Page 251 - Distributed model predictive control for plant-wide systems
P. 251

Networked Distributed Predictive Control with Inputs and Information Structure Constraints  225


                                               
                                          ≤ √
                                              m
                    f
             that is, x (k + N |k)∈Ω (  ). This concludes the proof.
                    i           i
                                                                      n
             Theorem 10.1 Suppose Assumptions 10.1–10.3 hold, x(k )∈ ℝ x and constraints
                                                                 0
                                                                                   f
             (10.13)–(10.17) and (10.18) are satisfied at k . Then, for every i ∈ P, the control u (⋅|k)
                                                  0
                                                                                   i
                      f
             and state x (⋅|k), respectively, defined by (10.24) and (10.5), are a feasible solution of
                      j,i
             Problem 10.1 at every update k.
               Proof. We will prove the theorem by induction.
                                                           p        f
               First, consider the case of k = 1. The state sequence x (⋅|1)= x (⋅|1) trivially satisfies
                                                           j,i      j,i
             the dynamic equation (10.5), the stability constraint (10.16), and the consistency constraints
             (10.13)–(10.15).
               Observe that
                                         p         f
                                ̂ x (1|1)= x (1|0)= x (1|1)= x (1), i ∈ P
                                j,i
                                                            j,i
                                                   j,i
                                         j,i
             and that
                                        f           p
                                       x (1 + s|1)= x (1 + s|0)
                                        j,i         j,i
                                           s = 1, 2, … , N − 1
                   f
             Thus, x (N |1)∈Ω (  ∕2). By the invariance of Ω(  ) under the terminal controller and the
                   j,i       i
             conditions in Lemma 10.1, it follows that the terminal state and control constraints are also
             satisfied. This completes the proof of the case of k = 1.
                           p       f
               Now suppose u (⋅|l)= u (⋅|l) is a feasible solution for l = 1, 2, … , k − 1. We will show that
                                   i
                           i
              f
             u (⋅|k) is a feasible solution at update k.
              i
                                                                         f
               As before, the consistency constraint (10.13) is trivially satisfied, and u (⋅|k) is the cor-
                                                                         j,i
             responding state sequence that satisfies the dynamic equation. Since there is a solution for
             Problem 10.1 at updates l = 1, 2, … , k − 1, Lemmas 10.2–10.4 can be invoked. Lemma 10.4
             guarantees control constraint feasibility. In view of Lemmas 10.2 and 10.3, using the triangle
             inequality, we have
                             ‖ f        ‖    ‖ f                     ‖
                             ‖x (k + N |k)‖ ≤ ‖x (k + N |k) − ̂ x (k + N |k)‖
                                                            j,i
                               j,i
                                               j,i
                             ‖          ‖P i  ‖                      ‖P i
                                               ‖           ‖
                                                 j,i
                                             + ‖̂ x (k + N |k)‖                  (10.42)
                                               ‖           ‖P i
                                                    (1 −   )      
                                           ≤ √    +   √     = √
                                             2 m     2 m      2 m
             for each j ∈ P , i ∈ P. This shows that the terminal-state constraint is satisfied and the proof
                        i
             of Theorem 10.1 is complete.
             10.4.2  Stability
             The stability of the closed-loop system is analyzed in this subsection.
   246   247   248   249   250   251   252   253   254   255   256