DOCSLIB.ORG

Harris Mines 0052N 11162.Pdf

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Harris Mines 0052N 11162.Pdf ROBUST RAPID PROTOTYPING SYSTEM FOR MODEL PREDICTIVE CONTROL OF SINGLE ZONE RESIDENTIAL BUILDINGS by Maxwell Thomas Harris A thesis submitted to the Faculty and the Board of Trustees of the Colorado School of Mines in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Science (Mechan- ical Engineering). Golden, Colorado Date Signed: Maxwell Thomas Harris Signed: Dr. Paulo Cesar Tabares-Velasco Thesis Advisor Golden, Colorado Date Signed: Dr. Gregory Jackson Department Head Department of Mechanical Engineering ii ABSTRACT Buildings in the United States are responsible for around 75% of total electric energy usage. Advanced controls are one way to minimize the energy use and cost; however, they require co-simulation platforms to study the effects on buildings and occupants. This thesis develops a platform to simulate advanced air conditioning controllers using model predictive controls (MPCs). MPCs require the use of co-simulation software which includes building energy simulation (EnergyPlus), optimization (AMPL), and MATLAB software used for simulation and investigation. MPCs require fast energy models as MPCs might require thousands of iterations to find an optimal solution. Thus, the platform uses an autoregressive statistical reduced order model (ROM) that quickly predicts building cooling energy use. Nine case studies test the newly developed platform with a residential building in Austin, Texas, under three different variable electric rates, along with three baseline temperature controllers. Results show that the developed MPC can save upwards of 29% energy while, at the same time, reducing cost by upwards of 45%. iii TABLE OF CONTENTS ABSTRACT ......................................... iii LISTOFFIGURES .....................................vii LISTOFTABLES...................................... xi LISTOFABBREVIATIONS ................................xii ACKNOWLEDGMENTS ..................................xv DEDICATION ........................................xvi CHAPTER1 INTRODUCTION ...............................1 1.1 ResearchObjectives. .. ....3 1.2 TechnicalApproachOverview . ....4 1.3 ThesisContributions . ....5 1.4 ThesisOrganization.............................. ....6 CHAPTER2 LITERATUREREVIEW . .7 2.1 MPC..........................................7 2.2 ROM.........................................12 2.3 Co-SimulationSoftware. .... 16 CHAPTER 3 REDUCED ORDER MODELS FOR RESIDENTIAL AND COMMERCIALBUILDINGS. 18 3.1 Introduction.................................... 18 3.2 BlackBoxModelingMethodDevelopment . ..... 21 3.3 SelectionofInputParameters . ..... 29 iv 3.3.1 ROMDevelopmentandValidation . 30 3.4 Discussion...................................... 34 3.5 Conclusion...................................... 35 CHAPTER 4 MODELING PLATFORM FOR BUILDING OPTIMIZATION-BASEDCONTROL . 37 4.1 Introduction.................................... 37 4.2 PrototypingPlatformDevelopment . ...... 40 4.3 CasestudyEnergyPlusModel . 42 4.4 ReducedOrderModel ............................... 43 4.5 MPCOptimizationModel . 45 4.5.1 Mathematical Formulation of the MPC Model . .... 46 4.6 SimulationandResults. 49 4.6.1 Prediction Horizon Parametric Analysis. ..... 49 4.6.2 MPCSimulation .............................. 52 4.6.2.1 Day Ahead Market Price (DAMP) Simulation Results . 52 4.6.2.2 Time-of-use (TOU) Simulation Results . 55 4.6.2.3 Time-of-use (EZ3) Simulation Results . 58 4.6.2.4 EnergyandCostSavingsResults . 58 4.7 Discussion...................................... 60 4.8 ConclusionandFutureWork. 62 CHAPTER5 CONCLUSION................................ 63 5.1 ResearchContributions. .... 63 5.1.1 DevelopmentofaROM . 64 v 5.1.2 Development of a Rapid MPC Prototyping Platform . ..... 65 5.2 BroaderImpact ................................... 66 5.3 FutureWork.....................................67 REFERENCESCITED ................................... 68 APPENDIX A - PLOTS OF INDIVIDUAL ZONES ON MULTIPLE ZONE ARC FIT . 77 APPENDIX B - ROM WEIGHTING MATRIX VALUES . 87 APPENDIX C - PLOTS NOT SHOWN FOR MPC SIMULATIONS . 93 vi LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1.1 MPC Modeling Environment Control Loop. ........3 Figure 2.1 Represents the receding horizon for an MPC over two time-steps. .8 Figure3.1 SystemIdentificationFlowchart. ....... 22 Figure3.2 Singlezoneresidentialbuilding. .........23 Figure3.3 Fivezonecommercialbuilding. ...... 23 Figure 3.4 System identification program used in Simulink. ...........26 Figure 3.5 A zoomed version of system identification model building on addition oftheperturbationtosystem. 27 Figure 3.6 ARMAX ROM vs EnergyPlus comparison of single zone building. 31 Figure 3.7 ARMAX ROM vs EnergyPlus comparison of single zone building. 31 Figure 3.8 ARX ROM vs EnergyPlus comparison of 5 zone building training data. Core zone is located on left and perimeter 4 zone located on right . 32 Figure 3.9 ARX ROM vs EnergyPlus comparison of 5 zone building validation data. Core zone is located on left and perimeter 4 zone located on right . 32 Figure 4.1 Represents the receding horizon for MPC over two timesteps.. 39 Figure 4.2 MPC Modeling Environment Control Loop. ....... 41 Figure 4.3 Simulink interface with MLE+ and AMPL S-function for simulation of theMPC. ...................................42 Figure4.4 Singlezoneresidentialbuilding. .........43 Figure 4.5 Comparison plot indicating the price profile for either DAMP, TOU, or EZ3vs. occupancyusedwithintheMPCstudy . 50 Figure 4.6 Plot of the prediction horizon parametric analysis showing cost savings andenergysavingsvspredictionhorizon. 51 vii Figure 4.7 Temperature comparison for the MPC and a baseline, constant temperature, controller. Both are based on DAMP pricing with Indoor Air Temperature (IAT), set-point temperature (TSP), Outdoor Air Temperature(OAT),andOccupancy. 53 Figure 4.8 Temperature comparison for the MPC and a baseline, temperature setback, controller. Both are based on DAMP pricing with Indoor Air Temperature (IAT), set-point temperature (TSP), Outdoor Air Temperature(OAT),andOccupancy. 54 Figure 4.9 Electrical consumption results from the temperature comparison plots for the MPC and a constant temperature control based on DAMP pricing ....................................54 Figure 4.10 Electrical consumption results from the temperature comparison plots for the MPC and a temperature setback control based on DAMP pricing ....................................55 Figure 4.11 Temperature comparison for the MPC and a baseline, constant temperature, controller. Both are based on TOU pricing with Indoor Air Temperature (IAT), set-point temperature (TSP), Outdoor Air Temperature(OAT),andOccupancy. 56 Figure 4.12 Temperature comparison for the MPC and a baseline, temperature setback, controller. Both are based on TOU pricing with Indoor Air Temperature (IAT), set-point temperature (TSP), Outdoor Air Temperature(OAT),andOccupancy. 56 Figure 4.13 Electrical consumption results from the temperature comparison plots for the MPC and a constant temperature control based on TOU pricing . 57 Figure 4.14 Electrical consumption results from the temperature comparison plots for the MPC and a temperature setback control based on TOU pricing . 57 Figure 4.15 Temperature comparison for the MPC and a baseline precool controller. Both are based on the EZ3 pricing with Indoor Air Temperature (IAT), set-point temperature (TSP), Outdoor Air Temperature(OAT),andOccupancy. 58 Figure 4.16 Electrical consumption results from the temperature comparison plots for the MPC and the simple precool controller based on the EZ3 pricing . 59 Figure A.1 ARX ROM vs EnergyPlus comparison of 5 zone building, core zone shown. ....................................77 viii Figure A.2 ARX ROM vs EnergyPlus comparison of 5 zone building, perimeter 1 zoneshown. .................................78 Figure A.3 ARX ROM vs EnergyPlus comparison of 5 zone building, perimeter 2 zoneshown. .................................79 Figure A.4 ARX ROM vs EnergyPlus comparison of 5 zone building, perimeter 3 zoneshown. .................................80 Figure A.5 ARX ROM vs EnergyPlus comparison of 5 zone building, perimeter 4 zoneshown. .................................81 Figure A.6 ARX ROM vs EnergyPlus comparison of 5 zone building, core zone shown. ....................................82 Figure A.7 ARX ROM vs EnergyPlus comparison of 5 zone building, perimeter 1 zoneshown. .................................83 Figure A.8 ARX ROM vs EnergyPlus comparison of 5 zone building, perimeter 2 zoneshown. .................................84 Figure A.9 ARX ROM vs EnergyPlus comparison of 5 zone building, perimeter 3 zoneshown. .................................85 Figure A.10 ARX ROM vs EnergyPlus comparison of 5 zone building, perimeter 4 zoneshown. .................................86 Figure C.1 Temperature comparison for the MPC and a baseline, precool temperature, controller. Both are based on DAMP pricing with Indoor Air Temperature (IAT), set-point temperature (TSP), Outdoor Air Temperature(OAT),andOccupancy. 93 Figure C.2 Electrical consumption results from the temperature comparison plots for the MPC and a precool temperature control based on DAMP pricing ....................................94 Figure C.3 Temperature comparison for the MPC and a baseline, precool temperature, controller. Both are based on TOU pricing with Indoor Air Temperature (IAT), set-point temperature (TSP), Outdoor Air Temperature(OAT),andOccupancy. 94 Figure C.4 Electrical consumption results from the temperature comparison plots for the MPC and a precool temperature control
Load more

Recommended publications
  • University of California, San Diego
    UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, SAN DIEGO Computational Methods for Parameter Estimation in Nonlinear Models A dissertation submitted in partial satisfaction of the requirements for the degree Doctor of Philosophy in Physics with a Specialization in Computational Physics by Bryan Andrew Toth Committee in charge: Professor Henry D. I. Abarbanel, Chair Professor Philip Gill Professor Julius Kuti Professor Gabriel Silva Professor Frank Wuerthwein 2011 Copyright Bryan Andrew Toth, 2011 All rights reserved. The dissertation of Bryan Andrew Toth is approved, and it is acceptable in quality and form for publication on microfilm and electronically: Chair University of California, San Diego 2011 iii DEDICATION To my grandparents, August and Virginia Toth and Willem and Jane Keur, who helped put me on a lifelong path of learning. iv EPIGRAPH An Expert: One who knows more and more about less and less, until eventually he knows everything about nothing. |Source Unknown v TABLE OF CONTENTS Signature Page . iii Dedication . iv Epigraph . v Table of Contents . vi List of Figures . ix List of Tables . x Acknowledgements . xi Vita and Publications . xii Abstract of the Dissertation . xiii Chapter 1 Introduction . 1 1.1 Dynamical Systems . 1 1.1.1 Linear and Nonlinear Dynamics . 2 1.1.2 Chaos . 4 1.1.3 Synchronization . 6 1.2 Parameter Estimation . 8 1.2.1 Kalman Filters . 8 1.2.2 Variational Methods . 9 1.2.3 Parameter Estimation in Nonlinear Systems . 9 1.3 Dissertation Preview . 10 Chapter 2 Dynamical State and Parameter Estimation . 11 2.1 Introduction . 11 2.2 DSPE Overview . 11 2.3 Formulation . 12 2.3.1 Least Squares Minimization .
    [Show full text]
  • MIDACO on MINLP Space Applications
    MIDACO on MINLP Space Applications Martin Schlueter Division of Large Scale Computing Systems, Information Initiative Center, Hokkaido University, Sapporo 060-0811, Japan [email protected] Sven O. Erb European Space Agency (ESA), ESTEC (TEC-ECM), Keplerlaan 1, 2201 AZ, Noordwijk, The Netherlands [email protected] Matthias Gerdts Institut fuer Mathematik und Rechneranwendung, Universit¨atder Bundeswehr, M¨unchen,D-85577 Neubiberg/M¨unchen,Germany [email protected] Stephen Kemble Astrium Limited, Gunnels Wood Road, Stevenage, Hertfordshire, SG1 2AS, United Kingdom [email protected] Jan-J. R¨uckmann School of Mathematics, University of Birmingham, Birmingham B15 2TT, United Kingdom [email protected] November 15, 2012 Abstract A numerical study on two challenging MINLP space applications and their optimization with MIDACO, which is a recently developed general purpose optimization software, is pre- sented. The applications are in particular the optimal control of the ascent of a multiple-stage space launch vehicle and the space mission trajectory design from Earth to Jupiter using mul- tiple gravity assists. Additionally an NLP aerospace application, the optimal control of an F8 aircraft manoeuvre, is furthermore discussed and solved. In order to enhance the opti- mization performance of MIDACO a hybridization technique, coupling MIDACO with a SQP algorithm, is presented for two of the three applications. The numerical results show, that the applications can be solved to their best known solution (or even new best solutions) in a reasonable time by the here considered approach. As the concept of MINLP is still a novelty in the field of (aero)space engineering, the here demonstrated capabilities are seen as promising.
    [Show full text]
  • Julia, My New Friend for Computing and Optimization? Pierre Haessig, Lilian Besson
    Julia, my new friend for computing and optimization? Pierre Haessig, Lilian Besson To cite this version: Pierre Haessig, Lilian Besson. Julia, my new friend for computing and optimization?. Master. France. 2018. cel-01830248 HAL Id: cel-01830248 https://hal.archives-ouvertes.fr/cel-01830248 Submitted on 4 Jul 2018 HAL is a multi-disciplinary open access L’archive ouverte pluridisciplinaire HAL, est archive for the deposit and dissemination of sci- destinée au dépôt et à la diffusion de documents entific research documents, whether they are pub- scientifiques de niveau recherche, publiés ou non, lished or not. The documents may come from émanant des établissements d’enseignement et de teaching and research institutions in France or recherche français ou étrangers, des laboratoires abroad, or from public or private research centers. publics ou privés. « Julia, my new computing friend? » | 14 June 2018, IETR@Vannes | By: L. Besson & P. Haessig 1 « Julia, my New frieNd for computiNg aNd optimizatioN? » Intro to the Julia programming language, for MATLAB users Date: 14th of June 2018 Who: Lilian Besson & Pierre Haessig (SCEE & AUT team @ IETR / CentraleSupélec campus Rennes) « Julia, my new computing friend? » | 14 June 2018, IETR@Vannes | By: L. Besson & P. Haessig 2 AgeNda for today [30 miN] 1. What is Julia? [5 miN] 2. ComparisoN with MATLAB [5 miN] 3. Two examples of problems solved Julia [5 miN] 4. LoNger ex. oN optimizatioN with JuMP [13miN] 5. LiNks for more iNformatioN ? [2 miN] « Julia, my new computing friend? » | 14 June 2018, IETR@Vannes | By: L. Besson & P. Haessig 3 1. What is Julia ? Open-source and free programming language (MIT license) Developed since 2012 (creators: MIT researchers) Growing popularity worldwide, in research, data science, finance etc… Multi-platform: Windows, Mac OS X, GNU/Linux..
    [Show full text]
  • Numericaloptimization
    Numerical Optimization Alberto Bemporad http://cse.lab.imtlucca.it/~bemporad/teaching/numopt Academic year 2020-2021 Course objectives Solve complex decision problems by using numerical optimization Application domains: • Finance, management science, economics (portfolio optimization, business analytics, investment plans, resource allocation, logistics, ...) • Engineering (engineering design, process optimization, embedded control, ...) • Artificial intelligence (machine learning, data science, autonomous driving, ...) • Myriads of other applications (transportation, smart grids, water networks, sports scheduling, health-care, oil & gas, space, ...) ©2021 A. Bemporad - Numerical Optimization 2/102 Course objectives What this course is about: • How to formulate a decision problem as a numerical optimization problem? (modeling) • Which numerical algorithm is most appropriate to solve the problem? (algorithms) • What’s the theory behind the algorithm? (theory) ©2021 A. Bemporad - Numerical Optimization 3/102 Course contents • Optimization modeling – Linear models – Convex models • Optimization theory – Optimality conditions, sensitivity analysis – Duality • Optimization algorithms – Basics of numerical linear algebra – Convex programming – Nonlinear programming ©2021 A. Bemporad - Numerical Optimization 4/102 References i ©2021 A. Bemporad - Numerical Optimization 5/102 Other references • Stephen Boyd’s “Convex Optimization” courses at Stanford: http://ee364a.stanford.edu http://ee364b.stanford.edu • Lieven Vandenberghe’s courses at UCLA: http://www.seas.ucla.edu/~vandenbe/ • For more tutorials/books see http://plato.asu.edu/sub/tutorials.html ©2021 A. Bemporad - Numerical Optimization 6/102 Optimization modeling What is optimization? • Optimization = assign values to a set of decision variables so to optimize a certain objective function • Example: Which is the best velocity to minimize fuel consumption ? fuel [ℓ/km] velocity [km/h] 0 30 60 90 120 160 ©2021 A.
    [Show full text]
  • Derivative-Free Optimization: a Review of Algorithms and Comparison of Software Implementations
    J Glob Optim (2013) 56:1247–1293 DOI 10.1007/s10898-012-9951-y Derivative-free optimization: a review of algorithms and comparison of software implementations Luis Miguel Rios · Nikolaos V. Sahinidis Received: 20 December 2011 / Accepted: 23 June 2012 / Published online: 12 July 2012 © Springer Science+Business Media, LLC. 2012 Abstract This paper addresses the solution of bound-constrained optimization problems using algorithms that require only the availability of objective function values but no deriv- ative information. We refer to these algorithms as derivative-free algorithms. Fueled by a growing number of applications in science and engineering, the development of derivative- free optimization algorithms has long been studied, and it has found renewed interest in recent time. Along with many derivative-free algorithms, many software implementations have also appeared. The paper presents a review of derivative-free algorithms, followed by a systematic comparison of 22 related implementations using a test set of 502 problems. The test bed includes convex and nonconvex problems, smooth as well as nonsmooth prob- lems. The algorithms were tested under the same conditions and ranked under several crite- ria, including their ability to find near-global solutions for nonconvex problems, improve a given starting point, and refine a near-optimal solution. A total of 112,448 problem instances were solved. We find that the ability of all these solvers to obtain good solutions dimin- ishes with increasing problem size. For the problems used in this study, TOMLAB/MULTI- MIN, TOMLAB/GLCCLUSTER, MCS and TOMLAB/LGO are better, on average, than other derivative-free solvers in terms of solution quality within 2,500 function evaluations.
    [Show full text]
  • TOMLAB –Unique Features for Optimization in MATLAB
    TOMLAB –Unique Features for Optimization in MATLAB Bad Honnef, Germany October 15, 2004 Kenneth Holmström Tomlab Optimization AB Västerås, Sweden [email protected] ´ Professor in Optimization Department of Mathematics and Physics Mälardalen University, Sweden http://tomlab.biz Outline of the talk • The TOMLAB Optimization Environment – Background and history – Technology available • Optimization in TOMLAB • Tests on customer supplied large-scale optimization examples • Customer cases, embedded solutions, consultant work • Business perspective • Box-bounded global non-convex optimization • Summary http://tomlab.biz Background • MATLAB – a high-level language for mathematical calculations, distributed by MathWorks Inc. • Matlab can be extended by Toolboxes that adds to the features in the software, e.g.: finance, statistics, control, and optimization • Why develop the TOMLAB Optimization Environment? – A uniform approach to optimization didn’t exist in MATLAB – Good optimization solvers were missing – Large-scale optimization was non-existent in MATLAB – Other toolboxes needed robust and fast optimization – Technical advantages from the MATLAB languages • Fast algorithm development and modeling of applied optimization problems • Many built in functions (ODE, linear algebra, …) • GUIdevelopmentfast • Interfaceable with C, Fortran, Java code http://tomlab.biz History of Tomlab • President and founder: Professor Kenneth Holmström • The company founded 1986, Development started 1989 • Two toolboxes NLPLIB och OPERA by 1995 • Integrated format for optimization 1996 • TOMLAB introduced, ISMP97 in Lausanne 1997 • TOMLAB v1.0 distributed for free until summer 1999 • TOMLAB v2.0 first commercial version fall 1999 • TOMLAB starting sales from web site March 2000 • TOMLAB v3.0 expanded with external solvers /SOL spring 2001 • Dash Optimization Ltd’s XpressMP added in TOMLAB fall 2001 • Tomlab Optimization Inc.
    [Show full text]
  • Click to Edit Master Title Style
    Click to edit Master title style MINLP with Combined Interior Point and Active Set Methods Jose L. Mojica Adam D. Lewis John D. Hedengren Brigham Young University INFORM 2013, Minneapolis, MN Presentation Overview NLP Benchmarking Hock-Schittkowski Dynamic optimization Biological models Combining Interior Point and Active Set MINLP Benchmarking MacMINLP MINLP Model Predictive Control Chiller Thermal Energy Storage Unmanned Aerial Systems Future Developments Oct 9, 2013 APMonitor.com APOPT.com Brigham Young University Overview of Benchmark Testing NLP Benchmark Testing 1 1 2 3 3 min J (x, y,u) APOPT , BPOPT , IPOPT , SNOPT , MINOS x Problem characteristics: s.t. 0 f , x, y,u t Hock Schittkowski, Dynamic Opt, SBML 0 g(x, y,u) Nonlinear Programming (NLP) Differential Algebraic Equations (DAEs) 0 h(x, y,u) n m APMonitor Modeling Language x, y u MINLP Benchmark Testing min J (x, y,u, z) 1 1 2 APOPT , BPOPT , BONMIN x s.t. 0 f , x, y,u, z Problem characteristics: t MacMINLP, Industrial Test Set 0 g(x, y,u, z) Mixed Integer Nonlinear Programming (MINLP) 0 h(x, y,u, z) Mixed Integer Differential Algebraic Equations (MIDAEs) x, y n u m z m APMonitor & AMPL Modeling Language 1–APS, LLC 2–EPL, 3–SBS, Inc. Oct 9, 2013 APMonitor.com APOPT.com Brigham Young University NLP Benchmark – Summary (494) 100 90 80 APOPT+BPOPT APOPT 70 1.0 BPOPT 1.0 60 IPOPT 3.10 IPOPT 50 2.3 SNOPT Percentage (%) 6.1 40 Benchmark Results MINOS 494 Problems 5.5 30 20 10 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5 5 Not worse than 2 times slower than
    [Show full text]
  • Specifying “Logical” Conditions in AMPL Optimization Models
    Specifying “Logical” Conditions in AMPL Optimization Models Robert Fourer AMPL Optimization www.ampl.com — 773-336-AMPL INFORMS Annual Meeting Phoenix, Arizona — 14-17 October 2012 Session SA15, Software Demonstrations Robert Fourer, Logical Conditions in AMPL INFORMS Annual Meeting — 14-17 Oct 2012 — Session SA15, Software Demonstrations 1 New and Forthcoming Developments in the AMPL Modeling Language and System Optimization modelers are often stymied by the complications of converting problem logic into algebraic constraints suitable for solvers. The AMPL modeling language thus allows various logical conditions to be described directly. Additionally a new interface to the ILOG CP solver handles logic in a natural way not requiring conventional transformations. Robert Fourer, Logical Conditions in AMPL INFORMS Annual Meeting — 14-17 Oct 2012 — Session SA15, Software Demonstrations 2 AMPL News Free AMPL book chapters AMPL for Courses Extended function library Extended support for “logical” conditions AMPL driver for CPLEX Opt Studio “Concert” C++ interface Support for ILOG CP constraint programming solver Support for “logical” constraints in CPLEX INFORMS Impact Prize to . Originators of AIMMS, AMPL, GAMS, LINDO, MPL Awards presented Sunday 8:30-9:45, Conv Ctr West 101 Doors close 8:45! Robert Fourer, Logical Conditions in AMPL INFORMS Annual Meeting — 14-17 Oct 2012 — Session SA15, Software Demonstrations 3 AMPL Book Chapters now free for download www.ampl.com/BOOK/download.html Bound copies remain available purchase from usual
    [Show full text]
  • Theory and Experimentation
    Acta Astronautica 122 (2016) 114–136 Contents lists available at ScienceDirect Acta Astronautica journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/actaastro Suboptimal LQR-based spacecraft full motion control: Theory and experimentation Leone Guarnaccia b,1, Riccardo Bevilacqua a,n, Stefano P. Pastorelli b,2 a Department of Mechanical and Aerospace Engineering, University of Florida 308 MAE-A building, P.O. box 116250, Gainesville, FL 32611-6250, United States b Department of Mechanical and Aerospace Engineering, Politecnico di Torino, Corso Duca degli Abruzzi 24, Torino 10129, Italy article info abstract Article history: This work introduces a real time suboptimal control algorithm for six-degree-of-freedom Received 19 January 2015 spacecraft maneuvering based on a State-Dependent-Algebraic-Riccati-Equation (SDARE) Received in revised form approach and real-time linearization of the equations of motion. The control strategy is 18 November 2015 sub-optimal since the gains of the linear quadratic regulator (LQR) are re-computed at Accepted 18 January 2016 each sample time. The cost function of the proposed controller has been compared with Available online 2 February 2016 the one obtained via a general purpose optimal control software, showing, on average, an increase in control effort of approximately 15%, compensated by real-time implement- ability. Lastly, the paper presents experimental tests on a hardware-in-the-loop six- Keywords: Spacecraft degree-of-freedom spacecraft simulator, designed for testing new guidance, navigation, Optimal control and control algorithms for nano-satellites in a one-g laboratory environment. The tests Linear quadratic regulator show the real-time feasibility of the proposed approach. Six-degree-of-freedom & 2016 The Authors.
    [Show full text]
  • Click to Edit Master Title Style
    Click to edit Master title style APMonitor Modeling Language John Hedengren Brigham Young University Advanced Process Solutions, LLC http://apmonitor.com Overview of APM Software as a service accessible through: MATLAB, Python, Web-browser interface Linux / Windows / Mac OS / Android platforms Solvers 1 1 2 3 3 APOPT , BPOPT , IPOPT , SNOPT , MINOS Problem characteristics: min J (x, y,u, z) Large-scale x s.t. 0 f , x, y,u, z Nonlinear Programming (NLP) t Mixed Integer NLP (MINLP) 0 g(x, y,u, z) Multi-objective 0 h(x, y,u, z) n m m Real-time systems x, y u z Differential Algebraic Equations (DAEs) 1 – APS, LLC 2 – EPL 3 – SBS, Inc. Oct 14, 2012 APMonitor.com Advanced Process Solutions, LLC Overview of APM Vector / matrix algebra with set notation Automatic Differentiation st nd Exact 1 and 2 Derivatives Large-scale, sparse systems of equations Object-oriented access Thermo-physical properties Database of preprogrammed models Parallel processing Optimization with uncertain parameters Custom solver or model connections Oct 14, 2012 APMonitor.com Advanced Process Solutions, LLC Unique Features of APM Initialization with nonlinear presolve minJ(x, y,u) x s.t. 0 f ,x, y,u min J (x, y,u) t 0 g(x, y,u) 0h(x, y,u) x minJ(x, y,u) x s.t. 0 f ,x, y,u s.t. 0 f , x, y,u t 0 g(x, y,u) t 0 h(x, y,u) minJ(x, y,u) x s.t. 0 f ,x, y,u t 0g(x, y,u) 0h(x, y,u) 0 g(x, y,u) minJ(x, y,u) x s.t.
    [Show full text]
  • Research and Development of an Open Source System for Algebraic Modeling Languages
    Vilnius University Institute of Data Science and Digital Technologies LITHUANIA INFORMATICS (N009) RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT OF AN OPEN SOURCE SYSTEM FOR ALGEBRAIC MODELING LANGUAGES Vaidas Juseviˇcius October 2020 Technical Report DMSTI-DS-N009-20-05 VU Institute of Data Science and Digital Technologies, Akademijos str. 4, Vilnius LT-08412, Lithuania www.mii.lt Abstract In this work, we perform an extensive theoretical and experimental analysis of the char- acteristics of five of the most prominent algebraic modeling languages (AMPL, AIMMS, GAMS, JuMP, Pyomo), and modeling systems supporting them. In our theoretical comparison, we evaluate how the features of the reviewed languages match with the requirements for modern AMLs, while in the experimental analysis we use a purpose-built test model li- brary to perform extensive benchmarks of the various AMLs. We then determine the best performing AMLs by comparing the time needed to create model instances for spe- cific type of optimization problems and analyze the impact that the presolve procedures performed by various AMLs have on the actual problem-solving times. Lastly, we pro- vide insights on which AMLs performed best and features that we deem important in the current landscape of mathematical optimization. Keywords: Algebraic modeling languages, Optimization, AMPL, GAMS, JuMP, Py- omo DMSTI-DS-N009-20-05 2 Contents 1 Introduction ................................................................................................. 4 2 Algebraic Modeling Languages .........................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Robert Fourer, David M. Gay INFORMS Annual Meeting
    AMPL New Solver Support in the AMPL Modeling Language Robert Fourer, David M. Gay AMPL Optimization LLC, www.ampl.com Department of Industrial Engineering & Management Sciences, Northwestern University Sandia National Laboratories INFORMS Annual Meeting Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, November 5-8, 2006 Robert Fourer, New Solver Support in the AMPL Modeling Language INFORMS Annual Meeting, November 5-8, 2006 1 AMPL What it is . A modeling language for optimization A system to support optimization modeling What I’ll cover . Brief examples, briefer history Recent developments . ¾ 64-bit versions ¾ floating license manager ¾ AMPL Studio graphical interface & Windows COM objects Solver support ¾ new KNITRO 5.1 features ¾ new CPLEX 10.1 features Robert Fourer, New Solver Support in the AMPL Modeling Language INFORMS Annual Meeting, November 5-8, 2006 2 Ex 1: Airline Fleet Assignment set FLEETS; set CITIES; set TIMES circular; set FLEET_LEGS within {f in FLEETS, c1 in CITIES, t1 in TIMES, c2 in CITIES, t2 in TIMES: c1 <> c2 and t1 <> t2}; # (f,c1,t1,c2,t2) represents the availability of fleet f # to cover the leg that leaves c1 at t1 and # whose arrival time plus turnaround time at c2 is t2 param leg_cost {FLEET_LEGS} >= 0; param fleet_size {FLEETS} >= 0; Robert Fourer, New Solver Support in the AMPL Modeling Language INFORMS Annual Meeting, November 5-8, 2006 3 Ex 1: Derived Sets set LEGS := setof {(f,c1,t1,c2,t2) in FLEET_LEGS} (c1,t1,c2,t2); # the set of all legs that can be covered by some fleet set SERV_CITIES {f in FLEETS} := union {(f,c1,c2,t1,t2)
    [Show full text]