aerodynamics

© All Rights Reserved

9 tayangan

aerodynamics

© All Rights Reserved

- curriculum grid
- Extended Kalman Filtering for Battery Management Systems of LiPB-based HEV Battery Packs Part 1. Background
- Filtering in Finance
- Neuro fuzzy
- Reflection for This Semester
- Strategies Reading
- Class Schedule Summer 2015
- 348537
- NN-01_PPT UPIS Sita
- Planning and Navigation for Robots
- Summary
- 9 Association Rule Mining
- Simpson's Rule
- Linear Equation Calculator - Slope, Intercept, And Coefficient of Determination (Confidence)
- Signals and Systems 8
- Statistical arbitrage_CDS_haitao_li
- ACO-Based Algorithm in Cognitive Radio Networks
- 10-15-12
- Growing Degree Days
- Vrugth dealing with uncertaninty.pdf

Anda di halaman 1dari 13

M. Majeed and Indra Narayan Kar

Department of Electrical Engineering, Indian Institute of Technology Delhi, New Delhi, India

Abstract

Purpose The purpose of this paper is to estimate aerodynamic parameters accurately from ight data in the presence of unknown noise characteristics.

Design/methodology/approach The introduced adaptive lter scheme is composed of two parallel UKFs. At every time-step, the master UKF

estimates the states and parameters using the noise covariance obtained by the slave UKF, while the slave UKF estimates the noise covariance using the

innovations generated by the master UKF. This real time innovation-based adaptive unscented Kalman lter (UKF) is used to estimate aerodynamic

parameters of aircraft in uncertain environment where noise characteristics are drastically changing.

Findings The investigations are initially made on simulated ight data with moderate to high level of process noise and it is shown that all the

aerodynamic parameter estimates are accurate. Results are analyzed based on Monte Carlo simulation with 4000 realizations. The efcacy of adaptive

UKF in comparison with the other standard Kalman lters on the estimation of accurate ight stability and control derivatives from ight test data

in the presence of noise, are also evaluated. It is found that adaptive UKF successfully attains better aerodynamic parameter estimation under the same

condition of process noise intensity changes.

Research limitations/implications The presence of process noise complicates parameter estimation severely. Since the non-measurable process

noise makes the system stochastic, consequently, it requires a suitable state estimator to propagate the states for online estimation of aircraft

aerodynamic parameters from ight data.

Originality/value This is the rst paper highlighting the process noise intensity change on real time estimation of ight stability and control

parameters using adaptive unscented Kalman lter.

Keywords Aircraft, Aerodynamics, Noise, Stability (control theory), Adaptive lter, Parameter estimation, Unscented Kalman lter,

Aerodynamic parameters

Paper type Research paper

Nomenclature

C

D

; C

L

; C

m

non-dimensional derivatives

F

e

thrust (N)

I

y

inertia about y-axis (kg m

2

)

m mass of the aircraft (kg)

P state error covariance

q pitch rate (radian/s)

Q state noise covariance

R measurement noise covariance

S surface area of aircraft (m

2

)

u input vector

V true airspeed (m/s

2

)

w state noise

x state vector

z observation vector

c wing chord (m)

q dynamic pressure (pascal)

Greek symbols

a angle of attack (radian)

b aerodynamic parameters

u pitch angle (radian)

Q unknown parameters

a

1

; b

1

; k scaling parameters of UKF

s

T

engine inclination (radian)

n additive measurement noise

h diagonal elements of noise covariance

Subscripts

0 initial value

m measured quantity

k index

Superscripts

a augmented state vector

c computation of covariance

m computation of mean

Introduction

Recent advances in computational power have allowed the use

of online aerodynamic parameter estimation techniques in

varied applications such as recongurable or adaptive ight

control, and system health monitoring. Online modelling is a

key technology for autonomous controller to maintain ight

stability and high performance in uncertain environment and

in the presence of process and measurement noise.

Robust and adaptive control methods suffer from issues

related to the real time convergence, and the complications

involved in their real-time implementation (Wittenmark and

Astrom, 1984). These problems necessitate the development

The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available at

www.emeraldinsight.com/1748-8842.htm

Aircraft Engineering and Aerospace Technology: An International Journal

85/4 (2013) 267279

q Emerald Group Publishing Limited [ISSN 1748-8842]

[DOI 10.1108/AEAT-Mar-2011-0038]

267

of a new online estimation algorithm for the purpose of

controller design that addresses the situation more directly.

To this end, autonomous control methods on the basis of

model-reference have become the focus of research, and basic

technology and online modelling method has attracted more

and more research attention.

Neural networks (NN) and NN-based self-learning were

proposed as the most effective approaches for the online

modeling of an unmanned vehicle as it does not require initial

values (Pesonenet al., 2004; Pedro and Kantue, 2011). However,

the problems involved in NN, such as training data selection,

online convergence, robustness, reliability, and real time

implementation, limit its application in real systems. In recent

years, sequential estimation has become an important approach

for online modelling and model-reference control with

encouraging achievements (Haykin and deFreitas, 2004).

Online or recursive system identication techniques handle

ight data as it is measured through onboard sensors and

estimate the required aerodynamic derivatives in real-time.

Measured ight data can contain considerable amount of

noise, furthermore there might be biases and unobserved

states in the system model which must be estimated; hence

ltering techniques are generally employed. The most popular

nonlinear ltering technique is the extended Kalman lter

(EKF) (Grewal and Andrews, 1993). Although widely used,

EKFs have some deciencies, including the requirement of

differentiability of the state dynamics as well as susceptibility

to bias, hard to tune and implement when dealing with

signicant nonlinearities and exhibits divergence in estimates.

On the contrary, unscented Kalman lter (UKF) uses the

nonlinear model directly instead of linearizing it (Julier and

Uhlmann, 2004).

The UKF was developed with the underlying assumption that

approximating a Gaussian distribution is easier than

approximating a nonlinear transformation (Julier and Uhlmann,

2004). The UKF uses deterministic sampling to approximate

the state distribution as a Gaussian randomvariable (GRV). The

UKF has the same level of computational complexity as that of

EKF, both of which are within the order O (L3) (Julier and

Uhlmann, 2004). Since the nonlinear models are used without

linearization, the UKF does not need to calculate Jacobians or

Hessians, and can achieve second-order accuracy, whereas the

accuracy of the EKF is of the rst order (Xiong et al., 2006).

However, the performance of UKF closely depends on the

prior knowledge of noise covariance. Recent study shows the

use of UKFhas possible advantages for aerodynamic parameter

estimation from ight data (Chowdhary and Jategaonkar,

2009). The UKF can only achieve a good performance under

the assumption that such prior knowledge of noise meets the

situation well (Julier and Uhlmann, 1995). But in practice, the

assumptions are usually not totally satised, and

the performance of the UKF might be seriously downgraded

from the theoretical performance or could even diverge. To

avoid these problems, an adaptive lter may be applied, which

automatically tunes the lter parameter to adapt insufciently

known a priori lter statistics. There have been many

investigations in the area of adaptive lter and parameter

estimation. Maybeck (1979) used a maximum-likelihood

estimator for designing an adaptive lter that could estimate

the system-error covariance matrix. Katebi et al. (1985)

introduced state space LQG adaptive autopilot for ship

control. Lee and Alfriend (2004) modied the Maybecks

methods by introducing a window-scale factor. A multiple

Kalman lter based adaptive stochastic ltering method was

applied for the online aircraft ight path reconstruction with

estimation of noise statistics (Celso-Braga et al., 2007). The

estimator was introduced in UKF to estimate its noise statistics

through maximizing the posteriori density function (Zhao and

Wang, 2009), and modied Sage estimator was also utilized

to estimate the system noise variance adaptively (Shi et al.,

2009). Song and Han (2008) were designed a MITrule based

adaptive UKFalgorithmto update the covariance of the process

uncertainties online by minimizing the cost function. But it

introduces a relative large computational burden. Recently,

Kalman lter based adaptive UKF algorithm is introduced for

the actuator failure estimationof Rotorcraft UAV(Juntonget al.,

2012). Moreover, Chanying and Guo (2010) have established

a new critical theorem for global stabilization of adaptive

nonlinear system. The new automated adaptive algorithms are

integrated into the UKF and can be applied to the nonlinear

system.

Nonlinear dynamics of aerospace vehicles and the presence

of considerable noise and biases in measurements demand that

a nonlinear ltering algorithm be used (Jategaonkar and

Plaetschke, 1989). Traditionally, the EKF has been used

for parameter estimation purposes. In this paper, an online

innovation-based adaptive UKFis usedto estimate aerodynamic

parameters from ight data. The used adaptive lter composed

of two parallel UKFs, called as master UKF and slave UKF.

The master UKF estimates both the states and aerodynamic

parameters of aircraft while the slave one estimates the diagonal

elements of the noise covariance matrix for the master UKF.

This approach of noise covariance identication based adaptive

UKF is previously applied in mobile robot systems (Song et al.,

2007). By estimating the noise covariance, this adaptive method

is able to compensate the estimation errors resulting from the

insufcient knowledge of the noise statistics.

Performance evaluation of adaptive UKF was done with use

of both simulated and ight test data. The simulated data

were generated with moderate to high level of process noise.

A 4,000 samples Monte Carlo simulation was done and the

results were very encouraging to apply on ight test data.

The main contribution of this paper is the application of

adaptive lter method to estimate aerodynamic parameters

recursively from ight data, and successfully reduces the

dependency of the estimation performance on the accurate

knowledge of the system noise statistics. The adaptive UKF

was compared with ltering algorithms of the EKF (Grewal

and Andrews, 1993), standard UKF (the simplied version of

the UKF), augmented UKF (the complete version of the

UKF) to estimate aerodynamic derivatives from ight test

data. It was shown that adaptive UKF is superior to classical

UKF in terms of fast convergence and estimation accuracy

under the variation of noise characteristics.

The paper is organized as follows. A brief review of the

recursive parameter estimation (RPE) is presented in second

section. The applied adaptive UKF structure is illustrated in

third section. The ight simulated and ight test data have

applied to the adaptive lter and other RPE methods in fourth

section. The estimation results are analyzed in fth section

and concluding remarks are presented in the last section.

Recursive parameter estimation

The basic ideas of practical engineering applications of RPE

originate from control applications in chemical and thermal

Aerodynamic parameter estimation using adaptive UKF

M. Majeed and Indra Narayan Kar

Aircraft Engineering and Aerospace Technology: An International Journal

Volume 85 Number 4 2013 267279

268

power-generating industrial process, where online adaptation

of model parameters is desired to increase the overall plant

efciency. In such applications, we encounter not only changing

operating conditions but also several different types of system

disturbances. In the case of aircraft, the primary motivation for

recursive estimation could be to obtain immediate knowledge

about anaircraft model, whichis essential for designing adaptive

control. These real time applications necessarily call for

recursive/online estimation methods.

The system dynamics are represented in generic

continuous-discrete state space form in equation (1)

(Jategaonkar, 2006):

_ xt f xt; ut; b Fwt; xt

0

x

0

yt hxt; ut; b

zk yk Gnk; k 1; . . . ; N

8

>

>

<

>

>

:

1

where x is state vector with initial value x

0

at time t

0

, u is the

input vector, y is the observation vector, f and h are the general

nonlinear functions, z is the measurement vector sampled at N

discrete time steps with a xed sampling time Dt and k is

discrete time index. The measurement noise vector n is assumed

to be sequence of independent zero mean white Gaussian noise.

The matrices F and G represent the distribution matrices for

additive state and measurement noise, respectively. The

unknown parameter vector Q consists of system parameters b,

the measurement biases Dz, and the trim estimates formulated

as input biases Du and is represented in equation (2):

Q

T

b

T

; Dz

T

; Du

T

2

Estimation of these parameters through the ltering approach is

an indirect procedure, consisting of transforming the parameter

estimation problem into a state estimation problem. This is done

byaugmentingthesystemstatevector byintentionallydeningthe

unknownparameters as additional state variables. So the constant

systemparameters Qconsideredas output of anauxiliary dynamic

system presented in equation (3):

_

Q 0 3

The augmented state vector is then dened in equation (4) as:

x

a

x

Q

" #

4

where the augmented variables are denoted by subscript a. The

extended system is represented as:

_ x

a

f

a

x

a

t; ut F

a

W

a

t

f xt; ut; b

0

" #

F 0

0 0

" #

wt

0

" #

yt h

a

x

a

t; ut

zk yk Gvk

8

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

<

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

:

5

The value of F and G, i.e. the process and measurement noise

distributionmatrices must be specieda priori. The measurement

noise matrix G can be calibrated using laboratory measurements

of sensors to ensure good noise ltering. The process noise matrix

F is however more difcult to determine and a trial and error

method is normally employed If no other suitable method is

found. Since the inaccurate assumptions of F will lead to poor

performance or even divergence of the lter (Julier and Uhlmann,

1995), it is necessary to identify the process noise covariance by

using adaptive algorithm, which attempts to adapt the unknown

noise characteristics (Julier and Uhlmann, 2004).

The adaptive UKF structure

The applied adaptive scheme is composed of two parallel

UKFs as shown in Figure 1. At every time-step, the master UKF

estimates the states and parameters using the noise covariance

obtained by the slave UKF, while the slave UKF estimates the

noise covariance using the innovations generated by the master

UKF. The master UKF can also work independently without

the slave one. Thus, dual-UKFstructure is reducedtoa standard

UKF with x noise covariance. The setting of master UKF does

not need any updates while activating/deactivating the slave one,

which indicates that the slave UKF can be shut down to reduce

the computational burden when the system statistics do not

change a lot.

The master UKF

In the adaptive scheme, the calculation of the master UKF is

the same as that of a classical UKF. To illustrate the UKF

procedure, we consider a discrete time representation widely

used in the applications of the UKF. The discrete time

nonlinear state space model is given by:

x

k1

f

d

x

k

; Q

k

; u

k

w

k

z

k

y

k

v

k

(

6

y

k

h

d

x

k;

Q

k

; u

k

7

where x

k

is the (n

k

1) state vector, Q

k

the (n

q

1) vector of

unknownparameters, u

k

the (n

u

1) vector of exogenous inputs,

y

k

the (n

y

1) model output vector at time k,f

d

and h

d

the

corresponding state and output functions. w

k

and n

k

are,

respectively, the disturbance and sensor noise vector, which are

assumed to be zero mean Gaussian white noise with their

covariance matrices QandR. Themeasurement vector is denoted

by z

k

. The augmented state vector of the size (n

a

1) is given by:

x

a

k

x

T

k

Q

T

k

h i

T

8

where the superscript a denotes the augmented state vector,

and n

a

n

x

n

q

is the total number of states:

Figure 1 The adaptive UKF structure

Master UKF

Slave UKF

Time update

Measurement

update

Measurement

update

z

k

Measurement

v

k

Innovation

State

Noise

Covariance

Time update

Aerodynamic parameter estimation using adaptive UKF

M. Majeed and Indra Narayan Kar

Aircraft Engineering and Aerospace Technology: An International Journal

Volume 85 Number 4 2013 267279

269

Master UKF: initialization

^ x

a

0

E x

a

0

E ^ x

T

0

Q

T

0

T

^ x

T

0

Q

T

0

T

^

P

a

0

E x

a

0

2 ^ x

a

0

x

a

0

2 ^ x

a

0

T

n o

P

x0

0

0 P

Q0

" #

8

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

<

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

:

9

Master UKF: sigma points calculation and time update

~ x

a

k

^ x

a

k

; ^ x

a

k

2

n

a

l

^

P

a

k

;

q

^ x

a

k

n

a

l

^

P

a

k

q

~ x

a

k1

^ x

a

k

R

tk1

tk

f x

a

t; ukdt

~ x

k1

P

2na

i0

W

m

i

~ x

a

i;k1

~

P

k1

P

2na

i0

W

c

i

~ x

a

i;k1

2 ~ x

k1

h i

~ x

a

i;k1

2 ~ x

k1

h i

T

Q

x

a

8

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

<

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

:

10

where:

W

m

0

l

nal

W

c

0

l

nal

1 2a

2

1

b

1

W

m

i

W

c

i

1

2nal

i 1; . . . ; 2n

a

l a

2

1

n

a

k 2n

a

8

>

>

>

>

>

>

<

>

>

>

>

>

>

:

11

Master UKF: measurement update

Y

k1

h

d

~ x

a

k1

; u

k1

~ y

k1

X

2na

i0

W

m

i

Y

i;k1

P

~ y~ yk1

X

2na

i0

W

c

i

Y

i;k1

2 ~ y

k1

Y

i;k1

2 ~ y

k1

T

R

x

a

P

~ x~ yk1

X

2na

i0

W

c

i

~ x

a

i;k1

2 ~ x

k1

h i

Y

i;k1

2 ~ y

k1

T

K

K1

P

~ x~ yk1

P

21

~ y~ yk1

m

k1

z

k1

2 ~ y

k1

^ x

k1

~ x

k1

K

k1

m

k1

^

P

k1

~

P

k1

2K

k1

P

~ y~ yk1

K

T

k1

12

The variables in equations (9)(12) are dened as followings.

W

i

is a set of scalar weights, a

1

determines the spread of the

sigma points around the estimated x

a

and is usually set as

0.0001 # a

1

# 1 whereas k is secondary scaling parameter

usually set to zero for state or (3 2n

a

) for parameter

estimation. The constant b

1

is used to incorporate part of the

prior knowledge of the statistics of x, while b

1

2 is optimal

for Gaussian distributions. The process and measurement

noise covariance are represented by Q

x

a

and R

x

a

, respectively,

whose diagonal elements are required to be estimated by the

slave UKF.

The slave UKF

There are six parameters in UKF, which are the initial state

^ x

0

, initial covariance

^

P

0

, process-noise covariance Q,

measurement-noise covariance R, and unscented transform

(UT) parameters a

1

and b

1

. The inuence of the initial state

and covariance will become asymptotically negligible as more

and more data are processed. The selection for a

1

and b

1

has

little impact on improving the estimate accuracy of the UKF if

the order of the system under consideration is not high. As a

priori knowledge, initial covariance P

0

, the covariance

matrices Q and R are most important to the performance

and stability of the UKF. The P

0

can be chosen based on the

physical knowledge of variation in state variables, but Q and R

are associated with uncertainties in the environment. In

principle, an adaptive lter can estimate both R and Q, and

their theoretical justication were well described by Myers

and Tapley (1976). However, adaptive ltering algorithms

that try to update both the observational noise and the system

noise are not robust, since it is not easy to distinguish between

errors in R and Q (Blanchet et al., 1977). The measurement-

noise statistics are relatively well known compared to the

system-model error. Therefore, selecting noise covariance

matrix Q is most important to maintain the performance and

stability of the UKF.

In this section, the slave UKF is described to estimate the

noise covariance matrix Q. The criterion for estimation of Q is

to minimize the difference between the lter-computed and

the actual innovation covariance. From equation (12) of the

master UKF, the computed innovation covariance can be

obtained as:

~

S

k

P

~ y~ yk

diag

X

2na

i0

W

c

i

Y

i;k

2 ~ y

k

Y

i;k

2 ~ y

k

T

R

x

a

" #

13

The time-averaged approximation of actual innovation

covariance is dened as:

S

k

1

N

X

k21

ik2N

m

i

m

T

i

14

where N is the size of the estimation window, m

i

is the

innovation and can be written as:

m

i

z

i

2 ~ y

i

15

where z

i

and ~ y

i

are, respectively, the real measurement and its

estimated value. Thus, the condition for the estimated Q is

the minimization of S

k

2

~

S

k

, i.e. S

k

2

~

S

k

< 0:

S

k

E m

k

m

T

k

P

~ y~ yk

16

From equation (12), K

k

P

~ y~ yk

K

T

k

~

P

k

2

^

P

k

can be written as:

P

~ y~ yk

K

T

k

K

k

21

K

T

k

~

P

k

2

^

P

k

K

k

K

T

k

K

k

21

17

Referring to the master UKF equations, we can get

~

P

k

;

^

P

k

; K

k

as follows:

Aerodynamic parameter estimation using adaptive UKF

M. Majeed and Indra Narayan Kar

Aircraft Engineering and Aerospace Technology: An International Journal

Volume 85 Number 4 2013 267279

270

P

~ y~ yk

K

T

k

K

k

21

K

T

k

X

2na

i0

W

c

i

~ x

a

i;k

2~ x

k

h i

~ x

a

i;k

2~ x

k

h i

T

Q2

^

P

k

!

K

k

K

T

k

K

k

21

K

k

X

2na

i0

W

c

i

~ x

a

i;k

2~ x

k

h i

~ x

a

i;k

2~ x

k

h i

T

2

^

P

k

!

K

T

k

K

k

Q

K

T

k

18

where

K

k

K

T

k

K

k

21

K

T

k

so that

K

k

21

K

k

. From

equations (16) and (18), innovation sequence can be written as:

E{m

k

m

T

k

} P

~ y~ yk

K

k

X

2na

i0

W

c

i

~ x

a

i;k

2 ~ x

k

h i

~ x

a

i;k

2 ~ x

k

h i

T

2

^

P

k

!

K

T

k

K

k

Q

K

T

k

19

Thus, the noise covariance matrix Q is estimated from equation

(19) as:

^

Q K

k

E m

k

m

T

k

K

T

k

2

X

2na

i0

W

c

i

~ x

a

i;k

2 ~ x

k

h i

~ x

a

i;k

2 ~ x

k

h i

T

2

^

P

k

! 20

Usually, the process-noise covariance Q is a diagonal matrix.

Therefore, the estimation of Qcan be simplied as the estimation

of its diagonal elements. Thus, we use the h

i

k

to denote the

diagonal elements of matrix Q

x

k

, i.e.:

Q

x

k

h

n1

k

0

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

0 h

nx

k

2

6

6

6

4

3

7

7

7

5

and Q

x

a

k

Q

x

k

0

0 0

" #

21

If the dynamics of h is known, state equation of the slave UKF is:

h

k1

f h

k

w

hk

22

If the dynamics of h is unknown, it can be modelled as a non-

correlated random drift vector:

h

k1

h

k

w

hk

23

where w

hk

is the Gaussian white noise with zero mean. The

innovationcovariancegeneratedbythemaster UKFis takenas the

observation signal for the slave UKF, and then according to

equation (12), the observation model can be described as:

~

S

k

gh

k

diag

X

2na

i0

W

c

i

Y

i;k

2 ~ y

k1

Y

i;k

2 ~ y

k

T

R

x

a

" # 24

The measurement of

~

S

k

received by the slave UKF is:

S

k

diag m

k

m

T

k

; m

k

z

k

2 ~ y

k

Therefore, the recursive algorithm of the slave UKF can be

formulated as:

Slave UKF: initialization

^ h

0

Eh

0

^

P

h0

Eh

0

2 ^ h

0

h

0

2 ^ h

0

8

<

:

25

Slave UKF: sigma points calculation and time update

q

k

^ h

k

; ^ h

k

2

n l

^

P

hk

;

q

^ h

k

n l

^

P

hk

q

~

q

K1

q

k

~ h

k1

X

2n

i0

W

m

hi

~

q

i;K1

~

P

hk1

X

2n

i0

W

c

hi

~

q

i;K1

2 ~ h

k1

~

q

i;K1

2 ~ h

k1

T

Q

h

26

where:

W

m

h0

l

nl

W

c

h0

l

nl

1 2a

2

1

b

1

W

m

hi

W

c

hi

1

2nl

i 1; . . . ; 2n

l n a

2

1

21

8

>

>

>

>

>

>

<

>

>

>

>

>

>

:

Slave UKF: measurement update

6

k1

g

d

~

q

k1

~

S

k1

P

2n

i0

W

m

hi

6

i;k1

P ~

S

~

Sk1

P

2n

i0

W

c

hi

6

i;k1

2

~

S

k1

6

i;k1

2

~

S

k1

T

R

h

P

~ h

~

Sk1

P

2n

i0

W

c

hi

~

q

i;k1

2 ~ h

k1

6

i;k1

2

~

S

k1

T

K

hk1

P

~ h

~

Sk1

P

21

~

S

~

Sk1

^ h

k1

~ h

k1

K

hk1

S

k1

2

~

S

k1

^

P

hk1

~

P

hk1

2K

hk1

P ~

S

~

Sk1

K

T

hk1

8

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

<

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

:

27

where n is state dimension. Q

h

and R

h

are the process and

measurement noise covariance, respectively.

Aerodynamic parameter estimation from

simulated ight data

To evaluate the efcacy of the adaptive UKF algorithm,

aircraft responses pertaining to longitudinal motion are

generated through the simulation of aircraft dynamics

models. An independent process and measurement noise

vectors are generated using pseudo-random noise generators

(Jategaonkar and Plaetschke, 1989). The state noise matrix is

assumed to be diagonal and an appreciable level of process

noise is incorporated in the system dynamics. Note that state

variables are only affected by the state noise, and the control

input is noise free. A total of 30s of data with a sampling time

0.025 s are generated.

Aerodynamic parameter estimation using adaptive UKF

M. Majeed and Indra Narayan Kar

Aircraft Engineering and Aerospace Technology: An International Journal

Volume 85 Number 4 2013 267279

271

Aircraft dynamic model for parameter estimation

The longitudinal motion of aircraft responses are represented

using the following postulated aircraft models (Klein and

Moreli, 2006):

_ a 2

qS

mV

C

L

q

g

V

cosa 2u 2

Fe

mV

sina s

T

_

u q

_ q

qS c

Iy

C

m

Fe

Iy

l

tx

sins

T

l

tz

coss

T

8

>

>

>

<

>

>

>

:

28

where the lift, and pitching moment coefcients (C

L

; C

m

) are

modelled as:

C

L

C

L0

C

La

a C

Lq

q c

2V

C

Lde

d

e

C

m

C

m0

C

ma

a C

mq

q c

2V

C

mde

d

e

8

<

:

29

Here the state variables are angle of attack a, pitch angle u,

and pitch rate q. The elevator deection d

e

and thrust F

e

are

considered to be control input to aircraft system dynamics

equation (28). The mass of aircraft is m and its geometrical

parameters consist of wing area S, wing chord c, moment of

inertia I

y

, and the inclination angle of the engines s

T

. The

dynamic pressure q is given by q 0:5rV

2

, where r is the

density of air and V is the true airspeed. The estimation

algorithm has used equations (28) and (29) as state equations,

and corresponding observation equations are given in

equation (30):

a

m

a

u

m

u

q

m

q

_ q

m

2

qS c

I

y

C

m

F

e

I

y

l

tx

sins

T

l

tz

coss

T

a

zm

2

qS

m

C

L

cosa 2

F

e

mV

sins

T

30

The unknown parameter vector Q need to be estimated is

consisting of the aerodynamic derivatives, which is given by:

Q

C

L0

C

La

C

Lq

C

m0

C

ma

C

mq

C

mde

h i

T

Results and analysis for simulated data

In the absence of ight test data, generated ight simulated

data with moderate to high level of process noise to estimate

the aerodynamic parameters using adaptive UKF algorithm.

The simulated data contain adequate level of process noise

similar to aircraft ying in turbulence (Iliff, 1978). Figure 2

shows the ight simulated and model estimated responses.

This time history plots for the model output from Adaptive

UKF show good agreement except at the rst data point for

the estimated signals az. This is because, the initial state

error covariance matrix (P

o

) specied may be too large for the

system states or parameters. The sigma points are computed

based on initially specied state and state error covariance

matrix. For the subsequent data points the sigma points are

generated using the updated covariance, which are computed

by the adaptive UKF algorithm, and are more realistic. This

problem is specic to UKF only.

Figure 3 compares the performance of the adaptive UKF

algorithmover the simple UKFfor the purpose of aerodynamic

parameter estimation. There is initial mismatch in marginal

level of their estimates due to the use of very low initial values

of Q in adaptive lter. But time progresses, the accurate

agreement is observed between adaptive UKF and classical

UKF estimates of the parameters. It shows that adaptive UKF

does not match correctly with all classical UKF estimates,

namely C

La

and C

mde

as shown in Figure 3, and there is an error

between them, which is within the limits of considering the

noise variation. It is worth to note that the classical UKF uses

accurate value of Q, but adaptive UKF estimates accurately

compared to the classical UKF even without knowledge of

Q. The performance of the adaptive lter was further analyzed

based on a Monte Carlo simulation with 4,000 realizations.

In the state estimation model, diagonal elements of noise matrix

are selected randomly for the 4,000 realizations. Figure 4 shows

the consistency of aerodynamic parameter estimation from

simulated data using adaptive UKF for the varied process noise

properties. Mean value of all estimated parameters for 4,000

iterations are listed in Table I. The good agreement between all

estimated aerodynamic parameters and their true value is very

encouraging to apply on ight test data.

Aerodynamic parameter estimation from ight

data

Open accessible ight test data of the research aircraft HFB-

320 (Figure 5) were used to estimate aircraft lift, drag, and

pitching moment coefcients (Jategaonkar, 2006) and

demonstrated the efcacy of the adaptive UKF algorithm

for aerodynamic parameter estimation from ight data. For

the use of ight test data, ight tests were carried out to excite

longitudinal motion of research aircraft through a multi-step

elevator input resulting in short period motion and a pulse

input leading to phugoid motion (Jategaonkar, 2006). These

recorded ight test data has been used without any smoothing

or ltering; the angle of attack (a) was calibrated using ight

path reconstruction techniques (Majeed and Kar, 2010). The

thrust was computed prior to parameter estimation and used

in the estimation process as an input variable.

Aircraft dynamic model for parameter estimation

The longitudinal model of the research aircraft is represented

in equation (31) and contains one additional state variable of

true airspeed V to the model equation (28) used for

generating the ight simulated data in the previous section.

This state variable V leads to additional nonlinearities due to

its inversion in the state equation of a, and increases the

number of parameters by incorporating drag derivatives as

given in the following postulated aircraft state models

(Jategaonkar, 2006; Chowdhary and Jategaonkar, 2009):

_

V 2

qS

m

C

D

g sina 2u

Fe

m

cosa s

T

_ a 2

qS

mV

C

L

q

g

V

cosa 2u 2

Fe

mV

sina s

T

_

u q

_ q

qS c

Iy

C

m

Fe

Iy

l

tx

sins

T

l

tz

coss

T

8

>

>

>

>

>

>

<

>

>

>

>

>

>

:

31

where the lift, drag, and pitching moment coefcients

(C

L

; C

D

; C

m

) are modelled as:

Aerodynamic parameter estimation using adaptive UKF

M. Majeed and Indra Narayan Kar

Aircraft Engineering and Aerospace Technology: An International Journal

Volume 85 Number 4 2013 267279

272

Figure 3 Performance of adaptive and standard UKF algorithms

0.22

0.2

12

11

10

0.229

0.2285

0.228

22.8

23

5.65

5.6

0.6

0.5

0.4

1.155

1.16

1.185

1.382

1.384

0 10 20 30 40 0 10 40

0 10 20 30 40 0 10 20 30 40

0 10 20

Time in sec

Time in sec

30 40 0 10 20 30 40

0 10 20 30 40 0 10 20 30 40

Adap UKF

True Value

UKF

C

L

0

C

L

L

a

C

L

L

a

C

m

m

e

C

m

m

e

C

L

q

C

m

0

C

m

q

Figure 2 Histories of output variables for the generic transport aircraft

20

0

20

50

0

40

20

0

20

40

50

0

50

40

20

0

20

40

10

5

d

e

l

e

(

)

a

z

(

m

/

s

2

)

q

p

(

/

s

2

)

q

(

/

s

)

)

0

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

50

Time in sec

Simulated, and

estimated

Aerodynamic parameter estimation using adaptive UKF

M. Majeed and Indra Narayan Kar

Aircraft Engineering and Aerospace Technology: An International Journal

Volume 85 Number 4 2013 267279

273

C

D

C

D0

C

DV

V

Vo

C

Da

a

C

L

C

L0

C

LV

V

Vo

C

La

a

C

m

C

m0

C

mV

V

Vo

C

ma

a C

mq

q c

2Vo

C

mde

d

e

8

>

>

>

<

>

>

>

:

32

where V

0

is initial value of V. The dynamic pressure q

0:5rV

2

contains state variable V which introduces

nonlinearity in estimation process as it multiplies with all

derivatives needs to be estimated. The following measurement

model is used to estimate the aerodynamic derivatives

including drag coefcients:

V

m

V

a

m

a

u

m

u

q

m

q

_ q

m

2

qS c

I

y

C

m

F

e

I

y

l

tx

sins

T

l

tz

coss

T

a

xm

qS

m

C

X

F

e

m

coss

T

a

zm

qS

m

C

Z

F

e

m

sins

T

33

Figure 5 The DLR HFB-320 research aircraft

Figure 4 Performance of adaptive UKF algorithm in Monte Carlo simulation

0.215

0.21

0.205

5.62

5.61

5.6

11

10.5

10

0.48

0.47

0.46

0.2283

0.2282

1.161

1.1612

1.1614

22.98

22.99

23

1.3825

1.383

1.3835

0 500 1,000 1,500 2,000

Number of iterations

2,500 3,000 3,500 4,000

C

m

e

C

L

e

C

L

C

L

q

C

m

C

m

0

C

L

0

C

m

q

Table I Lift force and pitching moment derivatives

M 5 0.25, H 5 5,000 ft

Parameters True value Mean estimated values

C

L0

0.2102 0.2095 (7.14 10

204

)

*

C

La

5.6275 5.6165 (0.0017)

C

Lq

10.5249 10.5584 (0.1097)

C

Lde

0.4671 0.4712 (0.0076)

C

m0

0.22826 0.2283 (1.9 10

204

)

C

ma

21.1613 21.1613 (4.603 10

204

)

C

mq

222.9920 222.9920 (0.0289)

C

mde

21.3831 21.3830 (0.002)

Note:

*

Mean values of standard deviation of estimates

Aerodynamic parameter estimation using adaptive UKF

M. Majeed and Indra Narayan Kar

Aircraft Engineering and Aerospace Technology: An International Journal

Volume 85 Number 4 2013 267279

274

where the longitudinal and vertical force coefcients C

X

and

C

Z

are given by:

C

X

C

L

sina 2C

D

cosa

C

Z

2C

L

cosa 2C

D

sina

(

34

Thus, the unknown parameter vector Q need to be

estimated is consisting of the aerodynamic derivatives and is

given by:

Q

C

D0

C

DV

C

Da

C

L0

C

LV

C

La

C

m0

C

mV

C

ma

C

mq

C

mde

h i

T

Results and analysis for ight test data

The adaptive UKF algorithm was applied to estimate the

aerodynamic parameters from the ight data. We have

introduced initial state x

0

(106.02, 0.11, 0.15, 20.003) for

master UKF and x

20

(1.2856, 5.86 10

2005

, 2.01 10

2006

,

3.02 10

2005

) for slave UKF. Similarly, state propagation error

covariance matrixP

0

diag(10, 10, 10, 10) for master UKFand

P

20

diag (1, 1, 1, 1) for slave UKF. Figure 6 shows the ight

measured and model estimated responses for the HFB-320

researchaircraft. Themodel estimatedsignals axandazshow

large deviations fromthe rst fewdata points. It may be due to the

initial state error covariance matrix(P

0

) speciedmaybetoolarge

for the system states or parameters. Similar type of initial

mismatch was shown in Figure 2 for the case of simulated data.

Apart from this, the agreement between ight measured and

model estimated responses is good.

The similar parameter estimation procedure was carried

out using EKF, UKF, and UKFaug algorithms and compared

their performance for the purpose of aerodynamic parameter

estimation (Chowdhary and Jategaonkar, 2009). Here, we

repeated the applications of these EKF, UKF, and UKFaug

algorithms for the purpose of comparison with Adaptive UKF

algorithmand showing the agreement in estimated parameters.

The details of the estimation methods (EKF, and UKFaug) are

not described here for brevity, and they are illustrated in

(Chowdhary and Jategaonkar, 2009).

Figure 7 shows the performance of these RPE methods for

the purpose of aerodynamic parameter estimation from ight

data. It shows that convergence of the estimates for the adaptive

UKF is similar to the usual UKF and other methods, so that

the use of adaptive UKF is appreciable without knowing Q.

Table II compares the numerical values in four decimal places of

the estimates of the parameters arrived at with the different

methods. It is clearlyseenthat the parameter estimates of all these

methods are in close vicinity of one another, and all numerical

values are ingoodagreement. The performance of these methods

Figure 6 Histories of output variables for HFB-320 aircraft

114

104

7.5

5

10

2

2.5

2.5

8

0

8

1.2

0.7

7.5

11.5

0

0

a

z

(

m

/

s

2

)

q

d

o

t

(

/

s

)

q

(

/

s

)

)

a

x

(

m

/

s

2

)

v

(

m

/

s

)

10 20 30 40 50 60

Time in sec

Measure and Estimated

e

(

)

Aerodynamic parameter estimation using adaptive UKF

M. Majeed and Indra Narayan Kar

Aircraft Engineering and Aerospace Technology: An International Journal

Volume 85 Number 4 2013 267279

275

and their close agreement canlargely be attributedto anaccurate

mathematical model of the system under consideration. The

performance analysis of EKF and UKF are discussed broadly in

the context of aerodynamic parameter estimation (Chowdhary

and Jategaonkar, 2009). Here, we are emphasizing the

application of adaptive UKF to obtain immediate knowledge

about an aircraft model under variation of process noise due to

the external disturbance. The next section illustrates the

credibility of adaptive lter.

The dynamic changes of process noise

The estimationaccuracyof the adaptive UKFwithrespect tothe

situation of changing process-noise covariance is tested. The

change of the true process-noise intensity is assumed as:

Q

To

diag{1:2856 5:861210

25

0:203510

25

3:019910

25

}; t ,20sec

Q

T

diag{1:285610

23

5:861210

28

0:203510

28

3:019910

28

}; t $20sec

8

>

>

>

>

>

<

>

>

>

>

>

:

35

Filter error method (FEM) represents the most general

stochastic approach to aircraft parameter estimation

(Jategaonkar and Plaetschke, 1989, 1990; Jategaonkar, 1993)

and estimates state noise distribution matrix F additional to the

system parameters to calculate process noise covariance

Q FF

T

Dt

21

, Dt is sampling time. In UKF, the prior

knowledge of the process noise covariance is selected as

Q Q

T0

, which is the true process noise covariance computed

Figure 7 Performances of RPE methods

Table II Comparison of parameter estimates

Parameters RPE methods

FEM Adapt. UKF UKF UK Faug EKF

Computational time 7.55 5.83 11 2.56

C

D0

0.1226 (2.45) 0.1226 (2.64) 0.1226 (2.64) 0.1239 (2.55) 0.1235 (2.50)

C

DV

20.0645 (3.95) 20.0642 (4.27) 20.0642 (4.27) 20.0653 (4.09) 20.0652 (4.01)

C

Da

0.3201 (2.26) 0.3197 (2.40) 0.3197 (2.40) 0.3160 (2.37) 0.3191 (2.33)

C

L0

20.0929 (21.10) 20.0871 (22.91) 20.0871 (22.91) 20.0990 (20.03) 20.0853 (23.49)

C

LV

0.1487 (11.10) 0.1468 (11.42) 0.1468 (11.42) 0.1569 (10.61) 0.1440 (11.69)

C

La

4.3278 (1.08) 4.2894 (1.14) 4.2894 (1.14) 4.3032 (1.13) 4.3027 (1.14)

C

m0

0.1119 (3.27) 0.1115 (4.29) 0.1115 (4.29) 0.1152 (3.40) 0.1115 (4.28)

C

mV

0.0040 (82.10) 0.0045 (92.19) 0.0045 (92.19) 0.0022 (153.88) 0.0046 (90.48)

C

ma

20.9679 (1.12) 20.9703 (1.54) 20.9703 (1.54) 20.9832 (1.24) 20.9712 (1.54)

C

mq

234.7098 (2.27) 235.3628 (2.82) 235.3628 (2.82) 235.0981 (2.27) 234.9372 (2.85)

C

mde

21.5291 (1.27) 21.5395 (1.65) 21.5395 (1.65) 21.5517 (1.31) 21.5328 (1.65)

Note: The values in parenthesis denote standard deviation values in percent

Aerodynamic parameter estimation using adaptive UKF

M. Majeed and Indra Narayan Kar

Aircraft Engineering and Aerospace Technology: An International Journal

Volume 85 Number 4 2013 267279

276

by ofine FEM(Jategaonkar and Plaetschke, 1990) and it is get

changed after 20 s, i.e. Q Q

T

. But in the case of adaptive

UKF, process-noise intensity xed to the very small quantity

for the credibility to select arbitrarily small value of Q:

Q

adp

To

diag{1:2856 10

214

5:8612 10

219

0:2035 10

219

3:0199 10

219

}; t , 20 sec

Q

adp

T

diag{1:2856 10

217

5:8612 10

221

0:2035 10

221

3:0199 10

221

}; t $ 20 sec

8

>

>

>

>

>

<

>

>

>

>

>

:

36

Thus, the Qof the adaptive lter is randomly selectedtovery small

value as Q Q

adp

T0

without a priori knowledge of noise statistics

and it is get changed to Q Q

adp

T

after the time of 20s. The state-

estimation errors of the classical UKF, and the adaptive UKF,

under the same condition of the process-noise intensity change,

are shown in Figure 8. It shows that, under incorrect noise

information for the case of Q change after 20s, the classical

UKF cannot produce optimal estimates as showing the case of

Q xed due to the violation of the optimality conditions.

On the contrary, the estimation errors in the adaptive UKF are

quickly overcome at the time of 20s and are almost the same as

their previous value for the cost of additional computation in

estimation of process noise (Figure 8(b)). The estimated Q value

in average for the last ten iterations of adaptive UKF is given by:

^

Q

adp

avg

diag{1:2856 5:8612 10

25

2:0035

10

26

3:0199 10

25

}

37

The aerodynamic pitching moment derivatives estimates by

standard UKF, and the adaptive UKF under the same condition

of the process-noise intensity change, are shown in

Figures 9 and 10, respectively. We can see that, by the classical

UKF, the aerodynamic parameter estimations happen to

divergence after the time of 20s due to the priori covariance

setting of UKF fails to meet the true values. By the application of

adaptive UKF, on the other hand, the estimated parameters

Figure 8 State-estimation errors with the time varying process noise

(a) Standard UKF

(b) Adaptive UKF

Aerodynamic parameter estimation using adaptive UKF

M. Majeed and Indra Narayan Kar

Aircraft Engineering and Aerospace Technology: An International Journal

Volume 85 Number 4 2013 267279

277

converge to same as before (Figure 10) even though the process

noise covariance was changed.

In real application, there is a possibility of the error in the

assumption of the prior knowledge of noise (say order of 10

23

).

This leads tothe xing of very low/highvalue of Qwithreference

to its true value, and degrades the performance of the UKF

throughparameter divergence as showninFigure 9. It is a major

issue in online ight stability and control parameter estimation,

which has addressed by the adaptive UKF. It is ensure that by

online estimating the process noise covariance, the adaptive

UKF successfully reject the inuence caused by the

incorrect priori covariance of process noise and achieve better

estimates of aerodynamic parameters under varying noise

statistics.

Conclusions

This paper described the application of adaptive UKF

algorithm to estimate aircraft aerodynamic parameters from

noisy ight data. Initially, it was successfully applied to the ight

simulated data with moderate to high level of process noise and

the results were analyzed based on a Monte Carlo simulation

with 4,000 realizations. Subsequently, the performance of the

adaptive UKF was demonstrated to identify the aircraft system

dynamics from ight test data, which was superior to the

classical UKF in terms of fast convergence and estimation

accuracy while changing the noise statistics. Therefore, the

potential use of adaptive UKF is favoured to the design of

adaptive ight controller for the recursive estimation of

unobserved states in the aircraft system model and unknown

aerodynamic parameters. It is worth to note that the two UKFs

are independent in the adaptive UKFstructure. Thus, the slave

UKF can be replaced by another simple lter such as Kalman

lter to save the computational burden further. This may be

considered as a future work, if the efcacy of proposed adaptive

lter is signicant for the cost of additional computation in

estimation of process noise.

Figure 9 UKF-divergence of parameter estimates due to changing process noise

0

0.95

1

1.05

25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60

60 50 40 30

Time in sec

20 10 0

1

2

3

20

25

30

35

C

m

q

C

m

UKF Q change

UKF +

UKF

FEM

Figure 10 Adaptive UKF-convergence of parameter estimates while changing process noise

2

1

0

1

2

3

20

25

30

35

40

0.9

1

1.1

0 10 20 30

Time in sec

40 50 60

25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60

C

m

q

C

m

AdpUKE

AdpUKF+

AdpUKF

FEM

AdpUKE

AdpUKF+

AdpUKF

FEM

Aerodynamic parameter estimation using adaptive UKF

M. Majeed and Indra Narayan Kar

Aircraft Engineering and Aerospace Technology: An International Journal

Volume 85 Number 4 2013 267279

278

References

Blanchet, I., Frankignoul, C. and Cane, M. (1977),

A comparison of adaptive Kalman lters for a tropical,

Pacic Ocean Model, Vol. 125 No. 1, pp. 40-58.

Celso-Braga, D.M., Hemerly, E.M. and Carlos, S.L. (2007),

Adaptive stochastic ltering for online aircraft ight path

reconstruction, Journal of Aircraft, Vol. 44 No. 5,

pp. 1546-1558.

Chanying, L. and Guo, L. (2010), A new critical theorem for

adaptive nonlinear stabilization, Automatica, Vol. 46,

pp. 999-1007.

Chowdhary, G. and Jategaonkar, R.V. (2009), Aerodynamic

parameter estimation from ight data applying extended

and unscented Kalman lter, Aerospace Science and

Technology, Vol. 14 No. 2, pp. 106-117.

Grewal, M.S. and Andrews, A.P. (1993), Kalman Filtering

Theory and Practice, Prentice-Hall, Upper Saddle River, NJ.

Haykin, S. and deFreitas, N. (2004), Special issue on

sequential state estimation, Proceedings of the IEEE.

Iliff, K.W. (1978), Identication and stochastic control of an

aircraft ying in turbulence, Journal of Guidance, Control,

and Dynamics, Vol. 1 No. 2, pp. 689-695.

Jategaonkar, R.V. (1993), A comparison of output error and

lter error methods from aircraft parameter estimation

results, Proceedings of the NAL-DLR Symposium on System

Identication, DLR-Mitt, 93-1463-87.

Jategaonkar, R.V. (2006), Flight Vehicle System Identication:

ATime Domain Methodology, AIAA Progress in Astronautics

and Aeronautics Series, AIAA, Reston, VA.

Jategaonkar, R.V. and Plaetschke, E. (1989), Algorithm for

aircraft parameter estimation accounting for process and

measurement noise, Journal of Aircraft, Vol. 26 No. 4,

pp. 360-372.

Jategaonkar, R.V. and Plaetschke, E. (1990), Identication

of moderately nonliear ight mechanics systems with aditive

process and measurement noise, Journal of Guidance,

Control and Dynamics, Vol. 13 No. 2, pp. 277-285.

Julier, S. and Uhlmann, J.K. (2004), Unscented ltering and

nonlinear estimation, Proceedings of the IEEE.

Julier, S.J. and Uhlmann, J.K. (1995), A new approach for

ltering nonlinear system, paper presented at American

Control Conference.

Juntong, Q., Song, D., Wu, C., Han, J. and Wang, T. (2012),

KF-based adaptive UKF algorithm and its applications for

rotorcraft UAV actuator failure estimation, International

Journal of Advanced Robotic Systems, Vol. 9, pp. 132-141.

Katebi, M.R., Jgrimble, M. and Byrne, J. (1985), LQGadaptive

autopilot design, Proceedings of the 7th IFAC Symposium on

Identication and System Parameter Estimation, York.

Klein, V. and Moreli, E.A. (2006), Aircraft system

identication theory and practice, AIAA, Education

Series, AIAA, Reston, VA.

Lee, D.J. and Alfriend, K.T. (2004), Adaptive sigma point

ltering for state and parameter estimation, paper

presented at AIAA/AAS Astrodynamics Specialist

Conference and Exhibit, RI.

Majeed, M. andKar, I.N. (2010), Calibrationof air data systems

using extended Kalman ltering technique, International

Journal of Aerospace Innovations, Vol. 2 Nos 1/2, pp. 133-147.

Maybeck, P.S. (1979), Stochastic Models, Estimation, and

Control, Academic Press, New York, NY.

Myers, K.A. and Tapley, B.T. (1976), Adaptive sequential

estimation with unknown noise statistics, IEEETransactions on

Automatic Control, Vol. 21 No. 4, pp. 520-523.

Pedro, J.O. and Kantue, P. (2011), Online aerodynamic

parameter estimation of a miniature unmanned helicopter

using radial basis function neural networks, paper

presented at 8th Asian Control Conference, Kaohsiung,

Taiwan, May.

Pesonen, U., Steck, J. and Rokhsaz, K. (2004), Adaptive

neural network inverse controller for general aviation safety,

Journal of Guidance, Control, and Dynamics, Vol. 27 No. 3,

pp. 434-443.

Shi, Y., Han, C. and Liang, Y. (2009), Adaptive UKF for

target tracking with unknown process noise statistics,

paper presented at 12th International Conference on

Information Fusion, Seattle, WA, USA.

Song, Q. and Han, J.D. (2008), An adaptive UKF algorithm

for the state and parameter estimations of a mobile robot,

Acta Automatica Sinica, Vol. 34 No. 1.

Song, Q., Jiang, Z. and Jinda-Da, H. (2007), Noise covariance

identication based adaptive UKF with application to mobile

robot systems, paper presented at IEEE International

Conference on Robotics and Automation, Italy.

Wittenmark, B. and Astrom, K.J. (1984), Practical Issues in

the implimentation of self-tuning control, Automatica,

Vol. 20 No. 5, pp. 595-605.

Xiong, K., H, Y. and Zhang, C.W. (2006), Performance

evaluation of UKF-based nonlinear ltering, Automatica,

Vol. 42, pp. 261-270.

Zhao, L. and Wang, X. (2009), An adaptive UKF with noise

statistic estimator, paper presented at 4th IEEE Conference

on Industrial Electronics and Applications (ICIEA 2009),

Xian.

About the authors

M. Majeed completed his B.Tech

(Instrumentation & Control) from Calicut

University in 1998 and M.Tech (Control

Engineering) from IIT Delhi, India in 2002. He

is a research scholar at IIT Delhi and working as

senior scientist in CSIR-National Aerospace

Laboratories, Bangalore. His research interests

are aircraft parameter estimation, nonlinear systemidentication,

contraction based stability analysis, and data fusion. M. Majeed

is the corresponding author and can be contacted at:

majeed_md_123@rediffmail.com

Indra Narayan Kar completed his M.Tech and

PhD (Electrical) from IIT Kanpur in 1991 and

1997, respectively. He is working as Professor at

the Department of Electrical Engineering, Indian

Institute of Technology Delhi. His research

interests are robust and intelligent control,

nonlinear control, and system identication.

To purchase reprints of this article please e-mail: reprints@emeraldinsight.com

Or visit our web site for further details: www.emeraldinsight.com/reprints

Aerodynamic parameter estimation using adaptive UKF

M. Majeed and Indra Narayan Kar

Aircraft Engineering and Aerospace Technology: An International Journal

Volume 85 Number 4 2013 267279

279

- curriculum gridDiunggah olehapi-105903956
- Extended Kalman Filtering for Battery Management Systems of LiPB-based HEV Battery Packs Part 1. BackgroundDiunggah olehtyanfeng
- Filtering in FinanceDiunggah olehongc123
- Neuro fuzzyDiunggah olehAdam Anugrah
- Reflection for This SemesterDiunggah olehYilin Han
- Strategies ReadingDiunggah olehPETER
- Class Schedule Summer 2015Diunggah olehvisayasstateu
- 348537Diunggah olehEdoardo Bianchi
- NN-01_PPT UPIS SitaDiunggah olehkasparov
- Planning and Navigation for RobotsDiunggah olehinnoodira
- SummaryDiunggah olehSushant Sanap
- 9 Association Rule MiningDiunggah olehEric Gardner
- Simpson's RuleDiunggah olehAlden Tomongha
- Linear Equation Calculator - Slope, Intercept, And Coefficient of Determination (Confidence)Diunggah olehbigredweasel
- Signals and Systems 8Diunggah olehAnonymous MQjBLReGmX
- Statistical arbitrage_CDS_haitao_liDiunggah olehMayank
- ACO-Based Algorithm in Cognitive Radio NetworksDiunggah olehIJSTE
- 10-15-12Diunggah olehmacoffey
- Growing Degree DaysDiunggah olehMARK MANHUYOD
- Vrugth dealing with uncertaninty.pdfDiunggah olehChristian Guardia Calderón
- 3lm back to school 2015-16 pdfDiunggah olehapi-283723776
- Chapter 5 SolutionDiunggah olehRyan Simmons
- Valera 05Diunggah olehUriel Ouake
- araj2Diunggah olehJai
- sept 12 2014 newsletter 1st gradeDiunggah olehapi-243158817
- Yarrow FullDiunggah olehg007adam759
- PhDSampleQ_IEORDiunggah olehTamiltamil Tamil
- linguistics & computationDiunggah olehKenyon Duncan
- Bootcamp2-TechnicalTestDiunggah olehabi
- Lab7_ImageResamplingDiunggah olehBhaskar Belavadi

- Book AnnouncementsDiunggah olehRitesh Singh
- trajectoryDiunggah olehRitesh Singh
- 2011_Adaptive Optimal Control for an Air-breathing Hypersonic VehicleDiunggah olehRitesh Singh
- Home Assignment BETDiunggah olehRitesh Singh
- RadarDiunggah olehRitesh Singh
- Airplane Performance Sensitivities to Lateral and Vertical ProfilesDiunggah olehRitesh Singh
- Reduced-Order Observers Applied to State and Parameter Estimation Ofhydromechanical ServoactuatorsDiunggah olehRitesh Singh
- Comment on _Active Flutter Control Using Generalized Unsteady Aerodynamic TheoryDiunggah olehRitesh Singh
- Effect of Thrust Speed Dependence on Long-period Dynamics in Supersonic FlightDiunggah olehRitesh Singh
- Config Aero SizeDiunggah olehRitesh Singh
- Control Systems ApplicationDiunggah olehRitesh Singh
- Dynamic Programming MatlabDiunggah olehRitesh Singh
- ControlDiunggah olehRitesh Singh
- 17076587Diunggah olehRitesh Singh
- 17058089Diunggah olehRitesh Singh
- 17053019Diunggah olehRitesh Singh
- 17076591Diunggah olehRitesh Singh
- Dynamic Inversion With Zero-dynamics Stablization for Quadrotor ControlDiunggah olehRitesh Singh
- Asymptotic Generalised Dynamic InversionDiunggah olehRitesh Singh
- Flight SimulationDiunggah olehRitesh Singh
- AerospaceDiunggah olehRitesh Singh
- Loop Shapind Design ProcedureDiunggah olehRitesh Singh
- Fractional Order Phase Shaper Design With Routh’sDiunggah olehRitesh Singh
- Fixed-Structure H∞ Controller Synthesis Based onDiunggah olehRitesh Singh
- Design of Robust Fuzzy Controllers for Aerospace ApplicationsDiunggah olehRitesh Singh
- Design of Reduced Order H-Inf ControllersDiunggah olehRitesh Singh
- Damage-mmgating Control of Aerospace SystemsDiunggah olehRitesh Singh
- Autopilot Design for Missile With Morphing WingsDiunggah olehRitesh Singh
- An Nvstigation Op Adaptive ControlDiunggah olehRitesh Singh

- A Street Car Named Desire (Penguin)Diunggah olehthe_perfectionist
- Ppt 011Diunggah olehkanggun0225
- Unbroken: A Ruined Novel by Paula Morris (Excerpt)Diunggah olehI Read YA
- Harris 207e.experiments 2017May06 (1)Diunggah olehEstefania Riveros
- 24 Parathyroid Gland and Calcium for StudentsDiunggah olehKendon Tajanlangit
- UMT Thesis or Project Format STDDiunggah olehNaveed
- Insulin Pump Z SchemasDiunggah olehTan Nwit
- 2012 Endeavour Awards Referee Report(2)Diunggah olehKarma Wangdi
- evid2.docDiunggah olehStorage
- Chapter 31 Research and DevelopmentDiunggah olehMangoStarr Aibelle Vegas
- Bradmark Questions Ch 9_No 2Diunggah olehGracia Mega Gunawan
- Professional_Services_Brochure.pdfDiunggah olehDahagam Saumith
- AR 702-6Diunggah olehWilliam T. Rooker
- ASTM A307 Standard Specification for Carbon Steel Bolts, Studs, And Threaded Rod 60 000 PSI Tensile Strength (2)Diunggah olehRichard Rodriguez
- DxDiagDiunggah olehYudha Hermawan
- Science Mole PaperDiunggah olehBobbi Boone
- 005 History of Technology Manufacturing_ShingalDiunggah olehLibardo Ramírez Gómez
- revistaforumgeografic2005Diunggah olehzona_gri
- SHKexDiunggah olehC.H. LIM
- Conscious Living, Conscious Aging - Chapter OneDiunggah olehBeyond Words Publishing
- The Masterpieces of the Ohio Mound BuildersDiunggah olehRob Stone
- Huawei HyperImage Technical White Paper.pdfDiunggah olehMenganoFulano
- Essay - Gwen Harwood - Poetry (Father & Child), (Triste, Triste)Diunggah olehJnrules123
- Puzzles AnanyDiunggah olehKavitha Subramaniam
- AUDIOVOX AVP7280_7200Diunggah olehJustin Williams
- 8-Additional IPSubnetting KEDDiunggah olehAnonymous cs4BLczE
- Case Study of a Patient With Ischemic CardiomyopathyDiunggah olehromeo rivera
- Actice Directory FAQ With AnswersDiunggah olehNavanath
- 2008 on HP Proliant - c00710606Diunggah olehcalinut1975
- Indicators of Scholarship and Propaganda HandoutDiunggah olehalexandradolan