Guaranteed set-point computation with application to the control of a sailboat

  • Pau Herrero
  • Luc Jaulin
  • Josep Vehí
  • Miguel A. Sainz
Regular Papers Control Theory


The problem of characterizing in a guaranteed way the set of all feasible set-points of a control problem is known to be difficult. In the present work, the problem to be solved involves non-linear equality constraints with variables affected by logical quantifiers. This problem is not solvable by current symbolic methods like quantifier elimination, which is commonly used for solving this class of problems. We propose the utilization of guaranteed set-computation techniques based on interval analysis, in particular a solver referred to as Quantified Set Inversion (QSI). As an application example, the problem of simultaneously controlling the speed and the orientation of a sailboat is presented. For this purpose, the combination of QSI solver and feedback linearization techniques is employed.


Feedback linearization interval analysis non-linear control set computation 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. [1]
    Microtransat Challenge Cup.
  2. [2]
  3. [3]
    C. Abdallah, P. Dorato, W. Yang, R. Liska, and S. Steinberg, “Applications of quantifier elimination theory to control system design,” Proc. of the 4th IEEE Mediterranean Symposium on Control and Automation, Crete, Greece, 1996.Google Scholar
  4. [4]
    F. Benhamou and F. Goulard, “Universally quantified interval constraints,” Lecture Notes in Computer Science - Proc. of the 6th International Conference on Principles and Practice of Constraint Programming, vol. 1894, pp. 67–82, 2000.Google Scholar
  5. [5]
    G. E. Collins, “Quantifier elimination for real closed fields by cylindrical algebraic decomposition,” Proc. of the 2nd GI Conf. Automata Theory and Formal Languages, vol. 33, pp. 134–189. Springer, 1975.Google Scholar
  6. [6]
    P. Dorato, “Quantified multivariate polynomial inequalities,” IEEE Control Systems Magazine, vol. 20, no. 5, pp. 48–58, 2000.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. [7]
    G. Elkaim and R. Kelbley, “Control architecture for segmented trajectory following of a wind-propelled autonomous catamaran,” Proc. of the AIAA Guidance, Navigation, and Control Conference, Keystone, CO, 2006.Google Scholar
  8. [8]
    G. Elkaim, B. Woodley, and R. Kelbley, “Model free subspace H-infinity control for an autonomous catamaran,” Proc. of the ION/IEEE Position, Location, and Navigation Symposium, San Diego, CA, 2006.Google Scholar
  9. [9]
    M. Fliess, J. Lévine, P. Martin, and P. Rouchon, “Flatness and defect of non-linear systems: introductory theory and examples,” International Journal of Control, vol. 61, no. 6, pp. 1327–1361, 1995.zbMATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  10. [10]
    E. Gardeñes, M. Á. Sainz, L. Jorba, R. Calm, R. Estela, H. Mielgo, and A. Trepat, “Modal intervals,” Reliable Computing, vol. 7, no. 2, pp. 77–111, 2001.zbMATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  11. [11]
    P. Herrero, Quantified Real Constraint Solving Using Modal Intervals with Applications to Control, Ph.D. thesis, Universitat de Girona, Girona, Spain, 2006.Google Scholar
  12. [12]
    P. Herrero and L. Jaulin, Software: SailBoat control using set computation and feedback linearization,
  13. [13]
    P. Herrero, J. Vehí, M. Á. Sainz, and L. Jaulin, “Quantified set inversion algorithm,” Reliable Computing, vol. 11, no. 5, pp. 369–382, 2005.zbMATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  14. [14]
    R. Hirschorn, “Output tracking through singularities,” SIAM Journal on Control and Optimization, vol. 40, no. 1, pp. 993–1010, 2001.zbMATHMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  15. [15]
    L. Jaulin, Représentation d’état pour la modélisation et la commande des systèmes, Hermes, 2001.Google Scholar
  16. [16]
    L. Jaulin, I. Braems, and E. Walter, “Interval methods for nonlinear identification and robust control,” Proc. of Conference on Decision and Control, La Vegas, 2002.Google Scholar
  17. [17]
    M. Jirstrand, “Nonlinear control system design by quantifier elimination,” Journal of Symbolic Computation, vol. 24, no. 2, pp. 137–152, 1997.zbMATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  18. [18]
    MiceLab, MISO: Modal Interval Software,
  19. [19]
    S. Ratschan, “Efficient solving of quantified inequality constraints over the real numbers,” ACM Trans. on Computational Logic, vol. 7, no. 4, pp. 723–748, 2006.MathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  20. [20]
    M. Sainz, P. Herrero, J. Vehi, and J. Armengol, “Continuous minimax optimization using modal intervals,” Journal of Mathematical Analysis and Applications, Elsevier Science, Oxford, UK, vol. 339, no. 1, pp. 18–30, 2006.Google Scholar
  21. [21]
    A. Tarski, A Decision Method for Elementary Algebra And Geometry, Univ. of California Press, Berkeley, 1951.zbMATHGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Institute of Control, Robotics and Systems and The Korean Institute of Electrical Engineers and Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  • Pau Herrero
    • 1
  • Luc Jaulin
    • 2
  • Josep Vehí
    • 3
  • Miguel A. Sainz
    • 3
  1. 1.CIBER-BBN — Hospital de la Santa Creu i Sant PauBarcelonaSpain
  2. 2.ENSIETA (Ecole Nationale Supérieure des Ingénieurs des Etudes et Techniques d’Armement)Brest Cédex 09France
  3. 3.Institut d’Informatica i AplicacionsUniversitat de GironaGironaSpain

Personalised recommendations