TY - GEN
T1 - A comparison of interior point and active set methods for FPGA implementation of model predictive control
AU - LAU, Mark S K
AU - Yue, S. P.
AU - Ling, K. V.
AU - Maciejowski, J. M.
N1 - Publisher Copyright:
© 2009 EUCA.
Copyright:
Copyright 2020 Elsevier B.V., All rights reserved.
PY - 2014/3/26
Y1 - 2014/3/26
N2 - A key component of model predictive control (MPC) is the solving of quadratic programming (QP) problems. Interior point method (IPM) and active set method (ASM) are the most commonly employed approaches for solving general QP problems. This paper compares several performance aspects of the two methods when they are implemented on a FPGA for MPC applications. We compare the computational complexity, storage, convergence speed, and some practical implementation issues. We find that, in general, ASM gives lower complexity and converges faster when the numbers of decision variables and constraints are small. Otherwise, IPM should be a better choice due to its scalability. We also note occasional instability of both IPM and ASM when they are implemented in our FPGA, which uses single precision floating point arithmetic. The instability is mainly due to numerical error, which is found to be more serious in ASM than IPM in our current implementations.
AB - A key component of model predictive control (MPC) is the solving of quadratic programming (QP) problems. Interior point method (IPM) and active set method (ASM) are the most commonly employed approaches for solving general QP problems. This paper compares several performance aspects of the two methods when they are implemented on a FPGA for MPC applications. We compare the computational complexity, storage, convergence speed, and some practical implementation issues. We find that, in general, ASM gives lower complexity and converges faster when the numbers of decision variables and constraints are small. Otherwise, IPM should be a better choice due to its scalability. We also note occasional instability of both IPM and ASM when they are implemented in our FPGA, which uses single precision floating point arithmetic. The instability is mainly due to numerical error, which is found to be more serious in ASM than IPM in our current implementations.
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=84955181408&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.23919/ecc.2009.7074396
DO - 10.23919/ecc.2009.7074396
M3 - Conference proceeding
AN - SCOPUS:84955181408
T3 - 2009 European Control Conference, ECC 2009
SP - 156
EP - 161
BT - 2009 European Control Conference, ECC 2009
PB - IEEE
T2 - 2009 10th European Control Conference, ECC 2009
Y2 - 23 August 2009 through 26 August 2009
ER -