Maneuvering Multibody Dynamics: New Developments for Models with Fast Solution Scales and Pilot-in-the-Loop Effects

  • Carlo L. Bottasso
  • Giorgio Maisano
  • Francesco Scorcelletti
Part of the Computational Methods in Applied Sciences book series (COMPUTMETHODS, volume 23)


The present paper focuses on trajectory optimization problems for multibody vehicle models, accounting for the presence of pilot-in-the-loop effects and fast dynamic components in the solution. The trajectory optimal control problem is solved through a direct approach by means of a novel hybrid single–multiple shooting method. Specific focus of the present work is the inclusion of pilot models in the optimization process, in order to improve the fidelity of the solution by considering the entire coupled human-vehicle system. In particular we investigate a series of maneuvers flown with helicopters, quantifying the performance loss due to human limitations of the pilot-vehicle system with respect to the sole vehicle case.


Optimal Control Problem Multiple Shooting Trajectory Optimization Control Behavior Flight Mechanic 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.



The present research is supported by AgustaWestland through a grant with the Politecnico di Milano, Marco Cicalè being the main project monitor. Simulations using the FLIGHTLABcode were conducted at the AgustaWestland headquarters in Cascina Costa, Italy, using AgustaWestland licenses. The contribution of C. Ravaioli and A. Ragazzi in the preparation of the examples is gratefully acknowledged.


  1. 1.
    Advanced Rotorcraft Technology, Inc., 1685 Plymouth Street, Suite 250, Mountain View, CA 94043.
  2. 2.
    Anonymous (1999) Advisory circular 29-2C, certification of transport category rotorcraft. Federal Aviation Administration, Department of TransportationGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Anonymous (2000) Handling qualities requirements for military rotorcraft. Aeronautical Design Standard, U.S. Army Aviation and Missile Command, Aviation Engineering Directorate, Rept. ADS-33E-PRF, Redstone Arsenal, ALGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Ascher UM, Mattheij RMM, Russell RD (1995) Numerical solution of boundary value problems for ordinary differential equations. Classics in Applied Mathematics, SIAM, vol 13, PhiladelphiaGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Betts JT (2001) Practical methods for optimal control using non-linear programming. SIAM, PhiladelphiaGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Betts JT (1998) Survey of numerical methods for trajectory optimization. J Guid Cont Dynam 21(2):193–207zbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Bottasso CL, Croce A (2004) Optimal control of multibody systems using an energy preserving direct transcription method. Multibody Syst Dyn 12:17–45zbMATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Bottasso CL, Croce A, Leonello D, Riviello L (2005) Optimization of critical trajectories for rotorcraft vehicles. J Am Helicopter Soc 50:165–177CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Bottasso CL, Croce A, Leonello D, Riviello L (2005) Rotorcraft trajectory optimization with realizability considerations. J Aerospace Eng 18:146–155CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Bottasso CL, Chang C-S, Croce A, Leonello D, Riviello L (2006) Adaptive planning and tracking of trajectories for the simulation of maneuvers with multibody models. Comput Meth Appl Mech Eng 195:7052–7072zbMATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Bottasso CL, Maisano G, Scorcelletti F (2008) Trajectory optimization procedures for rotorcraft vehicles, their software implementation and applicability to models of varying complexity. American Helicopter Society 64th Annual Forum, Montréal, Canada. Also: J Am Helicopter Soc, under reviewGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Bottasso CL, Scorcelletti F, Maisano G, Cicalè M, Ragazzi A (2008) Mission task elements and critical maneuvers simulation for rotorcraft vehicles. Rotorcraft Handling Qualities Conference, University of Liverpool, Liverpool, UKGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Bottasso CL (ed.) (2008) Solution procedures for maneuvering multibody dynamics problems for vehicle models of varying complexity. Multibody dynamics – computational methods and applications, Computational Methods in Applied Sciences, ISBN 978-1-4020-8828-5, Springer, Dordrecht, The NetherlandsGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Bottasso CL, Maisano G (2009) Efficient rotorcraft trajectory optimization using comprehensive vehicle models by improved shooting methods. 35th European Rotorcraft Forum, Hamburg, GermanyGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Bradley R, MacDonald CA, Buggy TW (2005) Quantification and prediction of pilot workload in the helicopter/ship dynamic interface. J Aerospace Eng 219(5):29–443Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Bryson AE, Ho YC (1975) Applied optimal control. Wiley, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Davidson JB, Schmidt DK (1992) Modified optimal control pilot model for computer-aided design and analysis. NASA, TM 4348, NASA Langley Research Center, Hampton, VA, USAGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Frazzoli E (2001) Robust hybrid control for autonomous vehicle motion planning. Ph.D. Thesis, Department of Aeronautics and Astronautics. Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, MA, USAGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Gill PE, Murray W, Wright MH (1981) Practical optimization. Academic Press, London and New YorkzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Hess RA (1997) Unified theory for aircraft handling qualities. J Guid Control Dynam 20(6):1141–1148CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Hess RA (2006) Simplified technique for modelling piloted rotorcraft operations near ships. J Guid Control Dynam 29(6):1339–1349CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Höhne G (2000) Computer aided development of biomechanical pilot models. Aero Sci Tech 4:57–69zbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Jagacinski RJ (2003) Control theory for humans – Quantitative approaches to modeling performance. Erlbaum, Mahwah, NJGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Kleinman DL, Baron S, Levison WH (1970) An optimal control model of human response. Part I: theory and validation. Part II: prediction of human performance in a complex task. Automatica 6:357–38Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Kramer U (1985) On the application of fuzzy sets to the analysis of the system-driver-vehicle environment. Automatica 3(1):101–107CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    McRuer DT, Krendel ES (1974) Mathematical models of human pilot behavior. NATO AGARDograph No. 188, Paris, FranceGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Van Paassen R (1994) Biophysics in aircraft control: a model of the neuromuscular system of the pilot’s arm. Ph.D. Thesis, Faculty of Aerospace Engineering. Delft University of Technology, The NetherlandsGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Veeraklaew T, Agrawal SK (2001) New computational framework for trajectory optimization of higher-order dynamic systems. J Guid Control Dynam 24(2):228–236CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Zeyada Y, Hess RA (2000) Modelling human pilot cue utilization with application to simulator fidelity assessment. J Aircraft 37(4):558–597CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  • Carlo L. Bottasso
    • 1
  • Giorgio Maisano
    • 1
  • Francesco Scorcelletti
    • 2
  1. 1.Dipartimento di Ingegneria AerospazialePolitecnico di MilanoMilanoItaly
  2. 2.Flight Mechanics DepartmentAgustaWestlandCascina Costa di SamarateItaly

Personalised recommendations