Optimisation Based Clearance of Nonlinear Flight Control Laws

Optimisation Based Clearance of Nonlinear Flight Control Laws
Prathyush P. Menon Jongrae Kim Declan G. Bates Ian Postlethwaite

Control & Instrumentation Research Group, Department of Engineering, University of Leicester, Leicester LE1 7RH, UK.
Department of Engineering, Control & Instrumentation Research Group 22 Mar 2006
Overview
Nonlinear flight clearance A general optimisation framework
Worst case uncertainty evaluation

Clearance over regions of the flight envelope
Worst case input identification

Summary
Department of Engineering, Control & Instrumentation Research Group
22 Mar 2006
Nonlinear flight clearance

Control algorithms usually designed based on linear models Robust performance over the whole flight envelope Controller gains are scheduled for the whole envelope How can we effectively clear the controller over the whole envelope?
Nonlinear flight clearance criterion Based on time response, peak overshoot AoA limit exceedance J max( (t )); t 10 Sec

The uncertain parameters (dimension l) hyper box
l define a multidimensional
The worst case need not be at the vertices (max or min values)
Problem becomes extremely computationally expensive Need efficient search methods to find worst - case uncertain parameter combinations
Industry needs efficient, reliable and easily portable methods
22 Mar 2006
ADMIRE model
Dynamics
(1)
22 Mar 2006
ADMIRE model
Control algorithm
(2)
22 Mar 2006
ADMIRE model
AIRCRAFT MATHEMATICAL MODEL
(t) f(x(t), u(t), w(t), ) x y(t) h(x(t), u(t))
ADMIRE
Simulink model
) u(t) g(x(t), y REF (t),
Long. controller scheduled over the flight envelope SAAB phase compensation rate limiter active Nonlinear stick shaping elements present Reference inputs limited to 40 N (for this study) Uncertain parameters are bounded
22 Mar 2006
General optimisation framework
The philosophy
Reference inputs Uncertain parameters Mach Altitude Level Trim Finite time history
Optimisation Algorithm Max J
22 Mar 2006
Global Optimisation Schemes

Several algorithms evaluated: Genetic algorithms (GA) Differential evolution (DE) Hybrid GA / Hybrid DE Dividing Rectangles (DIRECT)
22 Mar 2006
Global Optimisation Scheme

Genetic algorithms
Search space
Accuracy Chromosomes length Initial population 50 1e-6 105 bits (5 genes)
Genetic operators
Roulette selection Single point crossover Binary uniform mutation
0.6 0.9 0.00 5

22 Mar 2006

Genetic algorithms (cont.)
Termination criteria improvement on the solution accuracy 1e-6 for a defined number of generations, fixed at 15 stop iteration Each trial gives different total number of simulations
22 Mar 2006

GA Results
[0.1000, 0.0750, 0.0500, 0.18309, 0.0500, 36.0908]
Slow convergence to global optimum No. of simulations very high (~5000) Computationally prohibitive slow (~ 3-4 hours for each test point)

Differential Evolution Random initialisation
Mutation
Crossover
Evaluation and selection Termination criteria same as that of GA


DE Results
[0.1000, 0.0750, 0.0500, 0.18309, 0.0500, 36.0908]
Better convergence to global optimum Reduced number of simulations (~3000)
22 Mar 2006

Global optimisation comparison statistics
Optimisation GA DE Trials 100 100 Avg. 4485 3086 Max. 7500 4176 Min. 2400 1152
Prob. of Std. Dev. success 828.364 65% 567.57 90%
Trials
Trials
Trials
Trials
22 Mar 2006
Hybrid Optimisation Scheme

Hybrid global and local optimisation schemes Exploit the advantages of both schemes
Question: When to switch between the schemes?

Standard approach: run global algorithm, then run local algorithm We use a more sophisticated decision making scheme based on one proposed by Lobo and Goldberg, 1996
22 Mar 2006

Hybrid genetic algorithm (HGA) Probabilistic switching scheme Weighted reward for each algorithm Probability of algorithm being selected depends on improvement in cost function Initial probabilities selected to favour use of GA at beginning fmincon is the local algorithm (SQP) Termination criteria same as previous cases

HGA Results
[0.1000, 0.0750, 0.0500, 0.18309, 0.0500, 36.0908]
Faster convergence to global optimum Smaller No. of simulations (~2000) Good reliability (92%)
22 Mar 2006

Hybrid differential evolution
Global optimisation used is DE Local optimisation is fmincon (SQP) Switching scheme Simple method; Starts with DE When there is no improvement from successive iterations: choose a random initial solution from the current iteration set apply local optimisation replace solution from local if improvement occurs Termination criteria: same as previous cases
22 Mar 2006

HDE Results
[0.1000, 0.0750, 0.0500, 0.18309, 0.0500, 36.0908]
Faster convergence to global optimum Significantly fewer No. of simulations (~1000) Excellent reliability (98%)
22 Mar 2006

Hybrid optimisation comparison statistics
Optimisation HGA HDE Trials 100 100 Avg. 2011 1106 Max. 4468 1434 Min. 1357 477 Prob. of Std. Dev. success 547.42 92% 192.42 98%
Trials
Trials
Trials
Trials
22 Mar 2006
Flight envelope clearance

Optimisation based clearance over a continuous region of flight envelope:
Mach [ 0.4 - 0.5 ] Altitude [ 1000 - 4000 ] Uncertainties same as discussed earlier
Stick input now to 80N.
We apply Hybrid DE scheme over the region of flight envelope
22 Mar 2006
Optimisation Performance
22 Mar 2006
Clearance Results
22 Mar 2006
Clearance Results
22 Mar 2006
Clearance Results
22 Mar 2006
Clearance Results
Worst case Flight condition
P. P. Menon, J. Kim, D.G. Bates and I. Postlethwaite, ``Clearance of nonlinear flight control laws using hybrid evolutionary optimisation, to appear in IEEE Transactions on Evolutionary Computation 2006
22 Mar 2006
Deterministic global optimisation

Disadvantages of stochastic optimisation for flight clearance: No guaranteed proof of convergence Require statistical analysis of performance Non-repeatability of results
DIviding RECTangles (DIRECT) is a deterministic global optimisation algorithm with a proof of convergence
Initial results of application of this method for flight clearance are very promising: P. P. Menon, D.G. Bates and I. Postlethwaite, ``A Hybrid
Deterministic Optimisation Algorithm for Nonlinear Flight Clearance, to appear in the proceedings of the American Control Conference, Boston, 2006
22 Mar 2006
Computation of worst-case pilot inputs

Klonk inputs:
m ax 16.0038 deg
Mach Altitude Level Trim
y REF (t) , t [t0 t f ]
FULL NONLINEAR AIRCRAFT SIMULATION MODEL
(t) f(x(t), u(t), w(t), ) x y(t) h(x(t), u(t))
) u(t) g(x(t), y REF (t),

y REF (t),
Global Optimisation
x(t) X 12
22 Mar 2006

Worst-case inputs:
m ax 66.4316 deg
Time: 3hrs. 5mins.
Analysis II max 58.0721 deg Analysis I : m ax 27.066 deg Klonk m ax 16.0038 deg
xcg
0.0611
mass
0.0648
C m
Cl
Cm
m ax
66.4316
-0.0020
-0.0022
0.0418
P. P. Menon, D. G. Bates and I. Postlethwaite, ``Computation of Worst-Case Pilot Inputs for Nonlinear Flight Control System Analysis'', AIAA Journal of Guidance, Control and Dynamics, 29(1), 2006.
22 Mar 2006

Whats the problem?
Input of Rate Limiter Output of Rate Limiter
Rudder
22 Mar 2006
Conclusions
Results demonstrate that the uncertain parameter combination
resulting in worst behaviour need not be at extremum bounds

Hybrid optimisations schemes successfully applied to a nonlinear flight clearance problem over a continuous region of the flight envelope Flexibility of the framework also allows robust computation of worst case pilot inputs Improved accuracy and faster convergence due to hybridisation could allow the use of such methods in the industrial flight
clearance process
22 Mar 2006

Optimisation Based Clearance of Nonlinear Flight Control Laws

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Optimisation Based Clearance of Nonlinear Flight Control Laws

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Optimisation Based Clearance of Nonlinear Flight Control Laws

Prathyush P. Menon Jongrae Kim Declan G. Bates Ian Postlethwaite

Worst case uncertainty evaluation

Worst case input identification

Department of Engineering, Control & Instrumentation Research Group

Nonlinear flight clearance

Nonlinear flight clearance

Nonlinear flight clearance

Department of Engineering, Control & Instrumentation Research Group

Department of Engineering, Control & Instrumentation Research Group

Department of Engineering, Control & Instrumentation Research Group

) u(t) g(x(t), y REF (t),

Department of Engineering, Control & Instrumentation Research Group

General optimisation framework

Optimisation Algorithm Max J

Department of Engineering, Control & Instrumentation Research Group

Global Optimisation Schemes

Department of Engineering, Control & Instrumentation Research Group

Global Optimisation Scheme

Roulette selection Single point crossover Binary uniform mutation

0.6 0.9 0.00 5

Department of Engineering, Control & Instrumentation Research Group

Global Optimisation Scheme

Department of Engineering, Control & Instrumentation Research Group

Global Optimisation Scheme

Global Optimisation Scheme

Evaluation and selection Termination criteria same as that of GA

Global Optimisation Scheme

Better convergence to global optimum Reduced number of simulations (~3000)

Department of Engineering, Control & Instrumentation Research Group

Global Optimisation Scheme

Department of Engineering, Control & Instrumentation Research Group

Hybrid Optimisation Scheme

Question: When to switch between the schemes?

Department of Engineering, Control & Instrumentation Research Group

Hybrid Optimisation Scheme

Hybrid Optimisation Scheme

Department of Engineering, Control & Instrumentation Research Group

Hybrid Optimisation Scheme

Department of Engineering, Control & Instrumentation Research Group

Hybrid Optimisation Scheme

Department of Engineering, Control & Instrumentation Research Group

Hybrid Optimisation Scheme

Department of Engineering, Control & Instrumentation Research Group

Flight envelope clearance

Stick input now to 80N.

We apply Hybrid DE scheme over the region of flight envelope

Department of Engineering, Control & Instrumentation Research Group

Department of Engineering, Control & Instrumentation Research Group

Department of Engineering, Control & Instrumentation Research Group

Department of Engineering, Control & Instrumentation Research Group

Department of Engineering, Control & Instrumentation Research Group

Department of Engineering, Control & Instrumentation Research Group

Deterministic global optimisation

Department of Engineering, Control & Instrumentation Research Group

Computation of worst-case pilot inputs

Mach Altitude Level Trim

y REF (t) , t [t0 t f ]

FULL NONLINEAR AIRCRAFT SIMULATION MODEL

(t) f(x(t), u(t), w(t), ) x y(t) h(x(t), u(t))

) u(t) g(x(t), y REF (t),

Department of Engineering, Control & Instrumentation Research Group

Computation of worst-case pilot inputs