skip to main content
10.1145/1950413.1950454acmconferencesArticle/Chapter ViewAbstractPublication PagesfpgaConference Proceedingsconference-collections
research-article

An FPGA implementation of a sparse quadratic programming solver for constrained predictive control

Published:27 February 2011Publication History

ABSTRACT

Model predictive control (MPC) is an advanced industrial control technique that relies on the solution of a quadratic programming (QP) problem at every sampling instant to determine the input action required to control the current and future behaviour of a physical system. Its ability in handling large multiple input multiple output (MIMO) systems with physical constraints has led to very successful applications in slow processes, where there is sufficient time for solving the optimization problem between sampling instants. The application of MPC to faster systems, which adds the requirement of greater sampling frequencies, relies on new ways of finding faster solutions to QP problems. Field-programmable gate arrays (FPGAs) are specially well suited for this application due to the large amount of computation for a small amount of I/O. In addition, unlike a software implementation, an FPGA can provide the precise timing guarantees required for interfacing the controller to the physical system. We present a high-throughput floating-point FPGA implementation that exploits the parallelism inherent in interior-point optimization methods. It is shown that by considering that the QPs come from a control formulation, it is possible to make heavy use of the sparsity in the problem to save computations and reduce memory requirements by 75%. The implementation yields a 6.5x improvement in latency and a 51x improvement in throughput for large problems over a software implementation running on a general purpose microprocessor.

References

  1. Core Generator guide, 2010 http://www.xilinx.com/itp/xilinx6/books/docs/cgn/cgn.pdf.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  2. Virtex-6 family overview, 2010 http://www.xilinx.com/support/documentation/data_sheets/ds150.pdf.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  3. S. Bayliss, C. S. Bouganis, and G. A. Constantinides. An FPGA implementation of the Simplex algorithm. In Proc. Int. Conf. on Field Programmable Technology, pages 49--55, Bangkok, Thailand, Dec 2006.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  4. D. Boland and G. A. Constantinides. An FPGA-based implementation of the MINRES algorithm. In Proc. Int. Conf. on Field Programmable Logic and Applications, pages 379--384, Heidelberg, Germany, Sep 2008.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  5. D. Boland and G. A. Constantinides. Optimising memory bandwidth use for matrix-vector multiplication in iterative methods. In Proc. Int. Symp. on Applied Reconfigurable Computing, pages 169--181, Bangkok, Thailand, Mar 2010. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  6. S. P. Boyd and L. Vandenberghe. Convex Optimization. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK, 2004. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  7. B. Fisher. Polynomial based iteration methods for symmetric linear systems. Wiley, Baltimore, MD, USA, 1996.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  8. T. A. Johansen, W. Jackson, and P. T. Robert Schreiber. Hardware synthesis of explicit model predictive controllers. IEEE Transactions on Control Systems Technolog, 15(1):191--197, Jan 2007.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  9. T. Keviczky and G. J. Balas. Receding horizon control of an F-16 aircraft: A comparative study. Control Engineering Practice, 14(9):1023--1033, Sep 2006.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  10. G. Knagge, A. Wills, A. Mills, and B. Ninnes. ASIC and FPGA implementation strategies for model predictive control. In Proc. European Control Conference, Budapest, Hungary, Aug 2009.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  11. S. L. Koh. Solving interior point method on a FPGA. Master's thesis, Nanyang Technological University, Singapore, 2009.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  12. M. S. Lau, S. P. Yue, K.-V. Ling, and J. M. Maciejowski. A comparison of interior point and active set methods for FPGA implementation of model predictive control. In Proc. European Control Conference, pages 156--160, Budapest, Hungary, Aug 2009.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  13. B. Leung, C.-H. Wu, S. O. Memik, and S. Mehrotra. An interior point optimization solver for real time inter-frame collision detection: Exploring resource-accuracy-platform tradeoffs. In Proc. Int. Conf. on Field Programmable Logic and Applications, pages 113--118, Milano, Italy, Sep 2010. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  14. K.-V. Ling, B. F. Wu, and J. M. Maciejowski. Embedded model predictive control (MPC) using a FPGA. In Proc. 17th IFAC World Congress, pages 15250--15255, Seoul, Korea, Jul 2008.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  15. K.-V. Ling, S. P. Yue, and J. M. Maciejowski. An FPGA implementation of model predictive control. In Proc. American Control Conference, page 6 pp., Minneapolis, USA, Jun 2006.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  16. A. R. Lopes and G. A. Constantinides. A high throughput FPGA-based floating-point conjugate gradient implementation for dense matrices. In Proc. 4th Int. Workshop on Applied Reconfigurable Computing, pages 75--86, London, UK, Mar 2008. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  17. J. Maciejowski. Predictive Control with Constraints. Pearson Education, Harlow, UK, 2001.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  18. S. Mehrotra. On the implementation of a primal-dual interior point method. SIAM Journal on Optimization, 2(4):575--601, Nov 1992.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  19. J. Nocedal and S. J. Wright. Numerical Optimization. Springer, New York, USA, 2006.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  20. P. D. Vouzis, L. G. Bleris, M. G. Arnold, and M. V. Kothare. A system-on-a-chip implementation for embedded real-time model predictive control. IEEE Transactions on Control Systems Technology, 17(5):1006--1017, Sep 2009.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  21. S. J. Wright. Applying new optimization algorithms to model predictive control. In Proc. Int. Conf. Chemical Process Control, pages 147--155. CACHE Publications, 1997.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  22. S. J. Wright. Primal-Dual Interior-Point Methods. SIAM, Philadelphia, USA, 1997. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library

Index Terms

  1. An FPGA implementation of a sparse quadratic programming solver for constrained predictive control

          Recommendations

          Comments

          Login options

          Check if you have access through your login credentials or your institution to get full access on this article.

          Sign in
          • Published in

            cover image ACM Conferences
            FPGA '11: Proceedings of the 19th ACM/SIGDA international symposium on Field programmable gate arrays
            February 2011
            300 pages
            ISBN:9781450305549
            DOI:10.1145/1950413

            Copyright © 2011 ACM

            Permission to make digital or hard copies of all or part of this work for personal or classroom use is granted without fee provided that copies are not made or distributed for profit or commercial advantage and that copies bear this notice and the full citation on the first page. Copyrights for components of this work owned by others than ACM must be honored. Abstracting with credit is permitted. To copy otherwise, or republish, to post on servers or to redistribute to lists, requires prior specific permission and/or a fee. Request permissions from [email protected]

            Publisher

            Association for Computing Machinery

            New York, NY, United States

            Publication History

            • Published: 27 February 2011

            Permissions

            Request permissions about this article.

            Request Permissions

            Check for updates

            Qualifiers

            • research-article

            Acceptance Rates

            Overall Acceptance Rate125of627submissions,20%

          PDF Format

          View or Download as a PDF file.

          PDF

          eReader

          View online with eReader.

          eReader