Addressing Multiobjective Control: Safety and Performance through Constrained Optimization

  • Meeko Oishi
  • Claire J. Tomlin
  • Vipin Gopal
  • Datta Godbole
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 2034)


We address systems which have multiple objectives: broadly speaking, these objectives can be thought of as safety and performance goals. Guaranteeing safety is our first priority, satisfying performance criteria our second. In this paper, we compute the system’s safe operating space and represent it in closed form, and then, within this space, we compute solutions which optimize a given performance criterion. We describe the methodology and illustrate it with two examples of systems in which safety is paramount: a two-aircraft collision avoidance scenario and the flight management system of a VSTOL aircraft. In these examples, performance criteria are met using mixed-integer nonlinear programming (MINLP) and nonlinear programming (NLP), respectively. Optimized trajectories for both systems demonstrate the effectiveness of this methodology on systems whose safety is critical.


Model Predictive Control Collision Avoidance Performance Goal Safe Region Safety Constraint 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    J. Lygeros, C. Tomlin, and S. Sastry, “Multiobjective hybrid controller synthesis,” in Hybrid and Real-Time Systems (O. Maler, ed.), LNCS 1201, pp. 109–123, Grenoble: Springer Verlag, 1997. UCB/ERL Memo M97/59.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    M. Oishi and C. Tomlin, “Switched nonlinear control of a VSTOL aircraft,” in Proceedings of the IEEE Conference on Decision and Control, (Phoenix, AZ), 1999.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    C. Tomlin, Hybrid Control of Air Traffic Management Systems. PhD thesis, University of California, Berkeley, CA, September 1998.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    L. Biegler, “Efficient solution of dynamic optimization and MPC problems,” in Progress in Systems and Control Theory, vol. 26, pp. 219–243, Birkhauser Springer Verlag, 2000.MathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    V. Gopal and L. Biegler, “Large scale inequality constrained optimization and control,” IEEE Control Systems Magazine, vol. 18, pp. 59–68, December 1998.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    A. Bemporad and M. Morari, “Control of systems integrating logic, dynamics, and constraints,” Automatica, vol. 35, no. 3, pp. 407–427, 1999.zbMATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    E. Kerrigan, A. Bemporad, D. Mignone, M. Morari, and J. Maciejowski, “Multiobjective prioritisation and reconfiguration for the control of constrained hybrid systems,” in Proceedings of the IEEE Conference on Decision and Control, pp. 1694–1698, 2000.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    R. Schulz, D. Shaner, and Y. Zhao, “Free-flight concept,” in Proceedings of the AIAA Guidance, Navigation, and Control Conference, 1997.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    L. Yang and J. Kuchar, “Prototype conflict alerting logic for free flight,” in Proceedings of the AIAA Aerospace Sciences Meeting and Exhibit, 1997.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    R. Paielli and H. Erzberger, “Free flight conflict detection and resolution analysis,” in Proceedings of the AIAA Aerospace Sciences Meeting and Exhibit, 1997.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    R. Schulz and Y. Zhao, “Deterministic resolution of two aircraft conflict in freeflight,” in AIAA Guidance, Navigation, and Control Conference, 1997.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    V. Gopal and R. Schulz, “Interior point methods for aircraft conflict resolution problems,” Proceedings of the SIAM Conference on Optimization, December 1999.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    P. Menon, G. Sweriduk, and B. Sridhar, “Optimal strategies for free-flight air traffic conflict resolutions,” Journal of Guidance, Control, and Dynamics, vol. 22, no. 2, pp. 202–211, 1999.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    C. Tomlin, G. J. Pappas, and S. Sastry, “Conflict resolution for air traffic management: A case study in multi-agent hybrid systems,” IEEE Transactions on Automatic Control, vol. 43, pp. 509–521, April 1998.zbMATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    M. Oishi and C. Tomlin, “Switching in nonminimum phase systems: Applications to a VSTOL aircraft,” in Proceedings of the American Control Conference, 2000.Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    “YAV-8B Simulation and Modeling,” Tech. Rep. CR-170397, NASA, March 1983.Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    I. Mitchell and C. Tomlin, “Level set methods for computation in hybrid systems,” in Hybrid Systems: Computation and Control (B. Krogh and N. Lynch, eds.), LNCS, Springer Verlag, 2000.Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    M. Oishi, “Safe collision avoidance maneuvers using constrained optimization,” Tech. Rep. SUDAAR 730, Stanford University, 2001.Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    A. Brooke, D. Kendrick, A. Meeraus, and R. Raman, GAMS: A User’s Guide. GAMS Development Corporation, Washington, DC, 1998.Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    J. Viswanathan, I. Grossman, and E. Kalvelagen, GAMS/DICOPT Solver Manual. Engineering Design Research Center, Carnegie Mellon University, and GAMS Development Corp. <>.
  21. 21.
    A. Drud, “CONOPT-A large scale GRG code,” Operations Research Society of America Journal on Computing, no. 6, pp. 207–216, 1994.Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    L. Biegler, C. Schmid, and D. Ternet, “A multiplier-free, reduced Hessian method for process optimization,” in Large-Scale Optimization with Applications, Part II: Optimal Design and Control, in IMA Volumes in Mathematics and Applications, Springer Verlag, 1997. 23. CPLEX Optimization Inc.

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2001

Authors and Affiliations

  • Meeko Oishi
    • 1
  • Claire J. Tomlin
    • 1
  • Vipin Gopal
    • 2
  • Datta Godbole
    • 2
  1. 1.Hybrid Systems LabStanford UniversityStanford
  2. 2.Honeywell Technology CenterMinneapolis

Personalised recommendations