arxiv: v1 [cs.sy] 15 Nov 2018

Transcription

1 Reduced Order Model Predictive Control For Setpoint Tracking Joseph Lorenzetti, Benoit Landry, Sumeet Singh, Marco Pavone arxiv: v1 cs.sy 15 Nov 218 Abstract Despite the success o model predictive control (MPC), its application to high-dimensional systems, such as lexible structures and coupled luid/rigid-body systems, remains a largely open challenge due to excessive computational complexity. A promising solution approach is to leverage reduced order models or designing the model predictive controller. In this paper we present a reduced order MPC scheme that enables setpoint tracking while robustly guaranteeing constraint satisaction or linear, discrete, time-invariant systems. Setpoint tracking is enabled by designing the MPC cost unction to account or the steady-state error between the ull and reduced order models. Robust constraint satisaction is accomplished by solving (oline) a set o linear programs to provide bounds on the errors due to bounded disturbances, state estimation, and model approximation. The approach is validated on a synthetic system as well as a high-dimensional linear model o a lexible rod, obtained using inite element methods. I. INTRODUCTION Model predictive control (MPC) is an advanced control technique that entails optimizing predicted uture behavior in a receding horizon ashion. This is accomplished by solving, at each time step, an optimal control problem that includes a model o the system. The approach is especially suited or control o constrained systems due to the ability to incorporate state and control constraints within the optimal control problems. MPC grew in popularity or process control in industrial settings, where saety is critical and system dynamics are typically slow. As more powerul computational resources have become available, the appeal o MPC has spread to control systems with aster dynamics such as robotics and autonomous vehicles. For example, MPC has been applied to the control o aerospace systems 1, robotic manipulators 2, ground vehicles 3, and many others. However, there are still many interesting systems or which the use o MPC is computationally prohibitive. These systems typically have very high-dimensional state-space representations, such as rom discrete approximations o ininite-dimensional systems. Ininite-dimensional systems, commonly characterized by partial dierential equations, arise in many realworld robotic applications. Examples include sot robotics 4, lexible structures and robotic manipulators 5, and autonomous systems with coupled luid/rigid-body dynamics due to aerodynamics 6 or luid sloshing 7. One approach to reduce the computational burden o using MPC with high-dimensional systems is to solve the optimal control problem using reduced order models, which are lower order approximations o the original system dynamics 8. While this approach can provide computational tractability, it introduces model approximation error, which The authors are with the Department o Aeronautics and Astronautics, Stanord University, Stanord CA. s: {jlorenze, blandry, ssingh19, pavone}@stanord.edu. This work was supported by the Oice o Naval Research (Grant N ). Joseph Lorenzetti is supported by the Department o Deense (DoD) through the National Deense Science and Engineering Fellowship (NDSEG) Program. in turn can induce setpoint tracking bias and/or system constraint violations. In this work we address the problems o setpoint tracking and robust constraint satisaction when using reduced order model predictive control (ROMPC), where the robustness is with respect to bounded disturbances, state estimation error, and model reduction error. Related Work: The use o MPC to regulate constrained systems has been studied extensively over the last several decades (see 9 and reerences therein). MPC methods or tracking have also been studied; or example in 1 an MPC algorithm is developed that guarantees oset-ree tracking o asymptotically constant reerences at steady state, even with model mismatch. Additionally, setpoint tracking is addressed in 11 with a robust output MPC scheme, albeit without considering modeling errors. Reduced order modeling 8 is also a well established ield. While oten used or simulation, reduced order models have also been applied to control problems 6, 12 using ROMPC In 16, guarantees on constraint satisaction are given by considering the neglected dynamics as a bounded disturbance. This is extended in 17 to guarantee asymptotic stability to the origin by using an error bounding system. However both 16 and 17 require knowledge o the state o the ull order system to include eedback o the model errors. A robust output MPC scheme using reduced order models was then introduced in 18 which uses a tube-based approach and guarantees constraint satisaction by computing error bounds a priori. However, the existing ROMPC literature has not yet addressed the problem o setpoint tracking, which is the ocus o this work. Statement o Contributions: In this paper we introduce a method or setpoint tracking o linear, discrete, time-invariant high-dimensional systems using a reduced order model predictive control scheme (ROMPC). Setpoint tracking is accomplished by computing target state and control values or the ROMPC problem that account or the model reduction error. In addition, we introduce a method or computing error bounds that enables robust constraint satisaction with respect to bounded disturbances, state estimation error, and model reduction error. Our method or computing the error bounds is inspired by 18, but is less conservative. The proposed method is validated on a synthetic example and on an engineering-based problem where we control a lexible structure with a high-dimensional linear model generated using a inite element method. Organization: First, Section II ormulates the control task. Next, Section III lays out the ROMPC solution methodology. Section IV discusses the derivation o the ROMPC constraints guaranteeing robust constraint satisaction. In Section V we discuss stability o the ROMPC scheme. Then, in Section VI we characterize the setpoint tracking perormance o our method. Section VII provides simulation results o the proposed approach. Finally, we draw our conclusions in Section VIII and provide avenues or uture work.

2 II. PROBLEM FORMULATION In this work we consider linear, discrete, time-invariant systems and assume bounded, additive disturbances on the process and measurements. We start with the description o the high-dimensional system that we wish to control, hereby reerred to as the ull order system. A. Full Order System Model The model or the ull order system is given by: x k+1 = A x k + B u k + w k, y k = C x k + v k, z k = H x k, (1) where x R n is the ull dimensional state, u R m is the control input, y R p is the measured output, and z R o are the perormance variables. This model could arise, or example, rom a high-dimensional inite approximation o an ininite-dimensional model (e.g., by discretizing partial dierential equations) 16. Constraints on the perormance variables, control, process, and measurement noise are deined by bounded convex polytopes: z k Z, u k U, (2) w k W, v k V. (3) It is assumed that the pair (A, B ) is stabilizable. We deine the tracking perormance variables zk r Rt as zk r := T z k, where the matrix T R t o is deined by taking the t rows o the identity matrix I o corresponding to the indices o the perormance variables we wish to track. The objective then is to control the system (1) such that the tracking perormance variables zk r track a desired setpoint (i.e., constant signal) r. In the absence o noise, perectly tracking an arbitrary setpoint requires the system (1) to reach a steady state, deined by x and u. These quantities are given as the solution to the ollowing linear system: x S A =, S u r = I B T H. (4) To ensure that (4) has a unique solution, we assume that the matrix S is square (i.e., number o tracking variables t is equal to the number o control inputs m), and ull rank. B. Setpoint Tracking The setpoint tracking problem or a constrained system is oten addressed through the use o model predictive control. Let ˆx k denote the state estimate as computed via an observer based on the system (1). A standard approach, as proposed in 19, entails solving the optimal control problem min. x k,u k V (x k, u k, x, u ), subject to x i+1 = A x i + B u i, H x i Z, u i U, x k+n X, ˆx k x k D, over horizon N, where the decision variables are x k := x k,..., x k+n and u k := u k,..., u k+n 1, i = k,..., k+ N 1, the sets X and D are discussed below, and (5) denotes Minkowski addition. The objective unction is given by V (x k, u k, x, u ) = k+n 1 δx k+n 2 P + δx j 2 Q + δu j 2 R, j=k where δx = x x, δu = u u, and P, Q, and R are positive deinite cost matrices. The values o x and u are given by a solution to the linear system (4). The terminal set, X, along with the terminal cost P, are designed to provide stability properties to the algorithm. Lastly, the set D is a bound on the error ˆx k x k. Further details, including computation o the sets D and X are discussed in 19. As the dimension o the system (1) increases, so does the size o the optimal control problem (5). Thereore, when the system is high-dimensional, the method proposed in 19 may be too computationally limiting to use or real-time control. To address these situations, we propose to leverage recent work in MPC based on reduced order models to solve the setpoint tracking problem. C. Reduced Order Model The nominal reduced order model or the ull order system (1) is deined by x k+1 = A x k + Bū k, ȳ k = C x k, z k = H x k, where x R n is the nominal reduced order state, ū R m is the control input to the reduced order system, ȳ R p is the nominal output based on the reduced model, and z R o is the expected perormance variable based on the reduced model. The reduced order system matrices are A R n n, B R n m, C R p n, and H R o n, where it is oten the case that n n. Note that the control input ū and output ȳ in the reduced order model are o the same dimensionality as the input u and output y o the ull order system. In this work, no assumptions are made on the speciic type o model order reduction techniques used to obtain (7). However, it is assumed that the pair (A, B) is controllable and that the pair (A, C) is observable. To summarize, the ull order model (1) is the system to be controlled such the tracking perormance variables, z k r, track a desired setpoint. The reduced order model (7) is the system used to design the model predictive controller. III. REDUCED ORDER MPC (ROMPC) In this section, we present the key blocks o our control methodology, namely a reduced order observer (Section III- A) and a reduced order control law (Section III-B), and the corresponding ROMPC problem (Section III-C). A. Reduced Order Observer The state o the ull order system is not assumed to be known, and estimating the ull order state x requires a high-dimensional observer. Instead we use the reduced order model (7) in a Luenberger observer to estimate the nominal reduced order state x (6) (7) ˆx k+1 = Aˆx k + Bu k + L(y k C ˆx k ), (8) where ˆx k is the reduced order state estimate, and y k, u k are the measurement and control rom the ull order system (1). The gain L is chosen such that A LC is Hurwitz.

3 B. Reduced Order Controller The overall control strategy is to recursively generate a nominal control trajectory over a horizon N, namely ū k := ū k,..., ū k+n 1, along with a nominal state trajectory, namely x k := x k,..., x k+n, by solving a reduced order MPC problem (detailed in Section III-C). The nominal state trajectory is then tracked using a linear eedback controller based on the reduced order state estimate ˆx k. The reduced order controller is u k = ū k + K(ˆx k x k). (9) The gain matrix K is computed such that A+BK is Hurwitz. C. ROMPC Problem The nominal state and control trajectories ( x k, ū k ) are computed by solving a reduced order MPC problem (i.e., an MPC problem based on the reduced order model (7)). While this improves the computational perormance, it also adds several challenges to the design o the optimization problem. First, setpoint tracking is non-trivial. Target values or the reduced order state and control must be computed that account or both the observer and model reduction error. Second, the reduced order MPC problem must guarantee that the ull order system constraints (2) are satisied. Speciically, the nominal state and control trajectories ( x k, ū k ) at time step k are computed by solving the optimal control problem: V k (ˆx k, x, ū ) := min. x k,ū k V ( x k, ū k, x, ū ), subject to x i+1 = A x i + Bū i, H x i Z, ū i Ū, x k+n X, ˆx k x k D, (1) where i = k,..., k + N 1. The decision variables are the nominal states x k = x k,..., x k+n and the nominal control inputs ū k = ū k,..., ū k+n 1, and the irst argument ˆx k is the current reduced order state estimate given by (8). The objective unction is quadratic and given by V ( x k, ū k, x, ū ) = k+n 1 δ x k+n 2 P + δ x j 2 Q + δū j 2 R, j=k (11) where δ x = x x, δū = ū ū, and the penalty matrices P, Q, and R are positive deinite. The nominal reduced order perormance variables z = H x and control ū in (1) are constrained to lie in the sets Z and Ū, respectively. These sets are tightened versions o the constraints Z and U. The use o tightened constraint sets is required so that the controller (9) can robustly ensure constraint satisaction or the ull order system in the presence o bounded disturbances, estimation error, and model reduction error. The computation o the sets Z and Ū is discussed in Section IV. Additionally, the optimal control problem contains a constraint that restricts the nominal reduced order state x k to lie within a set around the reduced order state estimate ˆx k. This constraint is typical in output model predictive control schemes 18, 19, and the computation o the set D is discussed in Section IV-A. In addition to guaranteeing robust constraint satisaction, the ROMPC problem must be recursively easible and stable, and should enable setpoint tracking. Recursive easibility and stability o the ROMPC scheme is guaranteed through the design o the terminal cost matrix P and the terminal set X (as is typical in MPC schemes 9) and is discussed in Section V. The second and third arguments to the optimal control problem, x, ū, are the nominal reduced order system target values. These values are chosen to enable setpoint tracking by accounting or model reduction errors, and their computation is discussed in Section VI-A. IV. ENSURING ROBUST CONSTRAINT SATISFACTION Guaranteeing that the constraints (2) remain satisied is challenging due to disturbances, model reduction error, and estimation error. In this section we discuss how to compute bounds or these errors and ensure robust constraint satisaction by computing tightened constraint sets Z and Ū or the ROMPC problem (1). Consider writing the original constraints (2) as H x k Z ê k + Hd k + H x k Z, u k U ū k + Kd k U, where ê k = H x k H ˆx k will be reerred to as the estimation error and d k = ˆx k x k will be reerred to as the control error. From these equations it is apparent that by inding bounds on the estimation and control errors, the perormance and control constraints can be appropriately tightened to give constraints on x k and ū k. In this work we extend the approach used in 18 to compute tightened constraint sets, Z and Ū, that are less conservative. A. Control Error Bound For the control constraints, consider a tightened constraint set Ū := U KD, where D is a set bounding the control error d k and denotes the Pontryagin dierence. The dynamics o the control error, using the control law (9), are d k+1 = (A + BK)d k + LC x k LC ˆx k + Lv k. In 18, the approach is to compute a bound G on an auxiliary disturbance g k = LC x k LC ˆx k +Lv k by solving linear programs 1. Then, a bounding set D is computed that satisies the condition (A + BK)D + G D (see 2). Finding the bound G and computing D in a sequential ashion introduce some conservatism. We instead compute the bounding set D directly by leveraging the act that the dynamics o g k are known through the ull order system dynamics (1) and the observer dynamics (8). This reduces conservatism by removing the worst-case consideration o the auxiliary disturbance g k. In particular, our approach is to approximate D by a bounded convex polytope where each side is deined by solving a linear program o the orm maximize d i, x k τ,x i,uj,vi,w j subject to θl DT d k d i+1 = (A + BK)d i + LC x i LC ˆx i + Lv i, x j+1 = A x j + B u j + w j, ˆx j+1 = (A LC)ˆx j + Bu j + LC x j + Lv j, ˆx k τ = x k τ + d k τ, H x i Z, u j U, v i V, w j W, H x k τ Z, d k τ D, (12) 1 Note that in 18 a ixed interval least square estimator is used, so g k takes on a dierent orm.

4 where the decision variables are d i, x k τ, x i, u j, v i, w j, and i = k τ,..., k 1, j = k τ,..., k 2. The time horizon τ and the set D are user-deined parameters (discussed later). The vectors θl D deine the direction normal to the l th ace o the bounding polytope, which are also design parameters (e.g., the standard basis vectors). The constraints d k τ D and H x k τ Z are included to ensure the linear program is bounded. Note that H x k τ Z is simply a conservative estimate o the constraint imposed in the ROMPC scheme that H x Z (since Z is a tightened set o Z it ollows that Z Z). The set D, parameterized by (τ, D ), is then given by the polytope D(τ, D ) deined as: D(τ, D ) := {d Θ D d γ D }, (13) where the l th row o Θ D is given by θ DT l, and γ D l is the optimal value o the linear program (12). 1) Recursive Validity o D: To use the pre-computed bound D = D(τ, D ) in the ROMPC problem, recursive validity needs to be proven. Under mild assumptions, we show that i D(τ, D ) is a valid bound on d k at an arbitrary time k = k d, it will remain a valid bound or k > k d. To prove recursive validity, the ollowing assumptions are made: Assumption 1. At some arbitrary time k = k d, the ull order system has ollowed an admissible trajectory, satisying the dynamics (1) and constraints (2) under admissible disturbances (3) over the past τ time steps i, i = k d τ,..., k d. Assumption 2. For all k > k d, the control law guarantees that the constraints (2) are satisied, and that H x k Z Z. Note that Assumption 1 is oten valid in practice, or example i the system starts at any easible steady state. Assumption 2 is necessary since the computed error bounds are only valid when operating with a easible closed-loop controller. Provided the ROMPC problem (1) is recursively easible (addressed in Section V), the use o tightened constraints ensure that Assumption 2 is automatically satisied. Theorem 1 (Recursive Validity o D). Let Assumptions 1 and 2 hold or an arbitrary time k = k d. Assume d i D and H x i Z or i, i = k d τ,..., k d 1. I D = D(τ, D ) is deined by solving the linear program (12) or a given (τ, D ) and satisies D D, then d k D or all k k d. Proo. From the linear program (12), the inclusion d k D(τ, D ) is valid i the ollowing conditions are satisied: (1) H x i Z, u i U or i k τ,..., k 1, (2) H x k τ Z, and (3) d k τ D. Conditions (1) and (2) are satisied or all k k d by virtue o Assumption 1 and 2. Furthermore, by the theorem assumptions, Condition (3) is satisied or all k k d, k d + τ 1. Thereore d k D(τ, D ) D or k k d, k d +τ 1. By recursively applying this argument or k k d + τ, we have that d k D(τ, D ) or all k k d. Intuitively, the set D can be thought o as a region o attraction or which d k will then converge to D. To illustrate the advantage o computing the bound using the linear program (12) we consider the system described in Section VII-A. First, the set D is computed as discussed in 18 and is displayed in red in Figure 1. Second, the set D is ound using the proposed method and is displayed in green in Figure 1. It can be seen that the bound on d k is signiicantly tighter or this system using our modiied method. B. Total Error Bound For the perormance variable constraints, we consider a tightened constraint set Z := Z E, where E is a set bounding the total error e k = ê k + Hd k. The approach in 18 is to compute a bound Ê on ê k by solving linear programs, and then to compute E using a Minkowski sum E = Ê HD. Once again, sequentially computing Ê and D introduces conservatism because it ignores the act that the dynamics o ê and d are coupled. Thereore we directly compute E as a bounded convex polytope, where each side is deined by solving a linear program o the orm maximize d i, x k τ,x i,uj,vi,w j subject to θ ET l (ê k + Hd k ) d i+1 = (A + BK)d i + LC x i LC ˆx i + Lv i, x i+1 = A x i + B u i + w i, ˆx i+1 = (A LC)ˆx i + Bu i + LC x i + Lv i, ˆx k τ = x k τ + d k τ, H x j Z, u i U, v i V, w i W, H x k τ Z, d k τ D, (14) where the decision variables are d i, x k τ, x i, u j, v i, w j, and i = k τ,..., k 1, j = k τ,..., k. Note that ê k = H x k H ˆx k, and τ, D are the same parameters used when solving the linear program (12) or D. The vectors θl E deine the direction normal to the l th ace o the bounding polytope. The set E is then given by the polytope E(τ, D ) deined as: E(τ, D ) := {e Θ E e γ E }, (15) where the l th row o Θ E is given by θ ET l and γ E l is the optimal value o the linear program (14). Once again we now show that E = E(τ, D ) is recursively valid. Theorem 2 (Recursive Validity o E). Let the assumptions rom Theorem 1 hold. I D = D(τ, D ) and E = E(τ, D ) are deined by solving (12) and (14) or a given (τ, D ) such that D D, then e k E or all k k d. Proo. The proo structure is identical to the proo o Theorem 1 and is thereore omitted or brevity. To illustrate the advantage o computing the total error bound E directly we once again consider the system described in Section VII-A. For comparison, irst E = Ê HD is computed using the approach in 18 and is plotted in red in Figure 1. Second, E = Ê HD is computed where D is deined using our proposed method (i.e., rom (12)), and is plotted in blue. Finally, the total error bound E is computed directly using linear programs o the orm (14) and is plotted in green. It is apparent that direct computation o E provides a tighter polytopic approximation to the bound on the error e k than the other approaches. Note that computation o these linear programs (12) and (14) relies on the ull order dynamics, which could potentially lead to large linear programs. However, these computations only need to be done once, and are done oline. C. Practical Considerations It is important to note that several conditions on the sets D and E must be met in order to apply the proposed control

5 that makes Algorithm 1 successul, the practitioner should consider redesigning the reduced order model. Fig. 1: (Above) The error bounds D using a previously proposed method (red) and modiied method (green). (Below) The error bounds used to tighten Z using a previously proposed method (red), combined method (blue), and modiied method (green). scheme in practice, namely: D D (Theorems 1, 2), Z = Z E, and Ū = U KD. A practitioner can compute a satisactory D, E using the ollowing algorithm: Algorithm 1 Compute D and E 1: procedure COMPUTESETS(Z, U, K, τ) 2: D {d Kd U} 3: D D(τ, D ), using (12) 4: 5: E E(τ, D ), using (14) Z Z E 6: i D D or Z = then return Failure 7: else return D, D, E In this algorithm, D is deined as the largest possible set such that Ū = U KD is guaranteed to be non-empty i D D. Note that when U is polytopic, it can be deined as U = {u A U u b u } and D in Algorithm 1 can be deined as D = {d A U Kd b u }. I or some τ Algorithm 1 is successul, a valid D and E have been ound. The value o τ can then be continually increased and Algorithm 1 can be continually run to attempt to ind smaller bounds. This is desired because smaller D, E lead to less conservative constraint tightening. I Algorithm 1 returns Failure, the value o τ should also be increased. However, i Algorithm 1 continues to return Failure as τ then additional diagnostics are required. These diagnostics will attempt to determine whether the ailure to guarantee robust constraint satisaction is due to the process and measurement disturbances (3), or due to the design o the reduced order model (7). First, the practitioner should set the disturbances (3) to zero and again apply Algorithm 1. I Algorithm 1 is then successul or some value τ, this suggests that the disturbances (3) need to be reduced, either by using a higher idelity ull order model or by adding additional/more precise sensors. However i no value o τ can be ound V. ROMPC STABILITY Having addressed robust constraint satisaction, we now discuss the design o the ROMPC problem (1) to guarantee closed-loop stability (i.e., it is recursively easible and has guaranteed convergence). Speciically, we use the approach presented in 19 to design a terminal controller κ( x), a terminal set X, and a terminal cost V ( x) = x x 2 P that satisy the ollowing two conditions: A x + Bκ( x) X, x X, H X Z, κ( x) Ū, x X, and (16) V ( x k+1 ) + l( x k, κ( x k )) V ( x k ), x k X, (17) where l( x, ū) = x x 2 Q + ū ū 2 R is the stage cost. To guarantee recursive easibility, the irst condition, (16), requires that the terminal set is positively invariant or the nominal dynamics under the terminal controller and that the resulting terminal control is admissible over the terminal set. The second condition, (17), is used to guarantee convergence. We now discuss the design o the terminal controller κ( x), the terminal set X, and the terminal cost V ( x) that together satisy these conditions. Consider the unconstrained ininite-horizon LQR problem with cost weights Q, R or the error system: δ x k+1 = Aδ x k + Bδū k, (18) where δ x = x x and δū k = ū k ū. Let P be the solution o the associated discrete algebraic Riccati equation, and set the terminal cost to be V ( x) = ( x x ) T P ( x x ) = δ x T P δ x. Let K be the optimal control gain or the associated ininite horizon LQR problem, and parameterize the terminal controller as: κ( x) = K δ x + ū, x X. (19) To address condition (16), we introduce the set such that X := { x }. The set X that satisies the stabilizing condition (16) under the terminal control (19) is then ound by computing a set that satisies: (A K ), H Z {H x }, K Ū {ū }, where A K = A + BK. These conditions are simply the conditions (16) with the substitution o the terminal controller and the deinition X := { x }. Finally, or condition (17), we require: (A x k + Bκ( x k ) x ) T P (A x k + Bκ( x k ) x ) +δ x T k Qδ x k + (κ( x k ) ū ) T R(κ( x k ) ū ) δ x T k P δ x k. Substituting the terminal control law (19), we require: δ x T k A K T P A K δ x k + δ x T k Qδ x k +δ x T k A T K RA K δ x k δ x T k P δ x k. (2) (21) Since the chosen P and K are optimal solutions o the Riccati equation, this expression holds with equality. By the results in 19, the ROMPC problem (1) will be recursively easible and asymptotically stable, i.e., δ x and δū.

6 VI. SETPOINT TRACKING Having addressed robust constraint satisaction (Section IV) and ROMPC stability (Section V), we now present results on the setpoint tracking perormance. Speciically, we will show that under the bounded disturbances (3) the tracking variables zk r converge to the set {r} R where R is a bounded convex polytope. Further, we will show that with no disturbances the ROMPC scheme converges to oset-ree (i.e., zero error) tracking. We begin in Section VI-A by discussing conditions or oset-ree setpoint tracking under nominal (disturbance ree) conditions. In this section we also describe the computation o the target states x, ū used in the ROMPC objective unction (11). Then, in Section VI-B we discuss the computation o the set R and convergence o zk r to {r} R under bounded disturbances. A. Oset-Free Setpoint Tracking In this section we discuss how to compute the ROMPC target values x and ū that enable oset-ree tracking at steady state or the nominal system (i.e., when no disturbances are present). First, the ull order target steady state x and control u are computed such that z r = r by inding the solution to the linear system (4) (assuming the desired setpoint r corresponds to an admissible steady state H x Z, u U). For the system to reach the steady state deined by x, u, the observer and controller are also required to be at steady state. In the absence o disturbances, the steady-state output o (1) is y = C x. Thereore, rom the observer dynamics (8), the steady-state observer estimate is given by: ˆx = D(Bu + LC x ), (22) where D = (I (A LC)) 1. Finally, by requiring the controller (9) to also be at steady state, the ROMPC target states x and ū that enable osetree setpoint tracking under nominal conditions can be ound by solving the system x S c = ū, S K ˆx u c = A I B K I, (23) where it is assumed that the square matrix S c is ull rank and that the ROMPC target states are easible with respect to the tightened constraints sets: H x Z, ū Ū. Note that when the steady-state equations (4), (22), and (23) are solved, a unique solution (x, u, ˆx, x, ū ) exists or each setpoint r because the square matrix A I B T H F = DLC DB I (24) A I B I K K I is ull rank. This ollows rom the block lower diagonal structure o F and the existing requirements that the square matrices S and S c are ull rank. With a unique steady state and with the ROMPC convergence results in Section V, i the closed-loop system reaches a steady state, then it must be the unique steady state that leads to oset-ree tracking. To determine i the system will reach a steady state, consider the closed-loop dynamics o the errors δx k = x k x and δˆx k = ˆx k ˆx under the controller (9) with δ x = and δū = (the general case with δ x, δū has no eect on the ollowing conclusions as these errors would only contribute to an asymptotically decaying term added to the ollowing equation): δx k+1 δˆx k+1 = S ss δx k δˆx k, (25) where the matrix S ss is given by A B S ss = K LC. (26) A LC + BK From these dynamics, a suicient condition or the closedloop system to reach steady state is i the matrix S ss is Hurwitz. This condition provides a straightorward method or a practitioner to check i convergence to oset-ree tracking is guaranteed in the disturbance ree case. However, synthesizing the reduced order model, controller, and observer that ensure S ss is Hurwitz is not straightorward and is a planned area o uture work. To address the cases when the closed-loop system does not reach a steady state, we now present a more general analysis o the setpoint tracking perormance. B. Tracking Variable Convergence Previously we introduced conditions that guarantee osetree setpoint tracking under nominal (disturbance ree) scenarios. We now use these results to discuss convergence o the tracking variables when the closed-loop system does not reach steady state (e.g., due to bounded disturbances). Speciically, we can show that under the proposed control scheme the tracking variables converge to a set containing the desired setpoint, {r} R. This is accomplished by noting that as the ROMPC scheme converges the control law (9) will compensate or the nominal model reduction error. To characterize the set R, irst, let ɛ x, ɛ u > be userdeined convergence thresholds or the ROMPC problem. From Section V, since (δ x, δū) = (, ) is asymptotically stable, the conditions δ x ɛ x and δū ɛ u are attainable in inite time. Now consider the linear program: maximize x i,uj,vi,w j,r,(x,u,ˆx, x,ū) subject to x i+1 = A x i + B u i + w i, θ R T l (T H x k r) ˆx i+1 = (A LC)ˆx i + Bu i + LC x i + Lv i, u i = ū i + K(ˆx i x i ), ū i ū ɛ u, x i x ɛ x, ˆx j x D, H x j Z, v i V, w i W, x = S 1 u, r ) ˆx = (I (A LC)) 1( Bu + LC x, x = S 1 ū c, K ˆx u H x Z, u U, H x Z, ū Ū, (27) where i = k τ ss,..., k 1, j = k τ ss,..., k and the decision variables are x i, u j, v i, w j, r, x i, ū i, and the steady-state variables x, u, ˆx, x, ū. The parameters

7 o the problem include the sets D, Z, and Ū (computed in Section IV), the time horizon, τ ss (which can be dierent rom τ, used in Section IV), and the thresholds ɛ x, ɛ u. The vectors θl R deine the direction normal to the l th ace o the bounding polytope. The set R is then given by the polytope R(τ ss, D, Z, Ū, ɛ x, ɛ u ) deined as: R(τ ss, D, Z, Ū, ɛ x, ɛ u ) := {e r Θ R e r γ R }, (28) where e r = z r r and the l th row o Θ R is given by θ RT l and γ R l is the optimal value o the linear program (27). Note that the desired setpoint r is a decision variable in this problem, which makes the computed set R valid or all easible setpoints. By employing the results on robust constraint satisaction rom Section IV and the results on ROMPC stability rom Section V, we can now present our main result. Theorem 3 (Setpoint Tracking Under Bounded Disturbances). Let the ROMPC problem be given by (1), and the conditions rom Theorems 1 and 2 hold. Let the set R = R(τ ss, D, Z, Ū, ɛ x, ɛ u ) be deined by solving (27) or a given τ ss, D, Z, Ū, ɛx, ɛ u. I the tracking targets x, u are solutions to (4) and the ROMPC targets x, ū are solutions to (23) and satisy the constraints H x Z, ū Ū, then there exists a inite time k r such that the tracking variable zk r will lie within the set {r} R or all time k k r + τ ss. Proo. From the linear program (27), the inclusion zk r {r} R is valid i the ollowing conditions are satisied: (1) δ x i ɛ x and δū i ɛ u or i k τ ss,..., k 1, (2) ˆx j x D, and (3) H x i Z or j k τ ss,..., k. By the asymptotic convergence o ROMPC (illustrated in Section V), there exists a inite time k r such that condition (1) is satisied or all k k r +τ ss. Theorem 1 guarantees that condition (2) is satisied or all k k r + τ ss when k r k d. Finally, condition (3) is satisied or all k k d through the robust constraint satisaction property o the controller (9) (discussed in Section IV). Corollary 1 (Oset-ree Setpoint Tracking). I no disturbances act on the system and the matrix S ss is Hurwitz, then the tracking variables will converge to the setpoint with zero oset (i.e., zk r r as k ). VII. NUMERICAL EXPERIMENTS Next we discuss two example applications o our approach. The irst is a synthetic system taken rom the reduced order modeling literature, while the second addresses a more complex task o controlling a lexible beam. A. Synthetic System We irst consider a numerical example adapted rom 15. The ull order system has dimension n = 6 and is given by the matrices A, B in 15, and C = , H = I The perormance and control constraints are Z = {z z 1} and U = {u u 2}. The process and measurement noise are bounded by W = {w w.5} and V = {v v.5}. The reduced order model has dimension n = 2 and was computed using balanced truncation. In this example, both the proposed approach and a naïve approach are implemented to demonstrate that setpoint tracking is non-trivial when using reduced order models or control. The naïve approach is to simply choose the desired reduced order target states x, ū as the values that would drive the reduced order system (7) to the setpoint. These values are computed by solving the linear system A I B T H x = ū r. (29) Figure 2 shows the results o using the ROMPC scheme presented in this paper, where the setpoint is shown in black. In this irst plot, the proposed method is compared against the naïve method or a case with no disturbances. As expected, the proposed method converges to oset-ree tracking but the naïve method does not. In the remaining plots only the proposed ROMPC method is demonstrated, but with dierent (bounded) disturbance sequences. Additionally, the set {r} R is plotted, starting at the corresponding time k r +τ ss as per Theorem 3. In blue we show a simulation where the disturbances are drawn rom a (zero-mean) uniorm distribution. The simulation in green eatures (constant) disturbances that lie on the boundary o the bounding polytopes W, V. Finally, in red, we show a case where the disturbances ollow one o the worst-case easible sequences determined when the set R was computed. As expected, we see that in each case the tracking variable converges to the set {r} R. B. Flexible Beam Control We now implement the proposed ROMPC scheme to track a vertical position setpoint with the endpoint o a lexible beam. The lexible beam is modeled by inite elements, as discussed in 21, 22. The beam model includes our nodes and is assumed to be attached to a rigid hub. A torque input to the hub controls the angle o the hub. There is no damping o the motion o the hub, but the lexible modes o the beam are damped. Additionally, a uniorm load is applied across the length o the beam. The model s physical parameters represent the Sheield lexible manipulator described in 22. The resulting model has n = 18 states, including 2 integrator modes. The reduced order model is computed using balanced truncation and has dimension n = 8. The proposed ROMPC scheme is then applied to track a setpoint with the endpoint o the beam. The results are shown in Figure 3. We see that the proposed method successully tracks the setpoint under disturbances drawn rom a (zeromean) uniorm distribution. However, using the naïve approach induces a non-negligible tracking error. VIII. CONCLUSION In this paper a reduced order model predictive control (ROMPC) method is proposed that enables setpoint tracking while robustly guaranteeing constraint satisaction. Setpoint tracking is accomplished through the design o the ROMPC cost unction, and constraint satisaction is guaranteed by tightening the true constraints using error bounds computed oline. Additionally we provided a design methodology to ensure overall stability and convergence or the algorithm. Finally, the method was validated on a synthetic example and an example inspired by lexible structure control. Future Work: An interesting extension to this work is to reormulate the ROMPC objective unction to handle cases

8 Fig. 2: Setpoint tracking perormance demonstrated on a synthetic system discussed in Section VII-A, under varying types o bounded disturbances Fig. 3: Simulation o the lexible beam tracking problem discussed in Section VII-B. where the setpoint cannot be easibly tracked, as in 11. Further, we have noted that or some designs o the reduced order models, it may not be possible to ind non-empty tightened constraint sets Z, Ū. Thereore characterizing the properties o ull order and reduced order models that lead to non-empty Z, Ū is crucial. This would also enable the reduced order model and the control scheme to be co-designed in a better way. Finally, we look orward to applying our approach to the control o real world robotic systems, including those with nonlinear dynamics. REFERENCES 1 U. Eren, A. Prach, B. B. Koçer, S. V. Raković, E. Kayacan, and B. Açikmese, Model predictive control in aerospace systems: Current state and opportunities, AIAA Journal o Guidance, Control, and Dynamics, vol. 4, no. 7, pp , P. Poignet and M. Gautier, Nonlinear model predictive control o a robot manipulator, in Int. Workshop on Advanced Motion Control, 2. 3 C. E. Beal and J. C. Gerdes, Model predictive control or vehicle stabilization at the limits o handling, IEEE Transactions on Control Systems Technology, vol. 21, no. 4, pp , O. Goury and C. Duriez, Fast, generic and reliable control and simulation o sot robots using model order reduction, IEEE Transactions on Robotics, S. Rao, T. Pan, and V. Venkayya, Modeling, control, and design o lexible structures: A survey, Applied Mechanics Reviews, vol. 43, no. 5, pp , D. Amsallem, S. Deolalikar, F. Gurrola, and C. Farhat, Model predictive control under coupled luid-structure constraints using a database o reduced-order models on a tablet, in AIAA Aviation Technology, Integration, and Operations (ATIO) Conerence, H. A. Ardakani and T. J. Bridges, Shallow-water sloshing in vessels undergoing prescribed rigid-body motion in three dimensions, Journal o Fluid Mechanics, vol. 667, pp , A. Antoulas, Approximation o Large-Scale Dynamical Systems. SIAM, J. B. Rawlings and D. Q. Mayne, Model Predictive Control: Theory, Computation, and Design. Nob Hill Publishing, U. Maeder, F. Borrelli, and M. Morari, Linear oset-ree model predictive control, Automatica, vol. 45, no. 1, pp , I. Alvarado, D. Limon, T. Alamo, and E. F. Camacho, Output eedback robust tube based MPC or tracking o piece-wise constant reerences, in Proc. IEEE Con. on Decision and Control, P. Astrid, L. Huisman, S. Weiland, and A. C. P. M. Backx, Reduction and predictive control design or a computational luid dynamics model, in Proc. IEEE Con. on Decision and Control, S. Hovland, K. Willcox, and J. T. Gravdahl, MPC or large-scale systems via model reduction and multiparametric quadratic programming, in Proc. IEEE Con. on Decision and Control, S. Hovland, J. T. Gravdahl, and K. E. Willcox, Explicit model predictive control or large-scale systems via model reduction, AIAA Journal o Guidance, Control, and Dynamics, vol. 31, no. 4, pp , S. Hovland, C. Lovaas, J. T. Gravdahl, and G. C. Goodwin, Stability o model predictive control based on reduced-order models, in Proc. IEEE Con. on Decision and Control, P. Sopasakis, D. Bernardini, and A. Bemporad, Constrained model predictive control based on reduced-order models, in Proc. IEEE Con. on Decision and Control, M. Löhning, M. Reble, J. Hasenauer, S. Yu, and F. Allgöwer, Model predictive control using reduced order models: Guaranteed stability or constrained linear systems, Journal o Process Control, vol. 24, no. 11, pp , M. Kögel and R. Findeisen, Robust output eedback model predictive control using reduced order models, IFAC-Papers Online, vol. 48, no. 8, pp , D. Q. Mayne, S. V. Raković, R. Findeisen, and F. Allgöwer, Robust output eedback model predictive control o constrained linear systems, Automatica, vol. 42, no. 7, pp , S. V. Rakovic, E. C. Kerrigan, K. I. Kouramas, and D. Q. Mayne, Invariant approximations o the minimal robust positively invariant set, IEEE Transactions on Automatic Control, vol. 5, no. 3, pp , J. Junkins and Y. Kim, Introduction to Dynamics and Control o Flexible Structures. American Institute o Aeronautics and Astronautics, 1993, ch. Mathematical Models o Flexible Structures, pp J. M. Martins, Z. Mohamed, M. O. Tokhi, J. Sá da Costa, and M. A. Botto, Approaches or dynamic modelling o lexible manipulator systems, IEE Proceedings - Control Theory and Applications, vol. 15, no. 4, pp , 23.