Control, Stability, and Qualitative Theory of Dynamical SystemsView this Special Issue
Research Article | Open Access
Optimal Control Problem for Switched System with the Nonsmooth Cost Functional
We examine the relationships between lower exhausters, quasidifferentiability (in the Demyanov and Rubinov sense), and optimal control for switching systems. Firstly, we get necessary optimality condition for the optimal control problem for switching system in terms of lower exhausters. Then, by using relationships between lower exhausters and quasidifferentiability, we obtain necessary optimality condition in the case that the minimization functional satisfies quasidifferentiability condition.
A switched system is a particular kind of hybrid system that consists of several subsystems and a switching law specifying the active subsystem at each time instant. There are some articles which are dedicated to switching system [1–8]. Examples of switched systems can be found in chemical processes, automotive systems, and electrical circuit systems, and so forth.
Regarding the necessary optimality conditions for switching system in the smooth cost functional, it can be found in [1, 4, 6]. The more information connection between quasidifferential, exhausters and Hadamard differential are in [8–10]. Concerning the necessary optimality conditions for discrete switching system is in , and switching system with Frechet subdifferentiable cost functional is in . This paper addresses the role exhausters and quasi-differentiability in the switching control problem. This paper is also extension of the results in the paper  (additional conditions are switching points unknown, and minimization functional is nonsmooth) in the case of first optimality condition. The rest of this paper is organized as follows. Section 2 contains some preliminaries, definitions, and theorems. Section 3 contains problem formulations and necessary optimality conditions for switching optimal control problem in the terms of exhausters. Then, the main theorem in Section 3 is extended to the case in which minimizing function is quasidifferentiable.
2. Some Preliminaries of Non-Smooth Analysis
Let us begin with basic constructions of the directional derivative (or its generalization) used in the sequel. Let , be an open set. The function is called Hadamard upper (lower) derivative of the function at the point in the direction if there exist limit such that where means that and .
Note that limits in (1) always exist, but there are not necessary finite. This derivative is positively homogeneous functions of direction. The Gateaux upper (lower) subdifferential of the function at a point can be defined as follows: The setis called, respectively, the upper (lower) Frechet subdifferential of the function at the point .
As observed in [9, 10], if is a quasidifferentiable function then its directional derivative at a point is represented as where are convex compact sets. From the last relation, we can easily reduce that This means that for the function the upper and lower exhausters can be described in the following way: It is clear that the Frechet upper subdifferential can be expressed with the Hadamard upper derivative in the following way; see [9, Lemma 3.2]:
Theorem 1. Let be lower exhausters of the positively homogeneous function . Then, , where is the Frechet upper subdifferential of the at , and for the positively homogeneous function the Frechet superdifferential at the point zero follows
Proof. Take any . Then by using definition an lower exhausters we can write Consider now any Let us consider . Then, there exists where . Then, by separation theorem, there exists such that It is conducts (3) and for every and due to arbitrary. This means that . The proof of the theorem is complete.
Lemma 2. The Frechet upper and Gateaux lower subdifferentials of a positively homogeneous function at zero coincide.
Proof. Let be a positively homogenous function. It is not difficult to observe that every and every : Hence, the Gateaux lower subdifferential of at takes the forms which coincides with the representation of the Frechet upper subdifferential of the positively homogenous function (see [11, Proposition 1.9]).
3. Problem Formulation and Necessary Optimality Condition
Let investigating object be described by the differential equation with initial condition and the phase constraints at the end of the interval and switching conditions on switching points (the conditions which determine that at the switching points the phase trajectories must be connected to each other by some relations): The goal of this paper is to minimize the following functional: with the conditions (14)–(16). Namely, it is required to find the controls , switching points , and the end point (here are not fixed) with the corresponding state satisfying (14)–(16) so that the functional in (18) is minimized. We will derive necessary conditions for the nonsmooth version of these problems (by using the Frechet superdifferential and exhausters, quasidifferentiable in the Demyanov and Rubinov sense).
Here , and are continuous, at least continuously partially differentiable vector-valued functions with respect to their variables, are continuous and have continuous partial derivative with respect to their variables, has Frechet upper subdifferentiable (superdifferentiable) at a point and positively homogeneous functional, and are controls. The sets are assumed to be nonempty and open. Here (16) is switching conditions. If we denote this as follows: , , , then it is convenient to say that the aim of this paper is to find the triple which solves problem (14)–(18). This triple will be called optimal control for the problem (14)–(18). At first we assume that is the Hadamar upper differentiable at the point in the direction of zero. Then, is upper semicontinuous, and it has an exhaustive family of lower concave approximations of .
Theorem 3 (Necessary optimality condition in terms of lower exhauster). Let be an optimal solution to the control problem (14)–(18). Then, for every element from intersection of the subsets of the lower exhauster of the functional , that is, , , there exist vector functions , for which the following necessary optimality condition holds:(i)State equation: (ii)Costate equation: (iii)At the switching points, , (iv)Minimality condition: (v)At the end point , here is a Kronecker symbol, , is a Hamilton-Pontryagin function, is lower exhauster of the functional , , are the vectors, and is defined by the conditions (ii) and (iii) in the process of the proof of the theorem, later.
Proof. Firstly, we will try to reduce optimal control problem (14)–(18) with nonsmooth cost functional to the optimal control problem with smooth minimization functional. In this way, we will use some useful theorems in [12, 13]. Let us note that smooth variational descriptions of Frechet normals theorem in [12, Theorem 1.30] and its subdifferential counterpart [12, Theorem 1.88] provide important variational descriptions of Frechet subgradients of nonsmooth functions in terms of smooth supports. To prove the theorem, take any elements from intersection of the subset of the exhauster, , where , . Then by using Theorem 1, we can write that . Then, apply the variational description in [12, Theorem 1.88] to the subgradients . In this way, we find functions for satisfying the relations
in some neighborhood of , and such that each is continuously differentiable at with , . It is easy to check that is a local solution to the following optimization problem of type (14)–(18) but with cost continuously differentiable around . This means that we deduce the optimal control problem (14)–(18) with the nonsmooth cost functional to the smooth cost functional data:
taking into account that
We use multipliers to adjoint to constraints , , and , to :
by introducing the Lagrange multipliers . In the following, we will find it convenient to use the function , called the Hamiltonian, defined as for . Using this notation, we can write the Lagrange functional as
Assume is optimal control. To determine the variation , we introduce the variation , , , and . From the calculus of variations, we can obtain that the first variation of as
If we follow the steps in [3, pages 5–7] then, the first variation of the functional takes the following form:The latter sum is known because
and it is easy to check that
If the state equations (14) are satisfied, is selected so that coefficient of and is identically zero. Thus, we have
The integrand is the first-order approximation to the change in caused by
If is in a sufficiently small neighborhood of then the high-order terms are small and the integral in last equation dominates the expression of . Thus, for to be a minimizing control it is necessary that
for all admissible . We assert that in order for the last inequality to be satisfied for all admissible in the specified neighborhood, it is necessary that for all admissible and for all . To show this, consider the control
where is an arbitrarily small, but nonzero time interval and are admissible control variations. After this, if we consider proof description of the maximum principle in , we can come to the last inequality.
According to the fundamental theorem of the calculus of the variation, at the extremal point the first variation of the functional must be zero, that is, . Setting to zero, the coefficients of the independent increments , , and , and taking into account that yield the necessary optimality conditions (i)–(v) in Theorem 3.
This completes the proof of the theorem.
Theorem 4 (Necessary optimality conditions for switching optimal control system in terms of Quasidiffereniability). Let the minimization functional be positively homogenous, quasidifferentiable at a point , and let be an optimal solution to the control problem (14)–(18). Then, there exist vector functions , , and there exist convex compact and bounded set , in which for any elements , the necessary optimality conditions (i)–(v) in Theorem 3 are satisfied.
Proof. Let minimization functional be positively homogenous and quasidifferentiable at a point . Then, there exist totally bounded lower exhausters for the [9, Theorem 4]. Let us make the substitution ; take any element , then also, and if we follow the proof description and result in Theorem 3 in the current paper, we can prove Theorem 4. If we use the relationship between the Gateaux upper subdifferential and Dini upper derivative [9, Lemma 3.6], substitute , then we can write the following corollary (here , is the Hadamard upper derivative of the minimizing functional in the direction ).
Corollary 5. Let the minimization functional be positively homogenous, and let the Dini upper differentiable at a point and be an optimal solution to the control problem (14)–(18). Then for any elements , there exist vector functions , in which the necessary optimality conditions (i)–(v) in the Theorem 3 hold.
Proof. Let us take any element . Then by using the lemma in [9, Lemma 3.8] we can write . Next, if we use the lemma in [9, Lemma 3.2], then we can put . At least, if we follow Theorem 1 (relationship between upper Frechet subdifferential and exhausters) and Theorem 3 (necessary optimality condition in terms of exhausters) in the current paper, we can prove the result of Corollary 5.
- P. J. Antsaklis and A. Nerode, “Special issue on hybrid system,” IEEE Transactions on Automatic Control, vol. 43, no. 4, pp. 540–554, 1998.
- A. Bensoussan and J. L. Menaldi, “Hybrid control and dynamic programming,” Dynamics of Continuous, Discrete and Impulsive Systems, vol. 3, no. 4, pp. 395–442, 1997.
- S. F. Maharramov, “Necessary optimality conditions for switching control problems,” Journal of Industrial and Management Optimization, vol. 6, no. 1, pp. 47–55, 2010.
- V. Boltyanski, “The maximum principle for variable structure systems,” International Journal of Control, vol. 77, no. 17, pp. 1445–1451, 2004.
- S. F. Magerramov and K. B. Mansimov, “Optimization of a class of discrete step control systems,” Zhurnal Vychislitel'noi Matematiki i Matematicheskoi Fiziki, vol. 41, no. 3, pp. 360–366, 2001.
- R. M. Caravello and B. Piccoli, “Hybrid necessary principle,” in Proceedings of the 44th IEEE Conference on Decision and Control, pp. 723–728, 2002.
- S. F. Maharramov, “Optimality condition of a nonsmooth switching control system,” Automotic Control and Computer Science, vol. 42, no. 2, pp. 94–101, 2008.
- V. F. Demyanov and V. A. Roshchina, “Constrained optimality conditions in terms of proper and adjoint exhausters,” Applied and Computational Mathematics, vol. 4, no. 2, pp. 114–124, 2005.
- V. F. Demyanov and V. Roshchina, “Exhausters and subdifferentials in non-smooth analysis,” Optimization, vol. 57, no. 1, pp. 41–56, 2008.
- V. F. Demyanov and V. A. Roshchina, “Exhausters, optimality conditions and related problems,” Journal of Global Optimization, vol. 40, no. 1–3, pp. 71–85, 2008.
- F. Tröltzsch, Optimal Control of Partial Differential Equations, Theory, Methods and Applications, American Mathematical Society, 2010.
- B. S. Mordukhovich, Variational Analysis and Generalized Differentiation I: Basic Theory, Springer, Berlin, Germany, 2006.
- B. S. Mordukhovich, Variational Analysis and Generalized Differentiation, II: Applications, Springer, Berlin, Germany, 2006.
Copyright © 2013 Shahlar Meherrem and Rufan Akbarov. This is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.