# American Institute of Mathematical Sciences

• Previous Article
Structure of approximate solutions of Bolza variational problems on large intervals
• DCDS-S Home
• This Issue
• Next Article
Second order necessary and sufficient optimality conditions for singular solutions of partially-affine control problems
December  2018, 11(6): 1259-1282. doi: 10.3934/dcdss.2018071

## A study of structure-exploiting SQP algorithms for an optimal control problem with coupled hyperbolic and ordinary differential equation constraints

 1 Institut für Mathematik und Rechneranwendung (LRT-1), Universität der Bundeswehr München, Werner-Heisenberg-Weg 39, 85577 Neubiberg/München, Germany 2 Center for Computational Mathematics, University of California, San Diego, 9500 Gilman Drive, La Jolla, CA 92093-0112, USA

* Corresponding author: Sven-Joachim Kimmerle

Received  April 2017 Revised  September 2017 Published  June 2018

In this article, structure-exploiting optimisation algorithms of the sequential quadratic programming (SQP) type are considered for optimal control problems with control and state constraints. Our approach is demonstrated for a 1D mathematical model of a vehicle transporting a fluid container. The model involves a fully coupled system of ordinary differential equations (ODE) and nonlinear hyperbolic first-order partial differential equations (PDE), although the ideas for exploiting the particular structure may be applied to more general optimal control problems as well. The time-optimal control problem is solved numerically by a full discretisation approach. The corresponding nonlinear optimisation problem is solved by an SQP method that uses exact first and second derivative information. The quadratic subproblems are solved using an active-set strategy. In addition, two approaches are examined that exploit the specific structure of the problem: (A) a direct method for the KKT system, and (B) an iterative method based on combining the limited-memory BFGS method with the preconditioned conjugate gradient method. Method (A) is faster for our model problem, but can be limited by the problem size. Method (B) opens the door for a potential extension of the truck-container model to three space dimensions.

Citation: Jan-Hendrik Webert, Philip E. Gill, Sven-Joachim Kimmerle, Matthias Gerdts. A study of structure-exploiting SQP algorithms for an optimal control problem with coupled hyperbolic and ordinary differential equation constraints. Discrete & Continuous Dynamical Systems - S, 2018, 11 (6) : 1259-1282. doi: 10.3934/dcdss.2018071
##### References:

show all references

##### References:
Model of the truck and fluid tank, cf. [7].
Optimal solution: control force $u(t)$ (left) and fluid column height $h(t, x) + b(x)$ (right) for $N = 300$, $M = 10$ (final time minimised, $T = 10.8s$) and a straight fluid tank bottom.
Optimal solution: control force $u(t)$ (left) and fluid column height $h(t, x) + b(x)$ (right) for $N = 300$, $M = 10$ (final time and fluid-level deviation minimised, $T = 19.1s$) and a straight fluid tank bottom.
Optimal solution: control force $u(t)$ (left) and fluid column height $h(t, x) + b(x)$ (right) for $N = 150$, $M = 5$ (final time minimised, $T = 11.5s$). The bottom of the fluid tank is given by the linear function $b(x) = - x/8 + 1/2, \, 0 \leq x \leq L = 4$.
Solution output of Problem (1) with $M = 5$ and $N = 150$. $\texttt{CV}$ and $\texttt{KKT}$ denote the norm of the constraint violation and the norm of the gradient of the Lagrangian, respectively. $\texttt{QPIT}$ is the number of QP iterations and $\texttt{OBJ}$ the value of the objective function.
 $\texttt{ITER}$ $\texttt{QPIT}$ $\texttt{ALPHA}$ $\texttt{OBJ}$ $\texttt{CV}$ $\texttt{KKT}$ $\texttt{0}$ $\texttt{0}$ $\texttt{0.0000E+00}$ $\texttt{0.100000050000E+01}$ $\texttt{0.9893E+02}$ $\texttt{0.1000E+00}$ $\texttt{1}$ $\texttt{224}$ $\texttt{0.1000E+01}$ $\texttt{0.102710574197E+01}$ $\texttt{0.1811E+02}$ $\texttt{0.2648E-01}$ $\texttt{2}$ $\texttt{6}$ $\texttt{0.1000E+01}$ $\texttt{0.107819921922E+01}$ $\texttt{0.2086E+00}$ $\texttt{0.5244E-02}$ $\texttt{3}$ $\texttt{24}$ $\texttt{0.1000E+01}$ $\texttt{0.109015429623E+01}$ $\texttt{0.4723E-02}$ $\texttt{0.2969E-03}$ $\texttt{4}$ $\texttt{5}$ $\texttt{0.1000E+01}$ $\texttt{0.109049950972E+01}$ $\texttt{0.3198E-05}$ $\texttt{0.4477E-06}$ $\texttt{5}$ $\texttt{3}$ $\texttt{0.1000E+01}$ $\texttt{0.109049961114E+01}$ $\texttt{0.4253E-11}$ $\texttt{0.4570E-12}$ $\texttt{END OF SQP METHOD}$
 $\texttt{ITER}$ $\texttt{QPIT}$ $\texttt{ALPHA}$ $\texttt{OBJ}$ $\texttt{CV}$ $\texttt{KKT}$ $\texttt{0}$ $\texttt{0}$ $\texttt{0.0000E+00}$ $\texttt{0.100000050000E+01}$ $\texttt{0.9893E+02}$ $\texttt{0.1000E+00}$ $\texttt{1}$ $\texttt{224}$ $\texttt{0.1000E+01}$ $\texttt{0.102710574197E+01}$ $\texttt{0.1811E+02}$ $\texttt{0.2648E-01}$ $\texttt{2}$ $\texttt{6}$ $\texttt{0.1000E+01}$ $\texttt{0.107819921922E+01}$ $\texttt{0.2086E+00}$ $\texttt{0.5244E-02}$ $\texttt{3}$ $\texttt{24}$ $\texttt{0.1000E+01}$ $\texttt{0.109015429623E+01}$ $\texttt{0.4723E-02}$ $\texttt{0.2969E-03}$ $\texttt{4}$ $\texttt{5}$ $\texttt{0.1000E+01}$ $\texttt{0.109049950972E+01}$ $\texttt{0.3198E-05}$ $\texttt{0.4477E-06}$ $\texttt{5}$ $\texttt{3}$ $\texttt{0.1000E+01}$ $\texttt{0.109049961114E+01}$ $\texttt{0.4253E-11}$ $\texttt{0.4570E-12}$ $\texttt{END OF SQP METHOD}$
Sequence of problems with gradually refined discretisations solved with $\texttt{sqpfiltertoolbox}$ Method (A) and $\texttt{SNOPT}$. $\texttt{SQPIT}$ states the number of SQP iterations.
 $\underline{\rm{\texttt{problem}}\ \rm{\texttt{data:}}}$ $\texttt{FEASTOL = 1.00E-008}$ $\alpha_0$ = $\texttt{1.00E-001}$ $\texttt{OPTTOL = 1.00E-008}$ $\alpha_1$ = $\texttt{0}$ $\mu$ = $\texttt{1.00E-012}$ $\alpha_2$ = $\texttt{1.00E-007}$ $\texttt{threshold = 1.00E-002}$ $\alpha_3$ = $\texttt{1.00E+000}$ $\texttt{initialisation by collocation}$ $\alpha_4$ = $\texttt{1.00E-007}$ $c_0$ = $\texttt{1.00E-003}$ $\texttt{N}$ $\texttt{M}$ $\tilde{J}$ $\texttt{SQPIT}$ $\texttt{QPIT}$ $t[s]$ $t[s]$ $\texttt{SNOPT}$ $\texttt{150}$ $\texttt{5}$ $\texttt{1.0905}$ $\texttt{5}$ $\texttt{263}$ $\texttt{10.4}$ $\texttt{1.6}$ $\texttt{300}$ $\texttt{10}$ $\texttt{1.0870}$ $\texttt{3}$ $\texttt{47}$ $\texttt{19.4}$ $\texttt{7.8}$ $\texttt{450}$ $\texttt{15}$ $\texttt{1.0840}$ $\texttt{3}$ $\texttt{49}$ $\texttt{91.6}$ $\texttt{25.4}$ $\texttt{600}$ $\texttt{20}$ $\texttt{1.0810}$ $\texttt{3}$ $\texttt{49}$ $\texttt{281.9}$ $\texttt{99.0}$ $\texttt{900}$ $\texttt{30}$ $\texttt{1.0751}$ $\texttt{4}$ $\texttt{110}$ $\texttt{2824.7}$ $\texttt{1541.0}$ $\texttt{1200}$ $\texttt{40}$ $\texttt{1.0705}$ $\texttt{4}$ $\texttt{289}$ $\texttt{22333.2}$ $\texttt{162545.6}$
 $\underline{\rm{\texttt{problem}}\ \rm{\texttt{data:}}}$ $\texttt{FEASTOL = 1.00E-008}$ $\alpha_0$ = $\texttt{1.00E-001}$ $\texttt{OPTTOL = 1.00E-008}$ $\alpha_1$ = $\texttt{0}$ $\mu$ = $\texttt{1.00E-012}$ $\alpha_2$ = $\texttt{1.00E-007}$ $\texttt{threshold = 1.00E-002}$ $\alpha_3$ = $\texttt{1.00E+000}$ $\texttt{initialisation by collocation}$ $\alpha_4$ = $\texttt{1.00E-007}$ $c_0$ = $\texttt{1.00E-003}$ $\texttt{N}$ $\texttt{M}$ $\tilde{J}$ $\texttt{SQPIT}$ $\texttt{QPIT}$ $t[s]$ $t[s]$ $\texttt{SNOPT}$ $\texttt{150}$ $\texttt{5}$ $\texttt{1.0905}$ $\texttt{5}$ $\texttt{263}$ $\texttt{10.4}$ $\texttt{1.6}$ $\texttt{300}$ $\texttt{10}$ $\texttt{1.0870}$ $\texttt{3}$ $\texttt{47}$ $\texttt{19.4}$ $\texttt{7.8}$ $\texttt{450}$ $\texttt{15}$ $\texttt{1.0840}$ $\texttt{3}$ $\texttt{49}$ $\texttt{91.6}$ $\texttt{25.4}$ $\texttt{600}$ $\texttt{20}$ $\texttt{1.0810}$ $\texttt{3}$ $\texttt{49}$ $\texttt{281.9}$ $\texttt{99.0}$ $\texttt{900}$ $\texttt{30}$ $\texttt{1.0751}$ $\texttt{4}$ $\texttt{110}$ $\texttt{2824.7}$ $\texttt{1541.0}$ $\texttt{1200}$ $\texttt{40}$ $\texttt{1.0705}$ $\texttt{4}$ $\texttt{289}$ $\texttt{22333.2}$ $\texttt{162545.6}$
 [1] Gervy Marie Angeles, Gilbert Peralta. Energy method for exponential stability of coupled one-dimensional hyperbolic PDE-ODE systems. Evolution Equations & Control Theory, 2020  doi: 10.3934/eect.2020108 [2] Hassan Mohammad. A diagonal PRP-type projection method for convex constrained nonlinear monotone equations. Journal of Industrial & Management Optimization, 2021, 17 (1) : 101-116. doi: 10.3934/jimo.2019101 [3] Li-Bin Liu, Ying Liang, Jian Zhang, Xiaobing Bao. A robust adaptive grid method for singularly perturbed Burger-Huxley equations. Electronic Research Archive, 2020, 28 (4) : 1439-1457. doi: 10.3934/era.2020076 [4] Gunther Uhlmann, Jian Zhai. Inverse problems for nonlinear hyperbolic equations. Discrete & Continuous Dynamical Systems - A, 2021, 41 (1) : 455-469. doi: 10.3934/dcds.2020380 [5] Xavier Carvajal, Liliana Esquivel, Raphael Santos. On local well-posedness and ill-posedness results for a coupled system of mkdv type equations. Discrete & Continuous Dynamical Systems - A, 2020  doi: 10.3934/dcds.2020382 [6] Yuxia Guo, Shaolong Peng. A direct method of moving planes for fully nonlinear nonlocal operators and applications. Discrete & Continuous Dynamical Systems - S, 2020  doi: 10.3934/dcdss.2020462 [7] Marion Darbas, Jérémy Heleine, Stephanie Lohrengel. Numerical resolution by the quasi-reversibility method of a data completion problem for Maxwell's equations. Inverse Problems & Imaging, 2020, 14 (6) : 1107-1133. doi: 10.3934/ipi.2020056 [8] Peter H. van der Kamp, D. I. McLaren, G. R. W. Quispel. Homogeneous darboux polynomials and generalising integrable ODE systems. Journal of Computational Dynamics, 2021, 8 (1) : 1-8. doi: 10.3934/jcd.2021001 [9] Leilei Wei, Yinnian He. A fully discrete local discontinuous Galerkin method with the generalized numerical flux to solve the tempered fractional reaction-diffusion equation. Discrete & Continuous Dynamical Systems - B, 2020  doi: 10.3934/dcdsb.2020319 [10] Neng Zhu, Zhengrong Liu, Fang Wang, Kun Zhao. Asymptotic dynamics of a system of conservation laws from chemotaxis. Discrete & Continuous Dynamical Systems - A, 2021, 41 (2) : 813-847. doi: 10.3934/dcds.2020301 [11] Ilyasse Lamrani, Imad El Harraki, Ali Boutoulout, Fatima-Zahrae El Alaoui. Feedback stabilization of bilinear coupled hyperbolic systems. Discrete & Continuous Dynamical Systems - S, 2020  doi: 10.3934/dcdss.2020434 [12] Zhilei Liang, Jiangyu Shuai. Existence of strong solution for the Cauchy problem of fully compressible Navier-Stokes equations in two dimensions. Discrete & Continuous Dynamical Systems - B, 2020  doi: 10.3934/dcdsb.2020348 [13] Jun Zhou. Lifespan of solutions to a fourth order parabolic PDE involving the Hessian modeling epitaxial growth. Communications on Pure & Applied Analysis, 2020, 19 (12) : 5581-5590. doi: 10.3934/cpaa.2020252 [14] Adel M. Al-Mahdi, Mohammad M. Al-Gharabli, Salim A. Messaoudi. New general decay result for a system of viscoelastic wave equations with past history. Communications on Pure & Applied Analysis, 2021, 20 (1) : 389-404. doi: 10.3934/cpaa.2020273 [15] Mehdi Bastani, Davod Khojasteh Salkuyeh. On the GSOR iteration method for image restoration. Numerical Algebra, Control & Optimization, 2021, 11 (1) : 27-43. doi: 10.3934/naco.2020013 [16] Fathalla A. Rihan, Hebatallah J. Alsakaji. Stochastic delay differential equations of three-species prey-predator system with cooperation among prey species. Discrete & Continuous Dynamical Systems - S, 2020  doi: 10.3934/dcdss.2020468 [17] Hong Niu, Zhijiang Feng, Qijin Xiao, Yajun Zhang. A PID control method based on optimal control strategy. Numerical Algebra, Control & Optimization, 2021, 11 (1) : 117-126. doi: 10.3934/naco.2020019 [18] Mathew Gluck. Classification of solutions to a system of $n^{\rm th}$ order equations on $\mathbb R^n$. Communications on Pure & Applied Analysis, 2020, 19 (12) : 5413-5436. doi: 10.3934/cpaa.2020246 [19] Zexuan Liu, Zhiyuan Sun, Jerry Zhijian Yang. A numerical study of superconvergence of the discontinuous Galerkin method by patch reconstruction. Electronic Research Archive, 2020, 28 (4) : 1487-1501. doi: 10.3934/era.2020078 [20] Noah Stevenson, Ian Tice. A truncated real interpolation method and characterizations of screened Sobolev spaces. Communications on Pure & Applied Analysis, 2020, 19 (12) : 5509-5566. doi: 10.3934/cpaa.2020250

2019 Impact Factor: 1.233