Documenti di Didattica
Documenti di Professioni
Documenti di Cultura
PII: S1270-9638(17)30827-1
DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ast.2017.05.013
Reference: AESCTE 4026
Please cite this article in press as: C.R. Ashokkumar et al., Trustable UAV for Higher Level Control Architectures, Aerosp. Sci. Technol.
(2017), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ast.2017.05.013
This is a PDF file of an unedited manuscript that has been accepted for publication. As a service to our customers we are providing
this early version of the manuscript. The manuscript will undergo copyediting, typesetting, and review of the resulting proof before it is
published in its final form. Please note that during the production process errors may be discovered which could affect the content, and all
legal disclaimers that apply to the journal pertain.
Trustable UAV for Higher Level Control Architectures
Chimpalthradi R. Ashokkumar1, George WP York2 and Scott Gruber3
Abstract – Future unmanned air vehicles (UAVs) are expected to operate under the supervision
of higher level control architectures that give instructions to engage and direct the UAV to
perform a certain task. These instructions allow the UAV to make decisions along any point of
its trajectory and then modify its flight path by using a sequence of reconfigurable controllers at
the decision points. Assume that the UAV is flying with a transient and with a steady state
contributing to a flight control mode (FCM) such as an altitude hold, an ascent and a descent
mode when only longitudinal aircraft dynamics is considered. At the time of a decision, if the
UAV bifurcates from its original (or parent) FCM in an effort to acquire a new (or a child) FCM
and comply with a higher level instruction, then the UAV is said to be trustable. Mathematically,
at the time of bifurcation where controller reconfiguration takes place, trustable UAV with the
child trajectory must originate from a region where the stability regions of the parent and child
trajectories intersect. In this paper, a procedure to reconfigure such FCMs and their controllers
that develop the trustable UAV are presented. A three degree of freedom UAV is considered to
Keywords: Flight control modes, UAVs, transients, steady states, higher level instructions,
switching, stability.
1
NRC Research Associate, Dept. of Electrical and Computer Engineering, USAF Academy, Colorado, USA.
2
Director and Associate Professor, USAF Academy Center for Unmanned Aircraft Systems Research, Dept. of
Electrical and Computer Engineering, USAF Academy, Colorado, USA.
3
Program Manager, USAF Academy Center for Unmanned Aircraft Systems Research, Dept. of Electrical and
Computer Engineering, USAF Academy, Colorado, USA.
1
1. Introduction
Future unmanned air vehicles (UAVs), both aerial and combat air vehicles, have a major role
to mitigate threats involving the life of ground personnel and pilots who are assigned to perform
complex mission operations. In these operations, although human decisions to remotely operate
an UAV are far superior, the UAVs are expected to be operative under the supervision of a
higher level control architecture to carry out a task. The instructions are such that they prompt
the UAV to make a decision and change the course of its flight path. At the decision points, if the
UAV is able to reconfigure its flight path with stability, then the UAV is said to be trustable.
Otherwise, the UAV at that decision point is not trustable. In this paper, a mathematical
exposition using the linearized model based controllers of the nonlinear UAV that develops a
trustable UAV is presented. The trusted UAV is assumed autonomous. The technical factors
governing the human operated UAV will be considered at a later stage to define the trust.
Nevertheless, pilot errors [1] in manned or unmanned aircraft leading to catastrophes require
special attention to define trust. The aircraft simulation in these cases must be carried out like the
way the pilot with an inner loop controller switching criterion operates the aircraft.
switched linear model based controllers that guarantee trust, especially when higher level control
architecture’s instructions [2,3] decide to direct an extremely uncertain lower level UAV [4,5] to
perform a certain task. Typical uncertainties influencing the trustable UAV are higher level
decision points at which the UAVs are instructed, denied airspace, friendly resources, enemy
states, etc. Such uncertainties constantly drive the aircraft to adopt an unplanned flight path. One
option available to validate a trustable UAV in these circumstances is to develop and automate a
capability to switch flight control modes (FCMs) such as an ascent, descent, and altitude hold,
2
etc., compatible to higher level instructions so that the flight bifurcates from its original (or
The parent FCM shown in solid line (ABCD) has a transient and a steady state. The child FCM
shown in dotted lines can originate from any part of the parent’s transient or the steady state
depending upon the time at which a higher level instruction is directed. The solid and dotted line
combination depict the trustable UAV, which takes such instructions at nodes and makes
decisions to bifurcate instantaneously from the parent FCM with a FCM reconfiguration for the
child. In this paper, a procedure to develop these trustable UAVs is presented. In particular,
controller reconfiguration to generate parent and child FCMs in extended stability regions is
presented. That is, the trustable UAV is developed by using controller switching as in gain
scheduling algorithm; however, these controllers are developed to originate from a particular
trim point of the flight envelope. Following the control and simulation procedure, the trustable
UAV possesses the inner loop controller switching capability and guarantee stability of the
reconfigurable FCMs that the parent and child generate. For a given command or pilot input at
the outer loop, the rules to determine the sequence of controllers to be switched as in gain
scheduling algorithms [6-11] consistent with flight envelope points are beyond the scope of the
present work. Hence, in this paper, trustable UAVs are investigated with respect to the initial
3
conditions and various controllers, all originating from a single linear time invariant model (or
It is possible to develop a trustable UAV whose FCMs are derived by considering various
flight conditions on the flight envelope. Here, the linearized model with respect to its equilibrium
or trim point varies for each flight condition. Controllers are determined for each linear model
and they are scheduled as per the norms of the gain scheduling algorithm. Note that controller
switching needs to take place at a point where the stability regions (regions of attraction) of the
respective controllers intersect [12]. In current gain scheduling algorithms, the stability regions
are so intact and the switching criteria are therefore taking place within a region where stability
[13,14]. Here a single controller attempts to stabilize as many linear models as possible;
however, such controllers are difficult to determine for more than two linear models [15,16].
While there is a need to understand the selection of flight conditions in accordance with a flight
trajectory, in this case FCMs, it is also possible to override controller variations with altitude
(one of the coordinates of the flight envelope) where their linear models simultaneously vary.
For instance, a sequence of controllers pertaining to a single linear model can generate ascent
and descent modes as against the gain scheduling algorithm where controllers and their linear
models are assumed to vary with altitude. For UAVs, these procedures are open for
implementation. Along these lines, presently, sophisticated six degree of freedom nonlinear
aircraft and its equations for navigation is not considered. This paper assumes a single
longitudinal linear model to generate parent and child FCMs for a trustable UAV. The child
FCMs are reconfigured by using controllers resulting from various closed loop pole locations.
Presently, the linear model corresponding to steady level flight of a longitudinal micro air
4
vehicle model [17] is considered. Generally, FCM variations are possible with thrust and
elevator as control inputs. Hence the linear model becomes a two input system.
FCMs of the nonlinear aircraft and eigenvalue and eigenvector (eigenstructure) options for
the linear model based controller design are strongly connected; however, eigenvalue selection
or the choice of eigenvector elements for a particular ascent or a descent mode is difficult to
establish. In fact, in aircraft applications, the choice of eigenvector elements for eigenmode
decoupling [18], minimum norm gains for control input constraints [19], etc., does not apply
when the controller is implemented for the nonlinear aircraft. For each set of desired eigenvalue
locations, eigenvector options are indeed infinite. Accordingly, FCM options become infinite. A
procedure to determine such FCMs in state feedback format [20], in output feedback format [21],
and in observer based feedback format [22] is presented. Potential steady state trajectory
reconfigurable aircraft control are discussed. In this paper, in order to develop a trustable UAV,
both transient trajectory transcriptions (TTTs, for higher level instructions at transients) as well
as steady state trajectory transcriptions (SSTTs, for higher level instructions at steady states)
using controllers resulting from different closed loop eigenvalue locations are considered.
Eigenvalue variations in a way depict variations in eigenvectors. Each of these choices will have
a unique steady state value called auxiliary equilibrium point to define the FCM and several
transients depending upon the initial condition one picks up from the stability region. If a parent
and its associated child FCM is required to be configured, initial condition (or transient) for the
parent FCM becomes instrumental to have acceptable higher level decision points where the
child FCMs emerge. Such conclusions are also derivable by using the controllers resulting from
robust pole assignment [23], linear quadratic regulator [24], etc. The basic objective behind a
5
trustable UAV is that the bifurcation from parent to child FCM is stable and it is a property
associated with the variations in eigenstructure of the linear model. Eigenstructure variations can
be pursued through linear functional controllers (LFCs) [20-22] (the eigenvalues are retained at
fixed locations but their eigenvectors are varied through a multiple input state variable feedback
controllers). In this paper, the basic requirement on eigenvector variations for FCM options is
The rest of the paper is organized as follows. The problem description is presented in Section 2.
Trajectory transcription criteria for a trustable UAV is presented in Section 3. In Section 4, the
autonomous attributes of the trustable UAV are discussed. Simulations and conclusions are
2. Problem description
When a higher level instruction to engage an UAV and perform a certain task is made, it is
important that the UAV need to cooperate with the instruction and make a decision to develop a
child trajectory. Several scenarios exist to define the present and future state of the UAV at the
time the decision is made. For instance, prior to decision, the UAV may be accelerating to a new
altitude in an ascent mode and after the decision it may be required to pass through a waypoint
(say a latitude, longitude and altitude point). A question that would naturally arise is the
following. Can the UAV bifurcate from its present path to its future path? As in standard aircraft
control problem, when the inner loop is scheduled with linear model based controllers, this paper
considers the FCMs of the longitudinal aircraft dynamics and proposes parent and child FCMs
for bifurcation at the decision points. As discussed in the previous section, the controllers work
like the gain scheduling algorithm but the trim points are not. That is, several pole placing
controllers designed for one linear model are scheduled to derive the child FCMs.
6
At the inner loop, LFCs presented in [20-22] are particularly attractive to understand FCM
transcriptions as a function of condition numbers for the closed loop modal matrices. Here, the
respective eigenvalues in all the FCMs are fixed in the open left half plane of the complex plane.
However, the eigenvectors are varied infinitely to have variations in condition numbers. In this
paper, the eigenvalue locations are varied and the procedure to design these LFCs for variations
in condition numbers is retained. Hence the FCM options are multiplied for every set of desired
eigenvalue locations. Further, the FCM transcriptions and hierarchical controllers that assign
distinct set of eigenvalue locations which transcript FCMs and configure parent and child FCMs
are unknown and it is the study objective of this paper. Such an assignment can also take the
controllers resulting from robust pole assignment [23] and linear quadratic regulators [24]. In
order to define a FCMs and their transcriptions for a trustable UAV, the nonlinear aircraft
x a( x) b( x)u(t ) . (1)
Assume the control input u(t) is not a scalar. The n-component state vector x(t) requires the
compatible vector valued functions a(x) and b(x) to be smooth and differentiable with respect to
x(t). The time (t) derivative of the state variables is denoted by a dot over the state vector x(t).
Let the kinematics of the aircraft in NED (North-East-Down) coordinate frame as,
X i va (t ) cos(T (t ) D (t )) (2)
where va (t ) is the velocity of the aircraft in m/s, T (t ) is the pitch angle in radians and D (t ) is the
angle of attack in radians. The flight paths are determined by X i and Z i , which are the
coordinates of the inertial positions such as North-Down or East-Down positions. Other state
(trajectory) and control variables that govern the dynamics of the aircraft in pitch plane are pitch
7
rate ( T Q (t), rad/sec), elevator deflection ( G e (t ) , rad) and thrust coefficient CT (t ) . The state
u1 (t ) CT (t ) and u2 (t ) G e (t ) . (5)
The three degree of freedom micro aerial vehicle model and its aerodynamic data is given in
[17]. An equilibrium point (in Eq. (1), points where x 0 ) corresponding to a steady level flight
S S S
va (t ) q f LD (CL0 CLD D ) g sin (T D ) q CT cos D q CDG G e . (6a)
m m m e
1 S Sc S g
D (t ) [Q q CL0 q 2 CLQ Q q CLD D cos(T D )]
k va m 2 va m v a m v a
(6b)
S S
q CT sinD q CL G e
k va m k va m Ge
Sc c Sc
T(t ) q [Cm0 CmD D CmQ T] q CmG G e (6c)
I yy 2v a I yy e
where,
Sc
k 1 q CL , (6e)
2va2m D
q 1
2
Uva2 , (6f)
Here dot over a variable refers the time derivative of the variable. U is the air density kg/m3, S is
the surface area of the wing in m2, m is the mass of the aircraft in kg, c is the mean aerodynamic
chord in meters, Iyy is the pitch moment of inertia in kg-m2 and other parameters are the
aerodynamic stability and control derivatives. The data for these coefficients are given in [17].
8
To compute the trim condition, special techniques are required to solve a set of nonlinear
algebraic equation with six unknowns and four equations (for six degree of freedom aircraft, see
[25]).
In order to explain parent and child FCMs, consider the transcriptions (FCMs in blue
transcripting FCMs in red) as in Figure 2. Each slope is a representation of the inner loop
controller. The transient is a representation of the initial condition belonging to its stability
region. Further, the transients are confined to admissible state variable bounds which in turn
determine bounds on the control inputs. The points where the color codes change and trajectories
in blue and red intersect are the decision points where controller reconfiguration takes place to
oblige the higher level instructions. Note that the decision points are not observed on transient
9
part of the trajectories. Suppose the higher level instructions come in at any point of the
trajectory. When a particular trajectory in red (referred as parent trajectory or FCM) with which
the trajectories in blue (referred as child trajectories or FCMs) transcript at many points of the
parent trajectory, the UAV becomes trustable. Depending upon the controller for parent
trajectory, the child FCMs are defined. For instance, an extremely shallow parent will not have
transient effects and hence the child FCMs are derivable at almost every point of the parent
trajectory. The parent trajectory in this case is a property associated with the initial condition
search in the stability region of its controller. Given this controller, a procedure to generate the
parent trajectory using a linear time invariant model based controller is well known in the
literature. Usually, the aircraft in Eq. (1) is linearized with respect to an equilibrium point. The
For each of these controllers ( G i ), the trajectories x(t ) in Figure 2 are generated from the
Note that the auxiliary equilibrium points xai ,e at FCM transcriptions are the points that the
Also, when the auxiliary equilibrium point is too close to the equilibrium point, transcription is
favored by the fact that it will be in a region where stability regions of the LFCs intersect, a
condition investigated in detail for a second order nonlinear system [12]. A procedure for such
10
transcriptions is presented in sequel and it holds for state feedback based LFCs when the
controllers are originating from the model in Eq. (7). These LFCs for state feedback case is
presented in [20]. In addition, the state feedback controllers resulting from robust pole
assignment and linear quadratic regulators are also considered which primarily distinguishes the
slopes of the FCMs from other techniques. Prior to presenting transient trajectory transcriptions
(TTTs) and steady state trajectory transcriptions (SSTTs) by using a combination of stability
SGj ^x
0 R 4 : If x(0) x0 then limtof x(t ) `
xaj,,e , j represents the linear functional controller G j .
Note that the classical stability region definition takes the equilibrium ( xe ) and auxiliary
equilibrium ( xaj,e ) points as xe xaj,e 0 . In aircraft, these non-zero points are crucial to explain
trustable UAV, where the controllers are switched to define child FCMs from a parent FCM.
Consider now one of these trustable UAVs and denote its controller for a parent FCM by G p and
its controllers for child FCMs by G d , d 1,2 . The TTT is defined as follows:
Consider a stability region S Gp for a parent controller G p . Denote a trajectory in the stability
region S Gp by x p (t ) . Similarly, consider a stability region S Gd for a child controller G d . Let the
decision point on the parent trajectory be t d , which is the time at which the UAV with a child
trajectory begins to bifurcate from the parent trajectory. Then the UAV with a TTT is contained
S Gd ^x d
p R 4 : If x p (t td ) x dp then lim t t t d of x(t ) `
x ad,e , G represents a child controller G d .
Similarly, the SSTTs for decision points on auxiliary equilibrium points are defined.
11
Definition 3 (Steady state trajectory transcriptions SSTTs):
Consider a stability region S Gp for a parent controller G p . Denote the auxiliary equilibrium point
of the trajectory x p (t ) in the stability region S Gp by xap,e . Similarly, consider a stability region S Gd
for a child controller G d . Let the decision point on the parent trajectory be t d , which is the time
at which the UAV with a child trajectory begins to bifurcate from the parent trajectory. Then the
UAV with a SSTT is contained in the child stability region S Gd with the following criterion.
S Gd ^x p
a ,e R 4 : If x p (t td ) x ap,e then limt tt d of x(t ) `
x ad,e , G represents a child controller G d .
One of the implications of the definitions provided for TTTs and SSTTs is that the stability
regions S Gp and S Gd must intersect so that x dp and x(t d ) (parent and child trajectories at the
decision point) reside at the intersected region. These definitions are used to define the FCM and
condition ݔ (or ݔሺݐௗ ሻ) such that the trajectories contained in their respective stability regions
ௗ
approach the steady state ݔǡ (or ݔǡ ). The FCM with an ascent (+) or descent (െ) will be
ௗ ௗ
േሺߠǡ െ ߙǡ )) (or േሺߠǡ െ ߙǡ )).
Definition 5 (Trustable UAV) : If the UAV trajectory ݔሺݐሻ comprising of parent and child
trajectories is contained within the union of the stability regions ܵீ ீܵ ௗ such that the point
ݔሺ ݐൌ ݐௗ ሻ ൌ ݔௗ resides at the intersected region ܵீ ீܵ תௗ , then the UAV is said to be trustable.
Note that the parent and child controllers ܩ and ܩௗ , respectively, are reconfigurable at ݔௗ .
In order to know if the SSTT and TTT criteria for a trustable UAV are satisfied, it becomes
necessary to interpret Lyapunov stability criterion for nonlinear autonomous system using
eigenvalues of the Jacobian matrix. This technique also accommodates the LFCs G d and G p that
12
are designed for eigenvector variations which are required to have options in auxiliary
equilibrium points xad,e that in turn decide ascent and descent modes of the child FCMs. Some of
The nonlinear aircraft in Eq. (9) is indeed the nonlinear autonomous system of the form,
x f (x ) , x(t0 ) x0 z 0 (11)
f ( xe ) 0 (12)
V ( x) 1
2
f cP f , P ! 0
where prime denotes the transpose. The time derivative of the Lyapunov function is,
wf ( x )
V ( x) f c ^Ac( x) P PA( x)` f , A(x ) is Jacobian . (13)
wx
Clearly, for stability, V ( x) 0 implies that A(x ) is asymptotically stable along the trajectory x(t ) .
In [26,27] it has been shown that Eq. (13) has a Lyapunov equation connection [28].
Theorem 1: The equilibrium point x e is asymptotically stable if A(x ) is in Ф, where Ф is the set
In order to connect condition numbers and transcriptions, Theorem 1 is used. Consider the LFCs
G (i ) and define the closed loop system matrices A0(i ) such that,
13
The eigenvalue perturbations of A(i ) ( x ) from the nominal eigenvalues of A0(i ) are connected as
follows.
Theorem 2: Let the nominal matrix A0(i ) is diagonalizable such that A0(i ) V (i ) /V (i )1 where V (i )1
is the inverse of V (i ) and / diag (O1 On ) . If an error matrix that perturbs the nominal matrix
Theorem 2 is well known when x(t ) and i are fixed [29,30]. Here N (.) refers the condition
number of the matrix (.). Similarly, V max (.) refers to the maximum singular value of the matrix
(.). Note that in Eq. (17) the property of the LFC for eigenvector variations when eigenvalues are
fixed or eigenvalue variations is employed. In order to present the transcription criterion, few
Consider the left hand side of Eq. (17). The perturbed eigenvalue P q(i ) will be within a circle of
R
V max ( E (i ) ( x )) d (18)
N (V (i ) )
Clearly, smaller the condition number larger the error size E (i ) ( x) . That is, larger the trajectory
dispersions (that is, x(t) – dispersions) from the equilibrium point xe at which E (i ) ( xe ) 0 . Hence
stability region is larger when condition number for the modal matrix of the nominal matrix A0(i )
is smaller. Note that the circles with radius ‘R’ and with centers at the eigenvalues of the
nominal matrix are contained in the open left half plane of the complex plane. The transcription
B. Transcription criterion.
14
It is observed that all the controllers for parent and child FCMs originate from the linear model
in Eq. (7) whose equilibrium point is given by ( xe , u e ). The Jacobian matrix A(i ) ( x) in Eq.(16) at
this equilibrium point is indeed the nominal matrix A0(i ) for which the error matrix E (i ) ( xe ) is a
zero matrix. Hence when the Jacobian matrix at all x(t ) is asymptotically stable, the error matrix
E (i ) ( x) measures the relative position of x(t ) with respect to the equilibrium state xe . If one takes
the 2-norm of the error matrix E (i ) ( x) denoted by V max ( E (i ) ( x)) and take this norm for the parent
and child trajectories at the decision point t d , transcription criterion is inferred as follows. For
the child trajectory x(t d ) to transcript with parent trajectory x dp , a qualitative requirement is that,
Eq. (19) suggests that at the decision point, the stability region of the child controller most likely
contains the stability region of the parent controller enabling the potential TTT. The same
principle applies to SSTT where for the child FCM to most likely transcript the parent FCM, the
These qualitative rules of transcription criterion assist to accommodate the decision points of the
higher level control architecture while an UAV is directed to perform a certain task. Eqs (19) and
(20) further suggest (qualitatively) that when a decision point is active, the distance of the child
trajectory point from the equilibrium point is more compared to the distance of the parent
trajectory point from the same equilibrium point (as in Figure 3). These qualitative statements
15
Fig. 3a. Child controller selection criterion.
LFCs fundamentally adopt eigenstructure variations to modify transients and steady states in
their respective stability regions. Such variations may be established by designing a controller
whose closed loop eigenvalues are either fixed or varied in the open left half plane of the
complex plane. The freedom available to design these controllers via eigenstructure options
offers flexibility to access any decision point of the higher level control architecture; however,
identifying a controller for child FCM that satisfies the transcription criterion (Eq. (19) or Eq.
(20)) becomes difficult. In this framework, it can be claimed that all decision points of the higher
level control architecture are accessible through appropriate child controllers. Suppose the child
controller is fixed. Again it is observed that the initial condition options suggest different
16
decision points at transients. Hence it becomes important to highlight the significance of the
Theoretically, the UAV at the decision point t d begins to acquire a child trajectory with an initial
condition x dp on the parent trajectory. While it is known that x dp is in the stability region S Gp for
stable switching of the controller G d from G p . In order to check if x dp is in the stability region
S Gd of the controller G d , the following hypothesis test is applied. Let x0 be an initial condition
that generates trajectories x p (t ) in S Gp and x(t ) in S Gd . Clearly if x(t d ) satisfies the trajectory
transcription criterion in Eq. (19), it is likely that x dp is in S Gd . The hypothesis test is a procedure
to choose potential controllers for child FCMs. The entire procedure selects the initial condition
x dp for the child FCM generated by a controller option G d . It is anticipated that the Lyapunov
stability criterion in the form of an asymptotically stable Jacobian at Eqs. (13) and (14) will be
f ( x) a( x) b( x) [ue G d ( x xe )]
Before illustrating the autonomous attributes of a trustable UAV, the current practices in UAV
operations by a remote operator are reviewed. Figure 5 depicts the typical control architecture
with a remote operator at the outer loop. The main feature of the architecture is that at the inner
loop a fixed order linear control structure with constant gains is adopted. If it is a PID controller,
the gain tuning is performed usually by trial and error method. If a FCM such as an ascent is
desired, the remote operator intuitively gives a command input for which the UAV ascends with
17
Fig. 4. Trustable UAV complying the higher level instructions.
a constant thrust. Note that from an affixed order inner loop controller, these are the limited
maneuver capabilities from an UAV without the thrust management. However, human decisions
significantly contribute to the feasible mission objectives of UAV. In contrast, the control
architecture of an autonomous trustable UAV for higher level decisions is depicted in Figure 6.
These architectures are programmable if the number of parent and child controllers is known.
The decision points may be appropriately directed; however, the difficulty prevails for decision
Here, the higher level decisions can be made at any part of the parent trajectory for all of which
the transcription criterion will be met to generate child FCMs. In the next section, the
18
autonomous features of a trustable UAV presented in Figure 5 are simulated by using the parent
19
5. Simulations
The three degree of freedom aircraft model of Langelaan [17] is considered to simulate a
trustable UAV. The aircraft is actually a four-state and three-input system. In this paper, the
utility of the flap as an input is not investigated. The state and other control variables defined in
The kinematics of the aircraft in pitch plane are given in Eqs. (2) and (3). The position of the
One of the simplest equilibrium points considered to develop the trustable UAV is computed as,
The aircraft at this equilibrium point is in cruise (altitude hold) mode with D (t ) T (t ) 0 . For a
cruise mode with non-zero angle of attack, generally an optimization is required to compute the
associated equilibrium point and it is illustrated in [25]. For Eq. (23), the controllable linear
model is computed as (all data are approximated to the fourth decimal place),
20
ª 0 6.7890 9.8100 0 º
« 0.0452 7.2167 0 1.0280 »»
A «
« 0 0 0 1.0000»
« »
¬ 0 34.3897 0 2.7163¼
ª27.1758 0 º
«0 0.4806 »»
B «
«0 0 »
« »
¬0 54.8718¼
Following the procedure presented in [20], the state feedback LFCs G (i ) are computed for
eigenvector variations of the closed loop system matrices Ac(i ) A BG (i ) . For instance, when
5 r 5.5 j
2 r 2.5 j
4 r 7.5 j
,
2 r 2.5 j
one of the controllers assigning the above closed loop poles is,
For,
3 r 7.5 j
,
2 r 2.0 j
one of the controllers assigning the above closed loop poles is,
21
ª 1.3607 7.0370 2.2027 1.1524º
G4 « 0.7126 2.5202 1.2994 0.6348» .
¬ ¼
xaj,e
ª v aj,e º
« j »
Controller «D a ,e » dZ i
«T j » tan(T aj,e D aj,e )
« aj,e » dX i
«¬Qa ,e »¼ FCM
G 1
ª 20.9683 º
« 0.0014»
« »
« 0.0250»
« »
¬ 0.0000¼ 0.0237 Ascent Mode
G2 ª 21.0259 º
« 0.0017 »
« »
« 0.0108 »
« »
¬ 0.0000 ¼ 0.0125 Descent Mode
G 3
ª 21.0362 º
« 0.0018»
« »
« 0.0103»
« »
¬ 0.0000 ¼ 0.0085 Ascent Mode
G 4
ª 21.0451 º
« 0.0019»
« »
« 0.0177 »
« »
¬ 0.0000 ¼ 0.0196 Descent Mode
Given these stabilizing controllers, the auxiliary equilibrium points xaj,e of the stability regions
S Gj are presented next. For any initial condition x0 in S Gj , the trajectory satisfying Lyapunov
stability criterion derived in terms of stable eigenvalues of the Jacobian matrix in Eq. (13) will
determine these auxiliary equilibrium points. Such points depict the slope of the FCMs in ascent
and descent modes. These details of the controllers G j are presented in Table 1. In order to
accommodate the decision points of the higher level control architecture, which direct the UAV
to bifurcate from its parent trajectory, the transcription criterion in Eqs. (19) or (20) is adopted. It
22
basically suggests controller switching within a region where their stability regions intersect, a
rule exhaustively illustrated in [12] for a simple second order nonlinear system. It is also
important to observe that there are state trajectory transcriptions as well as control input
trajectory transcriptions at the decision points. With respect to a transient (initial condition)
option pertaining to a stability region S Gj , the state trajectory transcription is addressed first for a
ª21.0210 º
« 0.0002»
x0 « ».
«0.0001 »
« »
¬0.0001 ¼
To identify parent and child FCMs, the norm of the error matrix in Eq. (18) is plotted for three
controllers taken at a time. Figure 7 is utilized to depict transcription criterion in Eqs. (19) and
(20). Controllers G1 (indicated in black color), G 3 (blue) and G 4 (red) are considered. Controller
ܩଶ is not included as it will be used to illustrate the effect of controller combinations in
transcriptions subsequently. It is possible to select as many controllers as one can and illustrate
transcription criteria. For instance, in Figure 7, controller G 3 offers a trajectory which is likely to
contain in the most parts of the stability regions S G1 and S G4 of the controllers G1 and G 4 ,
respectively. Hence the trajectory resulting from controller G 3 becomes a parent trajectory. The
resulting FCM is referred as parent FCM. The fact that it is contained in S G1 and S G4 further
enables the controllers G1 and G 4 to transcript with controller G 3 . Upon satisfying the Lyapunov
stability criterion (Eq. (13) and (14)), the resulting trajectories and FCMs from these
transcriptions are referred as child trajectories/FCMs. Note that in steady state and at other parts
23
of the transients, other conclusions can also be drawn from Figure 7. That is, unlike the first part
of the transients, at steady states, G1 transcripts with G 4 (as against G 4 transcripting with G1 at
the first part of the transients). This observation is useful if the child FCM becomes a parent
FCM at some decision points. To illustrate the main properties of transcription, consider a
24
Clearly, the point x(td ) on the trajectory resulting from the controller G 3 (denoted by x dp ) is
Hence these controllers transcript with controller G 3 . That is, assuming either G1 or G 4 as a
f ( x) a( x) b( x) [ue G d ( x xe )]
will have a Jacobian that is asymptotically stable. These parent and child trajectories for various
decision points are presented in Figure 8. The ascent and descent modes are due to the
25
Fig. 9. Controller options influencing transcriptions.
26
As it has been observed in the example, parent and child controller selection procedures are
context based. That is, they primarily depend on controller type (eigenvector variations) and
initial conditions. For instance, the transcription criterion shown in Figure 7 is modified as
shown in Figure 9, when controller G1 is replaced with controller G 2 . Here the transcriptions
discussed similar to Eqs. (23) are preserved for all decision points across the transients and
steady states. In contrast, these controllers in Figure 9 modify the transcriptions as shown in
Figure 10, when initial conditions in their respective stability regions are varied. Thus these
techniques in a way search whether decision points reside in the stability regions of the
controllers. Given an active controller as a parent, child controllers compatible to this parent may
be designed following the procedures presented in this paper. Generally, the transcription criteria
for decision points across transients of the initial conditions are unpredictable. Hence decision
Lastly, the control transcriptions are presented. The thrust coefficient ( CT (t ) ) in the aircraft of
Langelaan [17] must be positive. In thrust management, generally the transients are ignored but
the steady state values are programmable. Linearized model based nonlinear aircraft control
presented in this paper offers these steady state values for thrust management. Although positive
thrust management schemes for FCM analysis is important, in this paper, parent and child FCMs
with positive transients and steady states in thrust coefficient are considered to illustrate the
control transcriptions. For one of the trustable UAV transcriptions in Figure 9, the control
transcriptions are depicted in Figure 11 and 12, respectively. The control inputs for child FCMs
are presented in black color. The parent control inputs before bifurcations are presented in blue
27
Fig. 11. Control transcription with thrust coefficient.
28
6. Conclusions
There has been a significant interest to automate the air defense system by using higher level
control architectures where the unmanned air vehicles are directed to accomplish their mission
operations. These decisions to engage an unmanned air vehicle require instantaneous controller
reconfiguration at inner loop so that it bifurcates from the intended path to the assigned task.
While the intended path is referred as the parent flight control mode, the path adopted to perform
the assigned task is referred as a child flight control mode. The decision points where the tasks
are assigned must reside in a region where stability regions of the controllers intersect. Given a
class of linear functional controllers for eigenvector variations, this paper establishes a search
technique for controller selection so that the decision points of the higher level control
architecture are naturally adaptive to stable reconfigurations of the controllers in their respective
stability regions. An unmanned air vehicle exhibiting these characteristics meets a transcription
criterion to define a trustable unmanned air vehicle for higher level control architectures. A three
degree of freedom aircraft is considered to illustrate the trustable unmanned air vehicle.
ACKNOWLEDMENT:
This research received no specific grant from any funding agency in the public, commercial, or
not-for-profit sectors.
References:
[1] J. Bacon, AirAsia flight 8501 climbed too fast before crash.USA Today, 9.11 PM EST,
29
[2] C. Amato, G.D. Konidaris, G. Cruz, C.A. Maynor, J.P. How, L.P. Kaelbling, Planning for
arXiv:1402.2871, 2014.
[4] J.C. Doyle, M. Csete, Architecture, constraints, and behavior. Proceedings of the
[5] B.M. Muir, Trust between humans and machines, and the design of decision aids.
[6] D.J. Leith, W.E. Leithhead, Appropriate realisation of gain scheduled controllers with
application to wind turbine regulation. International Journal of Control, 65, (1996), pp.
223-248.
[7] W.J. Rugh, Analytical framework for gain scheduling. IEEE Control Systems Magazine,
11 (1991), pp. 79-84.
[8] J.S. Shamma, M. Athans, Analysis of gain scheduled control for nonlinear plants. IEEE
Transactions on Automatic Control, 35, (1990), pp. 898-907.
[9] W.J. Rugh, J.S. Shamma, Research on gain scheduling. Automatica, 36, (2000), pp.
1401-1425.
[10] C.D.C. Jones, M.H. Lowenberg, T.S. Richardson, Tailored dynamic gains scheduled
control. Journal of Guidance, Controls, and Dynamics, 29(6), (2006), pp. 1271–1281.
[11] Y. Hou, Q. Wang, C. Dong, Gain scheduled control: Switched polytopic system
approach. Journal of Guidance, Control, and Dynamics, 34(2), (2011), pp.623-629.
[12] O.J. Oaks Jr., G. Cook, Piecewise linear control of nonlinear systems. IEEE Transactions
30
[13] R. Saeks, J. Murray, Fractional representation of algebraic geometry and the
pp. 895-903.
[16] V. Blondel, Simultaneous Stabilization of Linear Systems, Lecture Notes in Control and
[17] J.W. Langelaan, Gust energy extraction for mini and micro uninhabited aerial vehicles.
[18] K. Sobel, F.J. Lallman, Eigenstructure assignment for the control of highly augmented
aircraft. Journal of Guidance, Control, and Dynamics, 12 (3), (1989), pp. 318-324.
[19] Y. Kim, D. Kum, J. Junkins, Design of small gain controller via iterative eigenstucture
[20] C.R. Ashokkumar, W.P.G. York, Trajectory transcriptions for potential autonomy
features in UAV maneuvers. In: The proceedings of the AIAA Guidance, Navigation, and
[21] C.R. Ashokkumar, W.P.G. York, UAV control and simulation using trajectory
transcriptions. In: The Proceedings of the AIAA Modeling and Simulation Technologies,
31
[22] C.R. Ashokkumar, W.P.G. York, Observer based controllers for UAV maneuver options.
In: The Proceedings of the AIAA Guidance, Navigation, and Control Conference, San
[23] J. Kautsky, N.K. Nichols, P. Van Dooren, Robust pole assignment in linear state
[24] B.D. Anderson, J.B. Moore, Optimal Control: Linear Quadratic Methods, Prentice Hall,
[25] Y. Gu, B. Seanor, G. Campa, M.R. Napolitano, L. Rowe, S. Gururajan, S. Wan, Design
and flight testing evaluation of formation control laws. IEEE Transactions on Control
[26] J.J.E. Slotine, W. Li, Applied Nonlinear Control, Prentice Hall International Inc., New
[27] H.K. Khalil, Nonlinear Systems, Prentice Hall Inc., New Jersey 07458, 1996, p. 156.
[28] S. Barnett, Matrices in Control Theory, Van Nostrand Reinhold Company, London,
1985, p 85.
[29] R.A. Horn, C.R. Johnson, Matrix Analysis, Cambridge University Press, 1985, pp. 365.
domains for linear uncertain systems. International Journal of Control, 67(6), (1997), pp.
887-899.
32