Error estimation is a crucial step for mesh refinement in pseudospectral trajectory optimization. In the classical error estimation method, the estimated results are susceptible to the influence of interpolation methods, and the reference trajectory does not satisfy the requisite dynamic constraints. To address these issues, an improved method for error estimation is proposed. A simplified optimal control problem is constructed near the originally solved trajectory and then transformed into linear equations through pseudospectral discretization. Finally, a modified trajectory with a reduced dynamic constraint violation is generated and regarded as a reference for error estimation. Numerical simulations verify that the improved method can robustly generate a modified trajectory with smaller differential gaps in an acceptable computation time. The modified trajectory serves as a superior reference for error estimation, facilitating accelerated convergence in practical mesh refinement.
ChaiRSavvarisATsourdosA, et al.A review of optimization techniques in spacecraft flight trajectory design. Prog Aero Sci2019; 109: 100543. DOI: 10.1016/j.paerosci.2019.05.003.
2.
RossIMKarpenkoM. A review of pseudospectral optimal control: from theory to flight. Annu Rev Control2012; 36(2): 182–197. DOI: 10.1016/j.arcontrol.2012.09.002.
3.
ChaiRSavvarisATsourdosA. Violation learning differential evolution-based hp-adaptive pseudospectral method for trajectory optimization of Space Maneuver Vehicle. IEEE Trans Aero Electron Syst2019; 53(4): 2031–2044. DOI: 10.1109/TAES.2017.2680698.
4.
SpadaFSaglianoMTopputoF. Direct–indirect hybrid strategy for optimal powered descent and landing. J Spacecraft Rockets2023; 60(6): 1787–1804. DOI: 10.2514/1.A35650.
5.
SaglianoMSeelbinderDTheilS, et al.Six-Degree-of-Freedom rocket landing optimization via augmented convex–concave decomposition. J Guid Control Dynam2024; 47(1): 20–35. DOI: 10.2514/1.G007570.
6.
WangJCuiNWeiC. Rapid trajectory optimization for hypersonic entry using a pseudospectral-convex algorithm. Proc IME G J Aero Eng2019; 91(4): 669–679. DOI: 10.1177/0954410019840839.
7.
SaglianoMLuPJohnsonB, et al.Six-Degrees-of-Freedom aero-propulsive entry trajectory optimization. In: AIAA SCITECH 2024 Forum. AIAA, 2024, p. 1171. DOI: 10.2514/6.2024-1171.
8.
LiYChenWYangL. Multi-stage linear gauss pseudospectral method for piecewise continuous nonlinear optimal control problems. IEEE Trans Aero Electron Syst2021; 57(4): 2298–2310. DOI: 10.1109/TAES.2021.3054074.
GargDPattersonMHagerWW, et al.A unified framework for the numerical solution of optimal control problems using pseudospectral methods. Automatica2010; 46(11): 1843–1851. DOI: 10.1016/j.automatica.2010.06.048.
11.
WangJLiangHQiZ, et al.Mapped Chebyshev pseudospectral methods for optimal trajectory planning of differentially flat hypersonic vehicle systems. Aero Sci Technol2019; 89: 420–430. DOI: 10.1016/j.ast.2019.04.017.
12.
LaadDElangoPMohanR. Fourier pseudospectral method for trajectory optimization with stability requirements. J Guid Control Dynam2020; 43(11): 2073–2090. DOI: 10.2514/1.g005038.
13.
ZhaoJLiS. Adaptive mesh refinement method for solving optimal control problems using interpolation error analysis and improved data compression. J Franklin Inst2020; 357(3): 1603–1627. DOI: 10.1016/j.jfranklin.2019.11.024.
14.
Abadia-DoyleGRaoA. An hp mesh refinement method for solving nonsmooth optimal control problems. In: AIAA SCITECH 2024 Forum, AIAA 2024-1586, 2024. DOI: 10.2514/6.2024-1586.
15.
LiuFHagerWWRaoAV. Adaptive mesh refinement method for optimal control using decay rates of Legendre polynomial coefficients. IEEE Trans Control Syst Technol2018; 26(4): 1475–1483. DOI: 10.1109/TCST.2017.2702122.
16.
ZhaoJLiS. Modified multiresolution technique for mesh refinement in numerical optimal control. J Guid Control Dynam2017; 40(12): 3328–3338. DOI: 10.2514/1.G002796.
17.
LiZTangXZhangH. Theoretical analysis of pseudospectral convergence based on total variation and a related mesh refinement method. J Comput Phys2022; 463: 111267. DOI: 10.1016/j.jcp.2022.111267.
18.
LiuFHagerWWRaoAV. Adaptive mesh refinement for optimal control using nonsmoothness detection and mesh size reduction. J Franklin Inst2015; 352(10): 4081–4106. DOI: 10.1016/j.jfranklin.2015.05.028.
19.
BettsJT. Practical methods for optimal control and estimation using nonlinear programming. 2nd ed.Philadelphia: SIAM Press, 2009.
20.
DarbyCLHagerWWRaoAV. An hp–adaptive pseudospectral method for solving optimal control problems. Optim Control Appl Methods2011; 32(4): 476–502. DOI: 10.1002/oca.957.
21.
DarbyCLHagerWWRaoAV. Direct trajectory optimization using a variable low-order adaptive pseudospectral method. J Spacecraft Rockets2011; 48(3): 433–445. DOI: 10.2514/1.52136.
22.
PattersonMAHagerWWRaoAV. A ph mesh refinement method for optimal control. Optim Control Appl Methods2015; 36(4): 398–421. DOI: 10.1002/oca.2114.
23.
SouzbanMFardOSBorzabadiAH. A rapid-based improvement on some mesh refinement strategies in solving optimal control problems. IMA J Math Control Inf2020; 37(2): 395–421. DOI: 10.1093/imamci/dnz004.
24.
PattersonMARaoAV. GPOPS-II: a MATLAB software for solving multiple-phase optimal control problems using hp-adaptive Gaussian quadrature collocation methods and sparse nonlinear programming. ACM Trans Math Software2014; 41(1): 1–37. DOI: 10.1145/2558904.
KoeppenNRossIMWilcoxLC, et al.Fast mesh refinement in Pseudospectral optimal control. J Guid Control Dynam2019; 42(4): 711–722. DOI: 10.2514/1.G003904.
27.
GongQKangWRossIM. A pseudospectral method for the optimal control of constrained feedback linearizable systems. IEEE Trans Automat Control2006; 51(7): 1115–1129. DOI: 10.1109/TAC.2006.878570.
28.
KangWRossIMGongQ. Pseudospectral optimal control and its convergence theorems. In: Analysis and Design of Nonlinear Control Systems. Berlin: Springer–Verlag, 2008, pp. 109–126. DOI: 10.1007/978-3-540-74358-3_8.
29.
ChaiRTsourdosASavvarisA, et al.Review of advanced guidance and control algorithms for space/aerospace vehicles. Prog Aero Sci2021; 122: 100696. DOI: 10.1016/j.paerosci.2021.100696.
30.
LiHLiZZhangH, et al.An adaptive mesh refinement method considering control errors for pseudospectral discretization. Math Comput Simulat2025; 23: 140–159. DOI: 10.1016/j.matcom.2025.01.005.
31.
DarbyCHagerWRaoA. An improved adaptive hp algorithm using pseudospectral methods for optimal control. In: AIAA/AAS Astrodynamics Specialist Conference. Toronto, CDA: AIAA, 2010. DOI: 10.2514/6.2010-8272.
32.
AbramowitzMStegunI. Handbook of mathematical functions with formulas, graphs, and mathematical tables. New York: Dover Publications, 1965.
33.
ChaiRTsourdosASavvarisA, et al.Six-DOF spacecraft optimal trajectory planning and real-time attitude control: a deep neural network-based approach. IEEE Transact Neural Networks Learn Syst2020; 31(11): 5005–5013. DOI: 10.1109/TNNLS.2019.2955400.
34.
OhtsukaT. A continuation/GMRES method for fast computation of nonlinear receding horizon control. Automatica2004; 66(4): 563–574. DOI: 10.1016/j.automatica.2003.11.005.
35.
WäChterABieglerLT. On the implementation of an interior-point filter line-search algorithm for large-scale nonlinear programming. Math Program2006; 106: 25–57. DOI: 10.1007/s10107-004-0559-y.
36.
ChaiRGuoYZuoZ, et al.Cooperative motion planning and control for aerial-ground autonomous systems: methods and applications. Prog Aero Sci2024; 146: 101005. DOI: 10.1016/j.paerosci.2024.101005.
37.
ChaiRTsourdosASavvarisA, et al.Real-time reentry trajectory planning of hypersonic vehicles: a two-step strategy incorporating fuzzy multiobjective transcription and deep neural network. IEEE Trans Ind Electron2020; 67: 6904–6915. DOI: 10.1109/TNNLS.2019.2955400.
38.
GargDPattersonMAFrancolinC, et al.Direct trajectory optimization and costate estimation of finite-horizon and infinite-horizon optimal control problems using a radau pseudospectral method. Comput Optim Appl2011; 49: 335–358. DOI: 10.1007/s10589-009-9291-0.
39.
ChaiRSavvarisATsourdosA, et al.Trajectory optimization of space maneuver vehicle using a hybrid optimal control solver. IEEE Trans Cybern2019; 49(2): 467–480. DOI: 10.1109/TCYB.2017.2778195.
