Addressing Multiobjective Control: Safety and Performance through Constrained Optimization
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.
KeywordsModel Predictive Control Collision Avoidance Performance Goal Safe Region Safety Constraint
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
- 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.C. Tomlin, Hybrid Control of Air Traffic Management Systems. PhD thesis, University of California, Berkeley, CA, September 1998.Google Scholar
- 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.R. Schulz, D. Shaner, and Y. Zhao, “Free-flight concept,” in Proceedings of the AIAA Guidance, Navigation, and Control Conference, 1997.Google Scholar
- 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.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.R. Schulz and Y. Zhao, “Deterministic resolution of two aircraft conflict in freeflight,” in AIAA Guidance, Navigation, and Control Conference, 1997.Google Scholar
- 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
- 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.“YAV-8B Simulation and Modeling,” Tech. Rep. CR-170397, NASA, March 1983.Google Scholar
- 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.M. Oishi, “Safe collision avoidance maneuvers using constrained optimization,” Tech. Rep. SUDAAR 730, Stanford University, 2001.Google Scholar
- 19.A. Brooke, D. Kendrick, A. Meeraus, and R. Raman, GAMS: A User’s Guide. GAMS Development Corporation, Washington, DC, 1998.Google Scholar
- 20.J. Viswanathan, I. Grossman, and E. Kalvelagen, GAMS/DICOPT Solver Manual. Engineering Design Research Center, Carnegie Mellon University, and GAMS Development Corp. <http://www.gams.com>.
- 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.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. http://www.cplex.com.