Control Strategies for Restricting the Navigable Airspace of Commercial Aircraft Adam Cataldo and...
-
date post
19-Dec-2015 -
Category
Documents
-
view
216 -
download
0
Transcript of Control Strategies for Restricting the Navigable Airspace of Commercial Aircraft Adam Cataldo and...
![Page 1: Control Strategies for Restricting the Navigable Airspace of Commercial Aircraft Adam Cataldo and Edward Lee NASA JUP Meeting 28 March 2003 Stanford, CA.](https://reader030.fdocuments.us/reader030/viewer/2022032703/56649d385503460f94a10c35/html5/thumbnails/1.jpg)
Control Strategies for Restricting the Navigable Airspace of Commercial Aircraft
Adam Cataldo andEdward Lee
NASA JUP Meeting28 March 2003Stanford, CA
![Page 2: Control Strategies for Restricting the Navigable Airspace of Commercial Aircraft Adam Cataldo and Edward Lee NASA JUP Meeting 28 March 2003 Stanford, CA.](https://reader030.fdocuments.us/reader030/viewer/2022032703/56649d385503460f94a10c35/html5/thumbnails/2.jpg)
Outline
• Soft Walls Problem• Solution with Level Set Methods• Moving Forward
![Page 3: Control Strategies for Restricting the Navigable Airspace of Commercial Aircraft Adam Cataldo and Edward Lee NASA JUP Meeting 28 March 2003 Stanford, CA.](https://reader030.fdocuments.us/reader030/viewer/2022032703/56649d385503460f94a10c35/html5/thumbnails/3.jpg)
Softwalls
• Carry on-board a 3-D database with “no-fly-zones”
• Enforce no-fly zones using on-board avionics (aviation electronics)
• Non-networked, non-hackable
![Page 4: Control Strategies for Restricting the Navigable Airspace of Commercial Aircraft Adam Cataldo and Edward Lee NASA JUP Meeting 28 March 2003 Stanford, CA.](https://reader030.fdocuments.us/reader030/viewer/2022032703/56649d385503460f94a10c35/html5/thumbnails/4.jpg)
Design Objectives
Maximize Pilot Authority!
![Page 5: Control Strategies for Restricting the Navigable Airspace of Commercial Aircraft Adam Cataldo and Edward Lee NASA JUP Meeting 28 March 2003 Stanford, CA.](https://reader030.fdocuments.us/reader030/viewer/2022032703/56649d385503460f94a10c35/html5/thumbnails/5.jpg)
Design Objectives
• Apply zero bias when possible– For all pilot actions, controller can still
prevent entry into the no-fly zone
• Bias pilot’s input with a control input– Do not attenuate pilot control– Do not make instantaneous changes in bias
• Give pilot maximum authority– Can always turn away from the no-fly zone– Prevent controls from saturating
![Page 6: Control Strategies for Restricting the Navigable Airspace of Commercial Aircraft Adam Cataldo and Edward Lee NASA JUP Meeting 28 March 2003 Stanford, CA.](https://reader030.fdocuments.us/reader030/viewer/2022032703/56649d385503460f94a10c35/html5/thumbnails/6.jpg)
Unsaturated Control
No-flyzone
Even under the maximum control bias,the pilot can make a sharper turn away from the no-fly zone
![Page 7: Control Strategies for Restricting the Navigable Airspace of Commercial Aircraft Adam Cataldo and Edward Lee NASA JUP Meeting 28 March 2003 Stanford, CA.](https://reader030.fdocuments.us/reader030/viewer/2022032703/56649d385503460f94a10c35/html5/thumbnails/7.jpg)
Sailing Analogy – Weather Helm
force of the wind on the sails
turned rudder keeps the trajectory straight
with straight rudder
with turned rudder
Even with weather helm, the craft responds to fine-grain control as expected.
![Page 8: Control Strategies for Restricting the Navigable Airspace of Commercial Aircraft Adam Cataldo and Edward Lee NASA JUP Meeting 28 March 2003 Stanford, CA.](https://reader030.fdocuments.us/reader030/viewer/2022032703/56649d385503460f94a10c35/html5/thumbnails/8.jpg)
Discussion
• Reducing pilot control is dangerous– reduces ability to respond to emergencies
![Page 9: Control Strategies for Restricting the Navigable Airspace of Commercial Aircraft Adam Cataldo and Edward Lee NASA JUP Meeting 28 March 2003 Stanford, CA.](https://reader030.fdocuments.us/reader030/viewer/2022032703/56649d385503460f94a10c35/html5/thumbnails/9.jpg)
Is There Any Aircraft Emergency that Justifies Trying to Land on Fifth Ave?
![Page 10: Control Strategies for Restricting the Navigable Airspace of Commercial Aircraft Adam Cataldo and Edward Lee NASA JUP Meeting 28 March 2003 Stanford, CA.](https://reader030.fdocuments.us/reader030/viewer/2022032703/56649d385503460f94a10c35/html5/thumbnails/10.jpg)
Discussion
• Reducing pilot control is dangerous– reduces ability to respond to emergencies
• There is no override– switch in the cockpit
![Page 11: Control Strategies for Restricting the Navigable Airspace of Commercial Aircraft Adam Cataldo and Edward Lee NASA JUP Meeting 28 March 2003 Stanford, CA.](https://reader030.fdocuments.us/reader030/viewer/2022032703/56649d385503460f94a10c35/html5/thumbnails/11.jpg)
No-Fly Zone with Harsher Enforcement
There is no override in the cockpit that allows pilots to fly through this.
![Page 12: Control Strategies for Restricting the Navigable Airspace of Commercial Aircraft Adam Cataldo and Edward Lee NASA JUP Meeting 28 March 2003 Stanford, CA.](https://reader030.fdocuments.us/reader030/viewer/2022032703/56649d385503460f94a10c35/html5/thumbnails/12.jpg)
Objections
• Reducing pilot control is dangerous– reduces ability to respond to emergencies
• There is no override– switch in the cockpit
• Localization technology could fail– GPS can be jammed
![Page 13: Control Strategies for Restricting the Navigable Airspace of Commercial Aircraft Adam Cataldo and Edward Lee NASA JUP Meeting 28 March 2003 Stanford, CA.](https://reader030.fdocuments.us/reader030/viewer/2022032703/56649d385503460f94a10c35/html5/thumbnails/13.jpg)
Localization Backup
Inertial navigation provides backup to GPS. Drift implies that when GPS fails, aircraft has limited time to safely approach urban airports.
![Page 14: Control Strategies for Restricting the Navigable Airspace of Commercial Aircraft Adam Cataldo and Edward Lee NASA JUP Meeting 28 March 2003 Stanford, CA.](https://reader030.fdocuments.us/reader030/viewer/2022032703/56649d385503460f94a10c35/html5/thumbnails/14.jpg)
Objections
• Reducing pilot control is dangerous– reduces ability to respond to emergencies
• There is no override– switch in the cockpit
• Localization technology could fail– GPS can be jammed
• Deployment could be costly– Software certification? Retrofit older
aircraft?
![Page 15: Control Strategies for Restricting the Navigable Airspace of Commercial Aircraft Adam Cataldo and Edward Lee NASA JUP Meeting 28 March 2003 Stanford, CA.](https://reader030.fdocuments.us/reader030/viewer/2022032703/56649d385503460f94a10c35/html5/thumbnails/15.jpg)
Deployment
• Fly-by-wire aircraft– a software change
• Older aircraft– autopilot level
• Phase in– prioritize airports
![Page 16: Control Strategies for Restricting the Navigable Airspace of Commercial Aircraft Adam Cataldo and Edward Lee NASA JUP Meeting 28 March 2003 Stanford, CA.](https://reader030.fdocuments.us/reader030/viewer/2022032703/56649d385503460f94a10c35/html5/thumbnails/16.jpg)
$4 billion development effort40-50% system integration & validation cost
![Page 17: Control Strategies for Restricting the Navigable Airspace of Commercial Aircraft Adam Cataldo and Edward Lee NASA JUP Meeting 28 March 2003 Stanford, CA.](https://reader030.fdocuments.us/reader030/viewer/2022032703/56649d385503460f94a10c35/html5/thumbnails/17.jpg)
Objections
• Reducing pilot control is dangerous– reduces ability to respond to emergencies
• There is no override– switch in the cockpit
• Localization technology could fail– GPS can be jammed
• Deployment could be costly– how to retrofit older aircraft?
• Complexity– software certification
![Page 18: Control Strategies for Restricting the Navigable Airspace of Commercial Aircraft Adam Cataldo and Edward Lee NASA JUP Meeting 28 March 2003 Stanford, CA.](https://reader030.fdocuments.us/reader030/viewer/2022032703/56649d385503460f94a10c35/html5/thumbnails/18.jpg)
Not Like Air Traffic Control
This seems entirely independent of air traffic control, and could complement safety methods deployed there. Self-contained on a single aircraft.
![Page 19: Control Strategies for Restricting the Navigable Airspace of Commercial Aircraft Adam Cataldo and Edward Lee NASA JUP Meeting 28 March 2003 Stanford, CA.](https://reader030.fdocuments.us/reader030/viewer/2022032703/56649d385503460f94a10c35/html5/thumbnails/19.jpg)
Objections
• Reducing pilot control is dangerous– reduces ability to respond to emergencies
• There is no override– switch in the cockpit
• Localization technology could fail– GPS can be jammed
• Deployment could be costly– how to retrofit older aircraft?
• Deployment could take too long– software certification
• Fully automatic flight control is possible– throw a switch on the ground, take over plane
![Page 20: Control Strategies for Restricting the Navigable Airspace of Commercial Aircraft Adam Cataldo and Edward Lee NASA JUP Meeting 28 March 2003 Stanford, CA.](https://reader030.fdocuments.us/reader030/viewer/2022032703/56649d385503460f94a10c35/html5/thumbnails/20.jpg)
UAV Technology
Northrop Grumman argues that the Global Hawk UAV system can be dropped-in to passenger airliners.
![Page 21: Control Strategies for Restricting the Navigable Airspace of Commercial Aircraft Adam Cataldo and Edward Lee NASA JUP Meeting 28 March 2003 Stanford, CA.](https://reader030.fdocuments.us/reader030/viewer/2022032703/56649d385503460f94a10c35/html5/thumbnails/21.jpg)
Potential Problems with Ground Control
• Human-in-the-loop delay on the ground– authorization for takeover– delay recognizing the threat
• Security problem on the ground– hijacking from the ground?– takeover of entire fleet at once?– coup d’etat?
• Requires radio communication– hackable– jammable
![Page 22: Control Strategies for Restricting the Navigable Airspace of Commercial Aircraft Adam Cataldo and Edward Lee NASA JUP Meeting 28 March 2003 Stanford, CA.](https://reader030.fdocuments.us/reader030/viewer/2022032703/56649d385503460f94a10c35/html5/thumbnails/22.jpg)
Outline
• Soft Walls Problem• Solution with Level Set Methods
– Backwards Reachable Set in Soft Walls– Finding the Backwards Reachable Set with
Level Set Methods– Control from Implicit Surface Function
• Moving Forward
![Page 23: Control Strategies for Restricting the Navigable Airspace of Commercial Aircraft Adam Cataldo and Edward Lee NASA JUP Meeting 28 March 2003 Stanford, CA.](https://reader030.fdocuments.us/reader030/viewer/2022032703/56649d385503460f94a10c35/html5/thumbnails/23.jpg)
Backwards Reachable Sets(Tomlin, Lygeros, Sastry)
• We model the aircraft the dynamics as:
where x is the state, uc is the control input, and up is the pilot input
• Let X be the set of all possible states• Let the target set G(0) describe the no-
fly zone, where
![Page 24: Control Strategies for Restricting the Navigable Airspace of Commercial Aircraft Adam Cataldo and Edward Lee NASA JUP Meeting 28 March 2003 Stanford, CA.](https://reader030.fdocuments.us/reader030/viewer/2022032703/56649d385503460f94a10c35/html5/thumbnails/24.jpg)
Backwards Reachable Sets(Tomlin, Lygeros, Sastry)
The backwards reachable set is the set of states for which safety cannot be guaranteed for all possible disturbances
Target Set(unsafe states)
Reachable set
Safe States
![Page 25: Control Strategies for Restricting the Navigable Airspace of Commercial Aircraft Adam Cataldo and Edward Lee NASA JUP Meeting 28 March 2003 Stanford, CA.](https://reader030.fdocuments.us/reader030/viewer/2022032703/56649d385503460f94a10c35/html5/thumbnails/25.jpg)
Backwards Reachable Sets(Tomlin, Lygeros, Sastry)
• We denote the backwards reachable set G
• The backwards reachable set is the set of states such that for all controls uc there exists a disturbance up which drives the state into the target set
• For any state outside the reachable set, we can find a control input that can guarantee the state is kept outside the reachable set
![Page 26: Control Strategies for Restricting the Navigable Airspace of Commercial Aircraft Adam Cataldo and Edward Lee NASA JUP Meeting 28 March 2003 Stanford, CA.](https://reader030.fdocuments.us/reader030/viewer/2022032703/56649d385503460f94a10c35/html5/thumbnails/26.jpg)
Backwards Reachable Sets(Tomlin, Lygeros, Sastry)
• The set G(t) represents the set of states such that for all controls uc there exists a disturbance up which drives the state into the target set in time t or less
G(0)G(t1)G(t2)G = G()
0 < t1 < t2 <
![Page 27: Control Strategies for Restricting the Navigable Airspace of Commercial Aircraft Adam Cataldo and Edward Lee NASA JUP Meeting 28 March 2003 Stanford, CA.](https://reader030.fdocuments.us/reader030/viewer/2022032703/56649d385503460f94a10c35/html5/thumbnails/27.jpg)
Finding the Reachable Set(Mitchell, Tomlin)
• Given the target set G(0), we create a cost function g(x)
• g(x) <= 0 if and only if x G(0)
Go
g(x)
![Page 28: Control Strategies for Restricting the Navigable Airspace of Commercial Aircraft Adam Cataldo and Edward Lee NASA JUP Meeting 28 March 2003 Stanford, CA.](https://reader030.fdocuments.us/reader030/viewer/2022032703/56649d385503460f94a10c35/html5/thumbnails/28.jpg)
Finding the Reachable Set(Mitchell, Tomlin)
• We solve for (x,t) from the Hamilton-Jacobi-Isaacs PDE
where
• Then (x,t) <= 0 if and only if x in G(t)
![Page 29: Control Strategies for Restricting the Navigable Airspace of Commercial Aircraft Adam Cataldo and Edward Lee NASA JUP Meeting 28 March 2003 Stanford, CA.](https://reader030.fdocuments.us/reader030/viewer/2022032703/56649d385503460f94a10c35/html5/thumbnails/29.jpg)
Finding the Reachable Set(Mitchell, Tomlin)
• Solving for (x,) gives us G = G() since (x,t) <= 0 if and only if x in G(t)
• We can solve (x,) numerically using level-set PDE techniques
![Page 30: Control Strategies for Restricting the Navigable Airspace of Commercial Aircraft Adam Cataldo and Edward Lee NASA JUP Meeting 28 March 2003 Stanford, CA.](https://reader030.fdocuments.us/reader030/viewer/2022032703/56649d385503460f94a10c35/html5/thumbnails/30.jpg)
Control from Implicit Surface
• Make g(x) so that its magnitude is the distance from the target set boundary
• Then g(x) is a signed distance function since it is positive outside the target set and negative inside the target set
• We can compute (x,) such that it is also a signed distance function
![Page 31: Control Strategies for Restricting the Navigable Airspace of Commercial Aircraft Adam Cataldo and Edward Lee NASA JUP Meeting 28 March 2003 Stanford, CA.](https://reader030.fdocuments.us/reader030/viewer/2022032703/56649d385503460f94a10c35/html5/thumbnails/31.jpg)
Control from Implicit Surface
• If (x,) is decreasing, the aircraft is approaching the reacable set
• We choose a bias such that when (x,) = 0
• We start biasing the aircraft at the first state which satisfies (x,) = d
• We increase the bias as (x,) approaches 0
![Page 32: Control Strategies for Restricting the Navigable Airspace of Commercial Aircraft Adam Cataldo and Edward Lee NASA JUP Meeting 28 March 2003 Stanford, CA.](https://reader030.fdocuments.us/reader030/viewer/2022032703/56649d385503460f94a10c35/html5/thumbnails/32.jpg)
Demo
![Page 33: Control Strategies for Restricting the Navigable Airspace of Commercial Aircraft Adam Cataldo and Edward Lee NASA JUP Meeting 28 March 2003 Stanford, CA.](https://reader030.fdocuments.us/reader030/viewer/2022032703/56649d385503460f94a10c35/html5/thumbnails/33.jpg)
Outline
• Soft Walls Problem• Solution with Level Set Methods
– Backwards Reachable Set in Soft Walls– Finding the Backwards Reachable Set with
Level Set Methods– Control from Implicit Surface Function
• Moving Forward– Dynamics Model– Simulation Interface– Prototype
![Page 34: Control Strategies for Restricting the Navigable Airspace of Commercial Aircraft Adam Cataldo and Edward Lee NASA JUP Meeting 28 March 2003 Stanford, CA.](https://reader030.fdocuments.us/reader030/viewer/2022032703/56649d385503460f94a10c35/html5/thumbnails/34.jpg)
Dynamics Model
• We used this simple dynamics model, because the level-set computations work only for a small dimension
V
pilot input control input
![Page 35: Control Strategies for Restricting the Navigable Airspace of Commercial Aircraft Adam Cataldo and Edward Lee NASA JUP Meeting 28 March 2003 Stanford, CA.](https://reader030.fdocuments.us/reader030/viewer/2022032703/56649d385503460f94a10c35/html5/thumbnails/35.jpg)
Dynamics Model (Menon, Sweriduk, Sridhar)
• A more realistic model– Thrust T– Drag D– Mass m– Flight Path Angle – Bank Angle – Fuel Flow Rate Q– Lift L– Load Factor n– Height h
![Page 36: Control Strategies for Restricting the Navigable Airspace of Commercial Aircraft Adam Cataldo and Edward Lee NASA JUP Meeting 28 March 2003 Stanford, CA.](https://reader030.fdocuments.us/reader030/viewer/2022032703/56649d385503460f94a10c35/html5/thumbnails/36.jpg)
Dynamics Model (Menon, Sweriduk, Sridhar)
We are considering control strategies that scale better to the higher dimensions of this model
rudder and ailerons
elevator
throttlepilot input
control input
![Page 37: Control Strategies for Restricting the Navigable Airspace of Commercial Aircraft Adam Cataldo and Edward Lee NASA JUP Meeting 28 March 2003 Stanford, CA.](https://reader030.fdocuments.us/reader030/viewer/2022032703/56649d385503460f94a10c35/html5/thumbnails/37.jpg)
Simulation Interface
• Soft Walls interface for Microsoft Flight Simulator
• Real-time controller created in Ptolemy II
![Page 38: Control Strategies for Restricting the Navigable Airspace of Commercial Aircraft Adam Cataldo and Edward Lee NASA JUP Meeting 28 March 2003 Stanford, CA.](https://reader030.fdocuments.us/reader030/viewer/2022032703/56649d385503460f94a10c35/html5/thumbnails/38.jpg)
Prototype(Richard Murray, in conjunction with SEC)• Hovercraft with controlled by two fans • Test bed for Soft Walls algorithm• Remote driver can steer craft while a
control bias prevents collision with a wall
![Page 39: Control Strategies for Restricting the Navigable Airspace of Commercial Aircraft Adam Cataldo and Edward Lee NASA JUP Meeting 28 March 2003 Stanford, CA.](https://reader030.fdocuments.us/reader030/viewer/2022032703/56649d385503460f94a10c35/html5/thumbnails/39.jpg)
Acknowledgements
• Ian Mitchell• Iman Ahmadi• Zhongning Chen• Xiaojun Liu• Steve Neuendorffer• Shankar Sastry• Clair Tomlin