Hostname: page-component-76fb5796d-5g6vh Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-26T21:38:34.587Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Optimal control of thrust-vectored VTOL UAV in high-manoeuvering transition flight

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 February 2018

Z. Liu ,
S. Tang ,
M. Li  and
J. Guo
Z. Liu*
Affiliation:
School of Aerospace Engineering, Beijing Institute of Technology, Beijing, China
S. Tang
Affiliation:
School of Aerospace Engineering, Beijing Institute of Technology, Beijing, China
M. Li
Affiliation:
School of Aerospace Engineering, Beijing Institute of Technology, Beijing, China
J. Guo
Affiliation:
School of Aerospace Engineering, Beijing Institute of Technology, Beijing, China
*
2120130073@bit.edu.cn
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

In this paper, a new type of fixed-wing vertical take-off and landing, unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV) has been designed. Thrust-vector direct force control has been introduced in three axes to make UAV exhibit superior manoeuverability in transition flight. Considering the characteristics of UAV's dynamic model, which are non-linear, non-affine, and have redundant input, a two-stage progressive optimal control allocation method is developed, which can optimise position and attitude control in synthetical, and motivate effectors to generates desired force and moments. A task-oriented weight selection scheme is proposed to make objective function suitable for different tasks and flight conditions. In addition, a general constraint strategy is designed to guarantee the feasibility of optimal allocation results, which can largely reduce the onboard computation time. Simulations show that UAV can adjust flight attitude and use control effectors in an optimal way, and demonstrating satisfactory tracking of low-speed high-manoeuver flight paths.

Keywords

Optimal control allocationVTOLthrust vectordirect force controltransition manoeuver
Type
Research Article
Information
The Aeronautical Journal , Volume 122 , Issue 1250 , April 2018 , pp. 598 - 619
Copyright
Copyright © Royal Aeronautical Society 2018 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

REFERENCES

1. Francesco, G D. and Mattei, M. Modeling and incremental nonlinear dynamic inversion control of a novel unmanned tiltrotor. J Aircraft, 2016, 53, (1), pp 73-86. doi: 10.2514/1.C033183.Google Scholar
2. Yang, X., Fan, Y. and Zhu, J. Transition flight control of two vertical/short takeoff and landing aircraft, J Guidance Control & Dynamics, 2008, 31, (2), pp 371-385. doi: 10.2514/1.29112.Google Scholar
3. Hua, M. D., Hamel, T., Morin, P. et al. Control of VTOL vehicles with thrust-tilting augmentation, Automatica, 2015, 52, pp 1-7.Google Scholar
4. Ryll, M., Bulthoff, H. and Giordano, P. R. A novel overactuated quadrotor unmanned aerial vehicle, IEEE Transactions on Control Systems Technology, 2015, 23, (2), pp 540-556.Google Scholar
5. Kubo, D. and Suzuki, S. Tail-sitter vertical takeoff and landing unmanned aerial vehicle: Transition flight analysis, J Aircraft, 2008, 45, (6), pp 292-297. doi: 10.2514/1.30122.Google Scholar
6. Naldi, R. and Marconi, L. Optimal transition maneuvers for a class of V/STOL aircraft, Automatica, 2011, 47, (5), pp 870-879. doi: 10.1016/j.automatica.2011.01.027.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
7. Maqsood, A. and Go, T. H. Optimization of hover-to-cruise transition maneuver using variable-incidence wing, J Aircraft, 2010, 47, (3), pp 1060-1064. doi: 10.2514/1.44453.Google Scholar
8. Maqsood, A. and Go, T. H. Optimization of transition maneuvers through aerodynamic vectoring, Aerospace Science and Technology, 2012, 23, (6), pp 363-371. doi: 10.1016/j.ast.2011.09.004.Google Scholar
9. Banazadeh, A. and Taymourtash, N. Optimal control of an aerial tail sitter in transition flight phases, J Aircraft, 2016, 53, (4), pp 914-921. doi: 10.2514/1.C033339.Google Scholar
10. Naldi, R. and Marconi, L. Robust control of transition manoeuvers for a class of V/STOL aircraft, Automatica, 2013, 49, (6), pp 1693-1704. doi: 10.1016/j.automatica.2013.03.006.Google Scholar
11. Jin, J. Modified pseudoinverse redistribution methods for redundant controls allocation, J Guidance Control & Dynamics, 2005, 28, (5), pp 1076-1079. doi: 10.2514/1.14992.Google Scholar
12. Durham, W. C. Constrained control allocation, J Guidance, Control, & Dynamics, 1993, 16, (4), pp 717-725. doi: 10.2514/3.21072.Google Scholar
13. Bolender, M. A. and Doman, D. B. Nonlinear control allocation using piecewise linear functions: A linear programming approach, J Guidance, Control, & Dynamics, 2005, 28, (3), pp 558-562. doi: 10.2514/1.12997.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
14. Harkegard, O. Dynamic control allocation using constrained quadratic programming, J Guidance, Control, & Dynamics, 2004, 27, (6), pp 1028-1034. doi: 10.2514/1.11607.Google Scholar
15. Boggs, P. T. and Tolle, J. W. Sequential quadratic programming, Acta Numerica, 1995, 4, (4), pp 1-51.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
16. Ghenaiet, A. Determination of minimum thrust requirement for a passenger aircraft, J Aircraft, 2007, 44, (6), pp 1787-1792. doi: 10.2514/1.27990.Google Scholar
17. Powell, M. J. D. A fast algorithm for nonlinearly constrained optimization calculations, Numerical Analysis, 1978, Vol. 630, pp 144-157, Springer, Berlin.CrossRefGoogle Scholar