Engineering Papers⌕ Search

SEARCH · Engineering Papers

Results for “integer optimal control”

Search indexed NASA NTRS and DOE OSTI research on propulsion, heat transfer, battery materials and energy systems. Follow report and document links to the original sources.

Quote a phrase for an exact phrase match. Source license links do not imply unrestricted reuse.

25 records · Page 2
All sourcesNASA NTRSDOE OSTI
NASA NTRS2003

Computational Analysis of Cryogenic Flow Through a Control Valve

The initial efforts to develop the capability to model valves used in rocket engine component testing at Stennis Space Center are documented. An axisymmetric model of a control valve with LN2 as the working fluid was developed. The goal was to predict the effect of change in the plug/sear region of the valve prior to testing. The valve flow coefficient was predicted for a range of plug positions. Verification of the calculations was carried out to quantify the uncertainty in the numerical answer. The modeled results compared well qualitatively to experimental trends. Additionally, insights into the flow processes in the valve were obtained. Benefits from the verification process included the ability to use coarser grids and insight into ways to reduce computational time by using double precision accuracy and non-integer grid ratios. Future valve modeling activities will include shape optimization of the valve/seat region and dynamic grid modeling.

Danes, Russell↗
NASA NTRS2008

Efficient G(sup 4)FET-Based Logic Circuits

A total of 81 optimal logic circuits based on four-gate field-effect transistors (G(sup 4)4FETs) have been designed to implement all Boolean functions of up to three variables. The purpose of this development was to lend credence to the expectation that logic circuits based on G(sup 4)FETs could be more efficient (in the sense that they could contain fewer transistors), relative to functionally equivalent logic circuits based on conventional transistors. A G(sup 4)FET a combination of a junction field-effect transistor (JFET) and a metal oxide/semiconductor field-effect transistor (MOSFET) superimposed in a single silicon island and can therefore be regarded as two transistors sharing the same body. A G(sup 4)FET can also be regarded as a single device having four gates: two side junction-based gates, a top MOS gate, and a back gate activated by biasing of a silicon-on-insulator substrate. Each of these gates can be used to control the conduction characteristics of the transistor; this possibility creates new options for designing analog, radio-frequency, mixed-signal, and digital circuitry. One such option is to design a G(sup 4)FET to function as a three-input NOT-majority gate, which has been shown to be a universal and programmable logic gate. Optimal NOT-majority-gate, G(sup 4)FET-based logic-circuit designs were obtained in a comparative study that also included formulation of functionally equivalent logic circuits based on NOR and NAND gates implemented by use of conventional transistors. In the study, the problem of finding the optimal design for each logic function and each transistor type was solved as an integer-programming optimization problem. Considering all 81 non-equivalent Boolean functions included in the study, it was found that in 63% of the cases, fewer logic gates (and, hence, fewer transistors) would be needed in the G(sup 4)FET-based implementations.

Vatan, Farrokh↗
NASA NTRS2003

Runway Operations Planning: A Two-Stage Solution Methodology

The airport runway is a scarce resource that must be shared by different runway operations (arrivals, departures and runway crossings). Given the possible sequences of runway events, careful Runway Operations Planning (ROP) is required if runway utilization is to be maximized. Thus, Runway Operations Planning (ROP) is a critical component of airport operations planning in general and surface operations planning in particular. From the perspective of departures, ROP solutions are aircraft departure schedules developed by optimally allocating runway time for departures given the time required for arrivals and crossings. In addition to the obvious objective of maximizing throughput, other objectives, such as guaranteeing fairness and minimizing environmental impact, may be incorporated into the ROP solution subject to constraints introduced by Air Traffic Control (ATC) procedures. Generating optimal runway operations plans was approached in with a 'one-stage' optimization routine that considered all the desired objectives and constraints, and the characteristics of each aircraft (weight class, destination, Air Traffic Control (ATC) constraints) at the same time. Since, however, at any given point in time, there is less uncertainty in the predicted demand for departure resources in terms of weight class than in terms of specific aircraft, the ROP problem can be parsed into two stages. In the context of the Departure Planner (OP) research project, this paper introduces Runway Operations Planning (ROP) as part of the wider Surface Operations Optimization (SOO) and describes a proposed 'two stage' heuristic algorithm for solving the Runway Operations Planning (ROP) problem. Focus is specifically given on including runway crossings in the planning process of runway operations. In the first stage, sequences of departure class slots and runwy crossings slots are generated and ranked based on departure runway throughput under stochastic conditions. In the second stage, the departure class slots are populated with specific flights from the pool of available aircraft, by solving an integer program. Preliminary results from the algorithm implementation on real-world traffic data are included.

Anagnostakis, Ioannis↗
NASA NTRS1994

Multidisciplinary design optimization using genetic algorithms

Multidisciplinary design optimization (MDO) is an important step in the conceptual design and evaluation of launch vehicles since it can have a significant impact on performance and life cycle cost. The objective is to search the system design space to determine values of design variables that optimize the performance characteristic subject to system constraints. Gradient-based optimization routines have been used extensively for aerospace design optimization. However, one limitation of gradient based optimizers is their need for gradient information. Therefore, design problems which include discrete variables can not be studied. Such problems are common in launch vehicle design. For example, the number of engines and material choices must be integer values or assume only a few discrete values. In this study, genetic algorithms are investigated as an approach to MDO problems involving discrete variables and discontinuous domains. Optimization by genetic algorithms (GA) uses a search procedure which is fundamentally different from those gradient based methods. Genetic algorithms seek to find good solutions in an efficient and timely manner rather than finding the best solution. GA are designed to mimic evolutionary selection. A population of candidate designs is evaluated at each iteration, and each individual's probability of reproduction (existence in the next generation) depends on its fitness value (related to the value of the objective function). Progress toward the optimum is achieved by the crossover and mutation operations. GA is attractive since it uses only objective function values in the search process, so gradient calculations are avoided. Hence, GA are able to deal with discrete variables. Studies report success in the use of GA for aircraft design optimization studies, trajectory analysis, space structure design and control systems design. In these studies reliable convergence was achieved, but the number of function evaluations was large compared with efficient gradient methods. Applicaiton of GA is underway for a cost optimization study for a launch-vehicle fuel-tank and structural design of a wing. The strengths and limitations of GA for launch vehicle design optimization is studied.

Unal, Resit↗
NASA NTRS1991

Some practical universal noiseless coding techniques, part 3, module PSl14,K+

The algorithmic definitions, performance characterizations, and application notes for a high-performance adaptive noiseless coding module are provided. Subsets of these algorithms are currently under development in custom very large scale integration (VLSI) at three NASA centers. The generality of coding algorithms recently reported is extended. The module incorporates a powerful adaptive noiseless coder for Standard Data Sources (i.e., sources whose symbols can be represented by uncorrelated non-negative integers, where smaller integers are more likely than the larger ones). Coders can be specified to provide performance close to the data entropy over any desired dynamic range (of entropy) above 0.75 bit/sample. This is accomplished by adaptively choosing the best of many efficient variable-length coding options to use on each short block of data (e.g., 16 samples) All code options used for entropies above 1.5 bits/sample are 'Huffman Equivalent', but they require no table lookups to implement. The coding can be performed directly on data that have been preprocessed to exhibit the characteristics of a standard source. Alternatively, a built-in predictive preprocessor can be used where applicable. This built-in preprocessor includes the familiar 1-D predictor followed by a function that maps the prediction error sequences into the desired standard form. Additionally, an external prediction can be substituted if desired. A broad range of issues dealing with the interface between the coding module and the data systems it might serve are further addressed. These issues include: multidimensional prediction, archival access, sensor noise, rate control, code rate improvements outside the module, and the optimality of certain internal code options.

Rice, Robert F.↗
NASA NTRS2017

Efficient Trajectory Options Allocation for the Collaborative Trajectory Options Program

The Collaborative Trajectory Options Program (CTOP) is a Traffic Management Initiative (TMI) intended to control the air traffic flow rates at multiple specified Flow Constrained Areas (FCAs), where demand exceeds capacity. CTOP allows flight operators to submit the desired Trajectory Options Set (TOS) for each affected flight with associated Relative Trajectory Cost (RTC) for each option. CTOP then creates a feasible schedule that complies with capacity constraints by assigning affected flights with routes and departure delays in such a way as to minimize the total cost while maintaining equity across flight operators. The current version of CTOP implements a Ration-by-Schedule (RBS) scheme, which assigns the best available options to flights based on a First-Scheduled-First-Served heuristic. In the present study, an alternative flight scheduling approach is developed based on linear optimization. Results suggest that such an approach can significantly reduce flight delays, in the deterministic case, while maintaining equity as defined using a Max-Min fairness scheme.

Traffic Management Initiative (TMI)↗
NASA NTRSDate not supplied

An Optimization Approach to Support Science Decision Making for Lunar Surface Exploration

Introduction: Scientific exploration is one of the three pillars of NASA’s Moon2Mars architecture, with crew surface extra vehicular activities (EVA) serving a critical enabling function. Development of surface EVA operational planning and execution, specifically integrating science and flight control teams (FCT), is currently being explored through analog scenarios. This integration, exercised, for example, through the Joint EVA and Hu-man Surface Mobility Test Team (JETT), allows for science input on EVA activities in near real-time through a Science Evaluation Room (SER), or Arte-mis science backroom, which integrates with the broader FCT through the Science Officer. The SER works within the FCT to support dynamic EVA planning in response to changes in operational constraints as well as science opportunities and re-prioritization, increasing the mission science return and accelerating the accomplishment of the Moon2Mars science objectives. The SER works within the FCT to provide recommendations to traverse execution in near real-time. One challenge is the requirement to deliver SER inputs to the FCT on operationally relevant timelines. Failure to do so may result in suboptimal execution of science exploration EVAs or even loss of key science objectives. To close this gap, we present a network optimization tool to allow the SER to provide rapid input to the FCT in response to changes in operational constraints or science opportunities. Inputs are predicated on approved science objectives, and clear rationale must be provided to the FCT for any requested change. Accordingly, this tool incorporates the Science Traceability Matrix (STM), SER prioritization scheme, and station characterization and action planning with operational constraints such as duration, traverse speed, and distance to maximize science objectives based on SER priorities, consistent with FCT operational requirements. Method: As a proof of concept, we used an existing linear programing software package used to simulate optimal routes through cellular metabolism. We built a Demonstrative Model with three STM objectives and four stations on a region of the Moon. The objectives were given an arbitrary prioritization and mapped to the stations through four possible crew actions. (Figs. 1 and 2). This station to STM mapping is consistent with the method used by the JETT5 Science Team to develop analog surface EVA science planning. We used a grid system with the landing site at the origin and the four stations placed across the positive x,y quadrant. Actions were assigned to each station and the accomplishment of those actions resulted in a numerical “reward” based on the ability of that action to achieve science objectives. The aggregate reward from each individual STM objective contributes to a global score (Science Yield), weighted by its priority. Operational constraints included a requirement to start and end at the landing site, 5 minutes each for initial station characterization and “clean up,” and variable total EVA time, traverse rate (fixed to 0.5 meters per second in our example), and time to perform each action (10, 5, 7, and 15 min for actions 1, 2, 3, and 4, respectively). Additional constraints and variables will be added in the future (e.g., sample mass, number of stations, traverse route constraints, illumination). Optimization. We converted the connections (arcs) between these stations (nodes) into a mixed integer linear programming optimization problem (arcs = constraints, nodes = variables) with the objective to maximize Science Yield. For any action, the Science Yield is equal to the relevance of that action to an STM objective [3, 2, and 1 point(s) for High, Med., and Low relevance, respectively], multiplied by the STM Objective Priority [3, 2, and 1 point(s) for High, Med., and Low priority, respectively]. This resulted in a model that computes the optimal station and action combination to maximize the Science Yield. These weightings can be adjusted by the SER as desired. Results: We explored three test cases for the Demonstrative Model. First, we set the maximum EVA duration to 120 minutes and computed the optimal route (Fig. 3A). The model suggested per-forming Actions 1 and 2 at Station P01, followed by Actions 1 and 2 at Station P02, and finally Actions 1 and 3 at Station P04 before returning to the Landing Site. Second, we adjusted the STM Objective Priori-ty order and computed the new optimal route (Fig. 3B). Under this situation, the model suggested per-forming all Actions at Station P02 followed by all Actions at Station P03. The previous test cases were relevant to SER planning activities. Next, we explored providing mid-EVA replanning input to the FCT. Scenario: While executing the Route in Fig. 3A the crew finishes at Station P01 and FCT decides that the EVA needs to finish in 45 minutes back at the Landing Site. FCT asks SER to recommend changes to the plan to accommodate this operation-al change. Using the model and incorporating these new constraints (start at Station P01, max. time of 45 min), the model suggested performing Actions 2 and 4 at Station P03 (Fig. 4), requiring 41 minutes to complete and return to the Landing Site. Interestingly, Station 3 was not part of the original route. Using the model, we determined the EVA would need 66 minutes, instead of 45, in order for the original Station P04 to yield a larger Science Yield than Station P03. The parametrization and simulation was per-formed in less than a minute, demonstrating the operational relevance of the approach. Future Efforts: The results from the Demonstrative Model suggest this tool can accelerate SER decision making on operationally relevant timelines. Use in analog activities, such as JETT5 or follow-ons, which have over a dozen stations for a crew to explore and over a dozen actions per station, will provide needed validation of the utility of this tool for planning EVAs, replanning mid-EVA, or planning follow-on EVAs based on previous results. Further integration with FCT execution monitoring tools may provide additional efficiency gains, al-lowing rapid and iterative exploration of operation-al and science decision space by the FCT and SER.

Science Operations↗