Disturbance Rejection and Robust Least-Squares Control

Allocation in Flight Control System

Lei Cui

and Ying Yang

Peking University, 100871 Beijing, Peoples Republic of China

DOI: 10.2514/1.52234
The problem of disturbance rejection and control allocation with an uncertain control effectiveness matrix is
investigated in this paper for a ight control system. An H
2
=H
1
feedback controller is designed to produce the three
axis moments and simultaneously suppress disturbance noise. Afeedforward controller is used to track the reference
signals. Under the conditionof uncertainty includedinthe control effectiveness matrix, a robust least-squares scheme
is employed to deal with the problem of distributing the three axis moments to the corresponding control surfaces.
The proposed robust least-squares control allocation is studied for both unstructured and structured uncertainties.
To illustrate the effectiveness of the proposed scheme, a simulation for an experimental satellite launch vehicle model
is conducted. Comparisons of robust least-squares control allocation and pseudoinverse control allocation are
presented. Results showthat a disturbance is rejected and robust least-squares control allocation is effectively robust
to uncertain control effectiveness matrix.
Nomenclature
A, B, C, C
0
= state-space model matrices
B, G, M, R, S = linear subspaces
J
1
, J
2
, J
3
, J
4
= disturbance
I
m
= identity matrix m m
m = dimension of control input
s, , q = constant scalars
u = control input vector
u u u = upper and lower bounds for vector u
u
max
, u
min
= upper and lower position constraints
_ u
rate
= maximal actuator rates
u
1
, u
2
, u
3
, u
4
= deection of the actuators of strapons
u
5
, u
6
, u
7
, u
8
= engine thrusters
: = virtual control moment vector
x = state vector
X >0(<0) = positive (negative) denite matrix X
y, y
0
= control and measurement outputs
z
1
, z
2
, z
3
, z
4
, L,
, z, j, t
= variables in optimization and LMIs
o, [ = weighting scalars
; = upper bound of H
o
performance index
A, B = uncertainties in state-space model matrices
i = sampling period
o, c = column vectors
j = upper bound of H
2
performance index
0 = angle of pitch
_
0 = pitch rate
, = upper bound of uncertainty
= angle of roll
_
= roll rate
[ = angle of yaw
_
[ = yaw rate

= Kronecker product

= direct sum
[ v [ = 2-norm for a vector
Subscripts
J = disturbance
r = reference
: = virtual control
Superscripts
T = vector or matrix transpose
1 = matrix inverse
= pseudoinverse of matrix
Introduction
M
ODERN aircraft often use redundant control inputs for
tracking ight paths. A system with more inputs than degrees
of freedom (DOF) is an overactuated system [13]. The reference
signals can be tracked with a certain combination of existing control
effectors. Control allocation is able to distribute the virtual control
law requirements to the control effectors in the best possible manner
while accounting for their constraints [4]. Even under the condition
that control effectors are damaged, the control reallocation can be
implemented without redesigning the control law for fault-tolerant
control.
Control allocation is an active research eld in the area of over-
actuated aerospace control systems. In the past 15 years, voluminous
results have been developed. The general approaches of control
allocation include interior-point algorithms [4], weighted pseudoin-
verse (WPI) [5], linear programming [6], quadratic programming [6],
sequential least-squares [6], redistributed WPI techniques, daisy
chain control allocation [7], direct control allocation [8,9], dynamic
control allocation [10], and quantized control allocation [11].
Generally speaking, most previous works study linear control
allocation by programming algorithms, which can be iteratively
conducted to minimize the error between the commands produced by
virtual control law and the moments produced by practical actuator
combinations. Furthermore, researchers have intensively considered
the problemof controller design and control allocation for an aircraft
with redundant actuators [57,12]. In [5], an online sliding mode
control allocation scheme for fault-tolerant control has been pro-
posed. Backstepping and control allocation have been investigated in
[6]. In [7], the relationship between daisy chain control allocation
and the stability of the system is studied. Optimal controller design
and control allocation have been proposed in [12].
Received 31 August 2010; revision received 9 May 2011; accepted for
publication 15 May 2011. Copyright 2011 by the authors. Published by the
American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics, Inc., with permission.
Copies of this paper may be made for personal or internal use, on condition
that the copier pay the $10.00 per-copy fee to the Copyright Clearance Center,
Inc., 222 Rosewood Drive, Danvers, MA01923; include the code 0731-5090/
11 and $10.00 in correspondence with the CCC.

Ph.D. Candidate, State Key Laboratory for Turbulence and Complex

Systems, Department of Mechanics and Aerospace Engineering, College of
Engineering; cuilei2007@pku.edu.cn.

Associate Professor, State Key Laboratory for Turbulence and Complex

Systems, Department of Mechanics and Aerospace Engineering, College of
Engineering; yy@mech.pku.edu.cn (Corresponding Author).
JOURNAL OF GUIDANCE, CONTROL, AND DYNAMICS
Vol. 34, No. 6, NovemberDecember 2011
1632
The uncertain control effectiveness matrix is not considered in
most of the current literature studying the control allocation problem.
In this paper, the main contribution is to provide an effective control
allocation method when the control effectiveness matrix is subject to
uncertainties. A new methodology of robust least-squares control
allocation (RLSCA) is proposed. When the control effectiveness
matrix is subject to different kinds of uncertainties, the control
allocation is carried out in different manners, which ensure the
distribution of the virtual control law requirements to the control
effectors. At the end of this paper, the proposed method is applied to a
closed-loop ight control system.
This paper starts with the problem statement. A virtual control
vector is produced by the output of a feedback controller and a
feedforward controller. In the next section, the robust least-squares
method is employed to deal with the problemof control allocation in
the presence of uncertainties in the control effectiveness matrix. The
validity of the method is illustrated through a design example.
Conclusions are given at the end of the paper.
Problem Statement
For the overactuated ight control systems, it is possible tosplit the
controller design into two steps [12,13]. Consider a closed-loop
ight control system with disturbance and uncertainty, especially
uncertainty included in the control effectiveness matrix. The two
steps can be described as follows:
Step 1: Virtual Control Law Design
Design an H
2
,H
o
control law specifying the total effort (virtual
control) to be produced (net torque, force, etc.). Simultaneously, this
controller can suppress disturbances and the closed-loop system is
robust to uncertainty provided that sufcient control authority exists
to produce the moments or accelerations commanded by the virtual
control law;
Step 2: Robust Least-Squares Control Allocation Design
With consideration of the uncertain control effectiveness matrix,
design a RLSCA algorithm that maps the total control demand onto
individual actuator settings (commanded aerosurfaces deections,
thrust, forces, etc.).
The equivalence between the approach denoted in the above two
steps and that of directly designing the real control law has been
studied in [12]. Separating the control allocation from controller
design has this salient advantage: the computation load can be greatly
reduced by redesigning the control allocation algorithm and keeping
the controller unchanged if a fault occurs in the control effectors.
The overall ight control system is presented in Fig. 1. The
satellite launch vehicle (SLV) model is the controlled plant. The
feedforward controller :
r
=K
ref
r is designed to track the reference
signal. The H
2
,H
o
feedback controller and feedforward controller
cooperate to produce the virtual control moment :. The RLSCAis the
new control allocation module, and it distributes the virtual control
moment : among the multiple control effectors u
|
(| =1. . . . . 8).
Consider a continuous-time linear SLV system with uncertainties
and disturbance
_ x(i) =(A A)x(i) B
:
(B B)u(i) B
J
J(i)
y
0
(i) =C
0
x(i) y(i) =Cx(i) (1)
where x(i) R
6
, u(i) R
8
, J(i) R
4
, y
0
(i) R
3
, and y(i) R
3
.
The uncertainty A is assumed to be norm bounded; that is,
A =HEE
with E R
|]
satisfying
E
T
E I
where H and E are appropriate dimensioned matrices.
The uncertainty Bis included in the control effectiveness matrix
B and can be categorized into three types: unstructured uncertainty,
structured uncertainty, and linear fractional structured uncertainty.
Dene the virtual control term :(i) R
3
as
:(i) =(B B)u(i)
which represents the three axis moments. Then, system (1) can be
rewritten as
_ x(i) =(A A)x(i) B
:
:(i) B
J
J(i)
y
0
(i) =C
0
x(i)
y(i) =Cx(i) (2)
Since control allocation is separated from controller design, two
problems will be studied in the following: H
2
,H
o
controller design
and RLSCA design.
Problem 1, H
2
,H
o
Controller Design: For the linear system (2),
design a state feedback control law
:
1
(i) =Kx(i)
such that the following hold:
1) The closed-loop system is asymptotically stable.
2) When J(i) is viewed as an energy-limited disturbance, the
transfer function fromJ(i) to y(i) is G(s), the H
o
performance of the
system satises
[G(s)[
o
< ;
3) When J(i) is considered as a white noise with unit power
spectral density, the transfer function fromJ(i) to y
0
(i) is G
0
(s), the
H
2
performance of the system satises
[G
0
(s)[
2
<j
Problem 2, RLSCA Design: Given a control effectiveness matrix
B, its uncertainty Band virtual control : design an optimal RLSCA
u
RLSCA
:
u
RLSCA
=arg min
uu u
max
[B[
o
,
[(B B)u :[ (3)
subject to the following:
1) The uncertainty B is an unknown bounded matrix satisfying
[B[
o
,
2) The control vector uis between the upper bound uand the lower
bound u:
_
u =min(u
max
. u i _ u
rate
)
u =max(u
min
. u i _ u
rate
)
(4)
Controller Design
The virtual control law includes an H
2
,H
o
feedback controller
and a feedforward controller. The aims of an H
2
,H
o
feedback
controller are to guarantee stability, suppress disturbances, and to be
robust to the uncertainty in matrix A. The main purpose of the
feedforward controller is to compensate for the closed-loop gain for
tracking reference signals. Fig. 1 Overall ight control system.
CUI ANDYANG 1633
Feedback Controller Design
The following lemmas are introduced to derive the robust
controller of the SLV considered later.
Lemma 1 [14]: Let the constant scalar ; >0 be given; then, there
exists a matrix P
1
>0 such that
(A HEE)
T
P
1
P
1
(A HEE) ;
2
P
1
BB
T
P
1
C
T
C <0
for all Ethat satises EE
T
<I if and only if there exists a scalar >0
such that
A
T
P
1
P
1
A ;
2
P
1
BB
T
P
1
P
1
HH
T
P
1

1

E
T
E C
T
C <0
Lemma 2 [15]: Consider a transfer function that G(s) =C(sI
A)
1
B RH
2
, with A stable, then the following result is obtained:
[G[
2
2
=trace(B
T
QB) =trace(CP
2
C
T
)
where Q and P
2
are observability and controllability gramians that
can be obtained from the following Lyapunov equations:
A
T
QQA C
T
C =0. AP
2
P
2
A
T
BB
T
=0
Theorem 1: For the given scalars o >0, [ >0 and system (2), if
the following optimal problem is feasible
min
;..j.P.L
o; [j
subject to
AP PA
T
B
:
L L
T
B
T
:
HH
T
B
J
PC
T
PE
T
+ ;I 0 0
+ + ;I 0
+ + + I
_
_
_
_
_

_
<0
(5)
jI C
0
P
PC
T
0
P
_ _
<0 (6)
H

P M

(AP B
:
L) M
T

(AP B
:
L)
T
<0 (7)
with variables L, P =P
T
> 0, ;, j, R, then :
1
(i) =LP
1
x(i) is
the H
2
,H
o
optimal feedback control law.
Proof: The closed-loop linear ight control system with the state
feedback :
1
(i) =Kx(i) can be rewritten as
_ x(i) =

A
c
x(i) B
J
J(i) y
0
(i) =C
0
x(i) y(i) =Cx(i)
where

A
c
A
c
HEE, A
c
A B
:
K.
1) The transfer function from the disturbance J to control output
y is
G(s) =C(sI

A
c
)
1
B
J
According to the bounded real lemma [15], [G(s)[
o
<; if and
only if there exists X >0 such that
X

A
c


A
T
c
X XB
J
R
1
B
T
J
X C
T
C <0
where R =;
2
I. Pre- and postmultiplying both sides of the above
inequality by X
1
, and dening X
1
=X
1
, the following inequality is
derived

A
c
X
1
X
1

A
T
c
B
J
R
1
B
T
J
X
1
C
T
CX
1
<0
Using the Schur complement lemma [15] and Lemma 1, let
X
1
=;P, the above inequality holds if and only if there exist L,
> 0, ; >0, and P =P
T
> 0 such that
A
c
P PA
T
c
HH
T
B
J
PC
T
PE
T
+ ;I 0 0
+ + ;I 0
+ + + I
_
_
_
_
_

_
<0
which is equivalent to Eq. (5) with the feedback gain matrix
K =LP
1
.
2) The transfer function from the disturbance J to measurement
output y
0
is
G
0
(s) =C
0
(sI

A
c
)
1
B
J
The H
2
norm of this transfer function satises [G
0
(s)[
2
<j.
Using Lemma 2, the H
2
performance index is [G
0
(s)[
2
=
trace{C
0
PC
T
0
]. Furthermore,
[G
0
(s)[
2
=trace{C
0
PC
T
0
] < j
where j > 0. Thus, Eq. (6) is obtained.
3) The poles of the closed-loop systemcan be assigned to the given
region if Eq. (7) is satised [16].
Combining Eqs. (57), minimizing both the H
o
part and H
2
part,
which multiply the weighting scalars o and [, respectively, the proof
of this theorem is completed.
From the preceding derivations, an H
2
,H
o
feedback controller
:
1
(i) =LP
1
x(i) satisfying the performance requirements in
problem 1 is designed.
Feedforward Controller Design
The nominal system is represented as
_ x =Ax B
:
: y =Cx
Since the tracked signals are square, the following derivation is
feasible. If the outputs have tracked the reference signals, the
nominal system must satisfy
_ x =Ax B
:
: =0 y =Cx =r (8)
Since A B
:
K is stable, (A B
:
K)
1
is guaranteed. By
substituting : =K
ref
r Kx into Eq. (8), one will obtain
C(B
:
K A)
1
B
:
:
r
=r==:
r
=(C(B
:
K A)
1
B
:
)
1
r
Dene that K
ref
=(C(B
:
K A)
1
B
:
)
1
, then the feedforward
controller :
r
=K
ref
r is designed.
Finally, the stability and tracking properties of the closed-loop
system are guaranteed by the control law : =K
ref
r Kx.
Robust Least-Squares Control Allocation
The problem of the control allocation with uncertain control
effectiveness matrix is solved by the robust least-squares scheme
proposed in [17,18].
As is stated in problem2, the focus of RLSCAis to nd the optimal
control vector u by minimizing the worst-case residual, under the
condition of the uncertainty included in control effectiveness matrix
B. When an aircraft ies in the atmospheric layer, the aerodynamic
parameter variation can be considered as a parameter uncertainty. In
this paper, the unstructured uncertainty, structured uncertainty, and
linear fractional structured uncertainty in the control effectiveness
matrix are considered. These three kinds of uncertainties in the ight
control system are reasonable [19,20]. Accordingly, the RLSCA
problem can be categorized into three types: unstructured RLSCA
(URLSCA), structured RLSCA (SRLSCA), and linear fractional
SRLSCA (LFSRLSCA).
Unstructured Robust Least-Squares Control Allocation
If the uncertainty is unstructured, the uncertainty is considered
as B.
1634 CUI ANDYANG
For the URLSCA problem,
u
URLSCA
=arg min
uu u
max
[B[
o
,
[(B B)u :[
where B is an unstructured uncertainty.
To solve this problem, the following derives URLSCA to a
second-order cone programming (SOCP) problem.
For a variable u in the interval of [u. u|, the worst-case residual is
r(u) = max
[B[
o
,
[(B B)u :[
Using the triangle inequality,
r(u) max
[B[
o
,
([Bu :[ [Bu[) =[Bu :[
max
[B[
o
,
[Bu[
Assume that
B =
,
[u[
cu
T
where
c =
_
Bu:
[Bu:[
. if Bu :;
any unit norm vector. otherwise
Then, in the direction of c, the worst-case residual is
r(u) =[Bu :[ ,[u[ (9)
The worst-case residual in Eq. (9) satises the following
[Bu :[ ,[u[ z
where zis the upper bound of the residual to be minimized by nding
the optimal u in the interval of [u. u|.
Thus, the URLSCAproblemcan be rewritten as a SOCP problem:
min
u.t.z
z
subject to [Bu :[ z t
,[u[ t
u u u (10)
with the variables u R
m
, t, and z R.
Theorem 2: The optimal solution u
URLSCA
to the URLSCA
problem is given by
u
URLSCA
=
_
(jI B
T
B)
1
B
T
:. if j
(zt)t,
2
t
2
,
2
s
> 0
B

:. else
where j 0, s =[ u[
2
[u[
2
, z, and t are the optimal solution to
problem (10).
Proof: The dual problem of (10) is
max
z
1
.z
2
.z
3
.z
4
:
T
z
1
u
T
z
3
u
T
z
4
subject to B
T
z
1
,z
2
=0
[z
1
[ 1
[z
2
[ 1
z
T
3
0
z
T
4
0 (11)
Both the primal and dual problems are feasible; then, there exists
an optimal point for each. According to optimization, the optimal
point of primal problem is equal to that of the dual problem.
If z =t is at the optimum, then Bu =: and
z =t =,[u[
Under this condition, u =B

: is the optimal solution. It is similar to

the pseudoinverse control allocation (PICA).
If z >t is feasible, the primal and dual optimal objectives are
equal:
[Bu :[ ,[u[ =z =:
T
z
1
u
T
z
3
u
T
z
4
=(Bu :)
T
z
1
[ u
T
u
T
u
T
|
B
T
z
1
z
3
z
4
_
_
_
_

_
The following is derived:
z
1
=
Bu :
[Bu :[
(12a)
B
T
z
1
z
3
z
4
_
_
_
_
=
,[u[
[u[
2
[ u[
2
[u[
2
u
u
u
_
_
_
_
(12b)
From Eq. (12b), the following is obtained:
B
T
z
1
=
,[u[
[u[
2
[ u[
2
[u[
2
u (13)
Substituting Eq. (12a) into Eq. (13) yields
B
T
Bu :
[Bu :[

,[u[
[u[
2
[ u[
2
[u[
2
u =0
Dene s =[ u[
2
[u[
2
; the optimal control vector u is
represented as
u =(jI B
T
B)
1
B
T
: (14a)
j =
(z t)t,
2
t
2
,
2
s
(14b)
Thus, the conclusion is achieved.
Structured Robust Least-Squares Control Allocation
When the uncertainty is unstructured, the worst-case residual of
URLSCA may be conservatively estimated [17]. Therefore,
SRLSCA problem is proposed.
Denition 1: For the given B, B
1
. . . . . B
q
R
nm
, Bis the nominal
control effectiveness matrix, B
|
(| =1. . . . . q) are the uncertain
matrices; thus, the structured uncertain control effectiveness matrix
can be represented as
B(o) B

q
|=1
o
|
B
|
(15)
where o =[o
1
. . . . . o
q
|
T
R
q
.
For the SRLSCA problem,
u
SRLSCA
=arg min
u<u< u
max
[o[,.
[B(o)u :[
where B(o) is dened in Eq. (15).
To obtain the optimal solution u
SRLSCA
to SRLSCA, the following
is given rst:
M(u) [B
1
u . . . B
q
u|. E(u) M(u)
T
M(u)
g(u) M(u)
T
(Bu :). h(u) (Bu :)
T
(Bu :)
CUI ANDYANG 1635
Theorem 3: The SRLSCA problem has an optimal solution
(z. t. u
SRLSCA
) if the following matrix inequality is solved:
min
uu u.t.z
z
subject to
z t h(u) ,g
T
(u)
,g(u) tI ,
2
E(u)
_ _
>0
with the variables u R
m
, t, and z >0.
Proof: Since the squared worst-case residual is represented as
r
2
S
(u) = max
o
T
o,
2
[ 1 o
T
|
h(u) g
T
(u)
g(u) E(u)
_ _
1
o
_ _
= max
o
/T
o
/
1
[ 1 o
/T
|
h(u) ,g
T
(u)
,g(u) ,
2
E(u)
_ _
1
o
/
_ _
To ensure r
2
S
(u) <z, it holds
[ 1 o
/T
|
h(u) ,g
T
(u)
,g(u) ,
2
E(u)
_ _
1
o
/
_ _
<z
For every o
/
=
o
,
, o
T
o ,
2
, if and only if there exists a scalar t >0
such that
[ 1 o
/T
|
z t h(u) ,g
T
(u)
,g(u) tI ,
2
E(u)
_ _
1
o
/
_ _
>0
Using the fact that t >0, which is implied by tI >,
2
E, and
rewriting the above inequality as
G(z. t)
z t h(u) ,g
T
(u)
,g(u) tI ,
2
E(u)
_ _
> 0 (16)
The proof of this theorem is completed.
The matrix inequality in Theorem 3 is nonlinear, and it cannot be
solved by linear matrix inequality (LMI) solution methods. There-
fore, with the denition of E, g, and h given above, the following
theorem is derived.
Theorem 4: The SRLSCA problem has an optimal solution
(z. t. u
SRLSCA
) if the following is solved:
min
u.t.z
z
subject to
z t 0 (Bu :)
T
0 tI ,M
T
(u)
(Bu :) ,M(u) I
_
_
_
_

_ >0
( u u)
T
l
1
0 0
0 ( u u)
T
l
2
0
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
0 0 ( u u)
T
l
m
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_

_
>0
(u u)
T
l
1
0 0
0 (u u)
T
l
2
0
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
0 0 (u u)
T
l
m
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_

_
>0
with the variables u R
m
, t, and z >0, the control signal is
u
T
=[u
1
. . . . . u
m
|, the upper and lower bounds of the control signal
are u
T
=[ u
1
. . . . . u
m
| and u
T
=[u
1
. . . . . u
m
|, and l
|
(| =1. . . . . m)
are unit column vectors and satisfy [l
1
. . . . . l
m
| =I
m
. For the SLV
system (1) being considered, m=8.
Proof: Equation (16) can be rewritten as
G(z. t) =
z t 0
0 tI
_ _

h(u) ,g
T
(u)
,g(u) ,
2
E(u)
_ _
=
z t 0
0 tI
_ _

(Bu :)
T
(Bu :) ,(M
T
(u)(Bu :))
T
,M
T
(u)(Bu :) ,
2
M
T
(u)M(u)
_ _
=
z t 0
0 tI
_ _

(Bu :)
T
,M
T
(u)
_ _
[ (Bu :) ,M(u) | >0
Using the Schur complement Lemma [15], the above is rewritten
as
G(z. t) =
z t 0 (Bu :)
T
0 tI ,M
T
(u)
(Bu :) ,M(u) I
_
_
_
_
>0
Thus, the non-LMI is rewritten as a LMI. To add the constraints to
u by LMIs, dene that u
T
=[u
1
. . . . . u
m
|, u
T
=[ u
1
. . . . . u
m
|,
and u
T
=[u
1
. . . . . u
m
|. The identity matrix is written as I
m
=
[l
1
. . . . . l
m
|.
Each element u
|
of control vector u is between its upper and lower
bounds:
u
|
<u
|
< u
|
(| =1. . . . . m) =
u
1
u
2
.
.
.
u
m
_
_
_
_
_
_

_
<
u
1
u
2
.
.
.
u
m
_
_
_
_
_
_

_
<
u
1
u
2
.
.
.
u
m
_
_
_
_
_
_

_
and rewrite the constraints on u as two LMIs:
u
1
u
2
.
.
.
u
m
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_

_
<
u
1
u
2
.
.
.
u
m
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_

_
=
u
1
u
1
0 0
0 u
2
u
2
0
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
0 0 u
m
u
m
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_

_
>0
=
( u u)
T
l
1
0 0
0 ( u u)
T
l
2
0
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
0 0 ( u u)
T
l
m
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_

_
>0
u
1
u
2
.
.
.
u
m
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_

_
<
u
1
u
2
.
.
.
u
m
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_

_
=
u
1
u
1
0 0
0 u
2
u
2
0
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
0 0 u
m
u
m
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_

_
>0
=
(u u)
T
l
1
0 0
0 (u u)
T
l
2
0
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
0 0 (u u)
T
l
m
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_

_
>0
The proof of this theorem is completed.
Linear Fractional Structured Robust Least-Squares
Control Allocation
In the SRLSCA problem, the norm bound of o may not be
convenient to measure the perturbation size. To this end, LFSRLSCA
is proposed.
Denition 2: Let M be a subspace of R

, M M

,
B R
nm
, N R
n
, and R R
m
. For every M,
1636 CUI ANDYANG
det(I M) 0 is satised, and dene the linear fractional
structured uncertain control effectiveness matrix as
B() B N(I M)
1
R (17)
where is a full norm bounded matrix and unstructured.
For the LFSRLSCA problem,
u
LFSRLSCA
=arg min
u<u< u
max
M.[[
o
,
[B()u :[
where B() is dened in Eq. (17).
Introduce the following linear subspaces for the theorem
derivation:
B {B R
NN
[B=B for every M]
S {S B[S =S
T
]. G {G B[G=G
T
]
Lemma 3 [17]: Let T
1
=T
T
1
, T
2
, T
3
, and T
4
be real matrices of
appropriate size. Let Mbe a subspace of R
NN
and be denoted by S
(respectively, G), the set of symmetric (respectively skew-symmetric)
matrices that commute with every element of M. We have det(I
T
4
) 0 and
T() =T
1
T
2
(I T
4
)
1
T
3
T
T
3
(I T
4
)
T

T
T
T
2
> 0
For every M, [[
o
,, if there exist S S and G Gsuch
that
T
1
,
2
T
2
ST
T
2
T
T
3
,
2
T
2
ST
T
4
,T
2
G
T
3
,
2
T
4
ST
T
2
,GT
T
2
S ,GT
T
4
,T
4
G ,
2
T
4
ST
T
4
_ _
> 0.
S > 0
If M=R
NN
is satised, the condition will be necessary and
sufcient.
Theorem 5: The LFSRLSCA problem has an optimal solution
(z. u
LFSRLSCA
) if the following optimal problem is solved
min
S.G.z.u
z
subject to
zI ,
2
NSN
T
Bu : ,
2
NSM
T
,NG
(Bu :)
T
z (Ru)
T
,
2
MSN
T
,G
T
N
T
Ru S ,MG ,GM
T
,
2
MSM
T
_
_
_
_

_ >0
( u u)
T
l
1
0 0
0 ( u u)
T
l
2
0
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
0 0 ( u u)
T
l
m
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_

_
>0
(u u)
T
l
1
0 0
0 (u u)
T
l
2
0
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
0 0 (u u)
T
l
m
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_

_
>0
with the variables S S, G G, u R
m
, t, and z > 0. For the SLV
system (1) being considered, m=8.
Proof: Let z > 0, the inequality z >r
M
(B. :. ,. u) holds if and
only if, for every [[
o
,, det(I M) 0 is satised and
r
2
M
(B. :. ,. u) =(Bu : N(I M)
1
Ru)
T
(Bu : N(I M)
1
Ru)
With z > r
M
(B. :. ,. u), the following is derived:
z
2
>r
2
M
(B. :. ,. u) =
zI Bu: N(I M)
1
Ru
(Bu: N(I M)
1
Ru)
T
z
_ _
>0
and furthermore
zI Bu :
(Bu :)
T
z
_ _

N
0
_ _
(I M)
1
[ 0 Ru|

0
(Ru)
T
_ _
(I M)
T

T
[ N
T
0 | >0
With Lemma 3, z > r
M
(B. :. ,. u) holds if there exist S S and
G G such that
zI ,
2
NSN
T
Bu: ,
2
NSM
T
,NG
(Bu:)
T
z (Ru)
T
,
2
MSN
T
,G
T
N
T
Ru S,MG,GM
T
,
2
MSM
T
_
_
_
_

_
>0
The proof of the constraints on u is similar in Theorem4; thus, the
conclusion is obtained.
Remark:
1) When the conditions that M =0, N =[N
1
. . . N

|, R
T
=
[R
1
. . . R

|, [ B
|
0 | =N
|
[ R
|
0 |, rank(N
|
) =rank(R
|
)=
rank[ B
|
0 |, and
=
_

|=1
o
|
I[o
|
R. 1 <| <
_
are satised, the LFSRLSCA can be rewritten as SRLSCA.
2) When the conditions that N =I, R =I, and M =0 are satised,
the LFSRLSCA can be rewritten as URLSCA.
3) For the uncertainty free case, , =0, the RLSCA problem is the
least-squares control allocation (LSCA) that has been considered in
the previous literature as follows [6]:
u
LSCA
=arg min
uu u
[Bu :[
CUI ANDYANG 1637
4) If one actuator saturates, SOCP problem (10) in the URLSCA
can be solved similarly in [6]. The designed algorithm of URLSCA
will optimize in other directions until the required virtual control
vector is obtained. This means that the saturated actuator stays in the
maximal or minimal deection position, other unsaturated actuators
are used to produce the required yaw(roll or pitch) moment. While in
the other two proposed approaches, since the optimal solutions are
reduced to the optimization of a set of LMIs, the saturation case
would not be considered.
Three algorithms of solving RLSCA are proposed as follows:
1) Solution to URLSCA problem
Step 1. Solving the SOCP problem (10) by software (YALMIP,
etc.) to obtain the optimal t and z.
Step 2. Substituting the optimal t and z in Eq. (14b) to
obtain j.
Step 3. Obtaining the URLSCAsolution u
URLSCA
in Theorem2.
2) Solution to SRLSCA problem
Solving the LMIs in Theorem 4 to obtain SRLSCA solution
u
SRLSCA
.
3) Solution to LFSRLSCA problem
Solving the LMIs in Theorem 5 to obtain LFSRLSCA solution
u
LFSRLSCA
.
Design Example
The aforementioned scheme is applied to a linear SLVmodel. The
proposed RLSCA is compared with PICA to show the effectiveness
of the former.
Satellite Launch Vehicle Model
To investigate the effectiveness of the designed robust controller
and RLSCA, a SLV modeled with eight actuators to control four
thrusters is chosen. The control lawobtained fromthe above design is
applied to these eight actuators to control the attitude. Four distur-
bances act on the systempercentage differential thrust between main
engine thrusters J
1
: those between strapons J
2
, center of gravity
(CG) offset along yawaxis J
3
, and cg offset along pitch axis J
4
. The
system is modeled as follows:
_ x(i) =(A A)x(i) B
:
(B B)u(i) B
J
J(i)
y
0
(i) =C
0
x(i) y(i) =Cx(i)
where A and B are the uncertainties and satisfy [A[
o
<,,
[B[
o
<,; and x, y, u, and J represent as follows:
x =[
0
_
0 [
_
[
_

|
T
y =[ 0 [ |
T
u =[ u
1
u
2
u
3
u
4
u
5
u
6
u
7
u
8
|
T
J =[ J
1
J
2
J
3
J
4
|
T
The control signals u
|
(| =1. . . . . 4) are the control inputs to the
actuators of strapons, and u
|
(| =5. . . . . 8) are the main engine
thrusters, all of which have bounds
u =[ 5 5 5 5 8 8 8 8 |
T

180
u =[ 5 5 5 5 8 8 8 8 |
T

180
The system matrices are given in the Appendix. Three rows are
zero in B
:
, denoting that the control surfaces are viewed as pure
moment generators and their inuence on 0, , and [is neglected. A
similar approach has been adopted in [12]. The system matrix

B =B
:
+ B is six rows and eight columns, and the dimension of
input exceeds the DOF of SLV. This means that the SLV model is
input redundant. The attitude of SLV can be controlled by a certain
combination of eight control signals.
Controller Design
The controller design can be separated into an H
2
,H
o
feedback
controller design and a feedforward controller design. The following
gives numerical simulation results.
H
2
,H
o
Feedback Controller Design
According to the H
2
,H
o
feedback controller design in
Theorem 1, the control law is :
1
(i) =Kx(i):
K =LP
1
=
3.0491 10
1
3.0495 10
1
6.9562 10
6
1.3311 10
5
1.6990 10
5
3.02761 10
5
7.8753 10
6
1.3079 10
5
2.6354 10
1
3.4481 10
1
2.6135 10
5
5.0546 10
5
1.4030 10
4
1.0021 10
4
3.6540 10
4
5.2867 10
4
6.5355 10
2
1.2602 10
1
_
_
_
_
Here, a circle region is adopted to assign the poles to the desired
region with the center (0.5. 0) and radius r =0.5. The matrices H
and M are chosen as
H =
r q
q r
_ _
=
0.5 0.5
0.5 0.5
_ _
. M =
0 1
0 0
_ _
By solving the LMIs in Theorem 1, =8.5925 10
2
, the H
2
and H
o
performance indices of the closed-loop ight control system
are j =5.7351 10
3
and ; =4.0001.
Feedforward Controller Design
The feedforward gain matrix K
ref
is
K
ref
=(C(B
:
K A)
1
B
:
)
1
=
1.8132 10
1
6.9591 10
6
1.6990 10
5
7.8396 10
6
1.7889 10
1
2.6135 10
5
5.9587 10
5
2.7425 10
4
6.5355 10
2
_
_
_
_

_
Thus, the virtual controller : =K
ref
r Kx is designed.
Robust Least-Squares Control Allocation Implementation
Choose the SLV stated above as a simulation model. The main
purpose of the simulation is to show that the proposed RLSCA is
effectively robust to an uncertain control effectiveness matrix.
At the beginning of the simulation results description, four
preliminary points need to be known as follows:
1) The upper bound of uncertainty in the control effectiveness
matrix is adopted as , =0.1, and the disturbance is chosen as
J =[ 1 1 1 1 |
T
.
2) The PICA without uncertainty is applied in the experimental
SLV model, the actuator deections of which serve as reference
deections to compare with three RLSCA approaches.
3) The simulation result of PICAwith uncertainty is only presented
in Fig. 2 for illustrative purposes.
4) All of the three proposed RLSCA approaches use the virtual
control signals produced by the same controller.
1638 CUI ANDYANG
0 5 10 15
1
0
1
2
3
4
5
Pitch output
Time(s)
P
i
t
c
h
(
d
e
g
)
ref
PICA
PICAU
URLSCA
0 5 10 15
1
0
1
2
3
4
5
Yaw output
Time(s)
Y
a
w
(
d
e
g
)
ref
PICA
PICAU
URLSCA
0 5 10 15
1
0
1
2
3
4
5
Roll output
Time(s)
R
o
l
l
(
d
e
g
)
ref
PICA
PICAU
URLSCA
0 5 10 15
5
0
5
u
1
vs Time
Time(s)
u
1
(
d
e
g
)
PICA
PICAU
URLSCA
bound
0 5 10 15
5
0
5
u
2
vs Time
Time(s)
u
2
(
d
e
g
)
PICA
PICAU
URLSCA
bound
0 5 10 15
5
0
5
u
3
vs Time
Time(s)
u
3
(
d
e
g
)
PICA
PICAU
URLSCA
bound
0 5 10 15
5
0
5
u
4
vs Time
Time(s)
u
4
(
d
e
g
)
PICA
PICAU
URLSCA
bound
0 5 10 15
5
0
5
u
5
vs Time
Time(s)
u
5
(
d
e
g
)
PICA
PICAU
URLSCA
bound
0 5 10 15
5
0
5
u
6
vs Time
Time(s)
u
6
(
d
e
g
)
PICA
PICAU
URLSCA
bound
0 5 10 15
5
0
5
u
7
vs Time
Time(s)
u
7
(
d
e
g
)
PICA
PICAU
URLSCA
bound
0 5 10 15
5
0
5
u
8
vs Time
Time(s)
u
8
(
d
e
g
)
PICA
PICAU
URLSCA
bound
Fig. 2 Simulation results of PICA without uncertainty, pseudoinverse control allocation with uncertainty (PICAU), and URLSCA.
CUI ANDYANG 1639
0 5 10 15
0
2
4
Pitch output
Time(s)
P
i
t
c
h
(
d
e
g
)
ref
PICA
SRLSCA
0 5 10 15
1
0
1
2
3
4
5
Yaw output
Time(s)
Y
a
w
(
d
e
g
)
ref
PICA
SRLSCA
0 5 10 15
0
2
4
Roll output
Time(s)
R
o
l
l
(
d
e
g
)
ref
PICA
SRLSCA
0 5 10 15
5
0
5
u
1
vs Time
Time(s)
u
1
(
d
e
g
)
PICA
SRLSCA
bound
0 5 10 15
5
0
5
u
2
vs Time
Time(s)
u
2
(
d
e
g
)
PICA
SRLSCA
bound
0 5 10 15
5
0
5
u
3
vs Time
Time(s)
u
3
(
d
e
g
)
PICA
SRLSCA
bound
0 5 10 15
5
0
5
u
4
vs Time
Time(s)
u
4
(
d
e
g
)
PICA
SRLSCA
bound
0 5 10 15
5
0
5
u
5
vs Time
Time(s)
u
5
(
d
e
g
)
PICA
SRLSCA
bound
0 5 10 15
5
0
5
u
6
vs Time
Time(s)
u
6
(
d
e
g
)
PICA
SRLSCA
bound
0 5 10 15
5
0
5
u
7
vs Time
Time(s)
u
7
(
d
e
g
)
PICA
SRLSCA
bound
0 5 10 15
5
0
5
u
8
vs Time
Time(s)
u
8
(
d
e
g
)
PICA
SRLSCA
bound
Fig. 3 Simulation results of PICA without uncertainty and SRLSCA.
1640 CUI ANDYANG
0 5 10 15
1
0
1
2
3
4
5
Pitch output
Time(s)
P
i
t
c
h
(
d
e
g
)
ref
PICA
LFSRLSCA
0 5 10 15
1
0
1
2
3
4
5
Yaw output
Time(s)
Y
a
w
(
d
e
g
)
ref
PICA
LFSRLSCA
0 5 10 15
1
0
1
2
3
4
5
Roll output
Time(s)
R
o
l
l
(
d
e
g
)
ref
PICA
LFSRLSCA
0 5 10 15
5
0
5
u
1
vs Time
Time(s)
u
1
(
d
e
g
)
PICA
LFSRLSCA
bound
0 5 10 15
5
0
5
u
2
vs Time
Time(s)
u
2
(
d
e
g
)
PICA
LFSRLSCA
bound
0 5 10 15
5
0
5
u
3
vs Time
Time(s)
u
3
(
d
e
g
)
PICA
LFSRLSCA
bound
0 5 10 15
5
0
5
u
4
vs Time
Time(s)
u
4
(
d
e
g
)
PICA
LFSRLSCA
bound
0 5 10 15
5
0
5
u
5
vs Time
Time(s)
u
5
(
d
e
g
)
PICA
LFSRLSCA
bound
0 5 10 15
5
0
5
u
6
vs Time
Time(s)
u
6
(
d
e
g
)
PICA
LFSRLSCA
bound
0 5 10 15
5
0
5
u
7
vs Time
Time(s)
u
7
(
d
e
g
)
PICA
LFSRLSCA
bound
0 5 10 15
5
0
5
u
8
vs Time
Time(s)
u
8
(
d
e
g
)
PICA
LFSRLSCA
bound
Fig. 4 Simulation results of PICA without uncertainty and LFSRLSCA.
CUI ANDYANG 1641
Figure 2 presents the comparisons between the PICA and the
proposed URLSCA with uncertainties in both cases, where the
actuator deections using PICA without uncertainty serve as
reference deections. In the PICA, it is shown that if the uncertainty
is in the control effectiveness matrix, the actuator does not deect in
accord with reference deections. However, our proposed URLSCA
shows that the actuators deect in accord with the reference
deections. Thus, the proposed URLSCA is effectively robust to the
unstructured uncertainties in the control effectiveness matrix. The
reference signals (pitch, yaw, and roll) are tracked well, and
disturbance is also suppressed.
Figure 3 shows that the reference signals (pitch, yaw, and roll) are
tracked well, the actuators deect in accord with the reference
deections, and the disturbance is also suppressed. Thus, the
proposed SRLSCA is effectively robust to the structured uncertainty
in the control effectiveness matrix.
Figure 4 shows that the reference signals (pitch, yaw, and roll) are
tracked well, the actuators deect in accord with the reference
deections, and the disturbance is also suppressed. Thus, the
proposed LFSRLSCA is effectively robust to the linear fractional
structured uncertainty in control effectiveness matrix, but the results
are not better than those obtained by the two previously proposed
methods.
In summary, three necessary statements are presented as follows:
1) In the PICAscheme, the control surfaces deection sees drastic
uctuations when the reference signals either jump from one stable
value to another one or otherwise. The appearance of this uctuation
results from not considering the dynamics of the actuator.
2) By comparing the PICAand RLSCA, one nds that the RLSCA
is able to distribute the three total moments to control surfaces when
uncertainty exists incontrol effectiveness matrix. The unknown input
disturbance is suppressed by the designed controller, and the RLSCA
is robust to uncertainty in the control effectiveness matrix
simultaneously.
3) The main purpose of this paper is to provide an effective control
allocation method when the control effectiveness matrix is subject to
uncertainties. When the actuator saturation occurs, the stability of the
whole system is a challenging problem [21].
Conclusions
In this paper, the problem of disturbance rejection and control
allocation in the presence of uncertainties in the control effectiveness
matrix has been investigated. An H
2
,H
o
feedback controller is
designed to guarantee the stability and simultaneously suppress the
disturbance in the closed-loop SLV model, and a feedforward
controller is designed for tracking the reference signals. Both the
feedback and feedforward controllers cooperate to produce three axis
moments. The robust least-squares method is introduced to solve the
problemof control allocation with the uncertain control effectiveness
matrix while maintaining the control inputs within their required
bounds. Three RLSCA methods are proposed when the control
effectiveness matrix is subject to unstructured, structured, and linear
fractional structured uncertainties.
According to the simulation results, it is concluded that the control
effectors can deect smoothly to produce the required virtual control
moments by use of the proposed RLSCA. The RLSCA is robust to
uncertainty in the control effectiveness matrix. Disturbance is
rejected by the feedback controller, and the reference signals (pitch,
yaw, and roll) are well tracked by the feedforward controller. The
inuence of RLSCAs online computation on the stability of the
whole ight control system and the stability in presence of actuator
saturation are beyond the scope of this paper.
Appendix: System Matrices of Satellite Launch Vehicle
The system matrices of the laboratory experimental SLV model
are given by
A =
0 1 0 0 0 0
0.7066 0 1.87 10
5
0 0 0
0 0 0 1 0 0
2.71 10
5
0 0.4379 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 1
5.71 10
4
0 5.468 10
4
0 0 0
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_

_
B
J
=
0 0 0 0
7.82 10
4
6.84 10
6
4.34 10
4
8.43 10
8
0 0 0 0
3 10
8
7.61 10
3
1.665 10
8
9.376 10
5
0 0 0 0
6.32 10
7
9.506 10
6
3.509 10
7
1.171 10
7
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_

B =B
:
+ B B =
0.2851 0.2851 0.2851 0.2851 0.0968 0 0.0968 0
0.2851 0.2851 0.2851 0.2851 0 0.0968 0 0.0968
0.2851 0.2851 0.2851 0.2851 0 0.0968 0 0.0968
_
_
_
_

_
B
:
=
0 0 0
5.7508 2.191 10
4
1.495 10
3
0 0 0
2.207 10
4
5.173 2.077 10
3
0 0 0
4.65 10
3
2.17 10
2
14.15276
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_

_
. C
0
=C =
1 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 1 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 1 0
_
_
_
_

_
Acknowledgments
This work is supported by National Natural Science Foundation of
China under grants 60874011 and 90916003. The authors gratefully
acknowledge Frank Morgans help revising this paper and Li Gaos
help providing optimization theory.
References
[1] Venkataraman, R., and Doman, D. B., Control Allocation and
Compensation for Over Actuated Systems with Nonlinear Effectors,
Proceedings of the American Control Conference, Arlington, VA,
June 2001, pp. 2527.
[2] Bolender, M. A., and Doman, D. B., Method for Determination of
Nonlinear Attainable Moment Set, Journal of Guidance, Control, and
Dynamics, Vol. 27, No. 5, 2004, pp. 907914.
doi:10.2514/1.9548
[3] Oppenheimer, M. W., Doman, D. B., and Bolender, M. A., Control
1642 CUI ANDYANG
Allocation for Over-Actuated Systems, 14th Mediterranean Confer-
ence on Control and Automation, MED 2006, Inst. of Electrical and
Electronics Engineers, Piscataway, NJ, June 2006, pp. 16.
[4] Peterson, J., and Bodson, M., Interior-Point Algorithms for Control
Allocation, Journal of Guidance, Control, and Dynamics, Vol. 28,
No. 3, 2005, pp. 471480.
doi:10.2514/1.5937
[5] Alwi, H., and Edwards, C., Fault Tolerant Control Using Sliding
Modes with Online Control Allocation, Automatica, Vol. 44, 2008,
pp. 18591866.
doi:10.1016/j.automatica.2007.10.034
[6] Harkegard, O., Backstepping and Control Allocation with
Applications to Flight Control, Ph.D. Thesis, Linkoping Univ.,
Linkoping, Sweden, 2003, Chaps. 5, 7.
[7] Bufngton, J. M., and Enns, D. F., Lyapunov Stability Analysis of
Daisy Chain Control Allocation, Journal of Guidance, Control, and
Dynamics, Vol. 19, No. 6, 1996, pp. 12261230.
doi:10.2514/3.21776
[8] Durham, W. C., Constrained Control Allocation, Journal of
Guidance, Control, and Dynamics, Vol. 16, No. 4, 1993, pp. 717725.
doi:10.2514/3.21072
[9] Durham, W. C., Constrained Control Allocation: Three Moment
Problem, Journal of Guidance, Control, and Dynamics, Vol. 17, No. 2,
1994, pp. 330336.
doi:10.2514/3.21201
[10] Harkegard, O., Dynamic Control Allocation Using Constrained
Quadratic Programming, Journal of Guidance, Control, and
Dynamics, Vol. 27, No. 6, 2004, pp. 10281034.
doi:10.2514/1.11607
[11] Doman, D. B., Gamble, B. J., and Ngo, A. D., Quantized Control
Allocation of Reaction Control Jets and Aerodynamic Control
Surfaces, Journal of Guidance, Control, and Dynamics, Vol. 32, No. 1,
2009, pp. 1324.
doi:10.2514/1.37312
[12] Harkegard, O., and Glad, S. T., Resolving Actuator Redundancy-
Optimal Control vs. Control Allocation, Automatica, Vol. 41, 2005,
pp. 137144.
doi:10.1016/S0005-1098(04)00255-9
[13] Kishore, A. W. C., Sen, S., and Ray, G., Disturbance Rejection and
Control Allocation of Overactuated Systems, IEEE International
Conference on Industrial Technology, IEEE Publ., Piscataway, NJ,
2006, pp. 10541059.
[14] Xie, L., Fu, M., and Souza, C. E., H
o
Control and Quadratic
Stabilization of Systems with Parameter Uncertainty Via Output
Feedback, IEEE Transactions on Automatic Control, Vol. 37, No. 8,
1992, pp. 12531256.
doi:10.1109/9.151120
[15] Zhou, K., and Doyle, J. C., Essentials of Robust Control, PrenticeHall,
Upper Saddle River, NJ, 1999, pp. 14, 5354, 238239.
[16] Yu, L., Robust Control, Tsinghua Univ. Press, Beijing, 1994, Chap. 6
(in Chinese).
[17] Ghaoui, L. E., and Lebret, H., Robust Solutions to Least Squares
Problems with Uncertain Data, SIAM Journal on Matrix Analysis and
Applications, Vol. 18, No. 4, 1997, pp. 10351064.
doi:10.1137/S0895479896298130
[18] Ghaoui, L. E., Oustry, F., and Lebret, H., Robust Solutions to
Uncertain Semidenite Programs, SIAM Journal on Optimization,
Vol. 9, No. 1, 1998, pp. 3352.
doi:10.1137/S1052623496305717
[19] Chavez, F. R., and Schmidt, D. K., Uncertainty Modeling for
Multivariable Control Robustness Analysis of Elastic High Speed
Vehicles, Journal of Guidance, Control, and Dynamics, Vol. 22, No. 1,
1999, pp. 8795.
doi:10.2514/2.4354
[20] Buschek, H., and Calise, A. J., Uncertainty Modeling and Fixed-Order
Controller Design for a Hypersonic Vehicle Model, Journal of
Guidance, Control, and Dynamics, Vol. 20, No. 1, 1997, pp. 4248.
doi:10.2514/2.4031
[21] Schierman, J., Ward, D., Hull, J., Gandhi, N., Oppenheimer, M., and
Doman, D. B., Integrated Adaptive Guidance and Control for Reentry
Vehicles with Flight Test Results, Journal of Guidance, Control, and
Dynamics, Vol. 27, No. 6, 2004, pp. 975988.
doi:10.2514/1.10344
CUI ANDYANG 1643