Documenti di Didattica
Documenti di Professioni
Documenti di Cultura
Theory-An Example”
Summary-This paper illustrates the use of optimization theory lem, a developmentof a suitable linear aircraft model,a
in the synthesisof a linear time-varying feedback control by carrying specification of the performance requirements and con-
out the designof an aircraft landing system. The optimization method
employed is the ParametricExpansion Method.
straints, the formulation of a mathematical error index,
A number of d a e r e n t controls aresynthesized by selecting a brief review of the basic concepts of the Parametric
different functional forms for the weighting factors appearingin the Expansion Method, the synthesis of a number of dif-
error index formulated from the performance requirements. These ferentaircraftlandings)-stems,andfinally a brief
controls are compared by presenting the landing trajectories of the description of one possible mechanization of the most
aircraft.
suitablesystem.
I. IKTRODUCTIOS
11. -AIRCRAFT LAXDING
PROBLEM DEFINITIOS
-4XI- COSTROLproblemsarecharacterized
AM blr the necessityforsatisfyingmultipleper-
formance requirementsand
constraints.In
such cases, the sJ-nthesisof the control by conventional
The landing of an aircraft consists of several phases.
First,theaircraft is guidedtowardtheairportwith
approxirnatelp the correct heading by R D F equipment.
trial-and-error methods may proveexceedingly difficult. \Yithin a few miles of the airport, radio contactis made
I f , in addition, the performance requirements are such with the radio beam of the instrument landing system
that the needfor a time-varying control is indicated, (ILS). In following this beam, the pilot guides the air-
the control engineer is faced with the difficult task of craftalongaglidepathangle of approximately -3”
selecting not onl!- the configuration of the control but toward the runwa!-. Finally, at an altitude of approxi-
also the values of its time-varJ-ing parameters or gains. matell- 100 feet, the flare-out phase of the landing be-
Forsuchproblems,sJmthesismethodsbasedonopti- gins.Duringthis final phase of thelanding,theILS
mizationtheory offer distinctadvantagesovertrial- radio beam is no longer effective for guiding the aircraft
and-errormethods. In particular,theselection of the duetoelectromagneticdisturbances. S o r is the -3”
time-varying parameters or gains is replaced essentially glide path angle particularly desirable from the \ 71ew-
’
by the selection of constant parameters which are the point of safet\- and comfort. Hence, the pilot must guide
magnitudes of the weighting factors. These weighting theaircraftalongthedesiredflare-path bJ7 making
factorsappear i n an error index formulated from the visual contact with the ground.
performancerequirements.Inaddition,theabsolute The landingproblem described here is concerned on117
stabilitJ- of thesystemisnot a consideration in the with the final phase of the landing, thatis, with the last
selection of the weighting factors, whereas, in the selec- 100 feet of the aircraft’s descent. I t is assumed that the
tion of time-varyinggainsbyconventionalmethods, aircraft is guided to the proper location by air traffic
consideration of absolutestability would assumepri- control, and that its altitude and rate of ascent at the
mary importance. beginning of this flare-out phase may range from 80 t o
This paper is intended to be tutorial i n nature and its 120 feet and - 16 feet/sec to -24 feetisec, respectively.
purpose is to illustrate the use of optimization theory For values outside of this range, i t is assumed that the
in the sbmthesis of a linear time-varying feedback con- aircraft is waved off. Finall!., i t is assumed that only
trol for a processwhich is characterizedby difficult thelongitudinalmotion(motion in averticalplane)
dJmamics and is subjected to multiple performance re- need beconsidered in this final phase of the landing.
quirementsandconstraints.This is accomplished bs- Lateral motion of the aircraft is required primarily to
carrying out the design of an aircraft landing sJ.stem point the aircraft down the runwaJ-. For the most part,
using the Parametric Expansion I l e t h ~ d . l -Included
~ in thislateralmotionisaccomplishedprior tothe final
this paper are a definition of the aircraft landing prob- flare-out phase of the landing.
During the Hare-out, the aircraft may be subjected to
* ReceivedDecember 27, 1962. Thispaper \vas originall>-pre- both stead!. winds and wind gusts. \!‘ind gusts are of
scntcd at the Joint A4utornatic Control Conference. New York Uni- primary importance since they tend to be random. On
versity, Kew York, June 27-29, 1962.
i- General Electric Company, Schenectady, X. I;. the other hand, steady windsparallel to the ground can
C. \V. hlerriam, 111, “Use of a mathematical error criterion in be counteracted bs- merely a stead>--state change in the
t h e design of adaptivecontrols\-stems,” Trans. A I E E , vol. 78
(-4tpZ.and I d . , pt. I I j , pp. 506-512; January, 1960. heading of the aircraft. I n this problem i t is assumed
- C. 11.. Merriam, 111, “Anoptimizationtheory forfeedback that the windgustsare zero. The winddisturbances
control syxem design,’’ In,fonzation md Confiol, x-01. 3 , pp. 32-59;
March, 1960. could be treated, but this would require a discussion of
C. 1V. Merriam, 111, “Synthesis of Xdaptlve Controls,“ Sc.D. the statistical formulation of the Parametric Expansion
dissertation,klassachusettsInstitute of Technology,Cambridge;
May, 1958. Method which is be>-ond the scope of this paper.
90 IEEE T R A N S A C T I O N S ON AUTOMATIC C O N T R O L April
111. EQVATIOKS
\ i
AIRCJUFT OF M O T I O N
4 first step in the synthesis of a control system is the
development of a suitable mathematical description of
the process or plant to be controlled. This description
may take the form of a differential equation of some
order,aset of first-orderdifferentialequations, or a HORIZONTAL
transfer function. In this landing problem, a description
of the aircraft relating the response (output) variables,
/ AIRPLANE
measurable state variables, and control (input) varia- /
/
blesisnecessary. 2
In the past, a great deal of attention hasbeen directed
toward the development of the equations of motion of
an aircraft.j This development proceeds from a consid-
\
eration of theaerodynamicforcesandmoments,and \
from the application of the fundamental laws of
mechanics. The resulting equations are then linearized Fig. 1-Definition of aircraft coordinates and angles.
based on the assumption that the deviation from the
equilibriumflightcondition is small. Inaddition,the
T o complete the description of the aircraft, an equa-
assumption often is made that the glide path angle y is
tion relating pitch rate 0’ and altitude, or a time deriva-
sufficientlysmall so that the smallangleapprosima- tive of altitude. is required. Such a relationship exists
tions, sin y =y and cos y = 1 can be made. This assump- between vertical acceleration and pitch rate and is given
tion is valid in this case due to the landing geometry.
bl-
Finall!,, i t is assumed for this problem that the velocity
I.’ of theaircraft is maintainedessentiallyconstant
during the landing by utilizing throttle control. Thus,
the longitudinal motion of the aircraft is go\.erned en- For this problem, the velocity l r of the aircraft is as-
tirely by the elevator deflection S,(t) and this becomes sumed to be constant during the flare-out a t a value of
the onll- control signal. The use of these assumptions 256 ft/sec. Soting that
leads to the so-called short period equations of motion
of theaircraft.Theseequationscanberewritten in 1
Iz(s) = - /Z”(S)
terms of the following transfer function relating elevator S2
deflection, 6,, and pitch rate, 0’.
the over-all aircraft transfer function relating altitude
and elevator deflection is given by
Xn aircraftlandingsystemissatisfactoryonly if
and
certain prescribed performance requirements and con-
straintsare satisfied.Oftenthesearedescribedin
terms of desiredresponsesignals,desiredcontrol sig-
nals, and in terms of limits on these signals. The follow-
ing requirements and constraints are considered to be
of primary importance and are treated in this problem.
1) T h e desired altitude J t d ( t ) of the aircraft at each
X3’(t) = b32X*(f) + b33X3(t)
instant of time during the landing is described by the
xq’(t) = x3(t). flare-path shown in Fig. 3(a). I t consists of an exponen-
92 IEEE TRAMSACTI0,Y.S O X AUTOLWATIC C O N T R O L April
6ol
\
40
20-t FOR I S 5 t C 20
of an aircraft with a tricycle landing gear from touching
downfirst. The upper limit on the pitch angle is
quiredtopreventthe
first.
tail gearfromtouchingdown
re-
I
5
I
(a!
IO
I
I5
f
20
'
- t
SECONDS
value. Thus, the restrictions on the angle of attack are
cy(/) < 18"
Am(/) < 3.6".
(2 1)
(22)
- IO
5) The elevator, which controls the longitudinal be-
-20s -r havior of the aircraft, is restricted to motion between
DESIRED - 20 FOR 0 5 tL-15 mechanical stops. For this problem i t is assumed that
RATE OF
ASCENT SECOND these stops exist at -35" and +15" (elevator trailing
hi(t)
edgedown).Hence,duringtheflare-out,theelevator
deflection 6,(t) is constrained between these two physi-
( c ) Pitch angle a t touchdown: O " g ( T ) < 10'. cally limiting values. T h a t is,
(d) Xngle of attack: a(t1<18".
(e) Ele\-ator deflection: --3S056,(1)5+1S".
-35" 5 6,(t) + 15'. (23)
Fig. 3-Performance requirements and ronstraints.
For alinearcontroller,theelevator is permittedto
tial function of time followed by a linear function. This attain these limiting values instantaneously but not to
desired path is described by exceed them. That is, for linear operation, the elevator
is not permitted to operate against the mechanical stops
for nonzero periods of time during the landing. In the
s!-nthesis of thisaircraftlandingsl-stem,saturation
effects are not treated.
An exponential-linear path of this form ensures a safe
and comfortable landing. The desired duration of the V. >I.XTHEMATIC=\L IXDEX
ERROR
flare-out is 20 sec,including 5 sec overtherunu-a?-. An important step in the synthesis of a control sys-
This value is appropriate for an aircraft flJ-ing a t 175 tem b\- using optimization theor\- is the formulation of
mph and beginning to flare-outat an altitudeof 100 feet. a mathematical error index. The error index is impor-
2) T h e desired rate of ascent h d ' ( f j of the aircraft is tant because it, to a large degree? determines the nature
given by the time derivativeof (18) and is shown in Fig. of the resulting optimum control. That is, the resulting
3(b). T h a t is, controlmaybelinear,nonlinear,stationary,ortime-
var\.ing depending on the form of the error index. Thus,
the control engineer is able to influence the nature of
the resulting system by the manner i n which he forrnu-
The magnitude of the rate of ascent of the aircraft is lates this index based on the requirements of the prob-
important primaril?- a t touchdown. -1value other than lem at hand. In general, these requirements may include
zero is desirable to prevent the aircraft fromfloating not onlJ- theperformancerequirementsbutalsoany
down the runway and, hence, perhaps overshooting it. restrictions on the form of the optimum control to en-
A very large negative value for the rate of ascent may sure phL-sical realizability.
overstress the landing gear and, thus, is equallJ- unde- -1first step in the formulation of an error index is the
sirable. The value of - 1 foot/sec at touchdown given establishment of an instantaneous error measure which
in (19) is equal to -60 feetiminute which is well below takesintoaccount all of theimportantperformance
the maximum permissible value for a modern aircraft. requirementsandconstraints.Ingeneral,theinstan-
1963 Ellert and Merriam:
Feedback
Controls Using Optimization
Theory-an
Example 93
prescribed range given in (20), and the deviation of the where u is a dummy time variable. The lower limit of
angle of attack from its initial valuea t t = O . I n addition, integration a=t is present or real time. For the landing
the pitch rate of the aircraft may be important. The problem,thefutureinterval of time whichis of im-
aircraftequations of motionindicatethatthepitch portance is the time remaining before touchdown occurs.
rate of the aircraft governs the magnitude of the angle Hence, the upper limit of integration u = T is set equal
of attack since the pitch rate term enters the angle of to 20 sec. The error index then can be written,
attackequation as thedrivingfunction.Hence,itis
possible to control the magnitudes of both the angle of
attack and the pitch rate by introducing a weighted
e(O =
s, 2o
+
( d h ( U ) [ h d ( C J ) - JZ(U)]? +h,(u) [kd'(u) - h'(u)]*
+ +do +
[e&) - w I 2 + d t ) [ e m - s'(o12 and
+ [se(o12 (2 4) +hh'(C) =).(1+ + 43,TU0(20 - U). (2 8)
where & ( t ) , 4 h ' ( t ) , $ s ( t ) and ds,(t) are the time-varying Here uO(20-u) is an impulse of unit area occurring at
weighting factorswhich indicate the relative importance u =20 and &.T and &.T are the areas of the impulse
of the various terms in the error measure. I n carrying functions. Theselection of the time functions 4+(u)and
out the design of the optimum control, these weighting &(u) is treated in a later paragraph.
factorsmustbeselectedsuchthattheperformance Theperformancerequirementsindicatethatthe
requirements and constraints are satisfied. pitch angle error is important only at the touchdown
As already mentioned, the error measure may assume point. Hence, the functional form of the weighting factor
a variety of forms depending on the nature of the prob- 48(u) should be selected such that only the pitch angle
lem to be solved and the requirements to be met. For error at the desired touchdown point contributes to the
this landing problem, a weighted quadratic error meas- value of the error index. An impulse function exhibits
ure was selected becausei t was felt that thisform would the required form. Thus, 4e(a) can be written
insure satisfactory system behavior. In addition, theuse
M u ) = +2,TU0(20 - u). (29)
of a weighted quadratic error measure in conjunction
with the linearaircraftdescriptionresultsinalinear Since the angle of attack and the pitch rate are im-
controlsystemwithfeedbackandfeed-forwardgains portant throughout the entire landing interval, &(u)
which are not a function of the state of the aircraft but is written .
merelyfunctions of the time-to-go before touchdown.
Such a system is relatively simple to in~plementph!.si- +8'(U) = + l ( U ) . (30)
ca11y and is a practical airborne landing system. The performance requirements suggest the functional
The control engineer is interested not so much in an forms which &(u), &(a), and 41(u)should assume. Since
instantaneous value of the error measure ashe is in the altitude and pitch rate errors are important throughout
94 IEEE T R A N S A C T I O N S OAXp rACiU
lOTI rOTARPOALT I C
h’ (1)
ddn) = 91. (33)
T h e selection of t h e numerical values of &, + 4 , T , + 3 ,
$3,T, &.T and 41, andthe effects of thesevalueson
the resulting aircraft performance are discussed in Sec- Fig. 4-Block diagram of optimum aircraft landing system.
tion VII.
1,’I. SYSTEM SYNTHESIS vide the values of the time-varying input signal and
feedbackgains of thesystem.Theseequationsare
Having formulated the error index, the control en- derived in the -Appendix and are given in ( S t ) through
gineer endeavors to minimize the value of this index in (71).
such a manner that he obtains information about the Thus, this s?-nthesis procedure provides directly the
configuration andparameters of t h e controlsl-stem
configuration of the optimum s>-stem anda set of equa-
being
sl-nthesized. the
In
Parametric
Expansion tions which may be solved to obtain the system param-
Method, the error index is minimizedwithrespect to eter values.
the components of the control signal x-ector m ( f ) .In
general,thisleadsdirectlytoan expressionfor each VII. AIRCRAFT LANDING
SYSTEMS
control signal in terms of the measurable state signals As a result of the use of the Parametric Expansion
and time-varying coefficients. These coefficients can be Method, the synthesis procedure is reduced to the solu-
considered time-varying gains in the optimum control tion of the K-equations. In general, the solution of these
system.This expression for eachcontrolsignalis re- equations requires the use of an analog or digital com-
ferred to as the control law. In the case of the Para- puter. The systemsdescribed in this paper were synthe-
metric Expansion llethod, this law defines a feedback sized using an I B l I TO4 digitalcomputer.The com-
configuration for the s>.stem. As a result, having derived puter program consists of two major parts. In the first
the control law, the block diagram of the optimum SJ-S- part, the K-equations are solved. In the second part,
tem immediately can be drawn. The application of the the aircraft equationsof motion are solved to obtain the
Parametric Expansion ;\lethod to the aircraft landing actuallandingtrajectories. T h i s twopartprogramis
problem is described in the Appendix. -A more general illustrated in Fig. 5 . The integration algorithm used in
treatment of thissubjectincludingtherigorousde- this stud>- is the Gill modification of the Runge-Kutta
velopment of the principles involved may be found in fourth-orderextrapolation a l g ~ r i t h m . ~However, a
the technical number of algorithms possessing similar properties also
4 s indicated in the Appendix, the use of the Para- couldbeutilized.
metric Expansion 3,Iethod results in the following es- .As indicatedin Fig. 5, thelandingtrajectoriesare
pression for the optimum elevator deflection as a func- computed for three sets of four initial conditions. These
tion of time conditions are tabulatedi n Fig. 6. I t is assumed that the
6,(t) = w,?K,T,[kl(t)- kl,(t)e’(t) - k l , ( t ) s ( t ) initial vertical acceleration h f f ( 0 )is zero and the initial
altitude, vertical velocity, and pitch rate are as given
- k I 3 ( / ) h ’ ( t ) - k14(/jh(i)]. (34) in the table. Using these values, the initial pitch angle is
computed from the aircraft equations of motion.
This expression defines the configuration of the landing
Sets 1 and 3 of the initial conditions correspond to the
system. The block diagram of the system is dran-n with
worst possible combinations of the largest permissible
the aid of (34) and isshown in Fig. 4. The optimum
altitude and rateof ascent errors a t t h ebeginning of the
s>.stemcontainsfourfeedback loops with a measured
flare-out. T h a t is, in set 1 the aircraft is 20 per cent
state signalfedback in each loop. T h e gain i n each
above the desired landing trajectoq- and it is descend-
feedback loop is time-varying. The input to the system
also is time-varying.
T h e use of theParametricExpansionhfethodalso 5. Gill, “X process for the step-by-step integration of differential
equations in an automatic digital computing machine.’ Proc. Catnnb.
results in a set of K-equations which, when solved, pro- Phil. Soc., vol. 47, pt. 1, pp. 96-108; 1951.
1963 Ellert and Aferriam: Feedback Contyols Using Optimization Theo~y-an Example 95
PROGRAMINPUT
A I RCRAFT PARAMETERS
DESIRED RESPONSES
WEIGHING FACTORS
I N I T I ACLO N D I T I O N S
SOLUTION OF K-EQUATIONS
FROM
\ = O TO 1'20
3 BO - 24 - 0.0938 0
1
SOLUTIONOFAIRCRAFTEQUATIONS
Fig. 6-Aircraft initial conditions.
FOR 3 SETS OF I N I T I A LC O N D I T I O N S
FROM reduced to merely the selection of the magnitudes of a
t = O TO t = 20 set of weighting factors.
In this paper, three different setsof weighting factors
are selected to illustrate theeffects on the nature of the
+ resulting system and on the landing trajectories. These
sf Altitude Error
I AIRCRAFL
TANDING
SYSTEM
GAINS
TRAJECTORIES I Case I-Constant VLeighting
andElevatorDeflection
In this case, altitude error and elevatordeflection are
Fig. 5-Simplified flow diagram of digital computer program. weighted by a constant over the entire 20-sec landing
interval, and all other weighting factors are zero. T h a t
ing 20 per cent slower than desired. Hence, the aircraft is,
is diverging from the desired trajectory at the largest +,,(u) = +4 = constant (36)
permissiblerate. A similarsituationoccursinset 3 $1 =z $?,T = $ 3 = $ 3 , T = 44.T = 0 - (37)
where the aircraft is below the desired trajectory and is
descending at the maximum permissible rate. In set 2 The error index becomes
the aircraftis on the desired trajectory andis descending
a t t h e r a t eprescribed by the performance requirements. +
e(t) = ~ t B { + ~ [ J z d-u )h ( u ) ] * [ & ( U ) ] ~ } ~ U . (38)
This wide range in initial conditions serves as a severe
test for the aircraft landing system. The value of c$~ is determined by a consideration of the
As described in the -Appendix, the solution of the K - relative importance of altitude errors and elevator de-
equations cannot be carried out until the desired re- flection. -At the beginning of the flare-out, the largest
sponses, aircraft parameters, and weighting factors are positive altitude error is20 feet due to the initial condi-
specified. I n the preceding sections, the desired responses tions. The landing system will attempt to correct this
and the aircraft parameters have already been specified. error by calling for a large positive elevator deflection.
Hence,the design procedurereducestomerelythe The largest permissiblepositiveelevatordeflection is
selection of a set of weighting factors which will result l5", or 0.262 radian. For this case, altitude errors and
in satisfactory system performance for the three sets of elevator deflection are assumed of equal importance in
initial conditions. the performance of the landing system. Therefore, the
There are two important aspects associated with each two terms in the integrand of the error index of (38)
weighting factor 4 ( u ) : its functional form f(c) and its should contribute equally to the value of thisindex.
magnitude a. T h a t is, ~ ( c T ) be written
may Hence, the value of 9 4 may be calculated by equating
these two terms and inserting the above altitude error
+(u) = W U ) . (35)
and elevator deflection values. T h a t is,
The functional formf(a)usually is suggested by the per- +4[2012 = [0.262]? (39)
formance requirements for the system and, hence, only
themagnituderemainstobe selected. Forexample, or
the pitch angle requirement at touchdown has led to
$4 = 0.000171. (40)
the selection of a n impulse function as the functional
form of +~(cT). However, its magnitude &,T is yet to be Theperformance of theaircraft for 4~=0.0001 is
specified. Thus,thesynthesisprocedure ultimatelqr is shown in Fig. 7. This figure contains four graphs. From
96 IEEE T R A h T S A C T I O N S O N A U T OCM
OANTTIRCO L April
+0.3
+0.2 Q3 * 0.0 e 3 , ~~ 0 . 0
klltl
I I I I I I
+2 0
eh,. The rate-of-ascent error a t t = 20 varies substantiall!- sis," presented at the Princeton Symp. on Son-Linear Control Sys-
tems, Princeton, S . J.; hIarch 2 6 2 7 , 1956.
with the initial conditions of the aircraft. Hence, the R. C. Booton, Jr., "Optimum design of final-value control sys-
point at which touchdown actually occurs will vary with tems," Proc. PolJtteclznic Institute of Brooklyn S p p . on :Von-Linear
Circuit Analysis, Brooklyn, X. Y . , April 25-27, 1956,Polytechnic
theinitialconditions.This is undesirable as already Institute of Brooklyn, N. Y . ;1957.
mentioned.Therefore, for manyreasonsthesimple E. -4. O'Hearnand R. K. Smyth,"Terminalcontrolsystem
applications,!! IRE TRAXS. os ALTOMATIC COSTROL, vol, -4C-6, pp.
error index of (38) is not suitable for this problem. 142-153; May, 1961.
+2.O,-
c 0.4
I I
0
+PO
bl.O.O aZ,T-o.O
+IO p E G
+0.2
SECONDS
-t
2 4 6 8 10 I2 14 16 18 2 0 ~
kII:l
t o - _ ,
I
+Oo6r /-
-Ot
-0
1 12 4 6 8 10
8
I2
:
14 16 I8 20
SECONDS
-t
L
Fig. 12-System gains for Case 111. Fig. ll--.\ircraft landing trajectories for h(0)= 100 feet.
-40 - SECOXDS
SECONDS
-60/ 2 4 6 A 10 ;1
I
14 16
I
10
'
20
- t
1
1 -
0 2 4 6 8 IO I2 :4 I6 I8 20 Fig. lj--Aircraft landing trajectories for h ( 0 ) = 8 0 feet.
Fig. 13-.lircraft landing trajectories for h(0)= 120 feet.
is necessary toprogramthefeedbackgainsandthe
The behavior of the systems of Cases I , 11, I11 also input signal as functions of time-to-go ( 2 0 4 . In other
maybecompared by displayingtheaircraftlanding words, time-to-go is a quantity that must be available
trajectories for thesecasesonthreeseparategraphs, throughout the landing phase i n order to construct the
one for each set of initial conditions. These trajectories control law specified by the theory. [Tndoubtedly, the
are shown in Figs. 13, 14 and 15 along with the desired measurement of time-to-go is the most difficult measure-
altitude h d ( t ) . ment associated with the physical construction of the
The system of Case I follows the desired flare-path proposed landing sJ-stem. Firstof all, the aircraft veloc-
more closely thandotheothersystems.This is due it>-will not be absolutely constant as hasbeen assumed.
primarilytothegreater weighting of altitudeerrors However, appropriate thrust control should keep per-
throughout the landing intervalin the design of the sys- turbations in the aircraft velocitJ- small enoughin order
tem of Case I. Of course, i t is not evident from these to be considered second order. On the other hand, the
curves alone that other performance requirements are measurement of the total aircraft velocity itself is diffi-
violated by the s>-stem of Case I. cult. This aircraft velocity is considered to be theWIOC-
As already mentioned, the sJ-stem of Case I1 causes it>- of the aircraft with respect to an inertial frame or
the aircraft to crash for tn-o sets of initial conditions rather with respect to the ground. In other u-ords, the
and, therefore, is completely unsatisfactorJ-. aircraftvelocitJ- i n question is groundspeed.Because
T h e s)-stem of Case 111 meets all of the performance landing situations with nonzero winds will occur, ground
requirements but it takes substantially longer than the speed cannot be measured from the aircraftitself. There-
system of Case I to correct the initial condition errors. fore, the success of this landing s y t e m requires the suc-
T h e persistence of the initial altitude errorsfor a longer cessful measurement of groundspeedfromradar. -4
period of time is the price one has to pa!' to satisfy the number of possible radar systems exist. For instance, a
other performance requirements. s>-stemof ground-based radar beacons could be used in
In order to mechanize the aircraft landing system, i t order to estimate the time required to pass over two
fixed points on theearth's surface.Anotherpossibility l.C.'Zov
I MEbSUREO STATE VbRlbBLES
TZ-
40
(43 Y(,l
J70)
2 as1
which the minimum exists. This has been carried out
by Bellmaninhisdevelopment of the principles of since terms 1-4, 6 , and 8-10 in (49) are not functions
Dynamic Pr0grarnming.g Theconditionunder which of &(p), and x1’(p) is a function of &(p) as indicated in
the error index of (26) is a minimum is given by (11) and (12).
Substituting (12) and then (SO) into (49) gives
+ cc
N A.
KrnP(PL)~*(P).TP(/4 (52)
m=1 p=l
where the expressions for cll and the state signals have
been inserted.Thiscontrollawdefinestheconfigura-
tion of the landing system. The block diagram of the
system is drawn with the aid of (54) and is shown in
Fig. 4. There are a number of important observations
to be made from this block diagram:
The numberof feedback loops is equalto the order
of the process (aircraft).
The quantities fed back are the measurable state
signals.
Thefeedbackgainsaredoublesubscripted k-
parameters.
The feedback gains,for this linear case (linear air-
craftdescriptionandweightedquadraticerror
index), are merely time-varying and not functions
of the state signals.
T h e s)-stem inputsignalis a singlesubscripted
k-parameter.
Thesysteminputsignal, for thislinearcase, is
merelytime-varyingandnotafunction of the
state signals.
The only remaining information requiredby the con-
trol engineer in order to carry out the mechanizationof
102 IEEETRANSACTIONS O N A U T O M A T I C COA'TROL April
INITIAL
K-EPUATIONS VALUES
K
AIRCRAFTPARAMETERS
I I
c
brnnncrnn
DESIREDPERFORMANCE COMWTER
hd*hia e d , 8;
I
Ill
FORMULATE
ERROR
INOU
I
I
I
121
STATE
CONOlTlON
FOR
MINIMUM
7
I
I31
DETERMINE
OPTIMUM
CONTROL
S I G W
!I
1
I
I41
EXP4NO MINIMUM
ERROR FUNCTION
IN A SERIES
(FaRAMETRlC
EXPANSION1
I
151
SUSSTITUTE
OPTIMUM CON=
SlGN4L 8 MINIMUM
ERROR F W C T I O N
IHTO THE
CONDITION FOR
-
!I
I
-
I
161
SETEACH
P=O
TO OBTAIN
t-EWATIONS 7
I
L E T 0 'TY
LL TRAUSFDRM
t~EWATIONS
TO OBTAIN
K-EUTIONS
I
I
I
SOLVE
I-EOWTIONS "l'
--K,lr))
KmpIrll
....
...
Ipl- ...
kIT1=k~ITl=kmplTl=O
Fig. 18-Block diagram of the steps involved in the use of the Parametric Expansion Method.
T h a t is, the values of the k-parameters are known at the B matrix relating x'(t) and x ( t )
terminal point p = T = 20 rather than at the initial point. bmn an element of the B matrix
Hence, i t is necessary to solve these equations back- C matrix relating x'(t) and m(t)
ward in time. As a result, it is convenient to introduce Cmn
an element of the C matrix
a new dummy variable
time 7,where E minimum value of the error index
e ( t ) , also
called
the
minimum
q = 20 - p, (73) function
error
value of the error index aircraft
short
perioddamping
value of the instantaneous error factor
measure dummy time variable
aircraft altitude aircraft pitch angle at a = T
time derivatives of aircraft alti- aircraft pitch angle
tude aircraft pitch rate
desired aircraft altitude desired aircraft pitch angle
desired aircraft rate of ascent desired aircraft pitch rate
aircraft short period gain dummy time variable
transformedk-parameters using time-to-go before touchdown
n ='l - u,--
weightingfactor for pitchrate
-I
errors
~
k(p), k m ( p ) ,k m p ( p ) k-parametersintheexpansion of
the minimum error function 43 weighting
factor for rate of ascent
errors
m summation index
m ( t ) , m l ( t ) , m d t ) , . . . , m,,(t) processcontrolsignals 44 weighting
factor for altitude
errors
42.T magnitude of the impulse
weight-
m 0) control signal vector
ing factor for pitch angle errors
m*(0 optimum control signal vector
43.T magnitudeimpulse
ofweight-
the
x order of the dynamic process
ing factor for rate of ascent errors
n summation index
summation index 442 magnitude of the impulse
weight-
P ing factor for altitude errors
S complex variable
T a future instant of time '#'h(t) weighting
factor for altitudeerrors
aircraft path time constant $h' (t) weighting
factor for rate of ascent
TS errors
I real time
ZlO(20 -a) unit impulse occurringa t a = 20 49 ( 0 weighting
factor for angle
pitch
errors
17 aircraft total velocity
147 weight of the aircraft 49, (0 weighting
factor for rate
pitch
errors
x ( t ) , xl(t), x 2 ( f ) ,. . . , x,(t) process state signals
w8 aircraft
short period resonant fre-
x@> state
vectorsignal quency
x' ( t ) derivative
time of state signal
vector .~CKNOWLEDGMENT
XI'@), X 2 ' ( t ) , . . . , xn'(t) timederivatives of process The authors are indebted to thefollowing individuals
state signals for theirassistance in definingrealisticrequirements
ff ( 0 aircraft
angle of attack and constraints for this landing problem and forpro-
Y (t) angle
path
aircraft
glide viding the linearaircraftdescription: R. G. Buscher,
44t) angle
change
in of attack from R. Larson (Test Pilot), R.I. F. Marx of the Light Mili-
the equilibrium value tary Electronics Department, and E. J. Smith formerly
Ut) elevator
aircraft deflection of the General Engineering Laboratory.