Mass-spring system
|
Mass-spring system with masses on a line.
|
For the system with masses on a line, the state vector is determined by
, where and denote the vectors of positions
and velocities of all masses. Setting all masses and spring constants to unity and
partitioning matrices in the state-space representation conformably with the partition
of yields
where and are identity
and zero matrices, and is a tridiagonal symmetric Toeplitz matrix with on the main diagonal
and on the first upper and lower sub-diagonals, e.g.,
In the absence of sparsity constraints, i.e., at , the optimal controller
is obtained from the positive definite solution of the algebraic Riccati equation
|
Optimal centralized position gains for the middle mass .
Note exponential decay with the spatial distance.
|
Localization can be enforced by truncating the optimal centralized controller.
This, however, may introduce performance degradation and even instability of the closed-loop system.
(Additional information is provided in the Network with 100 unstable nodes example.)
Instead of using simple truncation, the alternating direction method of multipliers enforces sparsity
in the -minimization step and improves the quadratic performance in the
-minimization step. This mechanism of alternating between promoting sparsity and optimizing
the quadratic performance plays an important role in striking a balance between these two
competing objectives.
|
An example of truncation: all but five largest elements of the optimal centralized position gain
are set to zero. The resulting controller will only use the position measurements of the mass on
which it acts and of the two neighboring masses to the left and to the right.
|
For illustration, we use cardinality function, weighted norm, and sum-of-logs
as the sparsity-promoting penalty functions. For all three cases, the optimal position and
velocity feedback gains become diagonal matrices for large values of . It is noteworthy that
the optimal sparse feedback gain, with only of nonzero elements relative to the optimal
centralized controller , introduces performance loss of only (compared to ).
The following links contain Matlab codes and computational results for each case.
|