Skip to main content
Log in

Computationally aware control of autonomous vehicles: a hybrid model predictive control approach

  • Published:
Autonomous Robots Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Model predictive control (MPC) is a common approach to the control of trajectory-following systems. For nonlinear plants such as car-like robots, methods for path planning and following have the advantage of concurrently solving problems of obstacle avoidance, feasible trajectory selection, and trajectory following. A prediction function for the plant is used to simulate the trajectory with a candidate stream of inputs. Constraints on control inputs and state values, used to ensure safe trajectories and to avoid obstacles, are encoded into a cost function, and optimization routines (at runtime) compute the trajectories and their corresponding control inputs. Such approaches are computationally intensive, and in the nonlinear case the computational burden generally grows as a predictive model more closely approximates a nonlinear plant. In situations where system safety is paramount, guaranteeing model accuracy (in order to achieve more accurate behavior) comes at the cost of increased computation time, which results in increased travel time without a new solution. While the computational burden of predictive methods can be addressed through model reduction, the cost of modeling error over the prediction horizon is high and can lead to unfeasible results. In this paper, we consider the problem of controlling a ground vehicle under constraints and propose an algorithm that employs two models of the vehicle for model predictive control, one coarse and the other more accurate. We introduce a metric called uncontrollable divergence and, using this metric, propose a mechanism to select the model to use in the predictive controller. The novel property of the metric is that it reveals the divergence between predicted and true states caused by return time and model mismatch. More precisely, a map of uncontrollable divergence plotted over the state space gives the criterion to judge where coarse models can be tolerated when a high update rate is preferred (e.g., at high speed and small steering angles), and where high-fidelity models are required to avoid obstacles or make tighter curves (e.g., at large steering angles). With this metric, we design a controller that switches at runtime between predictive controllers in which respective models are deployed. The algorithm is a hybrid controller, which evaluates the proposed metric to select the discrete vehicle model to use for prediction and optimization. We say that the approach is computationally aware, in that the optimization time of each predictive model is dependent on the computation substrate used (chipset, machine architecture, etc.); if a different computational platform is used, then the uncontrollable divergence calculations will lead to a hybrid controller suitable to meet the computation demands for that platform. While the ideas are presented for the solution of a vehicle control problem, the approach has the potential to impact other computationally-demanding cyber-physical systems. The paper extends (Zhang et al., Proceedings of the international conference on cyber-physical system, Seattle, 2015) in a significant way, by demonstrating the calculation of uncontrollable divergence on a physical platform, by characterizing MPC return time as a function of the number of obstacles, and by simulating performance with trajectories that must navigate more obstacles.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6
Fig. 7
Fig. 8
Fig. 9
Fig. 10
Fig. 11
Fig. 12
Fig. 13
Fig. 14

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. The dimension of the state of each resulting discrete-time model is allowed to be different. In such a case, since the number of models is finite, one can embed all of the models into the largest space of size n by adding dummy variables. The same argument applies for the dimension of the inputs.

  2. Available from http://www.carsim.com.

  3. For clarity of notation, we use \(\hat{z}_{k,k+1}^{q}\), rather than \(\hat{z}_{k,k+1}^{q*}\), even though \(\hat{f}_P^q\left( \hat{z}, \kappa _q(\hat{z})\right) \) produces state from the initial optimal input \(\hat{u}_{k,k}^{q*}=\kappa _q(\hat{z}_k)\), as the notation could also indicate selection of optimal \(q \in \mathbb {Q}\).

References

  • Alamo, T., de la Pena, D. M., Limon, D., & Camacho, E. F. (2005). Constrained min-max predictive control: Modifications of the objective function leading to polynomial complexity. IEEE Transactions on Automatic Control, 50(5), 710–714.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Alamo, T., de la Pea, D. M., & Camacho, E. F. (2008). An efficient maximization algorithm with implications in min-max predictive control. IEEE Transactions on Automatic Control, 53(9), 2192–2197.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Alamo, T., de la Peña, D. M., & Camacho, E. F. (2008). Min-max MPC based on a network problem. Systems & Control Letters, 57(2), 184–192.

    Article  MATH  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  • Alamo, T., Tempo, R., & Camacho, E. F. (2009). Randomized strategies for probabilistic solutions of uncertain feasibility and optimization problems. IEEE Transactions on Automatic Control, 54(11), 2545–2559.

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  • Bahadorian, M., Savkovic, B., Eaton, R., & Hesketh, T. (2012). Robust model predictive control for automated trajectory tracking of an unmanned ground vehicle. In: Proceedings of the American control conference (ACC), 2012 (pp. 4251–4256). IEEE.

  • Bemporad, A., & Rocchi, C. (2011). Decentralized linear time-varying model predictive control of a formation of unmanned aerial vehicles. In: Proceedings of the 50th IEEE conference on decision and control and european control conference (CDC-ECC), 2011 (pp. 7488–7493). IEEE.

  • Bemporad, A., & Morari, M. (1999). Control of systems integrating logic, dynamics, and constraints. Automatica, 35(3), 407–427.

    Article  MATH  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  • Camacho, E. F., & Bordons, C. A. (1997). Model predictive control in the process industry. New York: Springer

  • Cannon, M., & Kouvaritakis, B. (2000). Continuous-time predictive control of constrained nonlinear systems. In Nonlinear model predictive control (pp. 205–215). New York: Springer.

  • Egerstedt, M., Hu, X., & Stotsky, A. (1998). Control of a car-like robot using a dynamic model. In: Proceedings of the IEEE international conference on robotics and automation ICRA (pp. 3273–3278). Citeseer.

  • Falcone, P., Borrelli, F., Tsengz, H., Asgari, J., & Hrovat, D. (2008). A hierarchical model predictive control framework for autonomous ground vehicles. In: Proceedings of the american control conference, 2008 (pp. 3719–3724). IEEE.

  • Falcone, P., Tufo, M., Borrelli, F., Asgari, J., & Tsengz, H. (2007). A linear time varying model predictive control approach to the integrated vehicle dynamics control problem in autonomous systems. In: Proceedings of the 46th IEEE conference on decision and control, 2007 (pp. 2980–2985). IEEE.

  • Falcone, P., Borrelli, F., Asgari, J., Tseng, H. E., & Hrovat, D. (2007). Predictive active steering control for autonomous vehicle systems. IEEE Transactions on Control Systems Technology, 15(3), 566–580.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Falugi, P., & Mayne, D. Q. (2014). Getting robustness against unstructured uncertainty: a tube-based MPC approach. IEEE Transactions on Automatic Control, 59(5), 1290–1295.

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  • Garcia, C. E., Prett, D. M., & Morari, M. (1989). Model predictive control: Theory and practice—a survey. Automatica, 25(3), 335–348.

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  • Gay, D. M., & Kernighan, B. (2002). Ampl: A modeling language for mathematical programming (vol. 2). Pacific Grove, CA: Duxbury Press/Brooks/Cole

  • Goebel, R., Sanfelice, R. G., & Teel, A. R. (2012). Hybrid dynamical systems: Modeling, stability, and robustness. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Henson, M. A. (1998). Nonlinear model predictive control: Current status and future directions. Computers and Chemical Engineering, 23(2), 187–202.

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  • Kothare, M. V., Balakrishnan, V., & Morari, M. (1996). Robust constrained model predictive control using linear matrix inequalities. Automatica, 32(10), 1361–1379.

    Article  MATH  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  • Kuhne, F., Lages, W. F., & da Silva Jr, J. M. G. (2004). Model predictive control of a mobile robot using linearization. In: Proceedings of mechatronics and robotics (pp. 525–530).

  • Künhe, F., Gomes, J., & Fetter, W. (2005). Mobile robot trajectory tracking using model predictive control. In: Proceedings of the II IEEE Latin-American robotics symposium. IEEE

  • Løvaas, C., Seron, M i a  M, & Goodwin, G . C. (2008). Robust output-feedback model predictive control for systems with unstructured uncertainty. Automatica, 44(8), 1933–1943.

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  • Mayne, D. Q. (2014). Model predictive control: Recent developments and future promise. Automatica, 50(12), 2967–2986.

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  • Narby, E. (2006). Modeling and estimation of dynamic tire properties. Master’s Thesis, Linkpings Universitet, Linkpings.

  • Parker, R. S., Gatzke, E. P., Mahadevan, R., Meadows, E. S., & Doyle, F. (2001). Nonlinear model predictive control: Issues and applications. IEE Control Engineering Series (pp. 33–58).

  • Qin, S. J., & Badgwell, T. A. (2003). A survey of industrial model predictive control technology. Control Engineering Practice, 11(7), 733–764.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rawlings, J. B. (1999). Tutorial: Model predictive control technology. In: Proceedings of the american control conference, 1999 (vol. 1, pp. 662–676). IEEE.

  • Richards, A. (2005). Robust model predictive control for time-varying systems. In: Proceedings of the 44th IEEE conference on decision and control, 2005 European Control Conference CDC-ECC’05 (pp. 3747–3752). IEEE.

  • Richards, A., & How, J. P. (2002). Aircraft trajectory planning with collision avoidance using mixed integer linear programming. In: Proceedings of the american control conference, 2002 (vol. 3, pp. 1936–1941). IEEE.

  • Schubert, R., Richter, E., & Wanielik, G. (2008). Comparison and evaluation of advanced motion models for vehicle tracking. In: Procedings of the 11th international conference on information fusion, 2008 (pp. 1–6). IEEE.

  • Walsh, G., Tilbury, D., Sastry, S., Murray, R., & Laumond, J.-P. (1994). Stabilization of trajectories for systems with nonholonomic constraints. IEEE Transactions on Automatic Control, 39(1), 216–222.

    Article  MATH  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  • Whitsitt, S., & Sprinkle, J. (2012). A passenger comfort controller for an autonomous ground vehicle. In: Proceedings of the 51st IEEE conference on decision and control (pp. 3380–3385). IEEE

  • Zeilinger, M. N., Raimondo, D. M., Domahidi, A., Morari, M., & Jones, C. N. (2014). On real-time robust model predictive control. Automatica, 50(3), 683–694.

    Article  MATH  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  • Zhang, K., Sprinkle, J., & Sanfelice, R. G. (2015). A hybrid model predictive controller for path planning and path following. In: Proceedings of the international conference on cyber-physical systems (ICCPS), Seattle, WA (pp. 139–148). New York: ACM.

  • Zhao, Z., Xia, X., Wang, J., Gu, J., & Jin, Y. (2003). Nonlinear dynamic matrix control based on multiple operating models. Journal of Process Control, 13(1), 41–56.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

The work by K. Zhang and J. Sprinkle is supported in part by the National Science Foundation under Award CNS-1253334. Research by R. G. Sanfelice has been partially supported by the National Science Foundation under Grant No. ECS-1150306 and by AFOSR under Grant No. FA9550-12-1-0366.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Kun Zhang.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Zhang, K., Sprinkle, J. & Sanfelice, R.G. Computationally aware control of autonomous vehicles: a hybrid model predictive control approach. Auton Robot 39, 503–517 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10514-015-9469-5

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10514-015-9469-5

Keywords

Navigation