Presentation is loading. Please wait.

Presentation is loading. Please wait.

Silvia Ferrari and Mark Jensenius Department of Mechanical Engineering Duke University Crystal City, VA, September 28, 2005 Robust and.

Similar presentations


Presentation on theme: "Silvia Ferrari and Mark Jensenius Department of Mechanical Engineering Duke University Crystal City, VA, September 28, 2005 Robust and."— Presentation transcript:

1 Silvia Ferrari and Mark Jensenius Department of Mechanical Engineering Duke University Infotech@Aerospace Crystal City, VA, September 28, 2005 Robust and Reconfigurable Flight Control by Neural Networks

2 A Multiphase Learning Approach for Automated Reasoning  On-line Control Identification Planning Routing Scheduling... Supervised Learning: Reinforcement Learning: The same performance metric is optimized during both phases!

3 Introduction Stringent operational requirements introduce Complexity Nonlinearity Uncertainty Classical/neural synthesis of control systems A-priori control knowledge Adaptive neural networks Action network takes immediate control action Critic network evaluates the action network performance Dual heuristic programming adaptive critic architecture:

4 Sigmoidal neural networks for control: coping with complexity Applicability to nonlinear systems Applicability to multivariable systems Batch and incremental training Closed-loop stability and robustness by IQCs Constrained training for robust adaptation on line Motivation

5 Full Envelope Control! Modeling On-line Training Design Approach Initialization Linear Control Linearizations

6 Nonlinear Dynamical System Full-scale Aircraft Simulation: In particular: State vector: Control vector: Vector of parameters: Output vector: YBYB XBXB ZBZB Thrust Drag Lift V mg p q r  

7 Classical Control Design Linearizations: Altitude (m) Velocity (m/s) Classical linear designs: Multivariable control (PI) Multi-objective synthesis (LMI) Flight envelope and design points: (  =  =  = 0) k  ( )

8 Input-to-node variable One-hidden Layer Sigmoidal Neural Network s - Hidden nodes Output: z = NN(p) Input: p Adjustable parameters: W, d, v w 11 p1p2...pqp1p2...pq...... 1 d1d1 1 d2d2 1 dsds w sq n1n1 n2n2 nsns...... v1v1 v2v2 vsvs 1 b z 11 22 ss Output equations: z = v T  [Wp + d] Gradient equations: v i  '(n i )w ij, j = 1,..., q

9 Training set: Requirements: Output and Gradient Initialization Equations: General Algebraic Training Approach Known neural network.. Gradient Output Input (c k ) T = W T {v  [Wx k + d]} u k = v T  [Wx k + d] u = Sv c k = B k W

10 Gradient-based Algebraic Training n: vector of all input-to-node constants, n i k c: vector of feedback gains b: output bias vector Assume each input-to-node variable, is a known constant Then, n is known and the initialization equations can be written as: Linear algebraic initialization equations: where: Vec operator ; to be solved for w a ; to be solved for w x ; to be solved for v ~

11 A: (p 2 3s) sparse matrix of scheduling variables S: (p s) matrix of sigmoidal functions of n X: (np ns) sparse matrix evaluated from v and n where: k = 1, 2,..., p Initialization Matrices

12 Linear Control Comparison of Initialized PI NN and Linear Controllers Time (sec) Velocity (m/s) Climb Angle (deg) Large-Angle Maneuver Small-Angle Maneuver Initialized Neural Network Control Aircraft Response to Climb-Angle Command Input, at Interpolating Conditions (H 0, V 0 ) = (2Km, 95 m/s)

13 Stability Analysis via Integral Quadratic Constraints (IQCs) Standard feedback interconnection between a transfer matrix G(s) or LTI system, and a causal bounded operator  : IQC Stability Theorem: G(s)G(s) w v  Equivalent LMI feasibility problem with positive, real parameters p i and symmetric matrix P:  , then the interconnection is stable. If there exists  > 0, such that,

14 Closed-loop Stability of Neural Network Controller Closed-loop system comprised of NN controller and LTI model, Lure-type System Applying the IQC Stability Theorem:  is a bdd, causal diagonal operator with repeated nonlinearities that are monotonically non-decreasing, slope-restricted, and belong to [0, 0.5]. Thus, the stability of the NN controlled system is guaranteed if there exists constant symmetric matrices M, P   s  s that satisfy the following LMIs: i = 1, …, s B N = BV, C N = WC a

15 Adaptive Critic On-line Adaptation ycyc x(t)x(t) + + + _ u(t)u(t) ucuc + _ xcxc ys(t)ys(t) e a NN F SVG CSG  V/  x a (t)(t) NN A NN C

16 Dynamic Programming Approach By The Principle of Optimality, Time J*J* terminal cost t0t0 ttftf the minimization of J can be imbedded in the minimization of V(t): V*V* t0t0 ttftf terminal cost a b c V * abc = V ab + V * bc

17 Critic network criterion: = NN C Target at t NN A Target at t Action network criterion (optimality condition): Recurrence relation [Howard, 1960] : Dual Heuristic Programming

18 Action/Critic Network On-line Learning, at Time t The (action/critic) network must meet its target, NN +  NN Target Generation E  Network performance   Network error w  Network weights w l+1 = w l +  w l w(t) = w 0 w(t + 1) wlwl w l+1 RProp Modified Resilient Backpropagation (RProp) minimizes E w.r.t. w:

19 Adaptive vs. Fixed NN Controllers During a Coupled Maneuver Velocity (m/s) Climb Angle (deg) Roll Angle (deg) Sideslip Angle (deg) Time (sec) Aircraft response, (H 0, V 0 ) = (2 Km, 95 m/s) Adaptive Critic Neural Control: Fixed Neural Control: Command Input:

20 Adaptive vs. Fixed NN Controllers During a Large-Angle Maneuver Velocity (m/s) Climb Angle (deg) Roll Angle (deg) Sideslip Angle (deg) Time (sec) Aircraft response, (H 0, V 0 ) = (7 Km, 160 m/s) Adaptive Critic Neural Control: Command Input: Fixed Neural Control:

21 Adaptive vs. Fixed NN Controllers During a Large-Angle Maneuver Adaptive Critic Neural Control Fixed Neural Control Time (sec)  T (%) Control history, (H 0, V 0 ) = (7 Km, 160 m/s)  S (deg)  A (deg)  R (deg) Trajectory Altitude (m) North (m) East (m)

22 Fixed Neural Controller Performance in the Presence of Control Failures Time (sec) Aircraft response, (H 0, V 0 ) = (3 Km, 100 m/s) Fixed Neural Control Command Input Control history Time (sec)  T (%)  S (deg)  A (deg)  R (deg) Control Failures:  T = 0, 0  t  10 sec  S = 0, 5  t  10 sec  R = –34 o, t  5  R = 0, 5  t  10 sec V (m/s)  (deg)  (deg)  (deg)  (deg)

23 Adaptive vs. Fixed NN Controllers in the Presence of Control Failures Time (sec) Adaptive Critic Neural Control Fixed Neural Control  T (%) Control history, (H 0, V 0 ) = (7 Km, 160 m/s)  S (deg)  A (deg)  R (deg) Control Failures: (10  t  15 sec)  T max = 50%  R = – 15 o

24 Adaptive vs. Fixed NN Controllers in the Presence of Control Failures Velocity (m/s) Climb Angle (deg) Roll Angle (deg) Sideslip Angle (deg) Time (sec) Aircraft response after t = 10 sec, (H 0, V 0 ) = (3 Km, 100 m/s) Adaptive Critic Neural Control: Command Input: Fixed Neural Control: Yaw Angle (deg) Angle of Attack (deg)

25 M1M1 M2M2 a1a1 ~ a2a2 ~ 1 a WAWA WRWR V xaxa ~ u ~ or b Robust Adaptation: Constrained Algebraic Training

26 , b, A, W A constrained weights unconstrained weights Zero Randomized Design points Hyperspherical initialization construction functions Neural Network Weights Partitioning

27 Interpolation Point

28 Linear Non-adapting Neural Adapting Neural Controller Performance at Interpolation Point

29 Linear Non-adapting Neural Adapting Neural Controller Performance at Interpolation Point

30 Linear Non-adapting Neural Adapting Neural On-line Cost Optimization through Adaptation

31 Action Neural Networkt = 0 sect = 5 sect = 10 sec Constrained Output MSE 2.729 x10 -7 2.404 x10 -7 5.555 x10 -7 Unconstrained Output MSE 2.729 x10 -7 1.770 x10 12 3.168 x10 11 Constrained Gradient MSE 8.470 x10 -28 7.545 x10 -26 4.057 x10 -27 Unconstrained Gradient MSE 8.470 x10 -28 7.848 x10 -4 1.373 x10 -4 Adaptive NN Controller Performance at Design Points

32 Extrapolation Point

33 Linear Non-adapting Neural Adapting Neural Controller Performance at Extrapolation Point

34 Linear Non-adapting Neural Adapting Neural Controller Performance at Extrapolation Point

35 Summary of Results Properties of learning control system:  Improves global performance  Lends itself to stability and robustness analysis via IQCs  Preserves prior knowledge through constrained training  Suspends and resumes adaptation, as appropriate Future work:  Computational complexity  Aircraft system identification by neural networks  Stochastic effects  Optimal estimation Acknowledgment: This research is funded by the National Science Foundation.

36 Silvia Ferrari Department of Mechanical Engineering Duke University Many Thanks to: Mark Jensenius Robust and Reconfigurable Flight Control by Neural Networks

37 Backup Slides

38 CBCB P CICI C F, f[] = 0 : Algebraic Initialization, Proportional-Integral Neural Network Controller yc(t)yc(t) x(t)x(t) + + + + - u(t)u(t) uc(t)uc(t) + - uB(t)uB(t) uI(t)uI(t) xc(t)xc(t) ys(t)ys(t) e(t)e(t) a(t)a(t) NN F SVG CSG (t)(t) : On-line Training. NN I NN C NN B

39 Feedback Neural Network Initialization zB(t)zB(t) NN B a Linear optimal control law: Initialization Requirements: At each design point (k), (R1) (R2)

40 Development of Feedback Initialization Equations Feedback Neural Network Initialization Equations: Network output: j = 1, 2,..., q Network gradient: l = 1, 2,..., m where is the l th -row of the matrix where and


Download ppt "Silvia Ferrari and Mark Jensenius Department of Mechanical Engineering Duke University Crystal City, VA, September 28, 2005 Robust and."

Similar presentations


Ads by Google