text
stringlengths 0
89.3k
|
|---|
0 v
|
N1p
|
p
|
0 p
|
N1 and λ λ
|
0 λ
|
M1denote the
|
optimal solution of 46 for initial state xk We then
|
use the candidate ˆλ0 1 ˆλm 0 m 1 M1 for
|
the convex combination variables which trivially fulfills
|
constraint 46h and construct the remaining candidate
|
sequences as
|
ˆziz
|
i1M1X
|
m0λ
|
mΦem
|
i10wk i0 N152a
|
ˆzNAKfz
|
NM1X
|
m0λ
|
mΓmwk 52bˆviv
|
i1M1X
|
m0λ
|
mΦνm
|
i10wk i0 N252c
|
ˆvN1Kfz
|
NM1X
|
m0λ
|
mΦνm
|
N0wk 52d
|
ˆpip
|
i1M1X
|
m0λ
|
mΣm
|
i20wk i0 N252e
|
ˆpN1M1X
|
m0λ
|
mΞm
|
0wk 52f
|
with ΓmAΦem
|
N0BΦνm
|
N0 Ξm
|
0 Next we show that
|
candidates 52 satisfy all constraints using the proof of
|
Theorem 3 Note that 52 are equivalent to the vector
|
valued candidates in 37 and the tubes stored in M0are
|
constructed equivalently to 38 apart from the convex
|
combination of the system responses and disturbance fil
|
ters However since the candidates and the tubes use
|
the same convex combination we can treat each contri
|
bution to the convex combination individually For ex
|
ample to show ˆ zi Z0
|
i i 0 N1 we get
|
M1X
|
m0λ
|
mz
|
i1 Φem
|
i10wkM1M
|
m0λ
|
mX F iΦem
|
shift
|
and we can show z
|
i1 Φem
|
i10wk X F iΦem
|
shift
|
for each mindividually As shown in the proof of Theo
|
rem 3 tubes 48 satisfy this inclusion by construction
|
The same argument holds for the other constraints and
|
thus we have shown that candidate 52 satisfies all con
|
straints in 46 which proves recursive feasibility 2
|
For robust stability we note that costs l lf in 46a
|
are only functions of the nominal trajectories and inde
|
pendent of the convex combination variables Therefore
|
the following stability result is a direct consequence of
|
Theorem 4 and Proposition 5
|
Corollary 6 Given that Assumption 1 holds system 1
|
subject to constraints 3and in closedloop with 47
|
is ISS in Xfeasfor any admissible sequence of combined
|
disturbances η where Xfeasis the set of all states xk
|
for which 46is feasible
|
Remark 5 In case heuristic FMkenters the cost
|
of46 eg as a regularizer ISS as in Corollary 6 cannot
|
be proven However we can prove inputtostate prac
|
tical stability ISpS 29 since the regularization term
|
will be constant with respect to the state and disturbance
|
6 Numerical Results
|
We first compare the recursively feasible SLTMPC 32
|
to the method presented in 25 on a two dimensional
|
14000102030405
|
u1D716u1D434080910Coverage of RCI
|
u1D4415
|
000102030405
|
u1D716u1D434
|
u1D44110Model uncertainty in u1D434
|
00010203040506
|
u1D70Eu1D464
|
u1D4415
|
00010203040506
|
u1D70Eu1D464
|
u1D44110
|
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.