Rate Analysis of Inexact Dual Fast Gradient Method for Distributed MPC

Chapter
Part of the Intelligent Systems, Control and Automation: Science and Engineering book series (ISCA, volume 69)

Abstract

In this chapter we propose a dual decomposition method based on inexact dual gradient information and constraint tightening for solving distributed model predictive control (MPC) problems for network systems with state-input constraints. The coupling constraints are tightened and moved in the cost using the Lagrange multipliers. The dual problem is solved by a fast gradient method based on approximate gradients for which we prove sublinear rate of convergence. We also provide estimates on the primal and dual suboptimality of the generated approximate primal and dual solutions and we show that primal feasibility is ensured by our method. Our analysis relies on the Lipschitz property of the dual MPC function and inexact dual gradients. We obtain a distributed control strategy that has the following features: state and input constraints are satisfied, stability of the plant is guaranteed, whilst the number of iterations for the suboptimal solution can be precisely determined.

Notes

Acknowledgments

The research leading to these results has received funding from: the European Union (FP7/2007–2013) under Grant agreement no 248940; CNCS (project TE-231, 19/11.08. 2010); ANCS (project PN II, 80EU/2010); POSDRU/89/1.5/S/62557.

References

  1. 1.
    I. Alvarado, D. Limon, D. Munoz de la Pena, J.M. Maestre, M.A. Ridao, H. Scheu, W. Marquardt, R.R. Negenborn, B. De Schutter, F. Valencia, J. Espinosa, A comparative analysis of distributed MPC techniques applied to the HD-MPC four-tank benchmark. J. Process Control 21(5), 800–815 (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    D.P. Bertsekas, J.N. Tsitsiklis, Parallel and Distributed Computation: Numerical Methods (Prentice Hall, Englewood, 1989)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    E. Camponogara, H.F. Scherer, Distributed optimization for model predictive control of linear dynamic networks with control-input and output constraints. IEEE Trans. Autom. Sci. Eng. 8(1), 233–242 (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    O. Devolder, F. Glineur, Y. Nesterov. First-order methods of smooth convex optimization with inexact oracle. Technical report, CORE Discussion Paper 2011/02, UCL, Belgium (2011)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    M.D. Doan, T. Keviczky, B. De Schutter, A distributed optimization-based approach for hierarchical model predictive control of large-scale systems with coupled dynamics and constraints, in Proceedings of 50th IEEE Conference on Decision and, Control, pp. 5236–5241 (2011)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    M. Farina, R. Scattolini, Distributed predictive control: a non-cooperative algorithm with neighbor-to-neighbor communication for linear systems. Automatica 48(6), 1088–1096 (2012)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    K.C. Kiwiel, T. Larsson, P.O. Lindberg, Lagrangian relaxation via ballstep subgradient methods. Math. Oper. Res. 32(3), 669–686 (2007)MathSciNetCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Y. Kuwata, A. Richards, T. Schouwenaars, J.P. How, Distribted robust receding horizon control for multivariable guidance. IEEE Trans. Control Syst. Technol. 15(4), 627–641 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    T. Larsson, M. Patriksson, A. Stromberg, Ergodic convergence in subgradient optimization. Optim. Methods Softw. 9, 93–120 (1998)MathSciNetCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    I. Necoara, D. Clipici. An efficient parallel coordinate descent algorithm for distributed MPC. J. Process Control 23(3), 243–253 (2013)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    I. Necoara, V. Nedelcu, I. Dumitrache, Parallel and distributed optimization methods for estimation and control in networks. J. Process Control 21, 756–766 (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    I. Necoara, J. Suykens, Application of a smoothing technique to decomposition in convex optimization. IEEE Trans. Autom. Control 53(11), 2674–2679 (2008)MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    A. Nedic, A. Ozdaglar, Approximate primal solutions and rate analysis for dual subgradient methods. SIAM J. Optim. 19, 1757–1780 (2009)MathSciNetCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    R.R. Negenborn, B. De Schutter, J. Hellendoorn, Multi-agent model predictive control for transportation networks: serial versus parallel schemes. Eng. Appl. Artif. Intell. 21(3), 353–366 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Y. Nesterov, Smooth minimization of non-smooth functions. Math. Program. 103(1), 127–152 (2004)MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Y. Nesterov, Efficiency of coordinate descent methods on huge-scale optimization problems. Technical report, CORE Discussion Paper 2010/2, UCL, Belgium (2010)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    A. Richards, J.P. How, Robust distributed model predictive control. Int. J. Control 80(9), 1517–1531 (2007)MathSciNetCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    S. Richter, M. Morari, C.N. Jones, Towards computational complexity certification for constrained MPC based on lagrange relaxation and the fast gradient method, in Proceedings of 50th IEEE Conference on Decision and, Control, pp. 5223–5229 (2011)Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    P.O.M. Scokaert, D.Q. Mayne, J.B. Rawlings, Suboptimal model predictive control (feasibility implies stability). IEEE Trans. Autom. Control 44(3), 648–654 (1999)MathSciNetCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    B.T. Stewart, A.N. Venkat, J.B. Rawlings, S.J. Wright, G. Pannocchia, Cooperative distributed model predictive control. Syst. Control Lett. 59, 460–469 (2010)MathSciNetCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Automation and Systems Engineering DepartmentUniversity Politehnica BucharestBucharestRomania

Personalised recommendations