# Modeling the System: Constraints & Performance Evaluation

Recall that the system state $$\def\xvec{\boldsymbol x} \xvec(t)$$ and control $$\def\uvec{\boldsymbol u} \uvec(t)$$ are the instantaneous values of state and control at any given time. We also speak of the state trajectory, or control history, to refer to the function as a whole, over the entire time period $$t ∈ [t_0, t_f]$$.

Not all conceivable values for the state and control vectors are allowable. For example, in a control system intending to drive a car, speed limits must be obeyed, the car must not run out of gasoline, and—even more fundamentally—the car must stay on the road!

A simple way to indicate such constraints is with predicates on system and/or control values, for example the inequalities: $|x_1(t)| ≤ 2 \quad\text{or}\quad {-M} ≤ u(t) ≤ 0.$ For the soft-landing problem, one important constraint is listed right there in the title: the vertical velocity at touch-down must be very close to zero. (The landing surface will ensure that the vertical velocity after touchdown is zero, a process known as lithobraking.)

## Optimality

Now we begin to touch on the name of this blog.

Once we have determined the set of “admissible” states and controls, there must be some way of choosing one (control curve–state curve)-pair out of the admissible region. In classical control theory, the measure is often the system response to step or ramp input, or a frequency response characteristic.

For our purposes, we define a very general performance measure: $J = h(\xvec(t_f), t_f) + \int_{t_0}^{t_f} g(\xvec(t),\uvec(t),t)\,dt$ for some scalar functions $$h$$ and $$g$$. An optimal system is one where $$J$$ is minimized; this minimal value for the performance measure we denote $$J^*$$.

## Feedback

When I wrote $$\uvec(t)$$ above, that is not to imply that the applied control at any given time has been pre-programmed into the system, though such systems do exist. Most systems have a control law, mapping the system’s current state to a control input that will get the system to do as we wish it to. Using the “—*” notation, this means $\uvec^*(t) = \uvec^*(\xvec(t),t).$

Ah, but how to determine that law? More on that next time.

I should really know this stuff better, but I’m a little confused why you need to include (a function of) the final state vector in the performance measure. I know you mention that you need a final velocity tending to zero, but that shouldn’t that be guaranteed by the control input?

Or are you using $$J$$ to also shape the state trajectory?

—Will Robinson, Monday, September 21, 2009

Consider a lunar lander: the control will have to balance fuel-efficiency with landing at the correct location!

And I’m pretty sure that if you leave out the final zero velocity then the optimization will happily leave your engines off all the way down. The lunar surface will bring your speed down pretty quickly after that…

—Joel Salomon, Monday, September 21, 2009

Okay, I should have read your post more carefully; since you’re choosing a “(control curve–state curve)” based on the optimisation, I think that makes sense.

On the other hand, if your function $$g$$ had a singularity for $$\text{velocity} ≠ 0$$ at final time, that might be able to achieve the same effect. Erm, but what would that look like? I guess something like $$\frac{|\boldsymbol v|⋅t}{t_f-t}$$ but that looks a bit nasty. I don’t even know if that sort of thing is allowed. Really I should study optimal control again before I go talking about it. ☺

—Will Robinson, Monday, September 21, 2009

That might be doable, but generally the performance measure has an intuitive meaning, e.g., fuel efficiency or final position accuracy. Plus, I suspect that clever choices of $$g(…)$$ will make the optimization intractable.

—Joel Salomon, Tuesday, September 22, 2009

Posted in control theory on
Tags: State Space and Constraints.