DISTRIBUTED MODEL PREDICTIVE CONTROL FOR LINEAR SYSTEMS WITH
ADAPTIVE TERMINAL SETS

arXiv:1803.07651v1 [math.OC] 20 Mar 2018

G. DARIVIANAKIS, A. EICHLER AND J. LYGEROS

Abstract. In this paper, we propose a distributed model predictive control (DMPC) scheme for linear
time-invariant constrained systems which admit a separable structure. To exploit the merits of distributed
computation algorithms, the stabilizing terminal controller, value function and invariant terminal set of the
DMPC optimization problem need to respect the loosely coupled structure of the system. Although existing
methods in the literature address this task, they typically decouple the synthesis of terminal controllers and
value functions from the one of terminal sets. In addition, these approaches do not explicitly consider the
effect of the current state of the system in the synthesis process. These limitations can lead the resulting
DMPC scheme to poor performance since it may admit small or even empty terminal sets. Unlike other
approaches, this paper presents a unified framework to encapsulate the synthesis of both the stabilizing
terminal controller and invariant terminal set into the DMPC formulation. Conditions for Lyapunov stability
and invariance are imposed in the synthesis problem in a way that allows the value function and invariant
terminal set to admit the desired distributed structure. We illustrate the effectiveness of the proposed method
on several examples including a benchmark spring-mass-damper problem.

1. Introduction
Operation of large-scale networks of interacting dynamical systems remains an active field of research due
to its high impact on real-world applications, e.g., regulation of power networks [1] and energy management
of building districts [2]. For a system of this scale, the design and deployment of a centralized controller
to regulate its operation is often a difficult task due to computation and communication limitations in the
network. In such cases, it is desirable to design interacting local controllers with a prescribed structure which
rely only on local information and computational resources. Even though the problem of synthesizing optimal
distributed controllers is known NP-hard [3] in its general form, for certain network structures it has been
shown to admit either a closed-form solution [4] or an exact convex reformulation [5]. For general network
structures, the usual practice is to resort to a linear matrix inequality (LMI) relaxations [6–8] or semidefinite programming (SDP) relaxations [9, 10] to obtain suboptimal distributed controllers with performance
guarantees.
A downside of these static distributed controllers is their inability to efficiently cope with state and input
constraints of the systems. Model predictive control (MPC) is an optimization based methodology that is
well-suited for constrained linear systems [11]. Despite recent advances on computation and communication
technologies, formulating and solving a large optimization problem, within the existing time limitations, remains a challenging task. To circumvent this, several methods have been proposed in the literature to leverage
the distributed structure of the network in order to approximate the original optimization problem through a
Date: March 22, 2018.
This research project is financially supported by the Swiss Innovation Agency Innosuisse and is part of the Swiss Competence
Center for Energy Research SCCER FEEB&D.
The authors are with the Automatic Control Laboratory, Department of Electrical Engineering and Information
Technology, ETH Zurich, 8092 Zurich, Switzerland.
(e-mail: gdarivia@control.ee.ethz.ch; eichlean@control.ee.ethz.ch;
jlygeros@control.ee.ethz.ch).
1

2

G. Darivianakis, A. Eichler and J. Lygeros: Distributed MPC for Linear Systems with Adaptive Terminal Sets
Article submitted to ...

set of loosely coupled subproblems. DMPC approaches are typically categorized into non-cooperative [12–18]
and cooperative ones [19–25]. In the former, each system considers the effect of neighboring systems as a
disturbance in its own dynamics and constraints. Exemplary cases of non-cooperative DMPC approaches are
tube-based methods where the states and inputs of neighboring subsystems are confined in a precomputed
[12–14] or adaptive [15–18] bounded set. In this setting, each subsystem needs to account for all possible
impacts of its neighbors occurring within these bounded sets. Though computationally simple and effective
in practice, non-cooperative approaches can be conservative in presence of strong coupling. On the other
hand, cooperative distributed MPC approaches require substantial communication infrastructure and computation resources since a system-wide MPC problem is formulated and solved. Approaches discussed in
the literature [19–23] typically involve the communication of planned control sequences or state trajectories
between neighboring systems. Unlike the conservative non-cooperative methods, cooperative approaches can
guarantee convergence to the optimal solution of the original centralized optimization problem.
In the MPC scheme, the existence of a stabilizing static terminal controller is needed to guarantee recursive
feasibility and stability of the closed-loop system. This terminal controller respects the state and input
constraints of the system when operated in an invariant terminal set. The infinite-horizon cost associated
with this terminal controller is upper bounded by a value function [11]. In the DMPC framework adopted
here, the terminal controller, value function and invariant terminal set are designed as to respect the existing
distributed structure of the system [12–25]. This way, the resulting DMPC optimization problem admits
the desired distributed structure that makes it amendable to distributed computation algorithms such as the
alternating direction method of multipliers (ADDM) [26]. To achieve this, current approaches in the literature
typically split the design phase into two sequential parts: piq the terminal controller and value function are
synthesized based on Lyapunov stability concepts, then piiq the invariant terminal set is constructed as
the closed-loop system under the given terminal controller to satisfy the state and input constraints of the
system. However, the resulting invariant terminal set can be a small (or even empty) inner approximation
of the maximum invariant terminal set due to the imposed restrictions on its structure and the decoupled
design phases. This can lead to severe performance degradation of the resulting DMPC scheme.
In this paper, we propose a novel approach which allows us to encapsulate the design of a distributed
stabilizing terminal controller and invariant terminal set in the DMPC formulation such that these can be
adapted in every iteration given the current state of the system. The necessity of online adaptation of
terminal sets based on the predicted system evolution has previously been identified on several works (e.g.,
[17, 18, 24, 27]). The key difference of our approach is that the design of the stabilizing terminal controller
and the invariant terminal set as well as the derivation of the optimal input for the DMPC problem are
the result of one single optimization problem. This is beneficial since the size of the invariant terminal
sets is now determined together with the predicted system evolution and explicitly depends on the current
state of the system. This way the conservativeness introduced by imposing a decentralized structure on
the invariant terminal sets is reduced by allowing flexibility on the shape of these sets. For the the design
of decoupled terminal invariant sets the mutual dependencies of the neighboring systems are treated as a
bounded disturbance. We employ robust optimization tools to express the Lyapunov stability and invariance
conditions explicitly on the DMPC optimization problem in the form of LMIs. These LMIs are formulated
as to respect the existing coupling structure of the system. Although mutual dependencies are treated as
disturbances, the proposed method falls in the category of cooperative schemes since the sizes of the invariant
terminal sets as well as the input trajectories for the finite-time MPC horizon are optimization variables that
need to be agreed among all the involved systems in the network.

G. Darivianakis, A. Eichler and J. Lygeros: Distributed MPC for Linear Systems with Adaptive Terminal Sets
Article submitted to ...

3

The rest of the paper is organized as follows. In Section 2 the dynamical system is analyzed and the standard
DMPC scheme is briefly reviewed. The main contributions are presented in Section 3, where the methods to
encapsulate the design of the distributed stabilizing terminal controller, value function and invariant terminal
set, based on Lyapunov stability and invariance conditions, in the DMPC problem formulation are discussed.
Section 4 provides numerical studies to assess the efficacy and scalability of the proposed method. Concluding
remarks are provided in Section 5.
Notation: Let R, R` and N` denote the set of real numbers, non-negative real numbers and non-negative
integers, respectively. For a vector v P Rn , we denote by v J its transpose and }v} its Euclidean norm.
J J
For given vectors vi P Rki with ki P N, i P M “ t1, . . . , mu, we define rvi siPM “ rv1J . . . vm
s P Rk with
řm
k “ i“1 ki as their vector concatenation, and diagpv1 , . . . , vM q as the block diagonal matrix with v1 , . . . , vM
on the diagonal and zeros elsewhere. The notation W ľ 0 is used to show that a symmetric matrix W is
positive semidefinite. A function f : R` Ñ R` belongs to class K if it is continuous, strictly increasing and
f p0q “ 0. A function f : R` Ñ R` belongs to class K8 if f P K and limxÑ8 f pxq “ 8.

2. Problem formulation
2.1. Dynamically coupled constrained linear systems
Consider a discrete-time linear time-invariant system with state dynamics at time t P N` given as
xt`1 “ Axt ` But .

(1a)

Here, xt P Rn denotes the states with x0 known and ut P Rm the control inputs. The system matrices
A P Rnˆn , B P Rnˆm are known with pA, Bq to form a controllable pair. The states and inputs of the system
are subject to linear constraints
xt P X “ tx P Rn : Gx ď gu,

(1b)

ut P U “ tu P Rm : Hu ď hu,

(1c)

with known matrices G P Rpˆn , g P Rp , H P Rkˆm and h P Rm . To simplify exposition, we assume that the
sets X and U contain the origin in their interior. The optimal control law is defined through the optimizer
that minimizes the infinite-horizon objective function
J8 “

8
ÿ

`pxt , ut q,

(1d)

t“0

while satisfying the system dynamics and constraints. The stage cost `p¨q is given as
J
`pxt , ut q “ xJ
t Qxt ` ut Rut ,

(1e)

with Q P Rnˆn and R P Rmˆm known positive semi-definite and positive definite matrices, respectively.
In this paper, we restrict our attention to constrained linear systems of the form (1) whose matrices A,
B, G, H, Q and R admit a structure which allow us to decompose the original system into an ordered set
M “ t1, . . . , M u of M dynamically coupled subsystems. In this context, the system states xt and inputs ut
J
J
J
J
J
ni
are decomposed as xt “ rxJ
and ui,t P Rmi denote
1,t , . . . , xM,t s and ut “ ru1,t , . . . , uM,t s where xi,t P R
the local states and inputs of i-th subsystem, respectively. For each i-th subsystem, we define the set Ni Ď M
to include these of the subsystems whose states, xNi ,t P RnNi , affect its dynamics and constraints. In addition,
we define matrices Ui P t0, 1uni ˆn , WNi P t0, 1unNi ˆn and Vi P t0, 1umi ˆm such that
xi,t “ Ui xt , xNi ,t “ WNi xt and ui,t “ Vi ut .

(2a)

4

G. Darivianakis, A. Eichler and J. Lygeros: Distributed MPC for Linear Systems with Adaptive Terminal Sets
Article submitted to ...

In this setting, the i-th subsystem is defined by state dynamics
xi,t`1 “ ANi xNi ,t ` Bi ui,t ,

(2b)

xNi ,t P XNi “ txNi P RnNi : GNi xNi ď gNi u,

(2c)

constraints

ui,t P Ui “ tui P R

mi

: Hi ui ď hi u,

(2d)

`i pxNi ,t , ui,t q,

(2e)

and objective function
J8 “

8 ÿ
M
ÿ
t“0 i“1

where
J
`i pxNi ,t , ui,t q “ xJ
Ni ,t QNi xNi ,t ` ui,t Ri ui,t .

(2f)

The matrices ANi , Bi , GNi , gNi , Hi , hi , QNi and Ri are constructed from the problem data in (1), e.g.,
ANi “ Ui AWNJi and Bi “ Ui BViJ . For the splitting presented here, it is implicitly assumed that the
subsystems are only coupled by their states and are decoupled in their inputs. This assumption is not
restrictive and only introduced to simplify the exposition; it can easily be lifted by enriching the state space
of each subsystem using auxiliary variables.

2.2. MPC formulation
In the spirit of MPC, we introduce a value function V p¨q to upper bound the original infinite-horizon
objective function by a finite-horizon one given as
ÿ
Jr8 “ V pxT q `
`pxt , ut q ě J8 ,
tPT

where T “ t0, . . . , T ´ 1u and T denotes the prediction horizon. The value function, defined as
V pxT q “ xJ
T Pc x T ,

(3)

where Pc is a positive definite matrix, upper approximates the cost of operating the system for all t ě T under
the terminal state feedback control law ut “ Kc xt . To satisfy state and input constraints for this terminal
closed-loop system, we enforce xT to lie in a positively invariant set Xf being a subset of X .
Definition 1. If for all x P Xf Ď X it holds
pA ` BKc qx P Xf and Kc x P U
then the set Xf is positively invariant for the closed-loop system (1) under the terminal controller ut “ Kc xt
for all t ě T .
Theorem 1. ([11, §3]) If there exist functions σ 1 p¨q, σ 2 p¨q and σ 3 p¨q P K8 such that @x P Xf :
σ 1 p}x}q ď V pxq ď σ 2 p}x}q
3

(4a)

σ p}x}q ď `px, Kc xq

(4b)

V ppA ` BKc qxq ´ V pxq ď ´`px, Kc xq

(4c)

then the function V p¨q is a Lyapunov function for the closed-loop system (1) under the controller ut “ Kc xt
for all t ě T .

G. Darivianakis, A. Eichler and J. Lygeros: Distributed MPC for Linear Systems with Adaptive Terminal Sets
Article submitted to ...

5

Notice that conditions (4a) and (4b) in Theorem (1) are satisfied by construction of value and stage cost
functions. Condition (4c) guarantees that the terminal controller stabilizes the system and V p¨q is an upper
approximation of the true value function. The conditions in Theorem 1 can be reformulated as LMIs by
applying Schur complement techniques discussed in [28]. The resulting LMIs can efficiently be solved using
numerical tools for semi-definite programming to compute matrices Kc and Pc .
Having Kc and Pc computed, a positively invariant set Xf needs to be derived to guarantee state and input
constraint satisfaction for the terminal closed-loop system. Ellipsoidal sets of the form
Xf “ tx P Rn : xJ Pc x ď αu,
where α is a positive scalar, are common choices for positively invariant sets. This mainly stems from the
fact that finding the maximum α such that Xf respects the conditions in Definition 1 can be cast as a linear
optimization problem [28, §5.2]. However, these ellipsoidal sets can only provide an inner approximation of
the maximum invariant set, X8 . For a linear and stable system with bounded constraint sets containing the
origin, as the closed-loop system in (1), the maximum invariant set is given by a polyhedral set of the form
X8 “ tx P Rn : Af x ď bf u.
Here, the matrices Af and bf are calculated through an iterative procedure. Despite finite-time termination
guarantees [29], it requires considerably higher computational effort than that of the ellipsoids. This makes
the calculation of X8 a hard task that is typically avoided for systems of large dimensions. In this centralized
framework, the MPC optimization problem is given as follows:
˜
¸
ÿ ÿ
min V pxT q `
`i pxNi ,t , ui,t q
iPM tPT
+
(C)
s.t. xi,t`1 “ ANi xNi ,t ` Bi ui,t
@i P M
pxNi ,t , ui,t q P XNi ˆ Ui
xT P Xf
with optimization variables pxt , ut q for all t P T . Problem (C) is non-amendable to distributed computation
algorithms since its value function V p¨q and terminal set Xf can admit a dense structure. This is because
the computed Kc and Pc from solving (4c) do not necessarily admit any distributed structure, even if the
problem dynamics and constraints do.
To retain the distributed structure of the problem, the value function and terminal set of the MPC formulation need to respect the coupling structure of the system. To achieve this, the terminal controller of the
i-th subsystem is designed as
ui,t “ KNi xNi ,t , @t ě T,
where KNi P Rmi ˆnNi . The value function, now denoted by Vpf p¨q to distinguish it from the non separable
one in (3), is given as
M
ÿ
Vp pxT q “
Vpi pxi,T q,
i“1

with each Vpi p¨q being formulated as
Vpi pxi,T q “ xJ
i,T Pi xi,T ,
where Pi P Rni ˆni is a positive definite matrix. Using similar techniques to [28], the problem of finding KNi
and Pi for all i P M which fulfill the stability conditions of Theorem 1 can be cast as a convex optimization
problem involving LMIs.

6

G. Darivianakis, A. Eichler and J. Lygeros: Distributed MPC for Linear Systems with Adaptive Terminal Sets
Article submitted to ...

Similarly, the terminal set, now denoted by Xpf , also need to admit a decoupled structure given as
Xpf “ Xpf ,1 ˆ ¨ ¨ ¨ ˆ Xpf ,M
ni
p
with Xpf ,i “ txi P Rni : xJ
: Af ,i xi ď bf ,i u (e.g., [16, 19]).
i Pi xi ď αi u (e.g., [24, 25]) or Xf ,i “ txi P R

In this distributed framework, the MPC optimization problem is given as follows:
¸
˜
ÿ
ÿ
`i pxN ,t , ui,t q
Vpi pxi,T q `
min
i

tPT

iPM

,
s.t. xi,t`1 “ ANi xNi ,t ` Bi ui,t , /
/
.
@i P M
pxNi ,t , ui,t q P XNi ˆ Ui ,
/
/
p
x PX .
i,T

(D)

f ,i

with optimization variables pxNi ,t , ui,t q for all i P M, t P T . Problem (D) exhibits the desired distributed
structure which is amendable to distributed computation algorithms (e.g., the alternating method of multipliers [26]) to efficiently solve it. We emphasize that the quality of the generated solution greatly depends on
the shape and size of the decoupled terminal sets. This is to say that if the considered terminal regions are
small then the effort the system needs to take to push xT into these terminal sets can be large or in some
instances even not feasible. The main reason for this conservativeness is attributed to the non-consideration
of system constraints and current state in the design of KNi and Pi for all i P M. In current state-of-the
art approaches, as in [12–25], the design of stabilizing terminal controllers and value functions typically relies
merely on satisfying the stability conditions of Theorem 1, while the computation of the terminal positively
invariant sets is performed afterwards. In what follows, we propose a new machinery for the design of the
terminal controllers based on the constraints and current state of the system. This allow us to couple the
design of the stabilizing terminal controllers and the invariant terminal set computation under the same
optimization problem.

3. Adaptive distributed MPC
3.1. Invariant terminal sets
For each i P M, we consider ellipsoidal terminal sets of the form
Xpf ,i pαi q “ txi P Rni : xJ
i Zi xi ď αi u,
where Zi is a predefined positive definite matrix and αi is a scalar decision variable. To ease exposition, we
define the decision variables matrices α “ diagpα1 , . . . , αM q and αNi “ WNi αWNJi , and the invariant terminal
Ś
set Xpf ,N pαN q “
Xpf ,j pαi q. The following proposition provides the necessary conditions for Xpf ,i pαi q to
i

i

jPNi

be positively invariant.
Proposition 1. If for each subsystem i P M it holds that @xNi P Xpf ,Ni pαNi q then
pANi ` Bi KNi qxNi P Xpf ,i pαi q,

(5a)

xNi P XNi ,

(5b)

KNi xNi P Ui ,

(5c)

then each set Xpf ,i pαi q is positively invariant; hence, Xpf pαq “ Xpf ,1 pα1 q ˆ ¨ ¨ ¨ ˆ Xpf ,M pαM q is also positively
invariant.

G. Darivianakis, A. Eichler and J. Lygeros: Distributed MPC for Linear Systems with Adaptive Terminal Sets
Article submitted to ...

7

Roughly speaking, the conditions of the above proposition are equivalent to assuming that each i-th
subsystem treats the states of its neighboring subsystems as disturbances to its own. Under this assumption
the terminal set Xpf ,i pαi q can be considered as robust positively invariant set and the terminal controller KNi
as a disturbance feedback one. In the sequel, we provide the reformulations of the robust constraints in
Proposition 1.
Theorem 2. For each i P M, condition
pANi ` Bi KNi qxNi P Xpf ,i pαi q for all xNi P Xpf ,Ni pαNi q,
holds if Dλij ě 0 with j P Ni such that
«
1{2
Zi´1 αi
1{2

1{2

pANi αNi ` Bi KNi αNi qJ

ff
1{2
1{2
ÿ
pANi αNi ` Bi KNi αNi q
1{2
ľ 0 and
λij ď αi ,
ř
jPNi
jPNi λij Zij

(6)

where Zij “ WNi UjJ Zj Uj WNJi .
Proof. Parsing the expression of invariance for the i-th subsystem, we get
J
J
xJ
Ni pANi ` Bi KNi q Zi pANi ` Bi KNi qxNi ď αi for all xj Zj xj ď αj with j P Ni .
1{2

We use the auxiliary variable si P Rni to make the substitution xi “ αi si . Using this, the robust constraint
above is equivalently written as
1{2

1{2

1{2

1{2

1{2

1{2

J
J
sJ
Ni pANi αNi ` Bi KNi αNi q Zi pANi αNi ` Bi KNi αNi qsNi ď αi for all sj Zj sj ď 1 with j P Ni ô
´1{2

J
sJ
Ni pANi αNi ` Bi KNi αNi q Zi αi

1{2

1{2

1{2

pANi αNi ` Bi KNi αNi qsNi ď αi

for all sJ
Ni Zij sNi ď 1 with j P Ni .

Now using the S-lemma [28, §2.6.3], the robust constraint above holds if Dλij ě 0 with j P Ni such that
ÿ
1{2
´1{2
1{2
1{2
1{2
λij Zij ,
pANi αNi ` Bi KNi αNi qJ Zi αi pANi αNi ` Bi KNi αNi q ĺ
jPNi

and
ÿ

1{2

λij ď αi .

jPNi

By applying the Schur-complement the proof is concluded.



We continue by providing tractable approximations to conditions (5b) and (5c) of Proposition 1 which
guarantee that the state and input constraints of the system are satisfied by the terminal controller. To do
`
so, we denote the `-th row (out of ng,i rows) of the GNi and gNi state constraint matrices by G`Ni and gN
,
i
respectively. Similarly, we denote the `-th row (out of nh,i rows) of the HNi and hi input constraint matrices
by HN` i and h`i , respectively.
Theorem 3. For each i P M, the `-th state constraint
`
G`Ni xNi ď gN
for all xNi P Xpf ,Ni pαNi q,
i
`
with ` “ 1, . . . , ng,i holds if Dτij
ě 0 with j P Ni such that
«
ff
1{2
`
`
ÿ
gN
G
α
Ni
N
`
`
i
i
ľ
0
and
τij
ď gN
.
1{2 ` J ř
i
`
αNi GNi
jPNi
jPNi τij Zij

Similarly, the `-th input constraint
Hi` KNi xNi ď h`i for all xNi P Xpf ,Ni pαNi q,

(7)

8

G. Darivianakis, A. Eichler and J. Lygeros: Distributed MPC for Linear Systems with Adaptive Terminal Sets
Article submitted to ...

with ` “ 1, . . . , nh,i holds if Dρ`ij ě 0 with j P Ni such that
«
ff
1{2
ÿ
h`i
Hi` KNi αNi
ľ
0
and
ρ`ij ď h`i ,
ř
1{2 J
`
αNi KNi Hi` J
jPNi
jPNi ρij Zij

(8)

where Zij “ WNi UjJ Zj Uj WNJi .
Proof. Parsing the expression (5b) for the state constraints we get
`
G`Ni xNi ď gN
for all xJ
j Zj xj ď αj with j P Ni .
i
1{2

We introduce the auxiliary variable si P Rni to make the substitution xi “ αi si . Using this, the robust
constraint above is equivalently written as
1{2

`
G`Ni αNi sNi ,t ď gN
for all sJ
j Zj sj ď 1 with j P Ni .
i

It is easy to verify that in case of ellipsoidal sets the robust constraint above is equivalent to
1{2

`
for all sJ
}G`Ni αNi sNi ,t }2 ď gN
j Zj sj ď 1 with j P Ni ô
i
1{2

1{2

`
` J ` ´1 j
sJ
for all sJ
GNi αNi sNi ,t ď gN
Ni ,t αNi GNi pg qi
Ni Zij sNi ď 1 with j P Ni .
i
`
Applying the S-lemma, this robust constraint holds if Dτij
ě 0 with j P Ni such that
ff
«
ff
«
`
ÿ
1
0
0
gN
`
i
τij
1{2 ľ
1{2
0 ´Zij
0 ´αNi G`NJi gi`,´1 G`Ni αNi
jPNi

Then, we apply the Schur complement to obtain (7). Following the exact similar derivation arguments, one
can prove that the equivalent of the `-th input constraint in (5c), given as
1{2

Hi` KNi αNi sNi ,t ď h`i for all sJ
j Zj sj ď 1 with j P Ni ,
with ` “ 1, . . . , nh,i , holds if (8) is satisfied. This concludes the proof.



3.2. Stability of terminal closed-loop system
To ensure stability of the terminal closed-loop system (1) under the control law ui,t “ KNi xNi ,t for all
i P M and t ě T , the conditions of Theorem 1 need to be satisfied. The non decoupled structure of these
conditions makes them unsuitable for explicit consideration in the formulation of Problem (D). Instead, we
adopt the notion of structured control Lyapunov functions, introduced in [30], which allow us to consider the
conditions for stability in a way that respects the distributed structure of our system.
Theorem 4. ([30, §3.2]) If for each i P M there exist functions σi1 p¨q, σi2 p¨q and σi3 p¨q P K8 such that
@xi P Xpf ,i pαi q:
σi1 p}xi }q ď Vpi pxi q ď σi2 p}xi }q

(9a)

σi3 p}xi }q ď `i pxNi , KNi xNi q

(9b)

Vpi ppANi ` Bi KNi qxNi q ´ Vpi pxi q ď ´`i pxNi , KNi xNi q ` γi pxNi q

(9c)

M
ÿ

γi pxNi q ď 0

(9d)

i“1

řM
then the function Vp pxi,t q “ i“1 Vpi pxi,t q is a Lyapunov function for the closed-loop system (1) under the
terminal controllers ui,t “ KNi xNi ,t for all i P M and t ě T .

G. Darivianakis, A. Eichler and J. Lygeros: Distributed MPC for Linear Systems with Adaptive Terminal Sets
Article submitted to ...

9

Notice that Theorem 4 implies the more general Lyapunov stability Theorem 1. Conditions (9a) and (9b)
in Theorem (4) are satisfied by construction of value functions and stage costs. Condition (9c) together with
condition (9d) guarantees that the terminal controllers stabilize the system and Vp p¨q is an upper approximation
of the true value function. Note that the definition above does not impose that each function Vpi p¨q is a
control Lyapunov function for the corresponding subsystem in Xpf ,i pαi q. Roughly speaking, this condition
allows a local terminal cost to increase as at the same time the sum of all terminal cost in (9d) decreases.
Consider for instance two interconnected subsystems where state x1,t for subsystem 1 at time t rests at
the origin, i.e., Vp1 px1,t “ 0q “ 0. If the state x2,t of subsystem 2 is nonzero, then x1,t`1 will necessarily
be driven away from the origin as soon as the controller KN1 can not fully dissipate the effect of x2,t on
subsystem 1; causing Vp1 px1,t`1 ‰ 0q to increase but Vp1 px1,t`1 q has to increase less than Vp2 px2,t`1 q decreases,
i.e., Vp2 px1,t`1 q ´ Vp2 px1,t q ă Vp1 px1,t`1 q ´ Vp1 px1,t q, such that Vp p¨q is an overall Lyapunov function.
Theorem 5. Conditions (9c) and (9d) hold if DHNi P RnNi ˆnNi , YNi P Rmi ˆnNi such that
»
fi
1{2
1{2
Pi´1 αi
ANi αNi ` Bi YNi
0
0
—
1{2 ffi
1{2
1{2 1{2
1{2
—pANi αN
` Bi YNi qJ
Pii αi ` HNi
αNi QNi YNJi Ri ffi
i
—
ffi ľ 0
1{2
1{2 1{2
—
ffi
αi INi
0 fl
0
QNi αNi
–
1{2

0

Ri YNi

0

(10)

1{2

αi

and
M
ÿ

WNJi HNi WNi ĺ 0

(11)

i“1

where Pii “ WNi UiJ Pi Ui WNJi .
Proof. Conditions (9c) is written as: For all i P M,
Vi ppANi ` Bi KNi qxNi q ´ Vi pxi q ď ´`i pxNi , KNi xNi q ` γi pxNi q for all xJ
j Zj xj ď αj with j P Ni .
This robust inequality is expanded as,
`
˘
J
J
J
xJ
Ni Pii ´pANi `Bi KNi q Pi pANi `Bi KNi q´QNi ´KNi Ri KNi `ΓNi xNi ě 0 for all xj Zj xj ď αj with j P Ni .
1{2

We now use the auxiliary variable si P Rni to make the substitution xi “ αi si . Using this, the robust
constraint above is equivalently written as
` 1{2
1{2
1{2
1{2
1{2
1{2 J
sJ
Ni αNi Pii αNi ´ pANi αNi ` Bi KNi αNi q Pi pANi αNi ` Bi KNi αNi q
˘
1{2
1{2
1{2
1{2
1{2
1{2
´αNi QNi αNi ´ pKNi αNi qJ Ri pKNi αNi q ` αNi ΓNi αNi sNi ě 0 for all sJ
Ni Zij sNi ď 1 with j P Ni .
1{2

1{2

1{2

1{2

Making use of αNi Pii αNi “ αi Pii αi , we have that
` 1{2
1{2
1{2
1{2
1{2
1{2
sJ
Pii αi ´ pANi αNi ` Bi KNi αNi qJ Pi pANi αNi ` Bi KNi αNi q
Ni αi
1{2
1{2
1{2 J
1{2
1{2
1{2 ˘
´αNi QNi αNi ´ pKNi αNi q Ri pKNi αNi q ` αNi ΓNi αNi sNi ě 0 for all sJ
Ni Zij sNi ď 1 with j P Ni .
Applying the S-lemma the robust constraint above holds if Dφij ě 0 with j P Ni such that:
fi
»
«
0
0
ÿ
ffi
—
1
1{2
1{2
1{2 J
´1{2
1{2
1{2
ffi ľ
—
φij
fl
–0 Pii αi ´ pANi αNi ` Bi KNi αNi q Pi αi pANi αNi ` Bi KNi αNi q
0
jPNi
1{2
´1{2 1{2
1{2
´1{2 1{2
1{2
´1{2
1{2
´αNi QNi αi αNi ´ pKNi αNi qJ Ri αi pKNi αNi q ` αNi ΓNi αi αNi

0
´Zij

This implies φij “ 0 for all j P Ni ; hence, the matrix inequality constraint above is equivalent written
1{2

Pii αi

1{2

1{2

´1{2

´ pANi αNi ` Bi KNi αNi qJ Pi αi
1{2

´1{2 1{2

´αNi QNi αi

1{2

1{2

1{2

pANi αNi ` Bi KNi αNi q
´1{2

αNi ´ pKNi αNi qJ Ri αi

1{2

1{2

´1{2 1{2

pKNi αNi q ` αNi ΓNi αi

αNi ľ 0

ff

10

G. Darivianakis, A. Eichler and J. Lygeros: Distributed MPC for Linear Systems with Adaptive Terminal Sets
Article submitted to ...

We use the Schur complement to write this expression as,
«
ff
1{2
1{2
1{2
Pi´1 αi
pANi αNi ` Bi KNi αNi q
1{2

1{2

pANi αNi ` Bi KNi αNi qJ
«
´

1{2

Pii αi

1{2

0

1{2

´1{2 1{2

` αNi ΓNi αi
0

1{2

αNi QNi

α
ff «Ni´1{2
αi INi

1{2

pKNi αNi qJ R1{2

1{2

´1{2

0

Applying once again the Schur complement, lead to
»
1{2
1{2
1{2
Pi´1 αi
ANi αNi ` Bi KNi αNi
—
1{2
1{2
1{2
1{2
´1{2 1{2
—pANi αN
` Bi KNi αNi qJ Pii αi ` αNi ΓNi αi αNi
i
—
1{2 1{2
—
0
QNi αNi
–
0

0

1{2

Ri KNi αNi

αi

0
1{2

ff «
0
0

1{2

R1{2 KNi αNi

1{2

1{2

αi INi
0
1{2

ľ 0.

fi

0

αNi QNi

ff

1{2 1{2

QNi αNi

1{2
1{2 ffi
pKNi αNi qJ Ri ffi
ffi ľ 0.
ffi
0
fl
1{2
αi
1{2

´1{2 1{2

To obtain an LMI expression, we make the substitutions YNi “ KNi αNi and HNi “ αNi ΓNi αi
the matrix inequality above can be written as an LMI of the form (10).

αNi so that

Finally, conditions (9d) is written as:
řM
J
i“1 γi pxNi q ď 0 for all xi Zi xi ď αi with i “ 1, . . . , M ô
`
˘
ř
M
J
J
xJ
i“1 WNi ΓNi WNi x ď 0 for all xi Zi xi ď αi with i “ 1, . . . , M ô
`
˘
ř
M
J
J
sJ
i“1 αWNi ΓNi WNi α s ď 0 for all si Zi si ď 1 with i “ 1, . . . , M ô
`
˘
ř
M
J
J
sJ
i“1 WNi αNi ΓNi αNi WNi s ď 0 for all si Zi si ď 1 with i “ 1, . . . , M ô
`
˘
ř
´1{2
M
J
sJ
αNi WNi s ď 0 for all sJ
i Zi si ď 1 with i “ 1, . . . , M ô
i“1 WNi αNi ΓNi αi
`
˘
ř
M
J
J
J
s
i“1 WNi HNi WNi s ď 0 for all si Zi si ď 1 with i “ 1, . . . , M
Using the S-lemma, we have that the robust constraints above holds if Dφij ě 0 with j P M such that:
«
ff
«
ff
ÿ
0
0
1
0
ľ
φij
řM
J
0
0 ´UjJ Zj Uj
jPM
i“1 WNi HNi WNi
This implies φij “ 0 for all j P Ni ; hence, the matrix inequality constraint above can be written as an LMI
of the form (11) which concludes the proof.

To be compatible with the LMI invariant and stability conditions presented previously, we rewrite condition
1{2
xi,T P Xpf ,i pαi q in terms of the square root of the decision variable αi , as follows:
« 1{2
ff
αi Zi xi,T
p
xi,T P Xf ,i pαi q ô
(12)
1{2 ľ 0,
xJ
αi
i,T
where the Schur complement is applied. To this end, we define for each i P M the set
Xrf ,i pαNi q “ txi P Rni : Conditions (7), (8), (10), (11), (12) hold.u.

3.3. Stability and recursive feasibility
The decentralized MPC problem with adaptive terminal sets is given as
˜
¸
ÿ
ÿ
min
Vpi pxi,T q `
`i pxN ,t , ui,t q
i

iPM

tPT

,
s.t. xi,t`1 “ ANi xNi ,t ` Bi ui,t /
/
.
@i P M,
pxNi ,t , ui,t q P XNi ˆ Ui
/
/
r
x P X pα q
i,T

f ,i

Ni

(DA)

G. Darivianakis, A. Eichler and J. Lygeros: Distributed MPC for Linear Systems with Adaptive Terminal Sets
Article submitted to ...

11

with optimization variables pxNi ,t , ui,t , αNi q for all i P M, t P T .
Following the reasoning in [11], we now show that establishing stability and recursive feasibility for the
closed-loop system (1) under the MPC controller defined in Problem (DA) is equivalent to requiring that this
problem is initially feasible.
Proposition 2. The MPC Problem (DA) with adaptive terminal sets is recursively feasible. Moreover, the
closed-loop system (1) resulting from applying the MPC controller defined by Problem (DA) in a receding
horizon fashion is asymptotically stable.
Proof. Assume that the optimization Problem (DA) is feasible at time t “ t0 . Then, we obtain a sequence of optimal inputs rui,t0 , . . . , ui,t0 `T ´1 s for all i P M which satisfy the state, input and terminal constraints of the problem. Since Xrf ,i pαNi q is a positively invariant region, the sequence of inputs
rui,t0 `1 , . . . , ui,t0 `T ´1 , KNi xNi ,t0 `T s, often referred as “tail” sequence, can be verified to be a feasible solution for Problem (DA) at time t “ t0 ` 1. Hence, if the optimization Problem (DA) has a solution at time
t0 then it is guaranteed to have a solution at time t0 ` 1 establishing this way recursive feasibility. Since any
solution to the MPC Problem (DA) enforces the terminal set to be control invariant, recursive feasibility is
preserved even though the terminal sets are adapting on the current state of the system.
To prove stability of Problem (DA), define the objective function cost Jt0 at time t0 as
˜
¸
t0 `T
ÿ
ÿ´1
Jt “
Vpi pxi,T q `
`i pxN ,t , ui,t q .
0

i

iPM

t“t0

Let now Jt˚0 be the cost at time t0 when applying the optimal sequence and Jpt0 `1 be the cost associated with
applying the “tail” sequences from time t0 ` 1. Then, we have that
Jpt0 `1 ´ Jt˚0 “ ´`pxt0 , ut0 q.
Noting that Jpt0 `1 ě Jt˚0 `1 due to the suboptimality of the tail sequences gives
Jt˚0 `1 ´ Jt˚0 ď ´`pxt0 , ut0 q
implying that J ˚ is a Lyapunov function for the system; hence, the closed-loop system (1) resulting from
applying the MPC controller defined by Problem (DA) in a receding horizon fashion is asymptotically stable.

We close this section by remarking that we distinguish design and online phases for the implementation of
the proposed DMPC scheme. During the design phase, the value functions Vpi p¨q for all i P M are calculated,
while during the online phase the DMPC Problem (DA) is solved. Both phases are amendable to distributed
computation, e.g., see [24] for a distributed algorithm to calculated Vpi p¨q and [26] for consensus ADMM as a
suitable distributed algorithm to solve the DMPC Problem (DA).

4. Numerical examples
In this section, we conduct a number of simulation-based studies to assess the efficacy of the proposed
DMPC formulation with adaptive terminal sets. We focus our attention on two examples: piq an illustrative
two-dimensional system that allow us to assess, numerically and graphically, the benefits of invariant terminal
sets that can adapt on the current and predicted states of the system, and piiq a series of masses that are
connected by springs and dampers which are suitable for studying the scalability and the closed-loop behavior
of the proposed methodology.

12

G. Darivianakis, A. Eichler and J. Lygeros: Distributed MPC for Linear Systems with Adaptive Terminal Sets
Article submitted to ...

4.1. Illustrative example
We consider a linear time-invariant system with dynamics
xt`1 “ Axt ` But ,

(13a)

where xt P R2 denote the states and ut P R2 the inputs. The system matrices A P R2ˆ2 and B P R2ˆ2 are
given as
ff
«
5 0.1
and B “ diagpr1, 1sq,
(13b)
A“
0.3 0.9
respectively. The system is subject to linear state and input constraints
r´5, ´5sJ ď xt ď r5, 5sJ and r´1, ´1sJ ď ut ď r1, 1sJ

(13c)

and its goal is to minimize the infinite-horizon objective function
J8 “

8
ÿ

J
xJ
t Qxt ` ut Rut ,

(13d)

t“0

where Q “ diagpr1, 1sq and R “ diagpr0.1, 0.1sq. We split the system into two dynamically coupled subsystems with states x1,t , x2,t P R and inputs u1,t , u2,t P R such that xt “ rx1,t , x2,t sJ and ut “ ru1,t , u2,t sJ .
The dynamics, constraints and objective functions of these subsystems can straightforwardly be constructed
through (13).
We approximate the infinite-horizon objective function as
Jr8 “ V pxT q `

Tÿ
´1

J
xJ
t Qxt ` ut Rut .

t“0

where V p¨q denotes the value function. In the centralized MPC formulation V p¨q is given as
V pxT q “ xJ
T Pc x T
with Pc P R2ˆ2 , while in the distributed MPC formulation
J
J
V pxT q “ xJ
1,T P1,d x1,T ` x2,T P2,d x2,T “ xT Pd xT

where P1,d , P2,d P R. The matrices Pc and Pd are computed by solving LMIs derived by the stability condition
in Theorem 1 and are given as,
«
ff
«
ff
3.46 0.13
8.07
0
Pc “
and Pd “
.
0.13 1.25
0
4.25
This LMI also provides the controller Kc while Kd is evaluated jointly together with the value function
and the terminal sets in each iteration using the techniques discussed in Section 3. Given Kc , the maximum
invariant terminal set, X8 , is computed using routines developed in MPT 3.0 toolbox [31], while the ellipsoidal
invariant terminal set, Xf , is computed solving a linear optimization problem, described in [28, §5.2]. We
refer to the MPC Problem (C) formulated with X8 as (C-Max.) and Xf as (C-Ellip.). In the following
we compare these centralized invariant terminal sets to the proposed decentralized adaptive one, given as
J
Xrf pα1 , α2 q “ tpx1 , x2 q P R2 : xJ
1 P1,d x1 ď α1 , x2 P2,d x2 ď α2 u where α1 , α2 are positive scalars computed
with the methods presented in Section 3. We refer to the DMPC Problem (DA) formulated with Xrf pα1 , α2 q
as (D-Adap.).
In Fig. 1, the shapes of X8 (green), Xf (red) and Xrf pα1 , α2 q (green) are depicted for different terminal
states xT . Note that if xT lies outside the terminal invariant set then the respective MPC problem is infeasible.
That being said, this example highlights the ability of Xrf pα1 , α2 q to adapt so as to include terminal state xT

G. Darivianakis, A. Eichler and J. Lygeros: Distributed MPC for Linear Systems with Adaptive Terminal Sets
Article submitted to ...

(a)

13

(b)

Figure 1. Shapes of X8 (green), Xf (red) and Xrf pα1 , α2 q (green) for different terminal states xT .

(a)

(b)

(c)

Figure 2. Closed-loop receding horizon performance of the system for different initial states
x0 and horizon T “ 2.

in its interior; hence, appropriately adapting the feasibility domain of Problem (D-Adap.). This adaptation
is achieved by adjusting the values of the terminal controller Kd , as it is reported in Fig. 1.
The closed-loop behavior of the system for different initial conditions is now investigated. We choose a
time horizon T “ 2 and evaluate the performance of the system on a receding horizon implementation, i.e.,
the first input resulting from the respective MPC (C-Max.), (C-Ellip.) and (D-Adap.) optimization problem
is applied to the system dynamics, and the next state is evaluated. As a metric the cost of operating the
system until convergence to the origin is used. We report this comparison results in Fig. 2. It can be observed
that if the initial state x0 is close to the origin then the MPC Problems (C-Max.) and (C-Ellip.) achieve
the exact same cost although their size differs. This is not surprising since Kc is the optimal controller for
the infinite horizon problem, thus, if the terminal state of Problem (C-Max.) in the first iteration is the
same to Problem (C-Ellip.), then the two lead to the same solution. However, as the initial state is chosen
further away from the origin the effort the system needs to achieve a feasible solution is high for ellipsoidal
invariant terminal sets. In this case, the performance of the system under the DMPC controller (D-Adap.)
is better from the one achieved by the MPC controller (C-Ellip.). The importance of considering invariant
terminal sets that can adapt on the initial system state is highlighted when observing in Fig. 2 that the DMPC
controller (D-Adap.) is feasible for initial states for which a centralized solution with ellipsoidal invariant
terminal sets does not exist. This is attributed to the methods ability to modify the size of its terminal region
by appropriately adapting its terminal controller Kd while satisfying the stability and invariance conditions.

14

G. Darivianakis, A. Eichler and J. Lygeros: Distributed MPC for Linear Systems with Adaptive Terminal Sets
Article submitted to ...

4.2. Spring-mass-dampers

m1

m2

m3

m4

Figure 3. A chain of four masses connected by springs and dampers.
We now consider a series of masses that are connected by springs and dampers and arranged in a chain
formation, exemplified in Fig. 3. The values of the masses, spring constants and damping coefficients are
chosen uniformly at random from the intervals r5, 10skg, r0.8, 1.2sN/m and r0.8, 1.2sNs/m, respectively. We
assume that each i-th mass is an individual system with its state vector xi,t P R2 representing the position
and velocity deviation from the system’s equilibrium state, and its input ui,t P R denoting the force applied
to the i-th mass. We assume that the states and inputs are constrained as
r´2, ´5sJ ď xt ď r2, 5sJ and ´ uc ď ut ď uc ,
where uc is chosen uniformly at random from the interval r2, 4sN. The masses are initially at rest and
positioned uniformly at random within the intervals r´2, ´1.8sm and r1.8, 2sm.
The continuous-time dynamics of this interconnected dynamical system naturally admits a distributed
structure. The prediction control model is obtained by the discretization of the system’s continuous dynamics
using forward Euler with the sampling time 0.1s. Although inexact, Euler discretization is chosen as to
preserve the distributed structure of the system. On the contrary, the discrete-time simulation model of the
system is obtained using the exact zero-order hold discretization method with the sampling time 0.1s. The
objective function of each system is of the quadratic form (2f) with QNi “ diagp1, 1q and Ri “ 0.1. We refer
to the MPC Problem (C) formulated with X8 as (C-Max.) and Xf as (C-Ellip.). We refer to the proposed
DMPC Problem (DA) formulated with Xrf pαq as (D-Adap.).
The performance of the system is evaluated on a receding horizon implementation. We use as a metric
the cost of operating the system until convergence to the system’s equilibrium state. Initially, we conduct a
closed-loop simulation experiment for a system comprising three masses and a prediction horizon of T “ 8.
In Fig. 4(a), the trajectories generated for the MPC (C-Max.) and DMPC (D-Adap.) problems are shown.
We observe that these trajectories are very similar, which illustrates the proximity in performance between
the centralized and distributed designs. To better quantify the error between these approaches over time,
we repeated these simulations for 100 randomly generated systems of the same dimension and we report the
results in 4(b). We observe that the error remains bounded over time and eventually decreases to zero as
the system converges to the origin. This verifies the proximity in performance between the proposed DMPC
(D-Adap.) and the well-established centralized MPC (C-Max.) approach.
However, the proposed approach relies on the adaptation of the invariant terminal sets in each receding
horizon simulation which involves the formulation and solution of a semi-definite program. To avoid the
computational burden associated with it, we compare the proposed fully adaptive method (D-Adap.) with
its simplification (D-Ad0) in which the adaptation of the invariant terminal sets is only performed once at
time t “ 0 to account for the effect of the initial state of the system. Then, we enforce these computed
terminal sets for the rest of the receding horizon simulations. This way we resort to solving a quadratically
constraints quadratic program instead of a semidefinite one. These two approaches are compared as the
number of masses in the system increases where for each topology we generate 100 random system instances.
We use as metrics for this comparison the mean solution time and the cost of the receding horizon simulations
until convergence to the origin is achieved. The results are reported in Fig. 5. It is observed that adapting

G. Darivianakis, A. Eichler and J. Lygeros: Distributed MPC for Linear Systems with Adaptive Terminal Sets
Article submitted to ...

15

0.2

1

0.15
0.1
0.05
0

0
10

20

30

40

50

10

20

30

40

50

10

20

30

40

50

0.2
0
0.15
0.1
0.05
0

-1
10

20

30

(a)

40

50

(b)

Figure 4. (a) Receding horizon (RH) position and velocity trajectories for centralized and
decentralized methods and (b) absolute error of trajectories in time over 100 randomly generated and initialized systems.

Figure 5. Comparison of decentralized adaptive methods where D-Ad0 only assumes adaptation of the terminal sets once at time t “ 0.

the invariant terminal sets in every iteration of the receding horizon simulation provides a slightly better
solution quality with respect the case where the adaptation is only performed once at time t “ 0. This can
be attributed to the dissipative nature of the spring-mass-damper system for which the initial displacement
is the determining factor for the shape of the invariant terminal sets. On the other hand, the computational
benefit occurring when using the D-Ad0 method is considerable since the simplified approach only requires a
fraction of the time to generate the solution of the problem.
To better quantify the performance comparison between the proposed adaptive DMPC approach and centralized MPC designs, we conducted several simulation experiments for systems with different horizons and
number of masses. The comparison is performed on the suboptimality of the respective methods during
receding horizon simulations using as basis the cost associated with the centralized MPC Problem (C-Max.).

16

G. Darivianakis, A. Eichler and J. Lygeros: Distributed MPC for Linear Systems with Adaptive Terminal Sets
Article submitted to ...

(a)

(b)

Figure 6. Suboptimality of centralized MPC method with ellipsoidal invariant terminal
sets and distributed MPC method with adaptive invariant terminal sets as (a) the number
of masses in the system increases and (b) the time horizon of the MPC formulation increases.

Since we use the D-Ad0 method as the proposed methodology for comparison, the solution times are comparable and are not reported. We remark though that the proposed decentralized method achieves a faster
solution time due to their distributed structure which can potentially be further exploited by dedicated distributed computation algorithms. Fig 6(a) shows the cost associated as the number of subsystems in the
system increases, where the simulation horizon is kept constant as T “ 8. We observe that the proposed
method considerably outperforms even the centralized approach with ellipsoidal terminal sets as the number
of subsystems increases. This is attributed to the proposed method’s ability to adapt on the initial condition.
As expected, the suboptimality gap increases with respect to the number of masses in the system. We note,
however, that in all instances this suboptimality gap is fairly small, which indicates the efficiency of the proposed distributed design method. Finally, Fig. 6(b) shows the cost associated with the length of prediction
horizon for a system comprising five masses. We observe that the increase of the horizon length results in cost
convergence for the compared methods. Notably as the horizon increases the centralized methods outperform
the proposed decentralized one since large horizons make the use of terminal sets and value functions obsolete with the system being capable of steering its states close to the equilibrium state within the considered
prediction horizon time.

5. Conclusion
In this paper, we presented a design approach for distributed cooperative MPC that encapsulates the design
of the distributed terminal controller, value function and invariant set in the MPC formulation. Conditions
for Lyapunov stability and invariance are imposed in the design problem in a way that allows the value
function and terminal invariant set to admit the desired distributed structure. This allows the resulting
distributed MPC problem to be amendable to distributed computation algorithms. The proposed distributed
MPC method couples the design of the terminal stabilizing controllers and invariant terminal sets with the
current and predicted states of the system. The merits of considering adaptive invariant terminal sets is

G. Darivianakis, A. Eichler and J. Lygeros: Distributed MPC for Linear Systems with Adaptive Terminal Sets
Article submitted to ...

17

illustrated in a large-scale system that is composed of masses connected by springs and dampers. The closedloop performance of the proposed distributed MPC approach is shown to outperform even the centralized
MPC problem formulated with the ellipsoidal invariant terminal set for short prediction horizons.
Future work involves the extension of the proposed methodology to plug-and-play applications where the
conditions for Lyapunov stability and terminal set invariance need to be evaluated in a completely distributed
way. An important feature to be exploited is that only the new and a few of the existing distributed controllers
may need to be redesigned.

References
[1] A. Venkat, I. Hiskens, J. Rawlings, and S. Wright. Distributed MPC strategies with application to power system automatic
generation control. IEEE Trans. Control Syst. Technol., 16(6):1192–1206, 2008.
[2] G. Darivianakis, A. Georghiou, R. S. Smith, and J. Lygeros. The power of diversity: Data-driven robust predictive control
for energy-efficient buildings and districts. IEEE Trans. Control Syst. Technol., PP(99):1–14, 2017.
[3] J. Tsitsiklis and M. Athans. On the complexity of decentralized decision making and detection problems. IEEE Trans.
Autom. Control, 30(5):440–446, 1985.
[4] M. Fardad, F. Lin, and M. Jovanovic. On the optimal design of structured feedback gains for interconnected systems. In
Proc. IEEE Conf. Decision Control, pages 978–983, Shanghai, China, 2009.
[5] M. Rotkowitz and S. Lall. A characterization of convex problems in decentralized control. IEEE Trans. Autom. Control,
51(2):274–286, 2006.
[6] C. Langbort, R. Chandra, and R. D’Andrea. Distributed control design for systems interconnected over an arbitrary graph.
IEEE Trans. Autom. Control, 49(9):1502–1519, 2004.
[7] A Zecevic and D. Siljak. Control of complex systems: Structural constraints and uncertainty. Springer, 2010.
[8] A. Eichler, C. Hoffmann, and H. Werner. Robust control of decomposable lpv systems. Automatica, 50(12):3239–3245, 2014.
[9] J. Lavaei. Decentralized implementation of centralized controllers for interconnected systems. IEEE Trans. Autom. Control,
57(7):1860–1865, 2012.
[10] G. Fazelnia, R. Madani, A. Kalbat, and J. Lavaei. Convex relaxation for optimal distributed control problems. IEEE Trans.
Autom. Control, 62(1):206–221, 2017.
[11] D. Mayne, J. Rawlings, C. Rao, and P. Scokaert. Constrained model predictive control: Stability and optimality. Automatica,
36(6):789–814, 2000.
[12] D.Q. Mayne, M.M. Seron, and S.V. Rakovic. Robust model predictive control of constrained linear systems with bounded
disturbances. Automatica, 41(2):219–224, 2005.
[13] A. Richards and J. P How. Robust distributed model predictive control. Int. J. Control, 80(9):1517–1531, 2007.
[14] P. Trodden and A. Richards. Distributed model predictive control of linear systems with persistent disturbances. Int. J.
Control, 83(8):1653–1663, 2010.
[15] M. Farina and R. Scattolini. Distributed predictive control: A non-cooperative algorithm with neighbor-to-neighbor communication for linear systems. Automatica, 48(6):1088–1096, 2012.
[16] S. Riverso, M. Farina, and G. Ferrari-Trecate. Plug-and-play model predictive control based on robust control invariant
sets. Automatica, 50(8):2179–2186, 2014.
[17] S. Lucia, M. Kögel, and R. Findeisen. Contract-based predictive control of distributed systems with plug and play capabilities. IFAC World Congress, 48(23):205–211, 2015.
[18] P. Trodden and J. M. Maestre. Distributed predictive control with minimization of mutual disturbances. Automatica, 77:31–
43, 2017.
[19] T. Keviczky, F. Borrelli, and G. Balas. A study on decentralized receding horizon control for decoupled systems. In Proc.
Amer. Control Conf., volume 6, pages 4921–4926. IEEE, 2004.
[20] A. Venkat, J. Rawlings, and S. Wright. Stability and optimality of distributed model predictive control. In Proc. IEEE
Conf. Decision Control, pages 6680–6685, Seville, Spain, 2005.
[21] B. Stewart, A. Venkat, J. Rawlings, S. Wright, and G. Pannocchia. Cooperative distributed model predictive control. Systems
Control Letters, 59(8):460–469, 2010.
[22] J. Maestre, D. De La Pena, E. Camacho, and T. Alamo. Distributed model predictive control based on agent negotiation.
J. Process Control, 21(5):685–697, 2011.
[23] P. Giselsson and A. Rantzer. On feasibility, stability and performance in distributed model predictive control. IEEE Trans.
Autom. Control, 59(4):1031–1036, 2014.

18

G. Darivianakis, A. Eichler and J. Lygeros: Distributed MPC for Linear Systems with Adaptive Terminal Sets
Article submitted to ...

[24] C. Conte, N. Voellmy, M. Zeilinger, M. Morari, and C. Jones. Distributed synthesis and control of constrained linear systems.
In Proc. Amer. Control Conf., pages 6017–6022, Montreal, Canada, 2012.
[25] G. Darivianakis, S. Fattahi, J. Lygeros, and J. Lavaei. High-performance cooperative distributed model predictive control
for linear systems. pages –, Milwaukee, USA, 2018.
[26] S. Boyd, N. Parikh, E. Chu, B. Peleato, and J. Eckstein. Distributed optimization and statistical learning via the alternating
direction method of multipliers. Found. Trends. Network., 3(1):1–122, 2011.
[27] D. Simon, J. Löfberg, and T. Glad. Reference tracking mpc using dynamic terminal set transformation. IEEE Trans. Autom.
Control, 59(10):2790–2795, 2014.
[28] S. Boyd, L. El Ghaoui, E. Feron, and V. Balakrishnan. Linear matrix inequalities in system and control theory. SIAM, 1994.
[29] G. Gilbert and T. Tan. Linear systems with state and control constraints: The theory and application of maximal output
admissible sets. IEEE Trans. Autom. Control, 36(9):1008–1020, 1991.
[30] A. Jokic and M. Lazar. On decentralized stabilization of discrete-time nonlinear systems. In Proc. Amer. Control Conf.,
pages 5777–5782. IEEE, 2009.
[31] M. Herceg, M. Kvasnica, C.N. Jones, and M. Morari. Multi-Parametric Toolbox 3.0. In Proc. Eur. Control Conf., pages
502–510, Zürich, Switzerland, July 17–19 2013.

