1 model predictive control: on-line optimization versus explicit precomputed controller espen...
TRANSCRIPT
![Page 1: 1 Model Predictive Control: On-line optimization versus explicit precomputed controller Espen Storkaas Trondheim, 7.6. 2005](https://reader033.vdocuments.net/reader033/viewer/2022051517/56649ea85503460f94bab464/html5/thumbnails/1.jpg)
1
Model Predictive Control: On-line optimization versus explicitprecomputed controller
Espen Storkaas
Trondheim, 7.6. 2005
![Page 2: 1 Model Predictive Control: On-line optimization versus explicit precomputed controller Espen Storkaas Trondheim, 7.6. 2005](https://reader033.vdocuments.net/reader033/viewer/2022051517/56649ea85503460f94bab464/html5/thumbnails/2.jpg)
2
Outline
• Introduction• Brief history• Linear MPC
– Theory, feasibility, stability, performance
• Derivation of explicit MPC• Nonlinear and hybrid MPC• Applications• Future directions• Conclusions
![Page 3: 1 Model Predictive Control: On-line optimization versus explicit precomputed controller Espen Storkaas Trondheim, 7.6. 2005](https://reader033.vdocuments.net/reader033/viewer/2022051517/56649ea85503460f94bab464/html5/thumbnails/3.jpg)
3
Introduction
Control problem:Find stabilizing control strategy that– Minimize objective functional
– Satisfies constraints
– is robust towards uncertainty
![Page 4: 1 Model Predictive Control: On-line optimization versus explicit precomputed controller Espen Storkaas Trondheim, 7.6. 2005](https://reader033.vdocuments.net/reader033/viewer/2022051517/56649ea85503460f94bab464/html5/thumbnails/4.jpg)
4
Solution strategies
Closed loop optimal controlFeedback: u=k(x)
s.t. closed loop trajectories satisfying optimality
Advantages:• Feedback• Uncertainty• Disturbances• Unstable systemsDrawbacks• Find k(x)?
Open loop optimal controlInput trajectory: u=u(t,x0)
solving optimization problem
Advantages: • Computationally feasibleDrawbacks:• No feedback• Disturbances?• Unstable systems• Uncertainty
![Page 5: 1 Model Predictive Control: On-line optimization versus explicit precomputed controller Espen Storkaas Trondheim, 7.6. 2005](https://reader033.vdocuments.net/reader033/viewer/2022051517/56649ea85503460f94bab464/html5/thumbnails/5.jpg)
5
Possible solution 1 : MPC with online optimization
• Solve optimization problem over finite horizon
• Implement optimal input for 2[t,t+]
• Re-optimize at next sample (feedback)
• Optimal control inputs implicitly via optimalization
t
Setpoint
x(t)
Control horizon
Prediction horizon
U={ut|t, …,ut+N|t}
![Page 6: 1 Model Predictive Control: On-line optimization versus explicit precomputed controller Espen Storkaas Trondheim, 7.6. 2005](https://reader033.vdocuments.net/reader033/viewer/2022051517/56649ea85503460f94bab464/html5/thumbnails/6.jpg)
6
MPC with online optimization
(Allgöwer, 2004)
![Page 7: 1 Model Predictive Control: On-line optimization versus explicit precomputed controller Espen Storkaas Trondheim, 7.6. 2005](https://reader033.vdocuments.net/reader033/viewer/2022051517/56649ea85503460f94bab464/html5/thumbnails/7.jpg)
7
Solution strategies
Close loop optimal controlFeedback: u=k(x)
s.t. closed loop trajectories satisfying optimality
Advantages:• Feedback• Uncertainty• Disturbances• Unstable systemsDrawbacks• Find k(x)?
Open loop optimal controlInput trajectory: u=u(t,x0)
solving optimization problem
Advantages: • Computationally feasibleDrawbacks:• No feedback• Disturbances?• Unstable systems• Uncertainty
![Page 8: 1 Model Predictive Control: On-line optimization versus explicit precomputed controller Espen Storkaas Trondheim, 7.6. 2005](https://reader033.vdocuments.net/reader033/viewer/2022051517/56649ea85503460f94bab464/html5/thumbnails/8.jpg)
8
Possible solution 2: Explicit MPC(Bemporad et al., 2002, Tøndel et al., 2003)
• Solve optimization problem offline for all x2X• For linear systems: multiparametric QP (mp-QP) with
solution
• Piecewise affine controller• Exactly identical to implicit solution (via online
optimization)
![Page 9: 1 Model Predictive Control: On-line optimization versus explicit precomputed controller Espen Storkaas Trondheim, 7.6. 2005](https://reader033.vdocuments.net/reader033/viewer/2022051517/56649ea85503460f94bab464/html5/thumbnails/9.jpg)
9
Model Predictive Control (MPC)Brief history(Qin & Badgwell, 2003)
• LQR (Kalman, 1964)– Unconstrained infinite horizon
• Constrained finite horizon – MPC (Richalet et al., 1978, Cutler & Ramaker,1979) – Driven by demands in industry– Defined MPC paradigm
• Posed as quadration program (QP) (Cutler et al. 1983)– Constraints appear explicitly
• Academic research (919 papers in 2002! (Allgöwer, 2004))– Stability– Performance
• Explicit MPC (Bemporad et al. 2002, Tøndel et al. 2003)
![Page 10: 1 Model Predictive Control: On-line optimization versus explicit precomputed controller Espen Storkaas Trondheim, 7.6. 2005](https://reader033.vdocuments.net/reader033/viewer/2022051517/56649ea85503460f94bab464/html5/thumbnails/10.jpg)
10
Linear MPC – Problem formulation(Scokaert & Rawlings, 1998, Bemporad et al, 2002)
• Linear time-invariant discrete model:
• Objective:
• Constraints:
![Page 11: 1 Model Predictive Control: On-line optimization versus explicit precomputed controller Espen Storkaas Trondheim, 7.6. 2005](https://reader033.vdocuments.net/reader033/viewer/2022051517/56649ea85503460f94bab464/html5/thumbnails/11.jpg)
11
Linear MPC – Unconstrained case
• Problem:
• Classical LQR solution (Kalman 1960)
• K calculated from algebraic Ricatti equation• Assymptotically stabilizing
![Page 12: 1 Model Predictive Control: On-line optimization versus explicit precomputed controller Espen Storkaas Trondheim, 7.6. 2005](https://reader033.vdocuments.net/reader033/viewer/2022051517/56649ea85503460f94bab464/html5/thumbnails/12.jpg)
12
Linear MPC – Infinite horizon (Constrained LQR)
• Problem:
• Infinite number of decision variables • Stability proved by Rawlings & Muske (1993)• Computationally feasible (Scokeart & Rawlings, 1998)• Computationally expensive
![Page 13: 1 Model Predictive Control: On-line optimization versus explicit precomputed controller Espen Storkaas Trondheim, 7.6. 2005](https://reader033.vdocuments.net/reader033/viewer/2022051517/56649ea85503460f94bab464/html5/thumbnails/13.jpg)
13
Linear MPC – Finite input horizon
• Problem:
• Achieved solution:
• Stabilizing for K=0 and K=KLQ provided N large enough
![Page 14: 1 Model Predictive Control: On-line optimization versus explicit precomputed controller Espen Storkaas Trondheim, 7.6. 2005](https://reader033.vdocuments.net/reader033/viewer/2022051517/56649ea85503460f94bab464/html5/thumbnails/14.jpg)
14
Important aspects
• Feasibility– Slack on output constraints– Feasible region for unstable systems under input constraints
• Closed loop stability – Contraction constraint– Terminal constraint (x(k+N)=0)– Stable for control horizon N ”large enough”
• Performance– Implemented control trajectory may differ significantly from
computed open-loop optimal – May lead to infeasibility– Solution: Long enough control horizon
• On-line computational requirements
x(t) * x(t+)
*
![Page 15: 1 Model Predictive Control: On-line optimization versus explicit precomputed controller Espen Storkaas Trondheim, 7.6. 2005](https://reader033.vdocuments.net/reader033/viewer/2022051517/56649ea85503460f94bab464/html5/thumbnails/15.jpg)
15
Derivation of explicit MPC (Bemporad et al., 2002)
• Rewrite constrained LQR problem:
• QP parameterized in initial state x(t)• Solution for all x(t) by multi-parametric quadratic program (mp-
QP)
• Solve mp-QP offline to find optimal solution U*t=U*(x(t))
• Optimal input given by
![Page 16: 1 Model Predictive Control: On-line optimization versus explicit precomputed controller Espen Storkaas Trondheim, 7.6. 2005](https://reader033.vdocuments.net/reader033/viewer/2022051517/56649ea85503460f94bab464/html5/thumbnails/16.jpg)
16
Derivation of explicit MPC (2)
• With
• From Karush-Kuhn-Tucker optimality conditions and assuming linearly independent active constraints:
• KKT conditions gives partitioning of feasible regions into polyhedra
• Inherits properties of optimization problem
![Page 17: 1 Model Predictive Control: On-line optimization versus explicit precomputed controller Espen Storkaas Trondheim, 7.6. 2005](https://reader033.vdocuments.net/reader033/viewer/2022051517/56649ea85503460f94bab464/html5/thumbnails/17.jpg)
17
Partitioning of state spaceOffline computations
Bemproad et al. 2002
Tøndel et al. 2003
Typical Algorithm:
• Choose initial active set
• Find control law for active set
• Find critical region correspond to active set
• Systematic exploration of remaining parameter space
• (Build search tree/reduce complexity)
![Page 18: 1 Model Predictive Control: On-line optimization versus explicit precomputed controller Espen Storkaas Trondheim, 7.6. 2005](https://reader033.vdocuments.net/reader033/viewer/2022051517/56649ea85503460f94bab464/html5/thumbnails/18.jpg)
18
Explicit MPC:Online computations
Computational requirements
Online CPU
Online m
em
ory
Binary search tree
Sequential search
• Determine critical region– Sequential search– Binary search tree
• Implement optimal control• Complexity of partition
increses with # states/parameters
![Page 19: 1 Model Predictive Control: On-line optimization versus explicit precomputed controller Espen Storkaas Trondheim, 7.6. 2005](https://reader033.vdocuments.net/reader033/viewer/2022051517/56649ea85503460f94bab464/html5/thumbnails/19.jpg)
19
Properties of explicit MPC
• Dimensional explosion• max 5-7 states/parameter
with current formulation • Disturbance rejection,
reference tracking and soft/variable constraints can be included, but increases complexity
• Greatly simplified code vs. online optimization – Safety-critical systems
0 2 4 6 8
Parameters
Mem
ory
req
uri
rem
en
ts
![Page 20: 1 Model Predictive Control: On-line optimization versus explicit precomputed controller Espen Storkaas Trondheim, 7.6. 2005](https://reader033.vdocuments.net/reader033/viewer/2022051517/56649ea85503460f94bab464/html5/thumbnails/20.jpg)
20
Nonlinear MPC
• Based on nonlinear process model and/or constraints to improve forcasting
• Requires solution of NLP, generally non-convex• Stability and performance issues more important• ”There are no analysis methods available that permit to
analyze close loop stability based on knowledge of plant model, objective functional and horizon lengths” (Allgöwer et al.,1999)
• Approaches:– Infinite horizon NMPC– Zero state terminal equality constraint – Dual mode NMPC– Contractive NMPC– Quasi-infinite horizon NMPC
![Page 21: 1 Model Predictive Control: On-line optimization versus explicit precomputed controller Espen Storkaas Trondheim, 7.6. 2005](https://reader033.vdocuments.net/reader033/viewer/2022051517/56649ea85503460f94bab464/html5/thumbnails/21.jpg)
21
Nonlinear explicit MPC
• Exact solution cannot be represented as PWA control law
• Approximative PWA solutions with user-specified tolerance can be found (Johansen, 2004)– Solution of NLP’s offline– k-d tree partitioning of state space– Joint convexity of obejctive functional and constraints
assumed
• Complexity similar to linear explicit MCP• Guaranteed stability under assumptions on tolerance• Larger potential than linear EMPC?
![Page 22: 1 Model Predictive Control: On-line optimization versus explicit precomputed controller Espen Storkaas Trondheim, 7.6. 2005](https://reader033.vdocuments.net/reader033/viewer/2022051517/56649ea85503460f94bab464/html5/thumbnails/22.jpg)
22
Hybrid MPC
• Applications to broad class of systems including – Linear hybrid dynamical systems– Piecewise linear systems (including approximations of
nonlinear systems– Linear systems with constraints
• Modeled as mixed logical dynamical systems (Bemporad & Morari, 1999)
• MPC problem is MILP/MIQP• Difficult to solve online in available time• Explicit Hybrid MPC is PWA (Bemporad et al. 2002, Dua
et al. 2002) – Identical to implicit solution found by online optimization
![Page 23: 1 Model Predictive Control: On-line optimization versus explicit precomputed controller Espen Storkaas Trondheim, 7.6. 2005](https://reader033.vdocuments.net/reader033/viewer/2022051517/56649ea85503460f94bab464/html5/thumbnails/23.jpg)
23
Application areas
Linear Nonlinear/Hybrid
Online optimization
+ Reconfigurable+ Proven technology- Slow processes- Not safety critical
Refinery
+Important nonlinearities/discret events+ Reconfigureable -Slow processes- Not safety critical
Polymer reactor
Explicit precomputed
+Safety critical+Low-cost hardware+High sampling rate-Low order-Fixed configuration
ESP for cars
+Safety critical+Low-cost hardware+High sampling rate-Low order-Fixed configuration
Compressor Anti-surge
![Page 24: 1 Model Predictive Control: On-line optimization versus explicit precomputed controller Espen Storkaas Trondheim, 7.6. 2005](https://reader033.vdocuments.net/reader033/viewer/2022051517/56649ea85503460f94bab464/html5/thumbnails/24.jpg)
24
Future directions
• Linear MPC– Improved models / adaptive formulations– Multi-objective, prioritized constraints etc.
• Nonlinear/Hybrid MPC– Computational efficiency– Guaranteed stability/performance
• Explicit MPC– Reduction of complexity vs degree of suboptimality– Reconfigurability
• Exploit structure of problem
![Page 25: 1 Model Predictive Control: On-line optimization versus explicit precomputed controller Espen Storkaas Trondheim, 7.6. 2005](https://reader033.vdocuments.net/reader033/viewer/2022051517/56649ea85503460f94bab464/html5/thumbnails/25.jpg)
25
Concluding remarks• Online optimization MPC for
– Slow systems– Large systems
• Explicit precomputed MPC for – Small systems with high sampling rate– Safety critical– Dedicated hardware (controller on a chip)
Acknowledgements
Thanks to Tor Arne Johansen, Petter Tøndel and Olav Slupphaug for invaluable help with preparing this presentation
![Page 26: 1 Model Predictive Control: On-line optimization versus explicit precomputed controller Espen Storkaas Trondheim, 7.6. 2005](https://reader033.vdocuments.net/reader033/viewer/2022051517/56649ea85503460f94bab464/html5/thumbnails/26.jpg)
26
Selected References
Allgöwer, F. (2004), Model Predictive Control: A Success Story Continues, APACT’04, Bath,April 26-28, 2004
Allgöwer, F., Badgwell, T.A., Qin, S.J., Rawlings, J.B. and Wright, S.J., (1999). Nonlinear predictive control and moving horizon estimation—an introductory overview. In: Frank, P.M., Editor, , 1999. Advances in control: highlights of ECC ’99, Springer,
Berlin. Bemporad, A., Morari, M., Dua, V. and Pistikopoulos, E.N. (2002), The explicit linear quadratic regulator for constrained systems. Automatica 38 1, pp. 3–20, 2002.
Bemporad A, Borrelli F, Morari M, (2002). On the optimal control law for linear discrete time hybrid systems, Lecture notes in computer science 2289: 105-119 2002
Bemporad A, Morari M, (1999), Control of systems integrating logic, dynamics and constraints, Automatica 35 (3): 407-427 MAR 1999
Cutler, C. R., & Ramaker, B. L. (1979). Dynamic matrix control—a computer control algorithm. AICHE national meeting, Houston, TX, April 1979.
Cutler, C., Morshedi, A., & Haydel, J. (1983). An industrial perspective on advanced control. In AICHE annual meeting, Washington, DC, October 1983
Dua V, Bozinis NA, Pistikopoulos EN. (2002), A multiparametric approach for mixed-integer quadratic engineering problems, Computers & Chemical Engineering 26 (4-5): 715-733 MAY 15 2002
![Page 27: 1 Model Predictive Control: On-line optimization versus explicit precomputed controller Espen Storkaas Trondheim, 7.6. 2005](https://reader033.vdocuments.net/reader033/viewer/2022051517/56649ea85503460f94bab464/html5/thumbnails/27.jpg)
27
Selected References
Kalman, R. (1964), When is a linear control system optimal?, Journal of Basic Engineering – Transactions on ASME – Series D, 51-60,
Johansen, T.A., Approximate Explicit Receding Horizon Control of Constrained Nonlinear Systems, Automatica, Vol. 40, pp. 293-300, 2004
Qin, SJ., Badgwell, TA., A survey of industrial model predictive control technology, Control Engineering practice 11 (7): 733-764, 2003
Rawlings, J.B. and Muske, K.R., 1993. Stability of constrained receding horizon control. IEEE Transactions on Automatic Control 38 10, pp. 1512–1516
Richalet, J., Rault, A., Testud, J.L. and Papon, J., Model predictive heuristic control: Applications to industrial processes. Automatica 14, pp. 413–428, 1978
Scokaert, P.O.M. and Rawlings, J.B., Constrained linear quadratic regulation. IEEE Transactions on Automatic Control 43 8, pp. 1163–1169, 1998
Tøndel, P., Johansen, T.A. and Bemporad, A.(2003), An algorithm for multi-parametric quadratic programming and explicit MPC solutions. Automatica 39, 2003
Tøndel, P., Johansen, T.A. and Bemporad, A (2003). Evalution of piecewise affine control via binary search tree. Automatica 39, 2003
![Page 28: 1 Model Predictive Control: On-line optimization versus explicit precomputed controller Espen Storkaas Trondheim, 7.6. 2005](https://reader033.vdocuments.net/reader033/viewer/2022051517/56649ea85503460f94bab464/html5/thumbnails/28.jpg)
28
Ting som ikke er nevnt
• Robusthet• Practical implementations
![Page 29: 1 Model Predictive Control: On-line optimization versus explicit precomputed controller Espen Storkaas Trondheim, 7.6. 2005](https://reader033.vdocuments.net/reader033/viewer/2022051517/56649ea85503460f94bab464/html5/thumbnails/29.jpg)
29
Thank you for your attention!
![Page 30: 1 Model Predictive Control: On-line optimization versus explicit precomputed controller Espen Storkaas Trondheim, 7.6. 2005](https://reader033.vdocuments.net/reader033/viewer/2022051517/56649ea85503460f94bab464/html5/thumbnails/30.jpg)
30
Functional spec. in modern MPC
• Prevent violation of input and output constraints• Drive CV’s to steady state optimal values (or within
bounds)• Drive MV’s to steady state optimal values (or within
bounds)• Prevent excessive use of MVs• In case of signal or actuator failure, control as much of
the plant as possible as possible
![Page 31: 1 Model Predictive Control: On-line optimization versus explicit precomputed controller Espen Storkaas Trondheim, 7.6. 2005](https://reader033.vdocuments.net/reader033/viewer/2022051517/56649ea85503460f94bab464/html5/thumbnails/31.jpg)
31
Modern industrial MPC algorithmOverview
• Read MV, CV, DV• Output feedback• Determination of controlled sub-
process• Removal of ill-condisioned plant• Local steady state optimization• Dynamical optimization• MV’s to process
![Page 32: 1 Model Predictive Control: On-line optimization versus explicit precomputed controller Espen Storkaas Trondheim, 7.6. 2005](https://reader033.vdocuments.net/reader033/viewer/2022051517/56649ea85503460f94bab464/html5/thumbnails/32.jpg)
32
Modern industrial MPC algorithmOutput feedback
• Process states and kalman filter seldom used• Ad-hoc biasing scheemes with challenges regarding
– Extra measurements ?– Linear combinations of states?– Unmeasured disturbances models?– Measurements noise?
• Implications– Sluggish input disturbance rejection– Poor control of integrating and unstable systems
![Page 33: 1 Model Predictive Control: On-line optimization versus explicit precomputed controller Espen Storkaas Trondheim, 7.6. 2005](https://reader033.vdocuments.net/reader033/viewer/2022051517/56649ea85503460f94bab464/html5/thumbnails/33.jpg)
33
Modern industrial MPC algorithmDynamic optimization
Deviations from output trajectory
Process model
Output constraints
Input constraints
Output slack variablesInput deviationsInput moves
![Page 34: 1 Model Predictive Control: On-line optimization versus explicit precomputed controller Espen Storkaas Trondheim, 7.6. 2005](https://reader033.vdocuments.net/reader033/viewer/2022051517/56649ea85503460f94bab464/html5/thumbnails/34.jpg)
34
Modern industrial MPC algorithmDynamic optimization (2)
• Solved as a sequence according to prioritized constraints and targets– Hard constraint on MV rate of change (always)– Hard constraint on MV magnitude– Sequential high priority soft constraints on CV’s– Set point control– Sequencial low priority soft constraints on CV’s and MV’s
![Page 35: 1 Model Predictive Control: On-line optimization versus explicit precomputed controller Espen Storkaas Trondheim, 7.6. 2005](https://reader033.vdocuments.net/reader033/viewer/2022051517/56649ea85503460f94bab464/html5/thumbnails/35.jpg)
35
Limitations with modern MPC algorithms
![Page 36: 1 Model Predictive Control: On-line optimization versus explicit precomputed controller Espen Storkaas Trondheim, 7.6. 2005](https://reader033.vdocuments.net/reader033/viewer/2022051517/56649ea85503460f94bab464/html5/thumbnails/36.jpg)
36
Pros/Cons
![Page 37: 1 Model Predictive Control: On-line optimization versus explicit precomputed controller Espen Storkaas Trondheim, 7.6. 2005](https://reader033.vdocuments.net/reader033/viewer/2022051517/56649ea85503460f94bab464/html5/thumbnails/37.jpg)
37
Road Ahead
![Page 38: 1 Model Predictive Control: On-line optimization versus explicit precomputed controller Espen Storkaas Trondheim, 7.6. 2005](https://reader033.vdocuments.net/reader033/viewer/2022051517/56649ea85503460f94bab464/html5/thumbnails/38.jpg)
38
Plan
• Introduction – General control problem formulation
• Goal• Constraints-ARW or MPC• Uncertainty• Etc.
– control hierachy• MPC
– History• Drivers (industry, academia)• Development
– State of the art• Theorethical status• Fuctionality• Industrial Practice• Limitations
– Theory• Explicit MPC
– History• Drivers
– Theory– State of the art
• Practical implementations?• limitations
• Pros/cons Online opt./xplicit• Future
– What drives the development?– Explicit MPC in process industry? Which problems can this solve?– Other industries? Probably skip!– Can challenges with explicit MPC be resolved faster than growth in computing power needed for online opt– Robustness of online opt
![Page 39: 1 Model Predictive Control: On-line optimization versus explicit precomputed controller Espen Storkaas Trondheim, 7.6. 2005](https://reader033.vdocuments.net/reader033/viewer/2022051517/56649ea85503460f94bab464/html5/thumbnails/39.jpg)
39
Optimal operation of constrained processes
Control of exothermal reaction
• Maximize throughput
• Quality requirements
• Limited cooling capacity
• Variable feed composition and temperature
E-1
V-1
P-1
P-2
CA,F , QF, TF
E-2
P-3
CA, CB, Q
V-2
P-6
CWL