.
[5] D. Bernardini and A. Bemporad, “Energy-aware robust model predictive [18] P. Tøndel, T. Johansen, and A. Bemporad, “An algorithm for multi-
control based on noisy wireless sensors,” Automatica, vol. 48, no. 1, pp. parametric quadratic programming and explicit MPC solutions,” in Proc.
36–44, Jan. 2012. of the 40th IEEE Conference on Decision and Control, vol. 2, 2001, pp.
[6] D. Lehmann, E. Henriksson, and K. H. Johansson, “Event-triggered 1199–1204.
model predictive control of discrete-time linear systems subject to [19] K. König and M. Mönnigmann, “Regional MPC with active set updates,”
disturbances,” in European Control Conference (ECC), 2013, pp. 1156– IFAC-PapersOnLine, vol. 50, no. 1, pp. 11 859 – 11 864, 2017.
1161. [20] D. E Knuth, “Dynamic huffman coding,” vol. 6, pp. 163–180, 06 1985.
[7] A. Eqtami, D. V. Dimarogonas, and K. J. Kyriakopoulos, “Event-
triggered control for discrete-time systems,” in Proc. of the 2010
American Control Conference, 2010, pp. 4719–4724.
[8] ——, “Novel event-triggered strategies for model predictive controllers,”
in Proc. of the 50th IEEE Conference on Decision and Control and
European Control Conference, 2011, pp. 3392–3397.
[9] P. Berner and M. Mönnigmann, “A comparison of four variants of event-
triggered networked MPC,” in Proceedings of the 2016 IEEE Multi-
Conference on Systems and Control, 2016, pp. 1519–1524.
[10] P. Berner, K. König, M. Kvasnica, and M. Mönnigmann, “Active
set updates in event-triggered networked MPC,” in European Control
Conference, in press, 2019.
[11] M. Schulze Darup, R. Dyrska, K. König, and M. Mönnigmann, “A novel
event-triggered robust MPC scheme for linear systems,” in Proceedings
of the 56th IEEE Conference on Decision and Control, 2017, pp. 2941–
2946.
[12] D. Mayne, M. Seron, and S. Raković, “Robust model predictive control
of constrained linear systems with bounded disturbances,” Automatica,
vol. 41, no. 2, pp. 219 – 224, 2005.
[13] S. V. Raković, E. C. Kerrigan, K. I. Kouramas, and D. Q. Mayne,
“Invariant approximations of the minimal robust positively invariant set,”

12

Authorized licensed use limited to: Trial User - Xian Univ of Architecture and Tech. Downloaded on March 25,2021 at 13:40:44 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.