See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/225196009

Flight Path Optimization at Constant Altitude

Chapter · August 2009

DOI: 10.1007/978-0-387-95857-6_2

CITATIONS READS

13 1,083

4 authors, including:

Bryan Asuncion Giuseppe Buttazzo

Mississippi State University Università di Pisa
1 PUBLICATION 13 CITATIONS 298 PUBLICATIONS 8,473 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

All content following this page was uploaded by Giuseppe Buttazzo on 17 May 2014.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Chapter 2
Flight Path Optimization at Constant Altitude

Mark D. Ardema and Bryan C. Asuncion

Abstract In this chapter we consider flight optimization at constant altitude for a

variety of missions and propulsion systems and then focus on maximizing the range
of a turbofan-powered aircraft. Most analyses of optimal transport aircraft flight
begin with the assumption that the flight profile consists of three segments – climb,
cruise, and descent. Indeed, this is the flight profile of all long-haul commercial
flights today. The dominant stage of such flights, in terms of flight time, is the cruise
segment. The air transportation industry is extremely competitive and even small
changes in aircraft performance have significant impacts on the operation costs of
airlines. Thus, there has been, and continues to be, great interest in optimizing the
cruising flight of transport aircraft.

2.1 Introduction

In this chapter we consider flight optimization at constant altitude for a variety

of missions and propulsion systems and then focus on maximizing the range of
a turbofan-powered aircraft. Most analyses of optimal transport aircraft flight be-
gin with the assumption that the flight profile consists of three segments – climb,
cruise, and descent. Indeed, this is the flight profile of all long-haul commercial
flights today. The dominant stage of such flights, in terms of flight time, is the cruise
segment. The air transportation industry is extremely competitive and even small
changes in aircraft performance have significant impacts on the operation costs of

Mark D. Ardema
Santa Clara University, 500 El Camino Real Santa Clara, CA 95053, USA,
e-mail: [email protected]
Bryan C. Asuncion
Santa Clara University, 500 El Camino Real Santa Clara, CA 95053, USA,
e-mail: [email protected]

G. Buttazzo, A. Frediani (eds.), Variational Analysis and Aerospace Engineering, 21

Springer Optimization and Its Applications 33, DOI 10.1007/978-0-387-95857-6 2,

c Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2009
22 Mark D. Ardema and Bryan C. Asuncion

airlines. Thus, there has been, and continues to be, great interest in optimizing the
cruising flight of transport aircraft.
The classical performance relation for cruising flight is the “Brequet range equa-
tion.” This is based on steady flight (constant speed and altitude), leaving only the
range and mass as dynamic variables. Integrating the state equations associated
with these two variables, assuming a constant lift-to-drag ratio, gives the Brequet
equation:
m0
R = B ln (2.1)
mf
where R is the range, m0 is the initial mass, m f is the final mass, and B is the Brequet
factor, given by
λV
B= (2.2)
gC
where λ is the lift-to-drag ratio, V the cruise speed, g the gravitational acceleration,
and C the thrust-specific fuel consumption.
Thus, to optimize the flight path (in the sense of either maximizing range for
a given mass ratio or maximizing the mass ratio for a given range), a search is
conducted to find the point in the flight envelope (the portion of the (h,V) plane
that does not violate any constraints) that maximizes B. Because the Brequet factor
changes as fuel is burned off during the flight, the optimal (h,V) values change as
well. Typically the optimum altitude increases during the flight, resulting in a steady
“cruise climb.” Air traffic control requires that aircrafts hold specific altitudes; thus,
the operational flight paths of long-haul transport aircraft are “step climbs” during
which the altitude is increased at discrete times. Note that a cruise or step climb
violates the assumption of flight at constant h but the rate of change of altitude is
quite small.
Several authors have used more detailed math models to study aircraft cruise,
models in which V and h are allowed to vary [1, 2]. These authors have investigated
whether or not cyclic cruise is better than steady cruise. It was found that flight
paths with large periodic changes in h, V, and throttle could be more fuel efficient
for fixed-range missions. However, the improvement (reduction) in fuel consump-
tion was very small, 1% at best. Furthermore, such flight paths would not be com-
patible with air traffic procedures as the altitude oscillations sometimes exceed
10,000 ft.
On the other hand, for endurance missions (maximum time) the non-steady flight
paths gave great improvement relative to steady ones.
The work just discussed focuses on the interplay between h, V, and throttle set-
ting. Because of the operational restrictions on cruise altitude, in the present chapter
we look at aircraft cruise from a different point of view; in particular, we study the
interplay between aircraft mass and speed at constant altitude. This problem was
first considered by Miele [3] for rocket-powered aircraft. In [4] we extended these
results to jet aircraft and made some preliminary calculations. This chapter extends
these results further to other types of missions and propulsion systems. Because this
is a singular optimal control problem, we begin with a review of that subject.
2 Flight Path Optimization at Constant Altitude 23

2.2 Singular Optimal Control

Consider a system whose math model is a set of state equations:

ẋ = f (x) + g(x)u (2.3)

where x ∈ ℜn is the state vector and u ∈ ℜ is the scalar control variable bounded
by um ≤ u ≤ uM . The state may be free or fixed at t = 0 and t = t f . It is desired to
minimize  tf
J= [ f0 (x) + g0 (x) u] dt (2.4)
0
This is a problem of singular optimal control [5, 6].
In [4] we found the singular arc in two different ways – by applying the maximum
principle and using Green’s theorem – and found that the Green’s theorem approach
was much easier and hence we use this method here. Application of Green’s theorem
to this type of problem was introduced independently by Miele [7] and Mancill [8].
These two works are quite different; Mancill approaches the problem as an identi-
cally non-regular problem of the calculus of variations, whereas Miele approaches it
as a problem of optimal control. The method was developed into a powerful analytic
tool by Miele [9]. The Green’s theorem method only applies to the case of two state
variables, say x and y, the case considered later in the chapter.
Now consider the optimization problem with x and y fixed at t = 0 and t = t f :

ẋ = fx (x, y) + gy (x, y) u
ẏ = fy (x, y) + gy (x, y) u
 tf (2.5)
J= f0 (x, y) dt
0

Eliminating the control between the state equations and substituting into the cost
functional results in
 (x f ,y f )
J= (Adx + Bdy) (2.6)
(x0 ,y0 )

where
f0 gy f0 gx
A= , B= (2.7)
fx gy − fy gx fy gx − fx gy
Equation (2.6) is a line integral in the plane. Green’s theorem relates line integrals
around closed curves to area integrals. To use the theorem, consider the closed curve
consisting of the curve to be optimized, C1 , plus a fixed, but arbitrary, curve, C2 ,
returning to the starting point; then Green’s theorem is
    
∂A ∂B
(Adx + Bdy) + (Adx + Bdy) = − dA (2.8)
C1 C2 A ∂y ∂x

Since integral C2 is fixed, minimizing integral C1 is the same as minimizing the

integral A. The critical curve associated with the latter integral is
24 Mark D. Ardema and Bryan C. Asuncion

∂A ∂B
− =0 (2.9)
∂y ∂x
and is optimizing. This equation is the singular arc.

2.3 The Cruise Problem

Consider an aircraft flying at constant altitude at a constant heading. The equations

of motion are 
V̇ = T −D
m ṁ = −β (2.10)
L = mg
where V is the speed; m is the mass; T, D, and L are the thrust, drag, and lift forces,
respectively, and β is the fuel flow rate. It is assumed that

T (V ) = Π TM (V )
β (V ) = C (V ) T (V )
(2.11)
BL2
2
D = AV + 2
V

where D represents a parabolic drag polar [13], A = CD0 ρ2s , and B = 2K ρ s . The zero-
lift drag coefficient, CD0 , the induced drag coefficient, K, the air density, ρ , and the
reference area, s, are all taken as positive constants, a good assumption for flight at
constant altitude of a subsonic aircraft. Π is the throttle setting where Πm ≤ Π ≤ 1.
In this chapter we consider three types of propulsion systems: rockets, jets, and
internal combustion with propeller. Rockets are modeled by taking C = constant.
Props are modeled by C = (Cp/k)V where Cp and k are engine and propeller effi-
ciencies, respectively. For low-speed flight (M <0.5) Cp and k are nearly constant.
For jet engines, C depends on various temperatures and pressures within the engine.
In this chapter, we use EngineSim 19.11 to model the relationship between C and h,
V, and Π .
It is desired to minimize  tf
J= (E −V )dt (2.12)
0
with t f free. This is a problem with two states, V and m, and one control, Π . This
cost functional is a weighted sum of minimum time and maximum range, with E
being the weighting function. It has been found that this cost functional is closely
related to direct operating cost. Special cases are maximum range (E = 0) and max-
imum endurance (E = −8). This is very similar to the problem first considered by
Miele [3] and later appearing in Leitmann [5]. The differences are that instead of a
rocket engine with constant exhaust exit velocity, we include air breathing engines
with speed-dependent maximum thrust, TM , and specific fuel consumption, C, and
consider a more general cost functional.
2 Flight Path Optimization at Constant Altitude 25

To use Green’s theorem, we begin by eliminating the control from Eq. (2.10) and
substituting the result into Eq. (2.12); the result is
 tf  
m 1
J= (V − E) DV + (V − E) dm (2.13)
0 D CD

Applying Green’s theorem, this is equivalent to

   
∂  m ∂ 1
J= (V − E) − (V − E) dV dm (2.14)
A ∂m D ∂V CD

Thus the singular arc is

 
∂  m ∂ 1
(V − E) − (V − E) =0 (2.15)
∂m D ∂V CD

There are three special cases depending on propulsion system and mission:
Jet (Range):
V2 A(1 +CV + VC Cv )
m=
g B(3 +CV − VC Cv )
Jet (Endurance):
V2 A(2 +CV + VC Cv )
m=
g B(2 +CV − VC Cv )
Rocket (Range):
V2 A(1 +CV )
m= (2.16)
g B(3 +CV )
Rocket (Endurance):
V2 A
m=
g B
Prop (Range):

V2 
C pV
m=  A(1 +CV + kC )
C V
g B(3 +CV − p ) kC

Prop (Endurance):

V2 
C pV
m=  A(2 +CV + kC )
C V
g B(2 +CV − p ) kC

There is a second-order necessary condition which optimal singular control

must satisfy. The traditional approach uses the maximum principle to identify the
switching function and then the switching function is differentiated until the con-
trol appears. This was done in [4] and great algebraic complexity was encountered.
26 Mark D. Ardema and Bryan C. Asuncion

However, [11] gives a Green’s theorem approach to this condition and we use this
here. The condition for the endurance mission is
 
∂2 1 ∂2 m
≥ (2.17)
∂ V 2 CD ∂ m∂ V D

Carrying out the differentiation for a rocket engine gives

6A2C2V 2 − 18AC2 Em2V −2 + 2C2 E 2 m4V −6 − 6Em2V −2C2 A

+4CvCA2V 3 − 4CvCA2V 3 − 4CvCE 2 m4V −5 −CvvCA2V 4

−CvvC2AEm2 −CvvCE 2 m4V −4 + 2Cv2 A2V 4 + 4Cv2 AEm2 (2.18)

+2Cv2 E 2 m4V −4 ≥ 12Em2V −1 AC3 − 4E 2 m4V −5C3

+2E 2 m4V −5C3

where subscripts denote partial derivatives.

2.4 Fanjet Specific Fuel Consumption

Aircraft data show that specific fuel consumption is far from constant and can vary
significantly over an aircraft’s flight envelope. The equations for C are very com-
plicated and highly specific to the engine. C is mainly a function of speed and air
temperature. Altitude is a factor in C calculation, because air temperature varies
with altitude.
For turbojets and turbofans, C depends on several temperatures in the engine,
pressure ratios, bypass ratios, and the fuel to air mass ratio in the combustor. There
are computer simulation capabilities that can provide the information we want, and
here we use the NASA Glenn EngineSim [11].
The NASA Glenn EngineSim, setup for a CF6 turbofan sized for use on a 747-
400, was sampled at various velocities to generate a C vs. V relationship for full
throttle of the engine. Another condition was generated, where the engine thrust
matches the drag of the aircraft with respect to speed, which is more accurate to
what an engine mounted on an aircraft would provide. This was done by developing
a table of speed and parabolic drag values, entering the speed into EngineSim, and
then adjusting the throttle to match the drag.
Figure 2.1 shows these results for the general relation of C as a function of speed
at constant altitude. The dashed line represents the full throttle condition, and as
expected, the slower the aircraft is flying, the more efficient the turbofan becomes.
The solid line represents the change to specific fuel consumption if in addition to
the reduced speed, the throttle is reduced to match the drag. Notice that minimum
throttle occurs at about 250 m/s.
2 Flight Path Optimization at Constant Altitude 27

Fig. 2.1 C variation with respect to speed for a high-bypass turbofan

It is possible to simplify Eq. (2.16), max range with the jet, by considering values
of the VC term. Subsonic aircraft speed does not get much above 300 m/s; however,
C can vary significantly depending on the type of engine and application. As will be
discussed later in this chapter, the CF6-80C2 engine example would have a C around
0.04 kg/N hr, which would be around 10−5 s/m. Therefore, its VC, a dimensionless
number, would be on the order of 3 × 10−3 , which is small compared to 1 and 3.
To give an order of scale to the VC value, the Concorde flying at Mach 2 only has
a VC value of 0.018. The VC for an F-16 at full afterburner is around 0.03. For
the VC term to be really large, the aircraft would need to have high speed and be
using rocket engines. The Space Shuttle main engines have a VC of 1.67.1 These
numbers are summarized in Table 2.1. Thus the VC term may be neglected for our
application.

Table 2.1 Magnitude of VC term with various aircrafts

Subsonic Jet 0.003

Concorde 0.02
F-16 0.03
Space Shuttle 1.7

1 The Space Shuttle VC value is approximated by orbital speed divided by specific impulse and

gravity. Specific impulse for the Space Shuttle Main Engines (SSME) is 428 s.
28 Mark D. Ardema and Bryan C. Asuncion

2.5 An Example

For example calculations, we choose a maximum range mission with a fanjet-

powered aircraft for which the first of Eq. (2.16) applies. The aircraft selected is
a Boeing 747-400 with General Electric CF6-80C2 high bypass, multistage, tur-
bofan engines. Depending on the options installed on the engine, the CF6-80C2 is
rated to produce max thrust of 282,500 N per engine (63,500 lbf) [12] at sea level.
The design range of a 747-400 is listed as 13,444 km (8,354 mi.), with a maxi-
mum takeoff mass of 362,875 kg (800,000 lb) [13, 14]. At takeoff, a full fuel load
would be 120,205 kg (265,000 lb). This leaves 61,415 kg (135,400 lb) for passen-
gers, crew, and cargo. It is easy to see that even small percentage changes to the
amount of fuel required for each flight can provide significant potential for increased
payload and thus for cost savings and increased revenue.
For the 747-400 aircraft and CF6-80C2 engine model, we input speed and throttle
values to get C, thereby getting an order of magnitude of CV to determine if it is
significant or not. By using two mass–speed points, entering them into EngineSim,
adjusting throttle, and looking at the change of C, we find CV is on the order of 10−8 .
With V /C being on the order of 108 , the term (V /C)CV is significant. Therefore,
after eliminating VC, but leaving (V /C)CV , the first of Eq. (2.16) becomes
 
V2 A 1 + VC CV
m=   (2.19)
g B 3 − VC CV

Using EngineSim (V /C)CV is found to vary from 1.21 to 0.93 for the air-
craft/engine combination considered here.
Equation (2.19) is plotted in Fig. 2.2 for various altitudes. The main feature is
that the speed decreases as fuel is burned off.
Mass (kg)

Fig. 2.2 Singular arcs and optimal path for 747-400 at different altitudes
2 Flight Path Optimization at Constant Altitude 29

Table 2.2 Comparative results for optimal path and standard cruise
Flight profile Cruise speed (m/s) Altitude (m) Range (km) Flight time (hrs)
Standard steady cruise 250 10,000 13,570 15.1
Optimal steady cruise 210 9,000 14,889 19.7
Optimal singular arc 219–206 9,800 14,904 19.5

We now conjecture how optimal paths look in the (m,V) plane. The aircraft
climbs to the start of the cruise on the singular arc, follows the arc until cruise
fuel is expended, and then descends. For our example, the entire cruise portion of
the flight may follow the singular arc. A 747-400 with maximum fuel load flying the
singular arc path for the entire cruise portion of the flight starts out burning about
10.0 kg/km and finishes burning 6.60 kg/km. In contrast, the standard steady speed
path at the cruise speed of 250 m/s would start out burning 10.4 kg/km and finish
burning 7.62 kg/km.
A computer simulation of the flight’s cruise portion shows that following the
singular arc would result in an additional range. The steady cruise is performed at
250 m/s at 10,000 m altitude. The optimal singular arc is performed at 219–206 m/s
at 9800 m altitude. With the results from Table 2.2, it can be observed that the op-
timal singular arc could have a maximum range of 14,904 km and a travel time of
19.50 hr.
Because many airlines’ costs are directly related to flight time, transport aircraft
actually fly faster than the speed for maximum range with a given fuel load (equiv-
alently minimum fuel for a given range). Thus, to make the comparison with sin-
gular flight fair, we maximized range in steady cruise. The results are included in
Table 2.2. Optimal steady cruise is at 210 m/s speed and 9,000 m altitude. Opti-
mal singular arc flight covers 115 more miles than optimal cruising flight, probably
within the noise band of the numerical calculations.
Time history plots (Figs. 2.3, 2.4, 2.5 and 2.6) compare the optimal singular
arc path with that for standard cruise in terms of speed, range, mass, and thrust,

Fig. 2.3 Comparative time history plots of optimal path and standard cruise in terms of speed
30 Mark D. Ardema and Bryan C. Asuncion

Fig. 2.4 Comparative time history plots of optimal path and standard cruise in terms of range

Fig. 2.5 Comparative time history plots of optimal path and standard cruise in terms of mass

Fig. 2.6 Comparative time history plots of optimal path and standard cruise in terms of thrust
2 Flight Path Optimization at Constant Altitude 31

respectively. One interesting finding is that the optimal path results in higher thrust
during the entire flight time. This would tend to disagree with the fuel savings find-
ing, except that the aircraft is flying at a more efficient speed for the large turbofan
engines. Because of this, the engines require less fuel to produce each unit of thrust
and can therefore consume less fuel per unit distance flown even though the thrust
is greater than for the standard cruise.

2.6 Conclusions and Discussion

We have analyzed aircraft cruise at constant altitude with a model with mass and
speed as state variables. This is a singular optimal control problem and we have
identified the singular arc for a weighted sum of time and range for a variety of
propulsion systems. The singular arcs have been specified for six special cases; the
combinations of endurance (maximum time) and maximum range for three propul-
sion systems: rockets, turbo and fanjets, and internal combustion/propeller. Example
calculations using the Boeing 747-400 with General Electric CF6-80C2 engines for
the maximum range mission show potential large savings in fuel. However, if steady
cruise is optimized to maximize range, the difference in range between steady and
singular arc flight is very small. In spite of this discouraging result, there are inter-
esting avenues for future research.
First, the singular arcs of other propulsion systems need to be determined and
evaluated numerically. Second, the endurance mission needs to be investigated. In
view of the fact that non-steady flight paths have shown significant improvements
relative to steady ones, there could be big improvements in flying singular arc paths.
Third, the second-order necessary condition needs to be derived and numerically
evaluated for all missions and propulsion systems.
Further study is required to determine the fuel consumption, range, and time
over an entire flight. The boundary conditions on the cruise portion of the flight
are different from the steady cruise case. For example, for the range mission, the
singular arc cruise ends at a lower speed than it begins and thus the range gained
in descent will be shorter. Thus the fuel consumption in climb and descent must be
added to give a fair comparison.
There are obvious air traffic control issues with flying singular arc flight paths
in controlled airspace. Mixing singular arc paths with steady cruise paths is clearly
not acceptable. Even with all aircraft flying singular arc paths there is the issue of
separating aircraft that is decelerating. In many parts of the world, however, airspace
is not controlled and flight time is not critical. In such situations, singular arc flight
may be employed immediately.
Perhaps the most important application of our results is to aircraft design. Key
aircraft parameters (such as wing loading, aspect ration, and wing sweep) could be
chosen to move the singular arc to its optimum location in the mass–speed plane.
The performance criteria should be a suitably weighted combination of fuel con-
sumption and flight time so as to minimize direct operating cost.
 32 Mark D. Ardema and Bryan C. Asuncion

Acknowledgments The authors thank Doug Pargett for the use of his computer program and for
valuable discussions. We also thank P.K. Menon for suggesting the endurance mission and for
pointing out the paper by Mancill.

References

1. Menon, P.K., Study of Aircraft Cruise, Journal of Guidance, Control and Dynamics, Vol. 12,
No. 5, Sept–Oct 1989, pp. 631–639.
2. Sachs, G. and Christodoulou, T., Reducing Fuel Consumption of Subsonic Aircraft by Opti-
mal Cyclic Cruise, Journal of Aircraft, Vol.24, No.9, 1987, pp. 616–622.
3. Miele, A., The Calculus of Variations in Applied Aerodynamics and Flight Mechanics, Opti-
mization Techniques, edited by G. Leitmann, Academic Press, New York, 1962, pp. 100–171.
4. Pargett, Douglas and Ardema, Mark, Flight Path Optimization at Constant Altitude, Santa
Clara University.
5. Leitmann, G., The Calculus of Variations and Optimal Control, Plenum Press, New York,
1981, pp. 225–237.
6. Bryson, A. and Ho, Y., Applied Optimal Control, Taylor and Francis, New York, 1975,
pp. 246–270.
7. Miele, A., Problems of Minimum Time in Nonsteady Flight of Aircraft,Atti della Accademia
delle Scienze di Torino, Classe di Scienze Fisiche, Matematiche e Naturali, Vol. 85, 1951,
pp. 41–52.
8. Mancill, J. D., Identically Non-Regular Problems in the Calculus of Variations, Mathematica
Y Fisca Teorica, Universidad Nacional del Tucuman, Republica Argentina, Vol.7, No.2, June
1950, pp. 131–139.
9. Miele, A., Extremiziation of Linear Integrals by Green’s Theorem, Optimization Techniques,
edited by G. Leitmann, Academic Press, New York, 1962, pp. 69–99.
10. Holt, Ashley, Engineering Analysis of Flight Vehicles, Addison-Wesley, New York, 1974,
pp. 113–114.
11. NASA Glenn EngineSim, Ver. 1.6e [online application] http://www.grc.nasa.gov/WWW/
K-12/airplane/ngnsim.html [cited 2 December 2004].
12. General Electric Aircraft Engines website: GE Transportation Aircraft Engines: CF6.:
http://www.geae.com/engines/commercial/cf6/cf6-80c2.html [cited 2 December 2004].
13. Boeing Aircraft Company website: Boeing 747 Family http://www.boeing.com/commercial/
747family/technology.html [cited 2 December 2004].
14. Jane’s All the World’s Aircraft 1997-98, 1988-89, Jane’s Information Group Limited, Sentinel
House, 1998.

View publication stats