By Topic

Active set vs. interior point strategies for model predictive control

Sign In

Cookies must be enabled to login.After enabling cookies , please use refresh or reload or ctrl+f5 on the browser for the login options.

Formats Non-Member Member
$31 $13
Learn how you can qualify for the best price for this item!
Become an IEEE Member or Subscribe to
IEEE Xplore for exclusive pricing!
close button

puzzle piece

IEEE membership options for an individual and IEEE Xplore subscriptions for an organization offer the most affordable access to essential journal articles, conference papers, standards, eBooks, and eLearning courses.

Learn more about:

IEEE membership

IEEE Xplore subscriptions

3 Author(s)
Bartlett, R.A. ; Dept. of Chem. Eng., Carnegie Mellon Univ., Pittsburgh, PA, USA ; Wachter, A. ; Biegler, L.T.

We consider a comparison of active set vs. interior point strategies for the solution of receding time horizon problems in nonlinear model predictive control (NMPC). For this study we consider a control algorithm where we form quadratic programs (QPs) in each time horizon by linearizing the model. We also ignore second order information on the model and constraints. This approach can be viewed as a direct nonlinear extension of MPC with linear models and is easily tailored to include stabilizing constraints. Using this framework we consider the application of three active set strategies as well as interior point methods applied to both the NMPC and the QP subproblem. The first two active set methods (QPOPT and and QKWIK) are general purpose solvers that have been incorporated into SQP algorithms previously, while the third is a Schur complement approach that can easily exploit the sparse structure of the KKT matrix in MPC

Published in:

American Control Conference, 2000. Proceedings of the 2000  (Volume:6 )

Date of Conference: