Pre and Post Optimality Checking of the Virtual Motion Camouflage based Nonlinear Constrained Subspace Optimal Control

Nonlinear constrained trajectory optimization remains an active field of research. Current popular methods end up with either solving a classical multi-dimensional two-point boundary value problem or a high dimensional nonlinear programming problem. Inspired by the motion camouflage phenomenon of insects like dragonflies, recently the authors proposed a subspace optimization method, the virtual motion camouflage method, in order to reduce the problem dimension. Thus the computational cost experienced in the widely used direct collocation and nonlinear programming methods can be reduced. The solution found through this approach is in the feasible region however the optimality of the solution is not guaranteed automatically in the original full search space. In this paper, two optimality checking ways extended from the Karush-Kuhn-Tucker necessary condition are proposed. The pre-optimality checking is proposed to judge the selection of the virtual prey motion and the reference point, while a post-optimality checking is suggested to test the solution obtained from the virtual motion camouflage method in the original search space. Two numerical examples are used to illustrate the capabilities of the new subspace optimal control algorithm.

[1]  Paul Glendinning,et al.  The mathematics of motion camouflage , 2004, Proceedings of the Royal Society of London. Series B: Biological Sciences.

[2]  Renjith R. Kumar,et al.  Should Controls Be Eliminated While Solving Optimal Control Problems via Direct Methods , 1995 .

[3]  Suresh P. Sethi,et al.  A Survey of the Maximum Principles for Optimal Control Problems with State Constraints , 1995, SIAM Rev..

[4]  P. S. Krishnaprasad,et al.  Steering laws for motion camouflage , 2005, Proceedings of the Royal Society A: Mathematical, Physical and Engineering Sciences.

[5]  Anil V. Rao,et al.  Direct Trajectory Optimization and Costate Estimation via an Orthogonal Collocation Method , 2006 .

[6]  M. Srinivasan,et al.  Strategies for active camouflage of motion , 1995, Proceedings of the Royal Society of London. Series B: Biological Sciences.

[7]  Yun-Hong Xu Virtual Motion Camouflage and Suboptimal Trajectory Design , 2007 .

[8]  Dimitri P. Bertsekas,et al.  Nonlinear Programming , 1997 .

[9]  Jean-Paul Laumond,et al.  Guidelines in nonholonomic motion planning for mobile robots , 1998 .

[10]  B. Conway,et al.  Collocation Versus Differential Inclusion in Direct Optimization , 1998 .

[11]  Thomas Gehrels Pursuit Techniques on Pioneer Robots , 2007 .

[12]  Cesar Ocampo,et al.  Finite Burn Maneuver Modeling for a Generalized Spacecraft Trajectory Design and Optimization System , 2004, Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences.

[13]  I. Michael Ross,et al.  Costate Estimation by a Legendre Pseudospectral Method , 1998 .

[14]  Oleg A. Yakimenko,et al.  Computing short-time aircraft maneuvers using direct methods , 2008 .

[15]  Hans Seywald,et al.  Trajectory optimization based on differential inclusion , 1994 .

[16]  Anil V. Rao,et al.  Optimal Reconfiguration of Spacecraft Formations Using the Gauss Pseudospectral Method , 2008 .

[17]  J. Betts Survey of Numerical Methods for Trajectory Optimization , 1998 .

[18]  Yunjun Xu Subspace Optimal Control and Motion Camouflage , 2008 .

[19]  N.E. Carey,et al.  Biologically inspired guidance for motion camouflage , 2004, 2004 5th Asian Control Conference (IEEE Cat. No.04EX904).

[20]  Arthur E. Bryson,et al.  Applied Optimal Control , 1969 .

[21]  George M. Siouris,et al.  Applied Optimal Control: Optimization, Estimation, and Control , 1979, IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics.

[22]  P.V. Reddy,et al.  Motion camouflage in three dimensions , 2006, Proceedings of the 45th IEEE Conference on Decision and Control.

[23]  Anil V. Rao,et al.  Practical Methods for Optimal Control Using Nonlinear Programming , 1987 .