Advertisement

Mathematics in Computer Science

, Volume 8, Issue 3–4, pp 425–442 | Cite as

Determination of Inner and Outer Bounds of Reachable Sets Through Subpavings

  • Francisco RegoEmail author
  • Elwin de Weerdt
  • Eddy van Oort
  • Erik-Jan van Kampen
  • Qiping Chu
  • António M. Pascoal
Article
  • 125 Downloads

Abstract

The computation of the reachable set of states of a given dynamic system is an important step to verify its safety during operation. There are different methods of computing reachable sets, namely interval integration, capture basin, methods involving the minimum time to reach function, and level set methods. This work deals with interval integration to compute subpavings to over or under approximate reachable sets of low dimensional systems. The main advantage of this method is that, compared to guaranteed integration, it allows to control the amount of over-estimation at the cost of increased computational effort. An algorithm to over and under estimate sets through subpavings, which potentially reduces the computational load when the test function or the contractor is computationally heavy, is implemented and tested. This algorithm is used to compute inner and outer approximations of reachable sets. The test function and the contractors used in this work to obtain the subpavings involve guaranteed integration, provided either by the Euler method or by another guaranteed integration method. The methods developed were applied to compute inner and outer approximations of reachable sets for the double integrator example. From the results it was observed that using contractors instead of test functions yields much tighter results. It was also confirmed that for a given minimum box size there is an optimum time step such that with a greater or smaller time step worse results are obtained.

Keywords

Reachable sets Interval analysis Subpavings 

Mathematics Subject Classification

Primary 99Z99 Secondary 00A00 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Ding J., Sprinkle J., Tomlin C.J., Sastry S.S., Paunicka J.L.: Reachability calculations for vehicle safety during manned/unmanned vehicle interaction. J. Guid. Control Dyn. 35(1), 138–152 (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Margellos K., Lygeros J.: Toward 4-D trajectory management in air traffic control: a study based on Monte Carlo simulation and reachability analysis. IEEE Trans. Control Syst. Technol. 21(5), 1820–1833 (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Packard, A., Topcu, U., Seiler, P., Balas, G.: Quantitative Local Analysis of Nonlinear Systems Using Sum-of-Squares Decomposition, Main presentation. St.Louis, Missouri, USA: 2009 American Control Conference (2009, June 9)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Djeridane, B., Lygeros, J.: Neural approximation of PDE solutions: an application to reachability computations. In: 45th IEE Conference on Decision and Control, pp. 3034–3039 (2006)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Kurzhanski, A.B., Varaiya, P.: Ellipsoidal techniques for hybrid dynamics: the reachability problem. In: New Directions and Applications in Control Theory, pp. 193–205. Springer, Berlin Heidelberg (2005)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Mitchell, I.: Application of level set methods to control and reachability problems in continuous and hybrid systems. PhD dissertation, Stanford University (2002)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Mitchell I.M., Bayen A.M., Tomlin C.J.: A time-dependent Hamilton–Jacobi formulation of reachable sets for continuous dynamic games. IEEE Trans. Autom. Control 50(7), 947–957 (2005)CrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Lhommeau M., Jaulin L., Hardouin L.: Capture basin approximation using interval analysis. Int. J. Adapt. Control Signal Process. 25, 264–272 (2011)CrossRefzbMATHMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Neher M., Jackson K.R., Nedialkov N.S.: On Taylor Model Based Integration of ODEs. SIAM J. Numer. Anal. 45, 236–262 (2007)CrossRefzbMATHMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Nedialkov, N.S.: VNODE-LPa validated solver for initial value problems in ordinary differential equations. Department of Computing and Software, McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada, L8S 4K1, Technical Report CAS-06-06-NN, November 2006a. http://www.cas.mcmaster.ca/~nedialk/vnodelp
  11. 11.
    Nedialkov N.S., Jackson K.R.: An interval Hermite-Obreschkoff method for computing rigorous bounds on the solution of an initial value problem for an ordinary differential equation. Reliab. Comput. 5(3), 289–310 (1999)CrossRefzbMATHMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Nedialkov N.S., Jackson K.R., Pryce J.D.: An effective high-order interval method for validating existence and uniqueness of the solution of an IVP for an ODE. Reliab. Comput. 7(6), 449–465 (2001)CrossRefzbMATHMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Janssen M., Van Hentenryck P., Deville Y.: A constraint satisfaction approach for enclosing solutions to parametric ordinary differential equations. SIAM J. Numer. Anal. 40(5), 1896–1939 (2002)CrossRefzbMATHMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Asarin E., Dang T., Girard A.: Hybridization methods for the analysis of nonlinear systems. Acta Inform. 43(7), 451–476 (2007)CrossRefzbMATHMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Ramdani N., Meslem N., Candau Y.: A hybrid bounding method for computing an over-approximation for the reachable set of uncertain nonlinear systems. IEEE Trans. Autom. Control 54(10), 2352–2364 (2009)CrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Ramdani N., Meslem N., Candau Y.: Computing reachable sets for uncertain nonlinear monotone systems. Nonlinear Anal: Hybrid Syst. 4(2), 263–278 (2010)zbMATHMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    van Kampen, E., Chu, Q., Mulder, J., van Emden, M.: Nonlinear Aircraft Trim Using Interval Analysis. AIAA Guidance, Navigation, and Control Conference and Exhibit (2007)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    van Kampen E., Zaal P., de Weerdt E., Chu Q., Mulder J.: Optimization of human perception modeling using interval analysis. J. Guid. Control Dyn. 33, 42–52 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    de Weerdt, E., van Kampen, E., Chu, Q., Mulder, J.: New approach for integer ambiguity resolution using interval analysis. Navigation 55(4), 293–307 (2009)Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    van Kampen, E., de Weerdt, E., Chu, Q., Mulder, J.: Aircraft Attitude Determination Using GPS and an Interval Integer Ambiguity Resolution Algorithm. AIAA Guidance, Navigation, and Control Conference, Chicago (2009)Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Filipe, N., de Weerdt, E., van Kampen, E., Chu, Q., Mulder, J.: Terminal Area Energy Management Trajectory Optimzation Using Interval Analysis. AIAA Guidance, Navigation, and Control Conference, Chicago (2009)Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    de Weerdt, E., Chu, Q., Mulder, J.: Global Fuel Optimization for Constrained Spacecraft Formation Rotations. AIAA Guidance, Navigation, and Control Conference, Chicago (2009)Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Moore, R.E., Kearfott, R.B., Cloud, M.J.: Introduction to Interval Analysis. SIAM (2009)Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Knppel, O.: PROFIL/BIAS V 2.0 report 99.1. TUHH (1999)Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Rump, S.: INTLAB—INTerval LABoratory. In: Csendes, T. (ed.) Developments in Reliable Computing, pp. 77–104. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht (1999)Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Jaulin, L., Kiefer, M., Didrit, O., Walter, E.: Applied Interval Analysis. Springer, Berlin (2001)Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Lin Y., Stadtherr M.A.: Validated solution of ODEs with parametric uncertainties. Comput. Aided Chem. Eng. 21, 167–172 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Basel 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  • Francisco Rego
    • 1
    Email author
  • Elwin de Weerdt
    • 2
  • Eddy van Oort
    • 3
  • Erik-Jan van Kampen
    • 4
  • Qiping Chu
    • 4
  • António M. Pascoal
    • 5
  1. 1.Automatic Control Laboratory 3 LA3, School of Engineering STI, École Polytechnique Fédérale de Lausanne EPFLLausanne and Institute for Systems and Robotics ISR, Instituto Superior Técnico ISTLisbonPortugal
  2. 2.Philips HealthcareEindhovenThe Netherlands
  3. 3.FramesAlphen aan der RijnThe Netherlands
  4. 4.Faculty of Aerospace Engineering, Control and Simulation DivisionDelft University of TechnologyDelftThe Netherlands
  5. 5.Institute for Systems and Robotics ISR, Instituto Superior Técnico ISTLisbon and National Institute Of Oceanography NIODona PaulaIndia

Personalised recommendations