See

discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/269255066

Trajectory Optimization Applied to Air Races

Conference Paper · August 2009

DOI: 10.2514/6.2009-5930

CITATIONS READS

3 57

4 authors, including:

Jakob Lenz Florian Holzapfel

Technische Universität München Technische Universität München
34 PUBLICATIONS 48 CITATIONS 343 PUBLICATIONS 786 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Optimal control methods in ski jumping View project

smartIflow View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Florian Holzapfel on 29 September 2015.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

AIAA Atmospheric Flight Mechanics Conference AIAA 2009-5930
10 - 13 August 2009, Chicago, Illinois

Trajectory Optimization Applied to Air Races

F. Fisch1, J. Lenz2, F. Holzapfel3 and G. Sachs4

Technische Universität München, Garching, Germany

The paper describes a novel approach for the optimization of air race trajectories taking
into account the highly non-linear nature of the dynamics of the participating aircraft.
Therefore, no point-mass model is utilized for the optimization task but an enhanced,
scalable multi-fidelity simulation model that is a sequential model extending the translation
dynamics by different representations for the attitude and the rotational dynamics of the
flight system. The inner loop can either contain linear transfer functions for the load factors
and the roll rate, linear state-space models for the longitudinal and the lateral motion of the
aircraft or fully non-linear rotational and attitude dynamics. Thus, the full dynamic order of
the flight system considered is taken into account such that the resulting optimal race
trajectory is actually achievable. Inversion controllers for the different loops are
incorporated into the simulation model. With this sequential structure of the model, the
complexity level of the rotational dynamics and thus the optimization time and quality can
easily be switched to the required level. Furthermore, a procedure for generating robust and
suitable initial guesses for the optimization with full, non-linear 6-degree of freedom
simulation models is established. This novel approach allows for the solution of highly
complex trajectory optimization problems where classical methods failed due to stiffness
problems.

Nomenclature
A = Aerodynamic Frame / Aerodynamic Motion / Aerodynamic Force
B = Body-Fixed Frame
E = Earth-Centered Earth-Fixed Frame (ECEF)
I = Earth-Centered Inertial Frame (ECI)
K̅ = Intermediate Kinematic Flight Path Frame
K = Kinematic Flight Path Frame / Kinematic Motion
N = Navigation Frame
O = North-East-Down Frame (NED)
G = Center of Gravity / Gravitational Force
P = Propulsive Force
1
V = Kinematic velocity vector
1
ω = Angular velocity vector (rotation rate)
1r = Position vector

1
Dipl.-Ing. Florian Fisch, Research Assistant, Institute of Flight System Dynamics,
Technische Universität München, Boltzmannstr. 15, D-85748 Garching, Germany.
fisch@tum.de, Member AIAA.
2
Dipl.-Ing. Jakob Lenz, Research Assistant, Institute of Flight System Dynamics,
Technische Universität München, Boltzmannstr. 15, D-85748 Garching, Germany.
jakob.lenz@tum.de, Senior Member AIAA.
3
Prof. Dr.-Ing. Florian Holzapfel, Director, Institute of Flight System Dynamics,
Technische Universität München, Boltzmannstr. 15, D-85748 Garching, Germany.
florian.holzapfel@tum.de, Senior Member AIAA.
4
Prof. Dr.-Ing. Dr.-Ing. h.c. Gottfried Sachs, Professor Emeritus and former Director,
Institute of Flight System Dynamics, Technische Universität München, Boltzmannstr. 15,
D-85748 Garching, Germany. sachs@tum.de, Fellow AIAA.

1
American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics
1
F = Force vector
1
M = Moment vector
γ = Flight-path climb angle
χ = Flight-path course angle
μ = Flight-path bank angle
α = Angle of attack
β = Angle of sideslip
qi = Quaternions (i = 0, …, 3)
n = Load factor
M = Transformation matrix
T = Thrust / Time constant
x = State variable
u = Control variable
ω0 = Natural frequency
s = Laplace variable
m = Aircraft mass
I = Inertia tensor
S = Reference area
CD = Drag coefficient
q̅ = Dynamic pressure
g = Gravitational constant
p = Roll rate
q = Pitch rate
r = Yaw rate
η = Elevator deflection
ζ = Rudder deflection / Relative damping ratio
ξ = Aileron deflection
δT = Thrust lever position
D = Aerodynamic drag
Q = Aerodynamic side force
L = Aerodynamic lift
Xi = Force derivative in x-direction due to index i
Zi = Force derivative in z-direction due to index i
Li = Roll Moment derivative due to index i
Mi = Pitch Moment derivative due to index i
Ni = Yaw Moment derivative due to index i

Declaration: (VKReference Point

) Reference Frame
Type of Motion/Sou rce of Force Notation Frame

I. Introduction

O VER the past years, air race events have become increasingly popular and even a global air race world series
has been established with great success. These air races are attracting a large audience, thus enhancing the
popularity and the fascination of aerospace in the public. The basic procedure of the regarded air races is as follows:
after passing a starting point, which can be defined by a significant landmark, the aircraft have to fly a course
defined by inflatable pylons at minimum time. The pylons form gates which either are to be passed wings level
(level gate), or at 90° bank angle (knife edge gate). Other features are the “quad”, consisting of two pylon pairs to be
passed from perpendicular directions or the slalom which is a chicane of a sequence of single pylons requiring rapid
changes in turn direction. Furthermore, re-alignment and aerobatic maneuvers like vertical rolls or Half Cuban
Eights are included to re-position the aircraft with respect to the track. The race ends by passing a finish gate which
in many cases is equal to the start gate or again a significant landmark.

2
American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics
 In order to win such an air race competition, the pilot has to find the fastest possible flight course through the
gates, i.e. he tries to finish the race course in the minimum possible flight time. As the true trajectories only become
apparent during training and at the race itself, shaped by the pilots’ experience, it would be beneficial to know the
optimum (i.e. minimum time) trajectory for a given aircraft right before the first aircraft enters the course and flight
path optimization is the only efficient means to compute the optimal race track. This does not only help the pilots to
find their best strategy but also to assess the track with respect to the single most important criterion that is safety.
Moreover, the race course can only be evaluated by a glance at the final race time but no clear insights can be gained
which parts of the race course flown deviate the most from the optimal trajectory and thus would offer room for
improvement. Therefore, knowing the optimal race trajectory would be very interesting for the pilots, the planners,
the evaluators as well as for the spectators.
The task of finding the control inputs to produce the minimum race time for a specific air race track represents a
typical multi-phase trajectory optimization problem that is to find the control inputs such that the resulting state
histories become optimal with respect to a certain objective, here the final race time. Over the last decades, a vast
number of trajectory optimization problems has been solved, mainly utilizing point-mass models (see e.g.
Ref. 1, 7, 8, 9, 11, 13) or optimizing only a single maneuver over a very short time span with a full 6-degree of
freedom simulation model (Ref. 5, 12, 14). But for air race trajectories with their inherent, highly non-linear nature
and flight at the limits of the envelopes and with saturated controls, point-mass models cannot sufficiently represent
the dynamic order of the considered flight system. For the simulation and the optimization of air race trajectories it
is mandatory to take into account the true attitude and the rotational dynamics of the flight system to achieve a
realistic representation of the real aircraft. With the utilization of full, non-linear 6-degree of freedom simulation
models for the optimization of trajectories over a long time span as it is the case for air races, optimization tasks
suffer from many severe problems ranging from poor convergence properties to the difficulty of finding initial
guesses for the optimal solutions. Thus, a novel approach has to be chosen for the optimization of air race
trajectories.
By this approach, a simulation model is utilized for the optimization tasks that features a special structure. The
outer loop contains the position and translation equations of motion followed by a scalable inner loop that represents
the rotation and attitude equations of motion of the flight system. In the simulation model, three alternatives for the
inner loop are implemented: first, linear transfer functions for the load factors and the roll rate, second, linear state-
space models for the lateral and longitudinal motion and third the full, non-linear attitude and rotational dynamics.
Additionally, inversion controllers for each inner loop are incorporated into the simulation model. With this
scalable, multi-fidelity simulation model the complexity of the inner loop can easily be changed so that the fidelity
of the entire simulation model and the computational effort for solving an optimization task can be adapted to the
appropriate level while it is ensured that the full dynamic order of the flight system is taken into account for the
optimization task so that the resulting optimal trajectory can be regarded as highly realistic. Furthermore, with the
utilization of the mentioned simulation model for optimization tasks, a procedure for the generation of very good
initial guesses for the solution of optimization problems based on the full, non-linear simulation model can be
established. Therefore, the optimal solution found for one complexity level is used as the starting solution for the
higher level of complexity, thus improving the convergence time and stability for this optimization task since the
applied starting solution presumably comes close to the final optimal solution as the basic underlying physics of the
flight system remain unchanged.
In order to get as close as possible to reality, the simulation model also accounts for atmospheric effects like
offset in the ambient temperature and pressure as well as for static and convective wind fields since the atmospheric
conditions have a great influence on the optimal trajectory.
In the paper at hand, first the simulation model with its different alternatives for modeling the linear inner loop is
presented. Then, the trajectory optimization problem for air races utilizing this simulation model is formulated.
Next, a procedure for generating good initial guesses for the various optimization problems is introduced. Finally,
results of solved air race trajectory optimization problems are shown demonstrating the capability of the proposed
approach.

3
American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics
 II. Simulation Model
In the following chapter, the equations of motion for the simulation model that is to be used for the optimization
of air race trajectories are presented. Basically, the simulation model is divided into two main parts that are an outer
loop containing the position and translation equations of motion and a linear inner loop representing the attitude and
rotation dynamics of the flight system. For conventional non-linear 6-degree of freedom simulation models, both the
position and translation equations of motion and the attitude and rotation equations of motion are given with respect
to the NED-reference frame, i.e. that the inner and outer loop are modeled in parallel. In contrast to these standard
simulation models, the herein presented simulation model features a sequential structure, where the inner loop is
modeled in series to the outer loop, providing the input to the outer loop that are the load factors in the Intermediate
Kinematic Flight-Path Frame K̅ . Since the inputs to the outer loop always remain the same irrespective of the
modeling in the inner loop, the sort of modeling for the inner loop can easily be altered without affecting the outer
loop. This specific structure allows for an easy adjustment of the simulation model to the required level of accuracy
and complexity, to the desired computation time or computational robustness or to the aircraft data available for a
specific simulation or optimization task.
For the inner loop, three different alternatives are implemented and later on used for the optimization tasks: first,
a linear inner loop that consists of linear transfer functions for the load factors and the roll rate, second, an inner loop
with linear state-space models for the longitudinal and lateral motion of the aircraft and third a non-linear inner loop
modeling the full attitude and rotational dynamics. The structure of the simulation model is depicted in Fig. 1. The
outer loop and the alternatives for the modeling of the inner loop are described in the following, where only the
fundamental equations are given. A detailed description of the simulation model including the incorporated
inversion controllers can be found in Ref. 2.

Non-Linear Inner Loop

Rotation EoM & Attitude Propagation
Depth of Modeling

Linear Inner Loop Non-Linear Outer Loop

Linear State-Space Models Translation EoM & Position Propagation

Linear Inner Loop

Linear Transfer Functions

Figure 1. Structure of the Simulation Model.

A. Outer Loop: Point-Mass Simulation Model

In the outer loop, the position and translation equations of motion are implemented. The position propagation
equations are given with respect to the Navigation Frame N that is derived from the NED-Frame O and used to
locally specify the position of an aircraft. The origin of the Navigation frame is fixed on the surface of the earth and
the frame itself is rotated about the navigation angle αN around the z-axis of the NED-Frame. The position
equations of motion with respect to the NED-Frame are given by Eq. (1), where the matrix MNO is the
transformation matrix from the NED-Frame to the Navigation Frame:

⎛ x ⎞
⎜ ⎟
E
⎛ x ⎞
⎜ ⎟
E
⎛ u KG ⎞
⎜ G⎟
E
⎜ K K ( )
⎛ V G E ⋅ cos χ G ⋅ cos γ G ⎞
K K ⎟

  ⎜
⎜
G E
( )
⎜ y ⎟ = M NO ⋅ ⎜ y ⎟ = M NO ⋅ ⎜ vK ⎟ = M NO ⋅ VK K ⋅ sin χ K ⋅ cos γ K
G G ⎟

⎟
(1)
⎜ z ⎟
⎝ ⎠N
⎜ z ⎟
⎝ ⎠O
⎜ wG ⎟
⎝ K ⎠O ⎝
E
( )
⎜ − VKG K ⋅ sin γ KG ⎟
⎠

4
American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics
 The translation equations of motion for the simulation model with the components given in the Kinematic Flight-
Path Frame K are:
⎛ 1 ⎞
⎜ ⎟
⎛VKG ⎞ ⎜ ⎟
⎜ G⎟ ⎜ ⎟ ⎧1
⎜ χ K ⎟ = ⎜ G
1
⋅
G ⎟ ⎨
( ∑ FK ) − (ωK ) × (VK )
G EO G E
−
⎜ γ G ⎟ ⎜ VK ⋅ cos γ K ⎟ ⎩ m
K K K K K
(2)
⎝ K⎠ ⎜ 1 ⎟
⎜ −VG ⎟
⎝ K ⎠
( ) × (VK ) − (ωK ) × [(ωK ) × (rK ) ]}
K
− 2 ⋅ ω IE
K K
G E
K K
IE
K K
IE
K K
G
K
As one can notice from Eq. (2), a singularity emerges when the aircraft reaches a kinematic flight-path climb
angle of γK = ±90°. For simulating air race trajectories including aerobatic maneuvers like the Half Cuban Eight, it is
mandatory to find a way to cope with this singularity. Therefore, the angles χK, γK and the flight-path angle μK are
replaced by the four quaternions q0, q1, q2 and q3. The translation equation of motions using the four quaternions
then read:
⎛ q0 ⎞
⎜ ⎟
⎡ − q1 − q2
⎜
( )
− q3 ⎤ ⎛ ωKOK, x K
⎞
⎟
⎢ q2 ⎥⎥ ⎜ OK
⎜ q1 ⎟ 1 ⎢ q0
⎜ q ⎟ = 2 ⎢ q
− q3
q0 − q1 ⎥ ⎜
( )
⋅ ⎜ ωK , y
⎟
K ⎟
(3)
⎜ 2⎟ ⎟
( )
3
⎜ q ⎟ ⎢ ⎥
⎝ 3⎠ ⎣ − q2 q1 q0 ⎦ ⎜⎝ ωKOK, z ⎟
K ⎠
The angular rate between the NED-Frame and the Intermediate Kinematic Flight-Path Frame K̅ (K̅ is the
Kinematic Flight-Path Frame K rotated by the flight-path bank angle μK around its x-axis) required for the above
translation equation of motions is determined as follows:
⎛ μ KG − χ KG sin γ KG ⎞
⎜ ⎟
(ωK )
OK
K K = ⎜ χ KG cos γ KG sin μ KG + γKG cos μ KG ⎟
⎜⎜ G
(4)
G⎟⎟
⎝ χ K cos γ K cos μ K − γ K sin μ K ⎠ K
G G
 G
After the integration of the quaternions, the corresponding flight-path angles can be re-calculated by:
⎛ 2(q1q2 + q0 q3 ) ⎞
χ KG = arctan⎜⎜ ⎟
2 ⎟ (5)
⎝ q0 + q1 − q2 − q3 ⎠
2 2 2

γ KG = arcsin(− 2(q1q3 − q0 q2 )) (6)

⎛ 2(q2 q3 + q0 q1 ) ⎞
μ KG = arctan⎜⎜ ⎟
2 ⎟ (7)
⎝ q0 − q1 − q2 + q3 ⎠
2 2 2

As mentioned above, regardless of the modeling for the inner loop the interface command signals to the outer
loop with the translation and rotation equation of motions always remain the same. As can be seen from
Eq. (2), the inputs to the translation equations of motion and thus the interface command signals are the sum of total
forces respectively the total load factors given in the K-Frame that can be computed from the aerodynamic (A) and
propulsive (P) load factors and the gravitational attraction force by
1
m
(∑ FK )
G
K
[( ) + (nK ) ] + m1 ⋅ (FK )
K
= g ⋅ n GA K
G
P K
G
G K (8)

Furthermore, the first order time derivative of the kinematic bank angle μ˙K is required as an input to the outer
loop for the computation of the angular rate in Eq. (4). Thus, it will be the main task of the inner loop simulation

5
American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics
models to be described later to provide these inputs to the translation equations of motion by calculating the
aerodynamic load factors in the Intermediate Kinematic Flight-Path Frame K̅ and the first order time derivative of
the kinematic bank angle μ˙K.
The relationship between the thrust force T required for the calculation of the propulsive load factors and the
commanded thrust lever position δT,CMD œ [0,1] is modeled as a linear first-order transfer function depending on the
maximum possible thrust for any given altitude and velocity, so that with the thrust lever position δT a further state is
added to the simulation model:
1
T = Tmax (V , ρ ) δ T ,CMD (9)
Tδ ⋅ s + 1

B. Inner Loop with Linear Transfer Functions for the Load Factors
The usage of linear transfer functions between the commanded load factors (CMD) and the actual load factors
fed forward to the translation equations of motion allows one to preserve the true physical dynamic order in the
simulation model while at the same time the complexity of the inner loop can be significantly reduced. The
dynamics of the normal load factor nz and the dynamics of the lateral load factor ny are approximated by a second
order time behavior, whereas the dynamics of the load factor nx and the dynamics of the pseudo-roll rate pK* feature
a first order time behavior:

(n )
G
A, x A =
1
mg
[ ( ( )
T − q ⋅ S ⋅ C D m ⋅ n GA, z A , m ⋅ n GA, y ( ) )]A (10)

ω02, DR
(n )
G
A, y A =
s + 2 ⋅ ζ DR ⋅ ω 0, DR ⋅ s + ω 0, DR
2 2
n GA, y ( ) A,CMD
(11)

ω02,SP
(n )
G
A, z A =
s 2 + 2 ⋅ ζ SP ⋅ ω 0,SP ⋅ s + ω02,SP
(n )
G
A, z A,CMD (12)

(μ )
G
K K = p *K =
1
TRoll ⋅ s + 1
⋅ p *K ,CMD (13)

For the transfer functions, the natural damping ratio and the natural frequency of the dutch roll (DR) respectively
the short period (SP) motion are used. By an appropriate choice of the implemented constants for the transfer
functions, i.e. the time constants respectively the natural frequency and the natural damping ratio, also the actuator
dynamics can be accounted for in the linear transfer functions.
As can be noticed from the above equations, the nx -dynamics depend on the ny - and nz -dynamics while those
dynamics in turn are decoupled from the other dynamics. Alternatively, the ny- and nz -dynamics can be modeled in
such a way that they account for non-minimum phase behavior by the utilization of the following, slightly modified
equations:

( )
n GA, y A =
( )
− T y ⋅ s − 1 ⋅ ω 02, DR
(n )
G
A, y A,CMD (14)
s + 2 ⋅ ζ DR ⋅ ω 0, DR ⋅ s
2
+ ω 02, DR
− (Tz ⋅ s − 1) ⋅ ω 02,SP
(n )
G
A, z A =
s + 2 ⋅ ζ SP ⋅ ω 0,SP ⋅ s
2
+ ω 02,SP
(n )
G
A, z A,CMD (15)

The resulting aerodynamic load factors as well as the resulting first order time derivative of the kinematic bank
angle μ˙K then act as input to the outer loop with the non-linear translation equations of motion as mentioned above.

C. Inner Loop with Linear State-Space Models

For the simulation of the attitude and rotation dynamics of a flight system, also an inner loop with linear state-
space models can be utilized. For this purpose, the longitudinal dynamics of the aircraft are approximated by the
short-period motion with the states kinematic angle of attack αK and pseudo-pitch rate qK* whereas for the modeling
of the lateral dynamics a third order approach with the states pseudo-roll rate pK*, pseudo-yaw rate rK* and kinematic
angle of sideslip βK is implemented:

6
American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics
 ⎛ α KG ⎞ ⎡0 Z q + 1⎤ ⎛ α KG ⎞ ⎡ Zα Zη ⎤ ⎛ α AG ⎞
⎜ * ⎟=⎢ ⎜ ⎟
⎜ q ⎟ 0 M ⎥ ⋅ ⎜ q * ⎟ + ⎢ M ⋅⎜ ⎟
M η ⎥⎦ ⎜⎝η CMD ⎟⎠
(16)
⎝ K⎠ ⎣ q ⎦ ⎝ K ⎠ ⎣ α
⎛ p K ⎞ ⎡ L p
*
Lr 0⎤ ⎛ p K ⎞ ⎡ Lξ
*
Lζ Lβ ⎤ ⎛ ξ CMD ⎞
⎜ * ⎟ ⎢ ⎥ ⎜ ⎟ ⎢ ⎥ ⎜ ⎟
⎜ rK ⎟ = ⎢ N p Nr 0⎥ ⋅ ⎜ rK* ⎟ + ⎢ N ξ Nζ N β ⎥ ⋅ ⎜ ζ CMD ⎟ (17)
⎜ β G ⎟ ⎢ Y ⎥ ⎜ G⎟ ⎢ Yβ ⎥⎦ ⎜⎝ β AG ⎟⎠
⎝ K ⎠ ⎣ p Yr − 1 0⎦ ⎝ β K ⎠ ⎣ Yξ Yζ
With the linear state-space models, the coupling between the longitudinal states respectively between the lateral
states is accounted for, while the lateral motion is still decoupled from the longitudinal motion. Since the
aerodynamic angle of attack αA and the aerodynamic sideslip angle βA are chosen as inputs to the linear state-space
model while the kinematic angle of attack αK and the kinematic sideslip angle βK represent the states, any wind of
arbitrary force can be incorporated in the state-space models. The aerodynamic load factors with their components
given in the Aerodynamic Frame A are calculated from the net aerodynamic forces, where D denotes the
aerodynamic drag force, Q the aerodynamic force in the direction of the y-axis and L the lift:
⎛− D⎞
1 ⎜ ⎟
( )
K
n GA A = ⎜ Q ⎟
mg ⎜
(18)
⎟
⎝ − L ⎠A
The first order time derivative of the flight-path bank angle μ˙K that is also required as an input to the translation
equations of motion is set equal to the pseudo-roll rate pK* obtained with the third-order model for the lateral
dynamics:

(μ )
G
K K = p *K (19)

D. Non-Linear Inner Loop

The most accurate and realistic alternative of modeling for the inner loop of the simulation model is a full, non-
linear inner loop describing the attitude and rotational dynamics of the flight system. To this end, the attitude can no
longer be specified with respect to the NED-Frame by the Euler-angles Ψ, Θ and Φ as usual but has to be specified
with respect to the kinematic trajectory respectively the Kinematic Flight-Path Frame K. This means that the attitude
is given by the angles between the Body-Fixed Frame B and the Intermediate Kinematic Flight-Path Frame K̅ with
the associate kinematic attitude angles αK, βK and μK. Then, the corresponding equations of motion for the attitude
dynamics and the rotational dynamics are given by:

⎛ α KG ⎞
⎛
⎜
1
( )
⋅ ωKKB, y ⋅ cos μ KG + ωKKB, z ⋅ sin μ KG
⎞
⎟
⎜ cos β K
G
⎜ ⎟ ⎟
⎜ βKG ⎟ =⎜ ωKKB, y ⋅ sin μ KG − ωKKB, z ⋅ cos μ KG ⎟ (20)
⎜⎜ G ⎟⎟
⎝ μK ⎠

⎜ KB G
(
⎜ ωK , x − tan β K ⋅ ωK , y ⋅ cos μ K + ωK , z ⋅ sin μ K
KB G KB G
)
⎟
⎟
K
⎜ ⎟
⎝ ⎠K

( ) ( ) [( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ]
K IB B
ω K B = I G −1
BB ⋅ M
KG K IB G
T B − ω K B × I BB ⋅ ω K B
K IB (21)

Here, the first order time derivative of the flight-path bank angle μ˙K will not be integrated directly as in case of a
state but will be used as the required input to the outer loop respectively the translation equations of motion. Finally,
the load factors also needed as input can be calculated in exactly the same manner as for the linear inner loop with
state-space modeling (see Eq. (18)).

7
American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics
 III. Statement of the Optimization Problem
In general, an optimal control problem can be stated as follows: Determine the optimal control history

u opt (t ) ∈ R m (22)

and the corresponding optimal state trajectory

x opt (t ) ∈ R n (23)

that minimize the Bolza cost functional

tf

J = e(x(t f ), t f ) + ∫ L(x(t ), u(t ), t )dt (24)

t0
subject to the state dynamics

x (t ) = f (x(t ), u(t ), t ) (25)

the initial and final boundary conditions

ψ 0 (x(t0 ), u(t0 ), t0 ) = 0 ψ0 ∈ Rq q ≤ m+n (26)

ψ f (x(t f ), u(t f ), t f ) = 0 ψ f ∈Rp p≤m+n (27)

the interior point conditions

r (x(ti ), u(ti ), ti ) = 0 r ∈ Rk (28)

and the equality and inequality conditions

Ceq (x(t ), u(t ), t ) = 0 Ceq ∈ R r (29)

Cineq (x(t ), u(t ), t ) ≤ 0 Cineq ∈ R s (30)

For the air race trajectory optimization problem, the Bolza cost functional reduces to a Mayer functional since
the only objective is to minimize the final time:

J min,time = t f (31)

For the simulation model with linear transfer functions for the load factors and the roll rate as inner loop, the
state vector and the control vector are as follows:

[ ]
T
x = x, y, z, VK , q0 , q1 , q2 , q3 , nx , A , n y , A , n y , A , nz , A , n z , A , p K* , δ T (32)

[ ]
T
u = n y , A,CMD , nz , A,CMD , p K* ,CMD , δ T ,CMD (33)

In case of the simulation model with the inner loop modeled by linear state-space models, one has the following
state vector respectively control vector:

[ ]
T
x = x, y, z, VK , α K , β K , q0 , q1 , q2 , q3 , pK* , qK* , rK* , δ T (34)

8
American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics
 u = [η , ξ , ζ , δ T ,CMD ]
T
(35)

Finally, the state vector and control vector for the inner loop with the full, non-linear attitude and rotational
dynamics are:

[ K
]
T
x = x, y, z, VK , α K , β K , q0 , q1 , q2 , q3 , ω IB
K , δT
(36)

u = [η , ξ , ζ , δ T ,CMD ]
T
(37)

The initial boundary conditions for the optimization problem are given by the position of the start gate, whereas
the final boundary conditions are determined by the location of the finishing gate and the direction the finishing gate
has to be passed by the aircraft:
K K
r (t0 ) − rStartGate = 0
r (t f ) − rFinalGate = 0
K K (38)

The requirement that the pilot has to fly through certain gates in a certain direction and at given bank angles
imposes interior point conditions to the trajectory optimization problem. Basically, there are two different types of
gates, level gates and knife edge gates. Level gates have to be passed wings level, i.e. with the kinematic bank angle
μK equal to zero whereas knife edge gates have to be flown through with a bank angle μK = 90°. The resulting
conditions read:
μ K (rKnifeEdgeGate ) − 90° = 0°
K
K
μ K (rLevelGate ) = 0°
(39)

By separating the entire race trajectory into multiple phases, these interior point conditions are transformed into
final boundary conditions for each phase. The phases then have to be connected to the preceding phases to guarantee
the continuity of the state and the control time histories:
xi −1 (t f ,i−1 ) − xi (t0,i ) = 0 i = 2,..., n
u i −1 (t f ,i−1 ) − u i (t0,i ) = 0
(40)
i = 2,..., n
where n denotes the number of phases, tf,i the final time of the i-th phase and t0,i the initial time of the i-th phase.
Additionally, equality and inequality conditions have to be fulfilled along the flight path for an air race. Among
others, the most important inequality path conditions result from safety regulations and require that a certain load
factor limit must not be exceeded and that a minimum distance to the crowd has to be accounted for. Further,
inequality conditions affect the performance limits of the aircraft, i.e. the maximum roll rate or the maximum angle
of attack. These conditions are cast in the following form:
⎛ (nZ ,min − nZ (t )) ⋅ (nZ (t ) − nZ ,max ) ⎞
⎜ ⎟
⎜
⎜
( K K
d min − r (t ) − rCrowd (t ) 2 )⎟
⎟
⎟≤0
⎜
( )
(41)
⎜ p K (t ) − p K ,max ⎟
⎜ ⎟
⎜ (α − α (t )) ⋅ (α ( t ) − α )⎟
⎝ A,min A A A,max ⎠

IV. Description of the Optimization Procedure

A challenging task for the solution of every optimization problem is the creation of an initial guess that comes as
close as possible to the optimal solution in order to guarantee stability and robustness of the optimization process as
well as good convergence properties. The above described simulation model allows for the setting up of an
optimization procedure that is well suited for the generation of a good initial guess for the optimization of air race
trajectories with full, non-linear 6-degree of freedom simulation models. This novel procedure is described in the
following, an overview of the various steps performed during this procedure is depicted in Fig. 2.

9
American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics
 First, an optimal solution for the race course utilizing the point-mass model without an inner loop has to be
found. The race course is divided into several phases, where each phase is defined as the flight path segment
between two succeeding gates. An optimal solution for the first phase is computed using a homotopy procedure: at
first, an optimization problem is solved where the starting gate and the next gate are positioned in line such that the
aircraft can pass the two gates straight and level. Then, the position of the second gate and the attitude of the aircraft
when flying through this gate are gradually changed until they meet the final boundary conditions given by the real
position and type of the second gate. The final state and control values of the first phase are then utilized as the
initial values for the second phase and an optimal solution for the second phase is computed just in the same manner
as it has been computed for the first phase. This procedure is repeated until the last phase of the air race track is
reached. Then, the computed states and controls of all the phases are put together, giving a quite good initial guess
for the optimization of the whole air race trajectory based on the point-mass model.

No Inner Loop
Linear Transfer Functions
& Inversion Controller
& Error Feedbacks
Linear Transfer Functions
OPTIMIZATION

SIMULATION
& Inversion Controller
Linear State-Space Models
& Inversion Controller
& Error Feedbacks
Linear State-Space Models
& Inversion Controller
Non-Linear Inner Loop
& Inversion Controller & Error Feedbacks
(Full Rotation & Attitude Dynamics)
Non-Linear Inner Loop
& Inversion Controller
(Full Rotation & Attitude Dynamics)

Non-Linear Inner Loop

without Inversion Controller
(Full Rotation & Attitude Dynamics)
Figure 2. Inner Loop Structure for Optimization and Simulation.
When the optimal air race trajectory for the point-mass model has been computed, the modeling complexity of
the simulation model respectively its inner loop is increased step by step. First, the linear inner loop with transfer
functions for the load factors and the roll rate is incorporated into the simulation model. The load factors and the roll
rate that result from the optimization based on the point-mass model are set equal to the load factors and roll rate
command inputs that are now the input signals to the inner loop with linear transfer functions. By simulating the air
race trajectory with the “optimal” command inputs obtained from the optimization with the point-mass model
without any inner loop, the resultant simulated trajectory deviates from the optimal trajectory found for the point-
mass model since now the simulation model features an inner loop with linear transfer functions is built into. Hence,
for the simulation task error feedbacks are implemented in the simulation model to force the simulated trajectory for
the model with linear transfer functions onto the optimal trajectory found for the model without inner loop. Of
course, the control history resulting from the simulation is unlikely to be optimal since the cost function is not
minimized by optimization, but an initial guess for the optimization task utilizing a model with linear transfer
functions has been generated that fulfills all boundary conditions and might already come close to the final optimal
solution.
Once the optimal solution for the air race trajectory utilizing a simulation model with the attitude and rotational
dynamics represented by linear transfer functions has been computed, the obtained time histories for the controls can

10
American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics
then be used as command inputs for the simulation of the air race trajectory taking into account an simulation model
that features an inner loop with linear state-space models augmented by the appropriate inversion controller. Again,
the simulated trajectory is likely to deviate from the optimal trajectory found for the model with linear transfer
functions since now linear state-space models are incorporated into the simulation model. Thus, the modeling
fidelity is increased and in contrast to the optimization based on linear transfer functions for the inner loop, the
coupling between the states in the longitudinal motion respectively the coupling between the states in the lateral
motion is now incorporated in the simulation model. Due to this reason, error feedbacks are used to force the aircraft
model with state-space models onto the optimal trajectory based on a model with transfer functions.
In the next step of the optimization procedure, the time histories found by simulating the trajectory for the model
with linear state-space models, inversion controller and error feedbacks in turn can be used as command inputs for
the optimization of the air race track utilizing the simulation model with linear state-space models supplemented by
the appropriate inversion controller as inner loop.
Stepping forward in the optimization procedure, the command signals that are optimal for the simulation model
with the state-space models and the inversion controller are then used as command inputs for a simulation based on
the model with the non-linear inner loop combined with the respective inversion controller. As before, the resulting
deviations from the optimal trajectory for the simulation model with state-space models are corrected by suitable
error feedbacks, giving a time history for the controls that is not optimal for the increased modeling fidelity but that
results in a sub-optimal trajectory that obeys all boundary conditions and thus represents a good initial guess for the
optimization task based on the simulation model with the full, non-linear rotation and attitude dynamics inclusively
inversion controller.
Computing the optimal race trajectory for this level of the simulation model in turn yields time histories for the
control surface deflections. Finally, these deflection time histories can be utilized as quite good initial guesses for
the optimization of an air race trajectory based on a full 6-degree of freedom simulation model with non-linear
attitude and rotational dynamics without any inversion controller where the control surface deflections are the
directly commanded inputs.
By the approach described, both the stability and the robustness of the optimization process and the convergence
properties of the various optimization tasks can be increased significantly since for each step in the entire
optimization procedure very good initial guesses for the optimal solution can be derived from the preceding step,
while the optimization task itself starts with a comparably simple optimization problem.

V. Results
In order to show the capability of the developed approach to optimize aerobatic maneuvers, the optimal
trajectory for flying a Half Cuban Eight has been computed. The result is shown in Fig. 3.

Figure 3. Half Cuban Eight.

11
American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics
 As mentioned above, wind has a great influence on the optimal race trajectory. This can be shown very
illustrative for an aircraft flying the Half Cuban Eight. Without any wind, the aircraft accomplishes the Half Cuban
Eight exactly in the vertical plane, while with crosswind the aircraft pulls up against the wind and flies down with
the wind. This means that the plane in which the aircraft flies the Half Cuban Eight is inclined towards the direction
where the wind comes from. The described effect can be seen very clearly in Fig. 4. Here, an optimal trajectory for a
Half Cuban Eight that is not influenced by any wind is depicted in comparison to the optimal trajectory for a Half
Cuban Eight with wind where the wind blows from the west with the aircraft initially heading northward.

Figure 4. Half Cuban Eight without (blue) and with wind (grey).

The above stated trajectory optimization problem has been solved using a direct multiple shooting method. As
mentioned above, the complete air race track has been divided into sixteen phases, where the single phases have
been defined as the flight path segments between the various gates. The optimized air race trajectory is shown in
Fig. 5.

Figure 5. Optimized Race Track (San Diego).

Although the race track is two-dimensional, i.e. the race gates are all on the same level, the resulting optimal
trajectory is three-dimensional. This is especially true for the 270°-turn that is necessary for flying through the

12
American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics
 “quad”: here, the aircraft pulls up in order to shorten the flight time for this maneuver. A complete air race track
consists of two rounds and thus the optimization is also done for two rounds, but in Fig. 4 the second round is
omitted for illustration purposes.

VI. Conclusion
With the newly developed approach that is the utilization of a point-mass model supplemented by rotation
dynamics with scalable fidelity, the dynamic order of the flight system used for the simulation and optimization of
air race trajectories can easily be adjusted to the required level of accuracy. Furthermore, an optimization procedure
is presented where the complexity of the simulation model used for the optimization is increased step-by-step while
the optimal solution that has been found for a specific level of complexity is utilized as initial guess for the
subsequent level of complexity. Since the initial guesses are quite close to the particular optimal solution of the
optimization task, the robustness and the stability of the optimization procedure is guaranteed.
Especially for the optimization of trajectories based on a full, non-linear 6-degree of freedom simulation model,
difficulties that would result from the instantaneous usage of such a simulation model for an air race optimization
task can be avoided. The capability of the novel approach has been demonstrated by the optimization of an aerobatic
maneuver, the Half Cuban Eight and the optimization of an entire air race course.

References
1
Bulirsch, R., Montrone, F., and Pesch, H. J., "Abort Landing in the Presence of Windshear as a Minimax Optimal Control
Problem - Part 1: Necessary Conditions," Journal of Optimization Theory and Applications, Vol. 70, No. 1, 1991.
2
Fisch, F., et al., "Airframe and Trajectory Pursuit Modeling for Simulation Assisted Air Race Planning," AIAA Modeling and
Simulation Technologies Conference and Exhibit, Honolulu, Hawaii, 2008, AIAA-2008-6532.
3
Bryson, A. E., and Ho, Y.-C., Applied Optimal Control: Optimization, Estimation and Control, 1st ed., Taylor & Francis,
London, 1975.
4
Bryson, A. E., Dynamic Optimization, 1st ed., Pearson Education, London, 1998.
5
Corban, J. E., et al., "On-Line Trajectory Optimization for Autonomous Air Vehicles," Guided Systems Techologies, Inc.,
McDonough, Georgia, GST-06-1-F, 2007.
6
Hull, D. G., Optimal Control Theory for Applications, Springer Verlag, New York, 2003.
7
Miele, A., Wang, T., and Melvin, W. W., "Optimal Take-Off Trajectories in the Presence of Windshear," Journal of
Optimization Theory and Applications, Vol. 49, No. 1, 1986, pp. 1-45.
8
Ringertz, U., "Optimal Trajectory for a Minimum Fuel Turn," Journal of Aircraft, Vol. 37, No. 5, 2000, pp. 932-34.
9
Nguyen, N., "Singular Arc Time-Optimal Climb Trajectory of Aircraft in a Two-Dimensional Wind Field," AIAA Guidance,
Navigation, and Control Conference and Exhibit, Keystone, Colorado, 2006, AIAA-2006-6598.
10
Gill, P. E., Murray, W., and Saunders, M. A., "SNOPT: An SQP Algorithm for Large-Scale Constrained Optimization,"
SIAM Journal of Optimization, Vol. 12, No. 4, 2002, pp. 979-1006.
11
Schultz, R. L., "Three-Dimensional Trajectory Optimization for Aircraft," Journal of Guidance, Vol. 13, No. 6, 1987, pp.
936-943.
12
Bocvarov, S., Lutze, F. H., Cliff, E. M., and Well, K. H., "Time-Optimal Reorientation Maneuvers for an Aircraft with
Thrust-Vector Control," AIAA Guidance, Navigation and Control Conference, New Orleans, LA, 1991, AIAA-1991-2709.
13
Grimm, W., and Hans, M., "Time-Optimal Turn to a Heading: An Improved Analytic Solution," Journal of Guidance,
Control and Dynamics, Vol. 21, No. 6, 1990, pp. 940-947.
14
"Trajectory Optimization Using 6-DOF Vehicle Models," 10th IFAC Workshop on Control Applications of Optimization,
Haifa, Israel, 1995.
15
Gill, P. E., Murray, W., and Saunders, M. A., User's Guide for SNOPT Version 7: Software for Large-Scale Nonlinear
Programming, University of California, Department of Mathematics, San Diego, CA, 2007.

13
American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics

View publication stats