Advertisement

A comparison of minimum time profiles for the F-104 using Balakrishnan's epsilon technique and the energy method

  • Lawrence W. TaylorJr.
  • Harriet J. Smith
  • Kenneth W. Iliff
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Mathematics book series (LNM, volume 132)

Abstract

Balakrishnan's epsilon technique is used to compute minimum time profiles for the F-104 airplane. This technique differs from the classical gradient method in that a quadratic penalty on the error in satisfying the equations of motion is included in the cost function to be minimized as a means of eliminating the requirement of satisfying the equations of motion. Although the number of unknown independent functions is increased to include the state variables, the evaluation of the gradient of the modified cost is simplified, resulting in considerable computational savings. The unknown control and state variables are approximated by a functional expansion with unspecified coefficients which are determined by means of Newton's method. Typically 8 to 10 iterations are required for convergence when using the epsilon technique. Comparisons are made of solutions obtained by using this technique and the energy method.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Balakrishnan, A. V.: On a New Computing Technique in Optimal Control and Its Application to Minimal Time Flight Profile Optimization. Presented at 2nd International Colloquium on Methods of Optimization, Novosibirsk, USSR, June 1968.Google Scholar
  2. Bellman, Richard; and Kalaba, Robert: Dynamic Programing and Modern Control Theory. Academic Press Inc., New York, c. 1965.Google Scholar
  3. Bryson, A. E.; and Denham, W. F.: A Steepest-Ascent Method for Solving Optimum Programing Problems. J. Applied Mech., vol. 29, June 1962, pp. 247–257.MathSciNetCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  4. Cockayne, William G.: X-15 Optimal Control Study. Rep. No. 2500-950002, Bell Aerosystems Co., April 1968.Google Scholar
  5. Kelly, H. J.: Gradient Theory of Optimal Flight Paths. ARS Journal, vol. 30, no. 10, Oct. 1960, pp. 947–954.CrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  6. Lush, K. J.: A Review of the Problem of Choosing a Climb Technique, With Proposals For a New Climb Technique For High Performance Aircraft. R and M 2257, British Aeronautical Research Council, 1951.Google Scholar
  7. Matthews, M. L.; and Watson, D. A.: Trajectory Optimization Program (TOP) AS 2081. Vol. 1. Analytical Development and User's Manual. No. D2-125323-1, The Boeing Co., Feb. 1968.Google Scholar
  8. Rutowski, Edward S.: Energy Approach to the General Aircraft Performance Problem. J. Aeron. Sci., vol. 21, March 1954, pp. 187–195.CrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  9. Schmidt, H. E.; Helgason, R. V.; Witherspoon, J. T.; and Geib, K. E.: Trajectory Optimization by Method of Steepest Descent. Tech. Rep. AFFDL-TR-67-108, vol. II, U.S. Air Force, April 1968.Google Scholar
  10. Stein, Lawrence H.; Matthews, Malcolm L.; and Frenk, Joel W.: Stop — A Computer Program for Supersonic Transport Trajectory Optimization. The Boeing Co. (NASA CR-793), 1967.Google Scholar
  11. Taylor, Lawrence W., Jr.; Smith, Harriet J.; and Iliff, Kenneth W.: Experience Using Balakrishnan's Epsilon Technique To Compute Optimum Flight Profiles. Paper presented at AIAA 7th Aerospace Sciences Meeting, New York, N. Y., Jan. 20–22, 1969.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 1970

Authors and Affiliations

  • Lawrence W. TaylorJr.
    • 1
  • Harriet J. Smith
    • 1
  • Kenneth W. Iliff
    • 1
  1. 1.NASA Flight Research CenterEdwards

Personalised recommendations