HIGH-FIDELITY SIMULATION TESTING OF CONTROL ALLOCATION METHODS

This paper describes high-fidelity simulation testing of some of the more popular advanced control allocation techniques integrated with two separate dynamic inversion control laws. The allocation methods include variations of quadratic programming, linear programming, direct allocation, cascaded generalized inverse, and weighted pseudo-inverse. Results are presented for single and multi-axis pitch and roll maneuvers with and without actuator failures. A velocity vector roll is also considered for the no failure case. Results show that a robust control law can mask differences in the various control allocation routines and lead to similar performance from both optimal and sub-optimal allocation methods. Furthermore, the current results illustrate that the closed-loop performance does not directly follow from the openloop measures that are widely used in the literature.

[1]  Marc L. Steinberg,et al.  A Comparison of Neural, Fuzzy, Evolutionary, and Adaptive Approaches for Carrier Landing , 2001 .

[2]  James F Buffington.  Modular Control Law Design for the Innovative Control Effectors (ICE) Tailless Fighter Aircraft Configuration 101-3 , 1999 .

[3]  D. Enns.  CONTROL ALLOCATION APPROACHES , 1998 .

[4]  Marc L. Steinberg,et al.  Automated recovery system design with intelligent and adaptive control approaches , 2000 .

[5]  Wayne C. Durham.  Constrained Control Allocation , 1992 .

[6]  Wayne C. Durham,et al.  MULTIPLE CONTROL EFFECTOR RATE LIMITING , 1995 .

[7]  Marc Bodson,et al.  Evaluation of optimization methods for control allocation , 2001 .

[8]  Marc L. Steinberg,et al.  Comparison of Intelligent, Adaptive, and Nonlinear Flight Control Laws , 1999 .

[9]  A. Page,et al.  A CLOSED-LOOP COMPARISON OF CONTROL ALLOCATION METHODS , 2000 .

[10]  Wayne C. Durham.  Computationally efficient control allocation , 1999 .

[11]  M. L. Steinberg,et al.  High-fidelity simulation testing of intelligent and adaptive aircraft control laws , 2002, Proceedings of the 2002 American Control Conference (IEEE Cat. No.CH37301).

[12]  R. Venkataraman,et al.  Control allocation and compensation for over-actuated systems with non-linear effectors , 2001, Proceedings of the 2001 American Control Conference. (Cat. No.01CH37148).

[13]  John Glenn Bolling,et al.  Implementation of Constrained Control Allocation Techniques Using an Aerodynamic Model of an F-15 Aircraft , 1997 .

[14]  Kevin R. Scalera.  A Comparison of Control Allocation Methods for the F-15 ACTIVE Research Aircraft Utilizing Real-Time Piloted Simulations , 1999 .

[15]  Kenneth A. Bordignon,et al.  Constrained control allocation for systems with redundant control effectors , 1996 .

[16]  Thomas Magyar,et al.  Integration of the CASTLE Simulation Executive With Simulink , 2001 .