Location via proxy:   [ UP ]  
[Report a bug]   [Manage cookies]                
Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 50 views

    2021 Spring Model Predictive Control: Bilal Sadiq

    Uploaded by

    Bilal Sadiq
    The document summarizes a presentation on model predictive control. It discusses 1) constraints and optimization in MPC, including different types of constraints, and how to formulate constraints for quadratic programming. It then 2) compares simulation results of constrained and unconstrained MPC for a double lane change maneuver. The constrained MPC performs better by smoothing the responses while meeting control and state constraints. Next steps include adding a road friction constraint for more practical implementation.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PPTX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    2021 Spring Model Predictive Control: Bilal Sadiq

    Uploaded by

    Bilal Sadiq
    50 views15 pages
    The document summarizes a presentation on model predictive control. It discusses 1) constraints and optimization in MPC, including different types of constraints, and how to formulate constraints for quadratic programming. It then 2) compares simulation results of constrained and unconstrained MPC for a double lane change maneuver. The constrained MPC performs better by smoothing the responses while meeting control and state constraints. Next steps include adding a road friction constraint for more practical implementation.

    Original Title

    FinalPresentation

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    PPTX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    The document summarizes a presentation on model predictive control. It discusses 1) constraints and optimization in MPC, including different types of constraints, and how to formulate constraints for quadratic programming. It then 2) compares simulation results of constrained and unconstrained MPC for a double lane change maneuver. The constrained MPC performs better by smoothing the responses while meeting control and state constraints. Next steps include adding a road friction constraint for more practical implementation.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PPTX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as pptx, pdf, or txt
    50 views15 pages

    2021 Spring Model Predictive Control: Bilal Sadiq

    Uploaded by

    Bilal Sadiq
    The document summarizes a presentation on model predictive control. It discusses 1) constraints and optimization in MPC, including different types of constraints, and how to formulate constraints for quadratic programming. It then 2) compares simulation results of constrained and unconstrained MPC for a double lane change maneuver. The constrained MPC performs better by smoothing the responses while meeting control and state constraints. Next steps include adding a road friction constraint for more practical implementation.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PPTX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as pptx, pdf, or txt
    You are on page 1of 15

    2021 Spring

    Model Predictive Control

    2021.7.06

    Bilal Sadiq
    Department of Robotics Engineering
    Daegu Gyeongbuk Institute of Science and Technology (DGIST)

    Bilal Sadiq – bilalsadiq@dgist.ac.kr 1


    Today’s Presentation Agenda

    1. Constraints and Optimization

    2. Comparison and Simulations

    Bilal Sadiq – bilalsadiq@dgist.ac.kr 2


    1. Modified the Constraint on Control signal

    Bilal Sadiq – bilalsadiq@dgist.ac.kr 3


    1. Constraint and Optimization

    1. Constraints
     Imposes some restrictions on the model
     In Model predictive control System ,usually three types of constraints

      constraint on the Control variable


    constraint on the rate of change of control variable

     Constraint on the amplitude of the output

     Formulation of Constraint in MPC Terminology


     To apply the “ Inequallity constraints” to a system for quadratic programming they
    should be property assemble as shown in next slide

    Bilal Sadiq – bilalsadiq@dgist.ac.kr 4


    1. Constraint and Optimization
    1.C Constraints
     Formulation of Constraint in MPC Terminology
     A general form of representation is
    𝑀
      Χ≤𝛾
     So,the above inequality can be written as
     

     − 𝐼 − Δ 𝑈 𝑚𝑖𝑛
    [𝐼] ∆𝑈 ≤
    Δ𝑈[ 𝑚 𝑎𝑥 ]
      Formulation of Constraint in MPC Terminology for Optimal
    dU=quadprog(H,G,[],[],[],[],[],[],[],options)

    Bilal Sadiq – bilalsadiq@dgist.ac.kr 5


    2. Comparison and Simulations

     The path under study is the double lane change maneuvering

    Bilal Sadiq – bilalsadiq@dgist.ac.kr 6


    2. Comparison and Simulations
    2.a Early Results
     𝑟 𝑤 =0 𝑁 𝑝 =30 𝑁 𝑐 =5

    Bilal Sadiq – bilalsadiq@dgist.ac.kr 7


    2.Simulation Results
    2.a New Results
    I. Unconstrained with the following MPC Architecture 𝑥  ( 𝑘 }=[ Δ 𝑥 ( 𝑘 ) 𝑦 ( 𝑘 ) ] ′
    𝑇 −1 𝑇
    𝐶𝑜𝑛𝑡𝑟𝑜𝑙 𝐼𝑛𝑝𝑢𝑡  
    ∆ 𝑈 = ( Φ Φ+ 𝑅 ) Φ (𝑅𝑠 − 𝐹 ∗ 𝑥 ( 𝑘 𝑖 )
    )
     
    𝑇𝑢𝑛𝑖𝑛𝑔
      𝑉𝑎𝑟𝑖𝑎𝑏𝑙𝑒𝑠 𝑎𝑟𝑒
    A.
    i.  = 0.005
    ii. = 15  No Change at all in the responses
    iii. =10
    iv. =0.05

    B.
    i.  = 5  Significant Changes Occurs (Results on the next slides)
    ii. = 15
    iii. =10
    iv. =0.05

    Bilal Sadiq – bilalsadiq@dgist.ac.kr 8


    2.Simulation Results
    2.a New Results
    I. Unconstrained

     Highly dependent on the control Weight


    rather than the MPC parameters.
     Deterioration occurs in the response

    Bilal Sadiq – bilalsadiq@dgist.ac.kr 9


    2.Simulation Results
     Δ 𝛿
    II. Constrained with Same MPC Architecture ≤ Δ 𝛿 𝑓 ≤ Δ 𝛿 𝑓 ,𝑚𝑎𝑥 
    𝑓 ,𝑚𝑖𝑛 -
     𝛿 𝑓 , 𝑚𝑖𝑛 ≤ 𝛿 𝑓 ≤ 𝛿 𝑓 , 𝑚𝑎𝑥   -
    𝐶𝑜𝑛𝑡𝑟𝑜𝑙
      𝐼𝑛𝑝𝑢𝑡 dU=quadprog(H,G,[],[],[],[],[],[],[],options)
    𝑢𝑛𝑖𝑛𝑔 𝑉𝑎𝑟𝑖𝑎𝑏𝑙𝑒𝑠 𝑎𝑟𝑒
     
    R= 1
    i. = 15
    ii. =10
    iii. =0.05

    Bilal Sadiq – bilalsadiq@dgist.ac.kr 10


    2.Simulation Results
    II. Constrained with Same MPC Architecture

     
    R= 10
    i. = 15
    ii. =10
    iii. =0.05

    Bilal Sadiq – bilalsadiq@dgist.ac.kr 11


    2.Simulation Results
    II. Constrained with Same MPC Architecture

     
    R= 2e3
    i. = 15
    ii. =5
    iii. =0.05

    Bilal Sadiq – bilalsadiq@dgist.ac.kr 12


    2.Simulation Results

     To claim that our results are “somehow”


    close to what we are expecting

    Reference
    Path Tracking of Autonomous Adaptive Mode
    predictive control by Fen Lin et.al

    Bilal Sadiq – bilalsadiq@dgist.ac.kr 13


    3. Conclusion

    IN Next Meeting

     The focus will be on adding the Road Coefficient Friction as Constraint which is one of
    the most import and physical phenomena for a practical implementation .

     Try to smoothen the responses further.

    Bilal Sadiq – bilalsadiq@dgist.ac.kr 14


    Thank you

    Bilal Sadiq – bilalsadiq@dgist.ac.kr 15

    You might also like