# American Institute of Mathematical Sciences

December  2019, 9(4): 493-506. doi: 10.3934/naco.2019037

## A hybrid parametrization approach for a class of nonlinear optimal control problems

 1 Department of Mathematics, Faculty of Mathematics, University of Sistan and Baluchestan, Zahedan, Iran 2 Department of Applied Mathematics, Faculty of Mathematics and Computer, Shahid Bahonar University of Kerman, Kerman, Iran 3 Department of Applied Mathematics, University of Science and Technology of Mazandaran, Behshahr, Iran

Received  November 2018 Revised  April 2019 Published  May 2019

In this paper, a suitable hybrid iterative scheme for solving a class of non-linear optimal control problems (NOCPs) is proposed. The technique is based upon homotopy analysis and parametrization methods. Actually an appropriate parametrization of control is applied and state variables are computed using homotopy analysis method (HAM). Then performance index is transformed by replacing new control and state variables. The results obtained from the given method are compared with the results which are obtained using the spectral homotopy analysis method (SHAM), homotopy perturbation method (HPM), optimal homotopy perturbation method (OHPM), modified variational iteration method (MVIM) and differential transformations. The existence and uniqueness of the solution are presented. The comparison and ability of the given approach is illustrated via two examples.

Citation: M. Alipour, M. A. Vali, A. H. Borzabadi. A hybrid parametrization approach for a class of nonlinear optimal control problems. Numerical Algebra, Control & Optimization, 2019, 9 (4) : 493-506. doi: 10.3934/naco.2019037
##### References:

show all references

##### References:
Approximate solution of $x_1(t)$ and $u_1(t)$ for (m = 4, k = 2)
Approximate solution of x2(t) and u2(t) for (m = 4, k = 2)
Approximate solution of x3(t) and u3(t) for (m = 4, k = 2)
h-curve at 4-order of approximation of $x_1(t)$ and $x_2(t)$
h-curve at 4-order of approximation of $x_3(t)$
Approximate solution of $x_1(t)$ and $x_2(t)$ for (m = 7, k = 3)
Approximate solution of $u(t)$
h-curve at 7-order of approximation of x1(t) and x2(t)
Minimum of performance index value $J_k$ of the proposed method
 Itr CPU time (sec.) HAM and parametrization approaches m=4, k=1 $0.109$ $0.00468778$ m=4, k=2 $0.121$ $0.00468778$
 Itr CPU time (sec.) HAM and parametrization approaches m=4, k=1 $0.109$ $0.00468778$ m=4, k=2 $0.121$ $0.00468778$
The Max error of the proposed method for $x_1(t)$ that $k = 2$ and $h = -1$ in comparison to SHAM and HPM
 Method CPU time (sec.) Max error proposed method (m=4, k=2) $0.155$ $2.93152 * 10^{-17}$ SHAM (Legendre) (m=6, N=50, h=-1.2) $0.224$ $1.0589* 10^{-9}$ SHAM (Chebyshev) (m=6, N=50, h=-1.2) $0.224$ $1.0586* 10^{-9}$ HPM (m=6) $46.401$ $3.1420* 10^{-8}$
 Method CPU time (sec.) Max error proposed method (m=4, k=2) $0.155$ $2.93152 * 10^{-17}$ SHAM (Legendre) (m=6, N=50, h=-1.2) $0.224$ $1.0589* 10^{-9}$ SHAM (Chebyshev) (m=6, N=50, h=-1.2) $0.224$ $1.0586* 10^{-9}$ HPM (m=6) $46.401$ $3.1420* 10^{-8}$
Minimum of performance index value $J$ of the proposed method and other methods
 Method Cost function CPU time (sec.) Proposed Method (m=4, k=2, h=-1) $0.00468778$ $0.141$ SHAM Chebyshev (m=6, N=50, h=-1.2) $0.0046877944625923$ $0.226$ SHAM Legendre (m=6, N=50, h=-1.2) $0.0046877944625906$ $0.227$ HPM (m=3) $0.004687795533$ $10.821$ OHPM (m=1) $0.004688009428$ $-$ MVIM (m=3) $0.004687986656$ $-$
 Method Cost function CPU time (sec.) Proposed Method (m=4, k=2, h=-1) $0.00468778$ $0.141$ SHAM Chebyshev (m=6, N=50, h=-1.2) $0.0046877944625923$ $0.226$ SHAM Legendre (m=6, N=50, h=-1.2) $0.0046877944625906$ $0.227$ HPM (m=3) $0.004687795533$ $10.821$ OHPM (m=1) $0.004688009428$ $-$ MVIM (m=3) $0.004687986656$ $-$
Minimum of performance index value $J_k$ of the proposed method
 Itr CPU time (sec.) HAM and parametrization approaches m=7, k=1 $0.016$ $1.07504$ m=7, k=2 $0.031$ $1.0136$ m= 7, k=3 $0.032$ $1.01184$
 Itr CPU time (sec.) HAM and parametrization approaches m=7, k=1 $0.016$ $1.07504$ m=7, k=2 $0.031$ $1.0136$ m= 7, k=3 $0.032$ $1.01184$
The Max error of our method of $x_1(t)$ in comparison to SHAM and HPM
 Itr Max error Proposed Method (m=7, k=3, h=-0.9) $3.16673\times10^{-5}$ SHAM Chebyshev (m=15, N=50, h=-0.5) $4.2749\times10^{-4}$ SHAM Legendre (m=15, N=50, h=-0.5) $4.2749\times10^{-4}$ DT (m=15) $4.4380\times10^{-4}$
 Itr Max error Proposed Method (m=7, k=3, h=-0.9) $3.16673\times10^{-5}$ SHAM Chebyshev (m=15, N=50, h=-0.5) $4.2749\times10^{-4}$ SHAM Legendre (m=15, N=50, h=-0.5) $4.2749\times10^{-4}$ DT (m=15) $4.4380\times10^{-4}$
Minimum of performance index value J of the proposed method and other methods
 Method Cost function CPU time (sec.) Proposed Method (m=7, k=3, h=-0.9) $1.01184$ $0.032$ SHAM Chebyshev (m=15, N=50, h=-0.5) $1.0472$ $0.200$ SHAM Legendre (m=15, N=50, h=-0.5) $1.0472$ $0.188$ DT (m=15) $1.0478$ $87.74$
 Method Cost function CPU time (sec.) Proposed Method (m=7, k=3, h=-0.9) $1.01184$ $0.032$ SHAM Chebyshev (m=15, N=50, h=-0.5) $1.0472$ $0.200$ SHAM Legendre (m=15, N=50, h=-0.5) $1.0472$ $0.188$ DT (m=15) $1.0478$ $87.74$
Minimum of performance index value Jk of the proposed method
 Itr CPU time (sec.) HAM and parametrization approaches m=7, k=1 0.016 1.07504 m=7, k=2 0.031 1.0136 m= 7, k=3 0.032 1.01184
 Itr CPU time (sec.) HAM and parametrization approaches m=7, k=1 0.016 1.07504 m=7, k=2 0.031 1.0136 m= 7, k=3 0.032 1.01184
The Max error of our method of x1(t) in comparison to SHAM and HPM
 Itr Max error Proposed Method (m=7, k=3, h=-0.9) $5.36319\times10^{-5}$ SHAM Chebyshev (m=15, N=50, h=-0.5) $4.2749\times10^{-4}$ SHAM Legendre (m=15, N=50, h=-0.5) $4.2749\times10^{-4}$ DT (m=15) $4.4380\times10^{-4}$
 Itr Max error Proposed Method (m=7, k=3, h=-0.9) $5.36319\times10^{-5}$ SHAM Chebyshev (m=15, N=50, h=-0.5) $4.2749\times10^{-4}$ SHAM Legendre (m=15, N=50, h=-0.5) $4.2749\times10^{-4}$ DT (m=15) $4.4380\times10^{-4}$
Minimum of performance index value J of the proposed method and other methods
 Method Cost function Proposed Method (m=4, k=2) 1.04483 SHAM Chebyshev (m=15, N=50, h=-0.5) 1.0472 SHAM Legendre (m=15, N=50, h=-0.5) 1.0472 DT (m=15) 1.0478
 Method Cost function Proposed Method (m=4, k=2) 1.04483 SHAM Chebyshev (m=15, N=50, h=-0.5) 1.0472 SHAM Legendre (m=15, N=50, h=-0.5) 1.0472 DT (m=15) 1.0478
 [1] Bin Li, Xiaolong Guo, Xiaodong Zeng, Songyi Dian, Minhua Guo. An optimal pid tuning method for a single-link manipulator based on the control parametrization technique. Discrete & Continuous Dynamical Systems - S, 2018, 0 (0) : 0-0. doi: 10.3934/dcdss.2020107 [2] Xiaona Fan, Li Jiang, Mengsi Li. Homotopy method for solving generalized Nash equilibrium problem with equality and inequality constraints. Journal of Industrial & Management Optimization, 2019, 15 (4) : 1795-1807. doi: 10.3934/jimo.2018123 [3] Marcus Wagner. A direct method for the solution of an optimal control problem arising from image registration. Numerical Algebra, Control & Optimization, 2012, 2 (3) : 487-510. doi: 10.3934/naco.2012.2.487 [4] Heung Wing Joseph Lee, Chi Kin Chan, Karho Yau, Kar Hung Wong, Colin Myburgh. Control parametrization and finite element method for controlling multi-species reactive transport in a circular pool. Journal of Industrial & Management Optimization, 2013, 9 (3) : 505-524. doi: 10.3934/jimo.2013.9.505 [5] Qun Lin, Ryan Loxton, Kok Lay Teo. The control parameterization method for nonlinear optimal control: A survey. Journal of Industrial & Management Optimization, 2014, 10 (1) : 275-309. doi: 10.3934/jimo.2014.10.275 [6] Hong Niu, Zhijiang Feng, Qijin Xiao, Yajun Zhang. A PID control method based on optimal control strategy. Numerical Algebra, Control & Optimization, 2019, 0 (0) : 0-0. doi: 10.3934/naco.2020019 [7] Zhengshan Dong, Jianli Chen, Wenxing Zhu. Homotopy method for matrix rank minimization based on the matrix hard thresholding method. Numerical Algebra, Control & Optimization, 2019, 9 (2) : 211-224. doi: 10.3934/naco.2019015 [8] Karl Kunisch, Markus Müller. Uniform convergence of the POD method and applications to optimal control. Discrete & Continuous Dynamical Systems - A, 2015, 35 (9) : 4477-4501. doi: 10.3934/dcds.2015.35.4477 [9] Zhichuan Zhu, Bo Yu, Li Yang. Globally convergent homotopy method for designing piecewise linear deterministic contractual function. Journal of Industrial & Management Optimization, 2014, 10 (3) : 717-741. doi: 10.3934/jimo.2014.10.717 [10] Chunyang Zhang, Shugong Zhang, Qinghuai Liu. Homotopy method for a class of multiobjective optimization problems with equilibrium constraints. Journal of Industrial & Management Optimization, 2017, 13 (1) : 81-92. doi: 10.3934/jimo.2016005 [11] Figen Özpinar, Fethi Bin Muhammad Belgacem. The discrete homotopy perturbation Sumudu transform method for solving partial difference equations. Discrete & Continuous Dynamical Systems - S, 2019, 12 (3) : 615-624. doi: 10.3934/dcdss.2019039 [12] Alexander Tyatyushkin, Tatiana Zarodnyuk. Numerical method for solving optimal control problems with phase constraints. Numerical Algebra, Control & Optimization, 2017, 7 (4) : 481-492. doi: 10.3934/naco.2017030 [13] Térence Bayen, Marc Mazade, Francis Mairet. Analysis of an optimal control problem connected to bioprocesses involving a saturated singular arc. Discrete & Continuous Dynamical Systems - B, 2015, 20 (1) : 39-58. doi: 10.3934/dcdsb.2015.20.39 [14] Max Gunzburger, Sung-Dae Yang, Wenxiang Zhu. Analysis and discretization of an optimal control problem for the forced Fisher equation. Discrete & Continuous Dynamical Systems - B, 2007, 8 (3) : 569-587. doi: 10.3934/dcdsb.2007.8.569 [15] Matthias Gerdts, Martin Kunkel. A nonsmooth Newton's method for discretized optimal control problems with state and control constraints. Journal of Industrial & Management Optimization, 2008, 4 (2) : 247-270. doi: 10.3934/jimo.2008.4.247 [16] Zhengyong Zhou, Bo Yu. A smoothing homotopy method based on Robinson's normal equation for mixed complementarity problems. Journal of Industrial & Management Optimization, 2011, 7 (4) : 977-989. doi: 10.3934/jimo.2011.7.977 [17] Zainidin Eshkuvatov. Homotopy perturbation method and Chebyshev polynomials for solving a class of singular and hypersingular integral equations. Numerical Algebra, Control & Optimization, 2018, 8 (3) : 337-350. doi: 10.3934/naco.2018022 [18] Hang-Chin Lai, Jin-Chirng Lee, Shuh-Jye Chern. A variational problem and optimal control. Journal of Industrial & Management Optimization, 2011, 7 (4) : 967-975. doi: 10.3934/jimo.2011.7.967 [19] Kareem T. Elgindy. Optimal control of a parabolic distributed parameter system using a fully exponentially convergent barycentric shifted gegenbauer integral pseudospectral method. Journal of Industrial & Management Optimization, 2018, 14 (2) : 473-496. doi: 10.3934/jimo.2017056 [20] Ugur G. Abdulla. On the optimal control of the free boundary problems for the second order parabolic equations. II. Convergence of the method of finite differences. Inverse Problems & Imaging, 2016, 10 (4) : 869-898. doi: 10.3934/ipi.2016025

Impact Factor:

## Tools

Article outline

Figures and Tables