Post on 23-May-2018
transcript
i
Adaptive Control Augmentation for a Hypersonic
Glider
Sanchito Banerjee
Bachelor of Engineering – Aerospace Avionics (Honours)
A thesis submitted for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy at
The University of Queensland in 2015
School of Mechanical and Mining Engineering
ABSTRACT
ii
ABSTRACT
The aim of this research is to investigate control strategies to carry out a pull out of a
ballistic trajectory (initially the same as the sub-orbital ballistic HyShot and HIFiRE
trajectories) and a pulsed roll angle bank manoeuvre for a hypersonic glider. This study
investigates the performance of two different control methodologies in the presence of
aerodynamic, gravimetric and actuator uncertainties: pole placement control (PPC) (as the
baseline) and adaptive control (to augment the PPC).
Through simulations, it is shown that the PPC carries out the pull up manoeuvre (by
tracking the flight path angle, ) on a scaled Generic Hypersonic Aerodynamics Model
Example (GHAME model). Once the pull-up manoeuvre is carried out the
lateral/directional PPCs perform satisfactorily in tracking the commanded roll angle,
and maintaining a sideslip angle, , of zero degrees. The PPCs presented are all Single
Input Single Output (SISO) controllers. Pole-zero plots are utilised to highlight the stability
properties of the PPC. All the controllers are stable. The differences in the performance
and robustness for the various uncertainty cases are highlighted through the tracking error
norm and the time delay margin (TDM). The performance of the PPC significantly
worsens in the presence of uncertainties. This deterioration is quantified using tracking
error norms, error dynamics acceleration and a control surface metric.
adaptive control is employed as a control strategy to augment the PPC as it allows the
decoupling of the control and the estimation loop. The control augmentation design is
employed for both the longitudinal and the lateral/directional channels in the presence of
matched and unmatched uncertainties. A piecewise constant adaptive law (to estimate the
uncertainties) is adopted for all the channels. An additional challenge present in this
research is that the flight path angle dynamics of the system display non-minimum phase
behaviour. The control theory requires the inversion of the system dynamics, which
renders the control law, which cancels the unmatched uncertainties, unstable. An inverse
ABSTRACT
iii
DC gain method is presented and tested. Using this modification, the inversion of the
system dynamics is avoided. The main step forward that has been taken in this thesis is
the extension of the application of theory and its application to a non-minimum phase
state feedback Linear Time Varying (LTV) systems. This modified law prevents a
reformulation of the control problem, for example computing an alternative representation
of the state estimator in the augmented controller in order to have all the uncertainties
come in through the matched channel of the system or having a virtual inertial
measurement unit (IMU) in order to make the measured values minimum phase. The
augmented controller is able to cancel the uncertainties and is able to restore the
performance of the controller and bring the system closer to the desired system
performance. The improvement provided by the augmented controller is demonstrated
using the tracking error norm and the control surface metric. The augmented controller,
however, shows a reduction in the robustness parameter, which is the time-delay margin.
This result is consistent with that observed in adaptive control as there is a trade-off
between performance and robustness.
Declaration by author
iv
Declaration by author
This thesis is composed of my original, and contains no material previously published or
written by another person except where due reference has been made in the text. I have
clearly stated the contribution by others to jointly-authored works that I have included in
my thesis.
I have clearly stated the contribution of others to my thesis as a whole, including statistical
assistance, survey design, data analysis, significant technical procedures, professional
editorial advice, and any other original research work used or reported in my thesis. The
content of my thesis is the result of work I have carried out since the commencement of
my research higher degree candidature and does not include a substantial part of work
that has been submitted to qualify for the award of any other degree or diploma in any
university or other tertiary institution. I have clearly stated which parts of my thesis, if
any, have been submitted to qualify for another award.
I acknowledge that an electronic copy of my thesis must be lodged with the University
Library and, subject to the policy and procedures of The University of Queensland, the
thesis be made available for research and study in accordance with the Copyright Act 1968
unless a period of embargo has been approved by the Dean of the Graduate School.
I acknowledge that copyright of all material contained in my thesis resides with the
copyright holder(s) of that material. Where appropriate I have obtained copyright
permission from the copyright holder to reproduce material in this thesis.
.
Declaration by author
v
Publications during Candidature
[1]. Banerjee, S., Boyce, R., Wang, Z., Baur, B., and Holzapfel, F. "L1 Augmented Controller for a Lateral/Directional Manoeuvre of a Hypersonic Glider," Submitted for Review at Journal of Aircraft, 2015.
[2]. Banerjee, S., Wang, Z., Baur, B., Holzapfel, F., Che, J., and Cao, C. "L1 Adaptive Control Augmentation for the Longitudinal Dynamics of a Hypersonic Glider," Journal of Guidance, Control, and Dynamics, 2015, pp. 1-17. doi: 10.2514/1.G001113
[3]. Banerjee, S., Vanyai, T., Wang, Z., Baur, B., and Holzapfel, F. "L1 Augmentation Configuration for a Lateral/Directional Manoeuvre of a Hypersonic Glider in the Presence
of Uncertainties," (AIAA 2014-2533) 19th AIAA International Space Planes and Hypersonic Systems and Technologies Conference. American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics, 2014.
[4]. Banerjee, S., Creagh, M., Boyce, R., Baur, B., Wang, Z., and Holzapfel, F. "L1 Adaptive Control Augmentation Configuration for a Hypersonic Glider in the Presence of
Uncertainties," (AIAA 2014-0453) AIAA Guidance, Navigation, and Control Conference. American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics, 2014.
[5]. Banerjee, S., Creagh, A. M., and Boyce, R. R. "An Alternative Attitude Control Strategy for
SCRAMSPACE 1 Experiment," (AIAA 2014-1475) AIAA Guidance, Navigation, and Control Conference. American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics, 2014.
[6]. Preller, D., Banerjee, S., Smart, M., and Creagh, A. M. "Longitudinal Control Strategy for
Hypersonic Accelerating Vehicles," (AIAA 2013-5238) AIAA Guidance, Navigation, and Control (GNC) Conference. American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics, 2013.
Declaration by author
vi
Publications included in this Thesis
Sanchito Banerjee, Zhongjie Wang, Bernhard Baur, Florian Holzapfel, JiaxingChe and Chengyu Cao, "
Adaptive Control Augmentation for Longitudinal Dynamics of a Hypersonic Glider," AIAA Journal of Guidance,
Control and Dynamics, (2015).doi: http://arc.aiaa.org/doi/abs/10.2514/1.G001113. - incorporated in
Chapter 2, 4, 5 and 7.
Contributor Statement of contribution
Sanchito Banerjee (Candidate) Designed experiments (80%), Wrote the
paper (100%)
Bernhard Baur Designed experiments (5%), Edited paper
(35%)
Zhongjie Wang Designed experiments (5%), Edited paper
(35%)
Professor Florian Holzapfel Designed experiments (5%)
Jiaxing Che Designed experiments (5%), Edited paper
(20%)
Chengyu Cao Edited paper (10%)
Contributions by Others to the thesis
No contributions by others
Statement of parts of the thesis submitted to qualify for the award of another degree
None
Acknowledgements
vii
Acknowledgements
There are a lot of people around me who have helped me during the course of my research
endeavours. However, it is only possible to give a few of them a mention here.
First and foremost, I would like to thank my wonderful family. My mum (Mita Banerjee),
my dad (Shantanu Banerjee) and my awesome sister (Bornika Banerjee). Without their
support, it would have been impossible to finish the work. I am thankful not only for their
words of encouragement but also for their great patience at all time. For the help and
advice that they have provided to me, a mere thank you does not suffice. Therefore, I
would like to dedicate this whole body of work to them. This is for them and them only.
I would like to acknowledge the support of my advisory team at University of Queensland
(UQ) and University of New South Wales (UNSW): Professor Russell Boyce, Professor
David Mee, Dr Michael Creagh and Dr Michael Kearney. They have taught me how good
research writing is done. I appreciate all their contributions of time and ideas to make my
PhD experience productive and stimulating. They meticulously read the entire draft,
sometimes thrice. Their criticisms, suggestions, encouragements, and questions, enabled
me to sharpen and strengthen the analyses, logic, and arguments in this study and to
eliminate errors.
I would like to extend my gratitude towards the group at Technical University Munich
(TUM). Firstly, I would like to thank Professor Florian Holzapfel (Director of the Institute
for Flight System Dynamics) for giving me the opportunity to carry out a substantial
portion of my research work in Munich. Completing this work would have been difficult
without the support, help and friendship of Bernhard Baur, Zhongjie Wang, Miguel Leitao
and Florian Peter just to name a few. I am indebted to them for their help and patience
when discussing all matter concerning my thesis and also discussing matters that had
nothing to do with my thesis.
Keywords
viii
Keywords
Hypersonic glider flight control, pole placement control, adaptive control, longitudinal
and lateral/directional control, descent trajectory, adaptive augmented controller,
nonminimum phase system, linear time varying system, full state feedback control, time-
delay margin.
Australian and New Zealand Standard Research Classifications
ANZSRC Code: 090101, Aerodynamics (excl. Hypersonic Aerodynamics), 10%
ANZSRC Code: 090104, Aircraft Performance and Flight Control Systems, 60%
ANZSRC Code: 090106, Flight Dynamics, 20%
ANZSRC Code: 090107, Hypersonics Propulsion and Hypersonic Aerodynamics, 10%
Fields of Research (FoR) Classification
FoR code: 0901, Aerospace Engineering, 100%
Table of Contents
ix
Table of Contents
ABSTRACT .............................................................................................................................................. II DECLARATION BY AUTHOR .................................................................................................................... IV ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS......................................................................................................................... VII KEYWORDS ......................................................................................................................................... VIII TABLE OF CONTENTS ............................................................................................................................. IX LIST OF FIGURES ................................................................................................................................... XII LIST OF TABLES .................................................................................................................................... XVI TABLE OF ACRONYMS ........................................................................................................................ XVII TABLE OF SYMBOLS ............................................................................................................................. XIX 1 INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................................................ 1 1.1 OVERVIEW OF RESEARCH ..................................................................................................................... 1 1.1.1 CHALLENGES OF CONTROLLING AND NEED OF HYPERSONIC VEHICLES ................................................................. 1 1.1.2 GENERIC HYPERSONIC AERODYNAMIC MODEL EXAMPLE (GHAME) .................................................................. 2 1.2 MOTIVATION .................................................................................................................................... 3 1.3 BACKGROUND TO THE RESEARCH ........................................................................................................... 5 1.4 RESEARCH GAP ................................................................................................................................. 9 1.5 RESEARCH PROBLEM ........................................................................................................................ 10 1.6 SCOPE AND FOCUS OF THE STUDY ........................................................................................................ 12 1.7 DELIMITATIONS OF THE STUDY ............................................................................................................ 12 1.8 METHODOLOGY............................................................................................................................... 13 1.9 CONTRIBUTION OF DISSERTATION ........................................................................................................ 14 1.10 ORGANISATION OF THE RESEARCH ...................................................................................................... 15 2 LITERATURE REVIEW ....................................................................................................................... 18 2.1 INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................................... 18 2.2 STATE OF THE ART IN FLIGHT CONTROL APPROACHES ............................................................................... 18 2.3 COMPLICATIONS WITH HYPERSONIC CONTROL AND MODELLING ................................................................. 21 2.4 CONTROL METHODOLOGY OF HYPERSONIC VEHICLE – LONGITUDINAL DYNAMICS............................................ 26 2.4.1 LINEAR CONTROL ..................................................................................................................................... 27 2.4.2 LINEAR PARAMETER VARYING CONTROL ...................................................................................................... 32 2.4.3 NONLINEAR CONTROL............................................................................................................................... 34 2.4.4 ADAPTIVE CONTROL ................................................................................................................................. 37 2.4.5 TRAJECTORY CONTROL OF HYPERSONIC GLIDERS ........................................................................................... 40 2.5 CONTROL OF HYPERSONIC VEHICLE – LATERAL/DIRECTIONAL DYNAMICS ...................................................... 44 2.6 ADAPTIVE CONTROL LITERATURE REVIEW ......................................................................................... 45 2.7 SUMMARY OF LITERATURE REVIEW – THE GAPS IN THE FIELD...................................................................... 50 2.8 CONCLUSION .................................................................................................................................. 51 3 SIMULATION MODEL ...................................................................................................................... 52 3.1 INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................................... 52 3.2 AIRCRAFT DYNAMICS ........................................................................................................................ 52 3.2.1 REFERENCE FRAMES ................................................................................................................................. 53 3.2.2 EQUATIONS OF MOTION ........................................................................................................................... 54 3.3 MODEL BASED FORCES AND MOMENTS DESCRIPTION .............................................................................. 62 3.3.1 WEIGHT MODEL ...................................................................................................................................... 63 3.3.2 ENVIRONMENT MODEL ............................................................................................................................. 63 3.4 AERODYNAMIC MODEL ..................................................................................................................... 64 3.4.1 MODEL PARAMETERS ............................................................................................................................... 65 3.4.2 GENERIC HYPERSONIC AERODYNAMIC MODEL EXAMPLE (GHAME) MODEL ..................................................... 70
Table of Contents
x
3.5 ACTUATOR MODEL .......................................................................................................................... 71 3.6 SENSOR MODEL .............................................................................................................................. 73 3.7 SOURCES AND MODELLING OF UNCERTAINTIES ....................................................................................... 79 3.7.1 CONTROL SURFACE UNCERTAINTIES ............................................................................................................ 80 3.7.2 AERODYNAMIC AND GRAVIMETRIC UNCERTAINTIES ....................................................................................... 80 3.8 MONTE CARLO SIMULATIONS ............................................................................................................. 85 3.9 SIMULATION PLATFORM .................................................................................................................... 85 3.10 CONCLUSION ................................................................................................................................ 86 4. THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK AND IMPLEMENTATION ..................................................................... 87 4.1 INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................................... 87 4.2 POLE PLACEMENT CONTROL ............................................................................................................... 89 4.2.1 BASELINE CONTROLLER – LONGITUDINAL CONTROLLER .................................................................................. 92 4.2.2 BASELINE CONTROLLER – LATERAL/DIRECTIONAL CONTROLLER (SISO) ............................................................. 93 4.2.3 STABILITY AND ROBUSTNESS ANALYSIS OF BASELINE CONTROLLER ................................................................... 95 4.3 SURVEY OF ADAPTIVE CONTROL .......................................................................................................... 95 4.4 ADAPTIVE CONTROL .................................................................................................................... 95 4.4.1 BACKGROUND ......................................................................................................................................... 96 4.4.2 PROBLEM FORMULATION .......................................................................................................................... 97 4.4.3 REFERENCE SYSTEM .......................................................................................................................... 101 4.4.4 CLOSED LOOP CONTROL STRUCTURE ......................................................................................................... 106 4.4.5 AUGMENTED CONTROLLER DERIVATION ............................................................................................... 111 4.5 PERFORMANCE METRIC (COMPARISON OF CONTROLLERS) ....................................................................... 117 4.6 TIME DELAY MARGIN ..................................................................................................................... 118 4.7 STABILITY AND PERFORMANCE BOUNDS - AUGMENTED CONTROLLER .................................................... 120 4.8 VALIDATION OF MODIFIED AUGMENTED CONTROL LAW ..................................................................... 121 4.8.1 NOMINAL CASE - STEP AND RAMP INPUT ................................................................................................... 122 4.8.2 UNCERTAINTIES - STEP INPUT ................................................................................................................... 123 4.8.3 UNCERTAINTIES - RAMP INPUT ................................................................................................................. 126 4.9 CONCLUSION ................................................................................................................................ 127 5. CONTROLLER PERFORMANCE COMPARISON ................................................................................ 128 5.1 INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................................. 128 5.2 BASELINE CONTROLLER ................................................................................................................... 128 5.2.1 LONGITUDINAL CONTROLLER ................................................................................................................... 128 5.2.2 LATERAL/DIRECTIONAL CONTROLLER ......................................................................................................... 129 5.3 LONGITUDINAL CONTROL – BASELINE AND AUGMENTATION .................................................................... 131 5.3.1 RESULTS AND ANALYSIS ........................................................................................................................... 132 5.4 LATERAL AND DIRECTIONAL CONTROL ................................................................................................. 154 5.4.1 RESULTS AND ANALYSIS ........................................................................................................................... 154 5.4.2 BEHAVIOUR OF ADDITIONAL LATERAL/DIRECTIONAL AIRCRAFT STATES ........................................................... 166 5.5 UNCERTAINTIES IN THE SYSTEM ......................................................................................................... 170 5.5.1 LONGITUDINAL DYNAMICS ....................................................................................................................... 170 5.5.2 LATERAL LATERAL/DIRECTIONAL DYNAMICS ............................................................................................... 172 5.6 TIME DELAY MARGIN ..................................................................................................................... 174 5.7 CONCLUSION ................................................................................................................................ 176 6. FLIGHT PARAMETER ANALYSIS ..................................................................................................... 177 6.1 FLIGHT PARAMETERS - LONGITUDINAL DYNAMICS ................................................................................. 177 6.1.1 MACH NUMBER AND ALTITUDE ................................................................................................................ 178 6.1.2 AERODYNAMIC CHARACTERISTICS ............................................................................................................. 181 6.2 FLIGHT PARAMETERS - LATERAL/DIRECTIONAL DYNAMICS ....................................................................... 186 6.2.1 MACH NUMBER AND ALTITUDE ................................................................................................................ 186
Table of Contents
xi
6.2.2 AERODYNAMICS CHARACTERISTICS ............................................................................................................ 188 6.3 CONCLUSION ................................................................................................................................ 193 7. CONCLUSIONS AND FUTURE WORK .............................................................................................. 194 7.1 CONCLUSIONS ............................................................................................................................... 194 7.2 FURTHER RESEARCH ....................................................................................................................... 197 REFERENCES ....................................................................................................................................... 199 APPENDIX A ....................................................................................................................................... 218 FRAMES OF REFERENCE AND COORDINATE TRANSFORMATION .......................................................... 218
List of Figures
xii
List of Figures
Chapter 1:
Fig 1.10. GHAME Vehicle [6] .......................................................................................................... 2
Fig 1.11. Mission Profile – Descent Trajectory .............................................................................. 4
Fig 1.12. Research Positioning ......................................................................................................... 7
Fig 1.13. Framework depicting the research direction................................................................. 8
Fig 1.14. Flow Chart of Thesis Chapters ...................................................................................... 17
Chapter 2:
Fig 2.1. X-31A Post Stall Experiment Aircraft [92] ..................................................................... 19
Fig 2.2. Flight Control Architecture [94] ...................................................................................... 19
Fig 2.3. NDI Controller of VAAC [88] .......................................................................................... 20
Fig 2.4. Step Response of Non-minimum Phase System [110] ................................................. 24
Fig 2.5 Control Moment Derivative as a function of Mach Number and Altitude ............... 26
Fig 2.6. -Controller Performance - Worst Case Scenario [32] ................................................. 28
Fig 2.7. Longitudinal Controller Block Diagram [86] ................................................................. 29
Fig 2.8. Lateral Controller Block Diagram [86] ........................................................................... 29
Fig 2.9. Inertial Angle of Attack from Engine Test through Recovery Manoeuvre [86] ....... 30
Fig 2.10. Inertial Sideslip Angle from Engine Test through Recovery Manoeuvre [86] ....... 30
Fig 2.11. Comparison of In-flight Altitude and Pre-flight Altitude Predictions [86] ............ 31
Fig 2.12. Inertial Angle of Attack during Descent Phase [86] .................................................. 31
Fig 2.13. Velocity and Velocity Tracking Error [115] ................................................................. 32
Fig 2.14. Angle of Attack and Angle of Attack Error [115] ....................................................... 33
Fig 2.15. Parameter Space for Controller Design [87] ................................................................ 33
Fig 2.16. Commanded Angle of Attack (left) and Angle of Attack Error (right) [116] ......... 34
Fig 2.17. System States of Hypersonic Vehicle during Inlet Unstart [69] ............................... 36
Fig 2.18. Control and Adaptive Weight Responses during Inlet Unstart [69] ....................... 37
Fig 2.19. Augmented Controller Architecture [31] ..................................................................... 38
Fig 2.20. Typical X-15 Trajectory [121] ......................................................................................... 38
Fig 2.21. Comparison of Performance of Original X-15-3 Adaptive Controller with Modern
Day Adaptive Controller [122] ...................................................................................................... 40
Fig 2.22. Flat Top Glider [19] ......................................................................................................... 41
Fig 2.23. Flat Bottom Glider [19] ................................................................................................... 41
Fig 2.24. Flow Diagram - Adaptive Control Setup ..................................................................... 42
Fig 2.25. The Common Aerospace Vehicle (CAV) [125] ............................................................ 43
Fig 2.26. L1 Augmented Controller Performance Comparison [65] ........................................ 48
List of Figures
xiii
Chapter 3:
Fig 3.1.Typical Pole Positions for Longitudinal Motion ............................................................ 55
Fig 3.2. Relationship between Angle of Attack, Pitch and Flight Path Angle ........................ 58
Fig 3.3. Typical Pole Position for the Lateral/Directional Motion ............................................ 60
Fig 3.4. Motion Variables [156] ...................................................................................................... 67
Fig 3.5. Lift Coefficient as a Function of Mach Number and Angle of Attack ....................... 68
Fig 3.6. Drag Coefficient ................................................................................................................. 68
Fig 3.7. Pitching Moment ............................................................................................................... 69
Fig 3.8. GHAME Model [6] ............................................................................................................ 70
Fig 3.9. Second Order Actuator Model ........................................................................................ 72
Fig 3.10. Principle of Operation of INS [1] ................................................................................... 73
Fig 3.11. Propagation of errors [1]................................................................................................. 76
Chapter 4:
Fig 4.1. Autopilot Structure for Hypersonic Glider ................................................................... 88
Fig 4.2. Block Diagram State Feedback for Stability ................................................................... 89
Fig 4.3. Adaptive Controller Model ...................................................................................... 112
Fig 4.4. Filter with Constant Cut-Off Frequency ...................................................................... 116
Fig 4.5. System Output - Step Response .................................................................................... 122
Fig 4.6. System Output - Ramp Input ......................................................................................... 123
Fig 4.7. Response to Step Input with Uncertainties ................................................................. 123
Fig 4.8. Performance of System - Matched Component of Adaptive Law ........................... 124
Fig 4.9. Adaptive Signal Magnitude ........................................................................................... 124
Fig 4.10. System Performance - Unmatched Component Turned On ................................... 125
Fig 4.11. Adaptive Signal Contribution (Original and Modified) .......................................... 125
Fig 4.12. System Performance ...................................................................................................... 126
Chapter 5:
Fig 5.1. Pole Zero Plot of Closed Loop Dynamics - Longitudinal Dynamics ....................... 129
Fig 5.2. Pole Zero Plot of Closed Loop Lateral Dynamics ....................................................... 130
Fig 5.3. Pole Zero Plot of Closed Loop Directional Dynamics ............................................... 130
Fig 5.4. Benchmark Case (S1 and S2) .......................................................................................... 132
Fig 5.5. Reduced Elevon Functionality ....................................................................................... 133
Fig 5.6. LTV Error in (S9 and S10) ....................................................................................... 135
Fig 5.7. LTV Error in (S9 and S10) ........................................................................................ 136
Fig 5.8. LTV error in (S9 and S10) ....................................................................................... 137
Fig 5.9. LTV Error in (S9 and S10) ....................................................................................... 138
Fig 5.10. LTV Error in (S9 and S10) ..................................................................................... 139
List of Figures
xiv
Fig 5.11. LTV Error in (S9 and S10) .................................................................................... 140
Fig 5.12. Gravimetric Errors (S3 and S4) .................................................................................... 142
Fig 5.13. Aerodynamic Uncertainties ......................................................................................... 143
Fig 5.14. Combination of Errors .................................................................................................. 144
Fig 5.15. Benchmark Scenario (S1 and S2) ................................................................................. 147
Fig 5.16. Reduced Actuator Functionality (S5 and S6) ............................................................. 147
Fig 5.17. Time Varying Uncertainty .................................................................................... 148
Fig 5.18. Error Dynamics and Acceleration ...................................................................... 148
Fig 5.19. Error Dynamics and Acceleration ....................................................................... 149
Fig 5.20. Error Dynamics and Acceleration ....................................................................... 149
Fig 5.21. Error Dynamics and Acceleration ....................................................................... 150
Fig 5.22. Error Dynamics and Acceleration ....................................................................... 150
Fig 5.23. Gravimetric Uncertainties ............................................................................................ 151
Fig 5.24. Aerodynamic Uncertainties ......................................................................................... 151
Fig 5.25. Combination of Uncertainties ...................................................................................... 152
Fig 5.26. Roll Angle Tracking - Benchmark Case (L1 and L7) ................................................ 155
Fig 5.27. Reduced aileron deflection (L3 and L9) ..................................................................... 156
Fig 5.28. Asymmetric Elevon Deflection (L3 and L9) .............................................................. 157
Fig 5.29. Gravimetric Errors (L4 and L10) ................................................................................. 158
Fig 5.30. Aerodynamic uncertainties (L5 and L11) ................................................................... 159
Fig 5.31. Rudder Failure: -7.5 to 7.5 degrees (L2 and L8) ........................................................ 160
Fig 5.32. Combination of errors (L6 and L12) ........................................................................... 161
Fig 5.33. Behaviour of Additional Aircraft States (Rudder is functioning) .......................... 167
Fig 5.34. Behaviour of Aircraft States - Presence of Uncertainties ......................................... 168
Fig 5.35. Estimate of Uncertainties - Nominal Conditions ...................................................... 171
Fig 5.36. Estimate of Uncertainties – Presence of Uncertainties ............................................. 172
Fig 5.37. Estimate of Uncertainties - Nominal Conditions ...................................................... 173
Fig 5.38. Estimate of Uncertainties –Uncertainties ................................................................... 173
Chapter 6:
Fig 6.1. Mach Number Altitude Envelope of the Vehicle – Longitudinal ............................ 179
Fig 6.2. Dynamic Pressure (Longitudinal Manoeuvre) ........................................................... 179
Fig 6. 3. Mach Number, Altitude and Angle of Attack Time Histories................................. 180
Fig 6.4. Angle of Attack - Longitudinal ...................................................................................... 182
Fig 6.5. Drag Coefficient for the Pull Up Trajectory ................................................................. 183
Fig 6.6. Lift Coefficient for Pull Up Trajectory .......................................................................... 183
Fig 6.7. Lift to Drag Ratio for Longitudinal Test Case ............................................................. 184
List of Figures
xv
Fig 6.8. Pitching Moment Coefficient - Longitudinal............................................................... 184
Fig 6.9. Pitching Moment Coefficient as a function of Time ................................................... 185
Fig 6.10. Mach Number Altitude Map for Second Part of Trajectory .................................... 187
Fig 6.11. Dynamic Pressure (Lateral/Direction Manoeuvre) .................................................. 187
Fig 6.12. Angle of Attack for Lateral Part of the Trajectory .................................................... 188
Fig 6.13. Lift to Drag Ratio for Lateral Part of Trajectory ........................................................ 189
Fig 6.14. Rolling Moment Coefficient ......................................................................................... 189
Fig 6.15. Yawing Moment Coefficient ........................................................................................ 190
Fig 6.16. Lateral Dynamics Derivatives ..................................................................................... 191
Fig 6.17. Directional Dynamics Derivatives .............................................................................. 192
Appendix A
Fig A. 1. Frames of Reference - Aircraft ..................................................................................... 218
Fig A. 2.Body and Stability Axis of Aircraft .............................................................................. 220
List of Tables
xvi
List of Tables
Chapter 3:
Table 3.1. Overview of Motion Variables of an Airborne Platform ......................................... 67
Table 3. 2. GHAME Mass Properties ............................................................................................ 71
Table 3.3. Actuator model Parameters ......................................................................................... 73
Table 3.4. Summary of Equations ................................................................................................. 76
Table 3.5. Performance Definition of ADIS16480 - Accelerometer .......................................... 78
Table 3.6. Performance Definition of ADIS16480 – Gyroscope ................................................ 78
Table 3.7. Error Bounds for Error Vector - Time Invariant ....................................................... 81
Table 3.8. Errors Bounds of Error Vector (Time Invariant) ....................................................... 83
Chapter 5:
Table 5.1. Simulation Scenarios ................................................................................................... 131
Table 5.2. Simulation Parameters: Initial Conditions .............................................................. 131
Table 5.3. Uncertainties Analysis Monte Carlo Simulation (S3 and S4, S7 and S8, S11 and
S12) .................................................................................................................................................. 141
Table 5.4. Tracking Error Norm – Monte Carlo Runs .............................................................. 145
Table 5.5. Tracking Error Norm for Time Varying Errors ....................................................... 145
Table 5.6. Control Surface Metric ................................................................................................ 153
Table 5.7. Simulation Scenarios – Lateral/Directional ............................................................. 154
Table 5.8. Conditions - Trajectory Control ................................................................................ 154
Table 5.9. Roll Tracking Error Norm .......................................................................................... 163
Table 5.10. Altitude Mean and Standard Deviation (Lateral Test Cases) ............................. 165
Table 5.11. Control Surface Metric .............................................................................................. 165
Table 5.12. Time Delay Margin Comparison ............................................................................ 175
Table of Acronyms
xvii
Table of Acronyms
Acronym Description
ADF Automatic Direction Finder
ADI Attitude Director Indicator
ANSI American National Standards Institute
BIBO Bounded Input Bounded Output
CADAC Computer Aided Design of Aerospace Concepts
CAV Common Aerospace Vehicle
CFD Computational Fluid Dynamics
CLV Crew Launch Vehicle
DI Dynamic Inversion
DPPC Dynamic Pole Placement Controller
DoF Degrees of Freedom
ECG Extended Command Governor
EoM Equations of Motion
FSD Flight System Dynamics
GHAME Generic Hypersonic Aerodynamics Model Example
GHV Generic Hypersonic Vehicle
GPS Global Positioning System
GTM Generic Transport Model
HCV Hypersonic Cruise Vehicle
HGV Hypersonic Gliding Vehicle
HIL Hardware in the Loop
HRE Hypersonic research Engine
HSV Hypersonic Vehicle
INS Inertial Navigation System
LFT Linear Fractional Transformation
LPV Linear Parameter Varying
LQG Linear Quadratic Gaussian
LQI Linear Quadratic Integral
LQR Linear Quadratic Regulator
LTI Linear Time Invariant
LTR Linear Transfer Recovery
LTV Linear Time Variant
MATLAB Matrix Laboratory
MEMS Microelectromechanical systems
MIMO Multi Input Multi Output
Table of Acronyms
xviii
Acronym Description
MOI Moment of Inertia
MPC Model Predictive Control
MRAC Model Reference Adaptive Control
MRAS Model Reference Adaptive System
NACA National Advisory Committee for Aeronautics
NASA National Aeronautics and Space Administration
NDI Nonlinear Dynamic Inversion
NDO Nonlinear Disturbance Observer
NN Neural Networks
ODE Ordinary Differential Equations
OOP Object Oriented Programming
PDQLF Parametric Dependent Quadratic Lyapunov Function
PI Proportional Integral
PPC Pole Placement Controller
PwC Piecewise Constant
RCS Reaction Control System
SAS System Augmentation System
SCRAMJET Supersonic Combusting Ramjet
SDRE State Dependent Riccati Equation
SISO Single Input Single Output
SSTO Single Stage to Orbit
STR Self-Tuning Regulator
TDM Time Delay Margin
TUM Technical University Munich
UAV Unmanned Aerial Vehicle
VAAC Vectored thrust Aircraft Advanced Control
Table of Symbols
xix
Table of Symbols
Latin Letters
Symbol Unit Description
Body, inertial coordinates
Roll, pitch and yaw principle moments of inertia
Component of moment of inertia matrix
Sonic speed
State matrix, control matrix, output, feedforward matrix
Uncertainties in system
Closed loop system matrix
Body acceleration with respect to inertial frame
Characteristic length
Reference length
Aerodynamic or control derivative
Drag force
Derivative operator
Error vector
Tracking error dynamics
Nonlinear state dynamic function
Specific force
Reference frames
Transition matrix – Kalman Filtering
Force vector
Nonlinear control distribution function
Control coefficient matrix
Gravitational acceleration
Noise gain matrix
Height above earth
Observation Matrix
Cost function
PI Gains
Gain matrix
Kalman gain matrix
Lift force
Table of Symbols
xx
Latin Letters
Symbol Unit Description
Rolling moment
Lift coefficient slope
Rolling moment derivate as a function of
Mass of vehicle
Mach number
Pitching moment
Pitching moment derivative
Dimensional normal force slope derivative as a function of
Yawing moment derivative as a function of
Yaw moment
Roll rate
Pole location
Pressure
Covariance matrix
Prior covariance
Posterior covariance
Pitch rate
State weighting matrix
Process noise covariance
Dynamic pressure
Radius
Yaw rate
Gas constant
Control input weighting matrix, controllability matrix
Reynolds Number
Rotation tensor of body frame with respect to inertial frame
Measurement covariance
Platform area
Ricatti gains matrix
Laplace operator
Displacement of body with respect to inertial point
Thrust vector
Temperature
Time constant of mode A
Control input
Table of Symbols
xxi
Latin Letters
Symbol Unit Description
Velocity vector
Velocity of body with respect to the inertial frame
Commanded signal
X-force derivative with respect to
State vector
State estimate vector
Prior estimate
Output variable
Posterior estimate
Output estimate
Side force derivative as a function of
Force in the Y-direction
Force in the Z-direction
Table of Symbols
xxii
Greek Letters
Symbol Unit Description
Angle of attack
Side slip angle
Control input
Elevator deflection
Aileron deflection
Rudder deflection
Thrust equivalence ratio
Error vector
Flight path angle
Ratio of specific heat
Damping of a linear second order system
Damping ratio
Pitch angle
Rate of change of pitch angle
Parametric uncertainty error
Adaptive estimate of parametric uncertainty
Input disturbances
Adaptive estimate of input disturbances
Density
Trajectory parameters
Roll angle
Natural frequency
Angular velocity vector of vehicle frame w.r.t the inertial frame
Probability density function
Table of Symbols
xxiii
Indices
Symbol Description
Variable related to angle of attack
Variable related to sideslip angle
Variable related to aileron deflection
Variable related to elevator deflection
Variable related to rudder deflection
Freestream, steady state
Actuator
Body fixed frame
Desired rates
Geodetic frame
Dutch Roll
Earth
Earth fixed frame
Feedforward
Inertial frame, integral gain
Variable as a function of altitude, gain of difference in altitude
Local value
Static stability derivative
Pitching damping derivative
Variable related to pitch moment
Variable related to roll rate
Variable related to pitch rate
Variable related to yaw rate
Rolling mode
Spiral model
Stability axis frame
Variable as a function of velocity
INTRODUCTION
1
1 INTRODUCTION
This chapter presents the rationale underlying the study of the control of hypersonic
gliders. The chapter lays the foundation for the thesis by providing the background, the
research objectives, the research questions, scope and focus of this research, contributions
and limitations of the study. It also provides an outline of the structure of the thesis.
1.1 Overview of Research
1.1.1 Challenges of Controlling and Need of Hypersonic Vehicles
Hypersonic vehicles potentially provide a cost effective means of accessing space due to
their reusable nature [1, 2]. As a result, over the past few decades, a considerable amount
of funds have been directed to the research and development of hypersonic vehicles by the
U.S. Air Force and NASA.
The main advantage that hypersonic vehicles present is that they are air breathing vehicles
as opposed to fuel based rockets [3, 4], thus reducing the operating cost of the vehicle, as
less fuel needs to be carried and at the same time increasing the payload capacity.
Furthermore, the vehicle itself becomes significantly more efficient from a propulsion
point of view and makes the vehicle reusable. Another driving force into hypersonic
research is the commercialisation of hypersonic powered flights. In the event that this
becomes a reality, flight times would be significantly reduced.
Some of the main challenges of a hypersonic vehicle program from a control point of view
are: (i) to generate a model of the HSV and (ii) design a controller for the cruise phase of
the flight. The difficulties and challenges associated with the above two tasks consist of
modelling the dynamics of the vehicle which involve a strong coupling between the
aerodynamic, structural and the propulsion sub-systems. The long slender bodies of the
hypersonic vehicle during flight cannot be considered as rigid and the flexible effects need
to be taken into account when modelling and designing controllers for different flight
INTRODUCTION
2
phases. To ensure that the vehicle operates with high aerodynamic efficiency, the
designers are forced to design the vehicle to be open loop unstable. This means that
without a well-designed flight stability augmentation system (or commonly referred to as
an autopilot) the platform would be inoperable [5].
1.1.2 Generic Hypersonic Aerodynamic Model Example (GHAME)
The model utilised in this research is a simulation platform that has been designed by the
Dryden Flight Research Facility. The Generic Hypersonic Aerodynamic Model Example
(GHAME) was developed to enable the research and development in the field of control
and guidance and trajectory optimization [6]. The geometry of the simplified GHAME
model is shown in Fig 1.1.
Fig 1.1. GHAME Vehicle [6]
The GHAME model that has been used in this research, was developed for a single stage-
to-orbit (SSTO) flight regime that would be encountered by the National Aerospace Plane
(NASP). Studies like the one presented in [6-8] show the importance of this model and the
advantages of having such a model in helping carrying out feasibility studies along entry
trajectories. The model itself is a based upon a combination of flight test data from the
Space Shuttle and the X-24C and theoretical data from a swept delta configuration using
modified Newtonian Impact Flow method [6-8].
INTRODUCTION
3
The gravimetrics of the original GHAME model are changed to represent the HIFiRE 4
flight experiment vehicle, which is a reentry glider control experiment [9]. The gravimetric
properties utilised in the force and moment equations are obtained from [10]. The platform
area is, , the characteristic length is and the reference length is,
. A scaled down version of the GHAME model that weights 93.1kg and with the
following product and moments of inertias:
and .
A more detailed look at the GHAME model is shown in Section 3.4.2.
1.2 Motivation
The flight trajectory shown in Fig 1.2 is one proposed for launching a cruising SCRAMJET
vehicle and then recovering the vehicle by gliding it back to earth after the mission is
complete. The trajectory is initially the same as the HyShot [11] and HIFiRE [12] missions
(a sub-orbital ballistic trajectory) but on the way back through the atmosphere, the control
surfaces of the unpowered vehicle are used to pull out of the ballistic trajectory. The
SCRAMJET engine is not used during the ascent stage so a rocket is used to get the
scramjet up to 400 km altitude. During the descent phase, the vehicle pulls out of the
ballistic trajectory and goes into a horizontal path to fire and test the SCRAMJET and
cruise at a certain altitude. The focus of this study is this pull-up manoeuvre and the glide
stage after the vehicle has cruised under SCRAMJET power. This study does not include
the firing of the SCRAMJET engine. As a result this study considers how to control a
hypersonic glider over a wide range of conditions, from Mach 6 to 8 down to subsonic
conditions. Thus the study would apply to (1) the pull-up manoeuvre and (2) the glide
back towards the ground.
For this scenario, the pull-up manoeuvre is required to alter the flight path but not to lose
too much speed in the process. So after the manoeuvre, the vehicle is flying at around
INTRODUCTION
4
Mach 7 at an altitude suitable for the scramjet engine to fire (See Chapter 6 for results).
Therefore, this study is a step towards this goal of bringing an unpowered SCRAMJET
vehicle out of a ballistic trajectory, using aerodynamics to alter its path and speed and then
gliding it back towards earth. The next stage of the research will include the powered
section of flight and then glide it back to ground after that.
Fig 1.2. Mission Profile – Descent Trajectory
Once the vehicle lands, it can be maintained and brought to a state where it can be reused.
Therein lies the main motivation of this study; this dissertation presents a control strategy
to carry out a pull up manoeuvre after the hypersonic vehicle has carried out the re-
orientation (about the apogee) and descent manoeuvre down to 55km altitude. This in
turn facilitates the landing phase and thereafter the re-use of a hypersonic vehicle.
By the time the vehicle is ready to glide towards the earth, all of the fuel has been used; the
vehicle that is descending towards the Earth is therefore a glider. This significantly
increases the complexity of the control objective. The complexity and the demands on the
controller increase significantly along a pull up trajectory. Chapter 2 shows that there is
considerable literature that has been published in the field of robust and adaptive control
of hypersonic vehicles. The basic idea behind adaptive control is to estimate uncertain
INTRODUCTION
5
plant/controller parameters on-line using measured system signals. These estimated
parameters are used to compute the control input. The objective of an adaptive controller
is to maintain performance of a system in the presence of uncertainty and variations in
plant parameters. The fundamental difference between robust and adaptive control is that
adaptive controller is superior in dealing with uncertainties in constant and slowly-
varying parameters. However, robust control is superior in dealing with disturbances,
quickly varying parameters and unmodelled dynamics. Therefore, a control strategy
which has two control objectives is implemented; the robust baseline is implemented to
carry out the tracking objective and the adaptive augmentation is implemented to cancel
the effects of the uncertainties.
Flight testing of hypersonic vehicles is an expensive endeavour. As a result, high-fidelity,
six-degree-of-freedom (6-DoF) simulations play an important role in the development of
the system [13, 14]. It is within this context that such simulation platforms and study are
used in trade studies, preliminary design, hardware-in-the-loop (HIL) testing, flight
testing and training. The added motivation is that this study acts as a tool to thoroughly
test the stability, robustness and performance characteristics of the controllers without
having carried out a single test flight. Consequently, this provides a certain baseline level
of confidence for the stability, performance and robustness of the controllers.
1.3 Background to the Research
The study of control systems for hypersonic vehicles (HSV) has remained a challenging
research area owing to the characteristic of the vehicle dynamics; being highly nonlinear,
subject to uncertainties and coupling [10, 15-21]. The aerodynamics, structure, propulsion
system, and control features are dynamically inter-linked over a wide range of frequencies
due to the flexible airframe/engine integrated configuration [22-25]. Such an intricate
nature of a HSV is due to the fact that these vehicles are highly sensitive to changes in
atmospheric conditions, physical and aerodynamic parameters [26-29]. Further
INTRODUCTION
6
complications in the dynamic features of the HSV arise because of the varying flight
conditions, fuel consumption and thermal effects on the structure [25]. As a result of the
overwhelming complexity in vehicle dynamics, the control research of HSV a has become
a topic of importance.
Earlier studies on control research have primarily concentrated on flight control design to
deal with the complex dynamics in an attempt to achieve vehicle stability [1, 17, 26, 30-32].
Research on the models of the vehicle dynamics with increasing complexity mainly
focused on the longitudinal plane, as is evidenced in the model developed by Bolender
and Doman [1, 27, 33, 34]. However, the longitudinal vehicle model is known to be
unstable, exhibiting non-minimum phase behaviour and is not robust to dynamic
uncertainty [27, 34]. In order to moderate the effect of structural flexibility on vehicle
stability and control performance, a linearised model is formed around a trim point for a
nonlinear, dynamically coupled simulation model of the HSV [27, 35-37]. As an
alternative, nonlinear adaptive controllers have been employed in the HSV configuration
domain [10, 16, 22, 33, 37-43]. In the research positioning matrix of Fig 1.3, quadrants A
and B represent the studies undertaken for linear and nonlinear control methodologies to
stabilise powered HSV.
Thus, while in the area of control research a large body of scholarly work exists, the extent
of research is directed at linear and nonlinear control of powered vehicles [1, 30, 44-46].
Compared with the studies in the control of powered HSVs, limited research is available
on the development of controllers for unpowered HSVs [10, 16, 19, 47-51]. Consequently,
this distinct focus on developing control methodologies for powered HSV leaves a large
gap in the literature relating to development of control systems for unpowered HSVs once
the SCRAMJET has been fired and tested. Addressing, this gap would enable the reuse of
SCRAMJET powered vehicles to reduce flight times for global travel and make the
deployment of payloads into orbit more routine and affordable.
INTRODUCTION
7
This study addresses the neglect of controllers for unpowered HSVs along a descent
trajectory. The study into unpowered hypersonic gliders has attracted the use of both
linear and nonlinear control methodologies [10, 19, 47, 48, 51]. This research work also
uses the baseline controller, which is a linear controller, and the augmentation of the
baseline controller is through a nonlinear adaptive controller. As a result, the positioning
of this research builds on the scholarly works pertaining to both the quadrants of C and D
in Fig 1.3.
Fig 1.3. Research Positioning
Compared with the large amount of literature in the field of longitudinal control of HSVs,
few sources present the lateral-directional dynamics [29, 52-58]. The studies presented
highlight the complexities pertaining to the lateral dynamics on a re-entry trajectory. The
vehicle models used are either the space shuttle [58] or a space shuttle like vehicle [55].
Heller in [57] has presented complexities with respect to the lateral dynamics of a
hypersonic vehicle travelling at up to Mach 7. These difficulties include unstable Dutch
roll, a very high roll yaw coupling and weak roll damping.
INTRODUCTION
8
Consequently, an additional axis is added to Fig 1.3 to add depth to the current study of
hypersonic gliders. The third axis indicates whether the study undertaken concentrates
only on the longitudinal dynamics or incorporates the lateral-directional dynamics.
Having outlined the key research areas in HSV control, an in depth positioning of the
research direction is included in Fig 1.4. This figure highlights that this thesis concentrates
on a 6-DoF study of the hypersonic glider. In doing so, it fills in a key research gap.
Fig 1.4. Framework depicting the research direction
adaptive control is utilised as part of the augmented controller. The initial development
of adaptive control theory was motivated by the need to certify adaptive flight critical
systems with a more affordable verification and validation process [22, 59]. The key
feature of adaptive control is the decoupling of adaptation and the control loops. This
in turn leads to guaranteed robustness in the presence of fast adaptation [60-64]. The
architecture allows for large learning gains (adaptation rates) which is beneficial for both
performance and robustness. This is possible with the introduction of a low pass filter into
the controller.
Hypersonic Vehicle Control
Powered - SCRAMJET
Longitudinal Study Only
Lateral-Directional Dynamics Study
Unpowered - Glider
Longitudinal Study Lateral-Directional
Dynamics Study
INTRODUCTION
9
Despite numerous adaptive control architectures presented for a wide range of
applications in state feedback [62, 63, 65-68], there are very few papers that address control
of linear time varying (LTV) state feedback systems. The studies in [65] and [63] present an
augmented controller for the X-29 and X-48 vehicles. However, the controller presented is
for a linear time invariant (LTI) reference model. The adaptive controller presented uses a
control law with two low pass filters: each for the matched and the unmatched adaptive
estimates. The adaptive controller presented by Prime in [68] controls a hypersonic glider
along the same descent trajectory as the one presented in Fig 1.2, however, once again the
reference model is LTI. As the flight parameters changed significantly, an LTV reference
model might be able to better meet the different performance specifications at different
points of the flight trajectory, thus leading to overall better performance.
1.4 Research Gap
Relative to the studies presented in A and B, there has been fewer research papers on
linear and nonlinear adaptive control of hypersonic gliders, C and D (see Fig 1.3).
Furthermore, a comprehensive study of the stability and robustness characteristics of
controllers for gliders in the presence of various uncertainties has not been undertaken.
This study attempts to address the gap of control of hypersonic gliders along a decent
trajectory. This research is, therefore, positioned, as depicted in Fig 1.3 and Fig 1.4.
Significant research effort has been dedicated to the area of hypersonic flight in order to
provide a more economic and environmentally friendly access to space as compared to the
traditional rocket [17, 34, 57, 69]. Preller in [70] has presented a small access to space
systems which integrates a scramjet powered second stage as part of the launch sequence.
Once the ascent trajectory is complete and the payload has been delivered to orbit, it is
important to make sure that the vehicle (payload delivery component of the launch
system) carried out the descent manoeuvre in a controlled manner to re-use. Along the
descent trajectory, the vehicle will only have reaction jets, its inherent aerodynamic
INTRODUCTION
10
properties and control surfaces to control its descent and subsequent manoeuvres.
Another possible application is the use of the SCRAMJET engine along the descent portion
of sub-orbital ballistic trajectory. To carry this out a controller is needed to orient the
vehicle in a manner to allow the right initial conditions for the SCRAMJET to start
operating. It is within this context, the positioning of this research is an important addition
to the research field.
1.5 Research Problem
There are few studies concentrating on the control of hypersonic gliders along a descent
trajectory (as shown in Fig 1.2); HiFire 4 is one of the few examples of a program trying to
carry out a pull up manoeuvre similar to the one shown in Fig 1.2 [12]. The control along
the descent trajectory forms a precursor to landing a hypersonic glider. Carrying out a pull
up manoeuvre would facilitate and promote the affordability of HSVs for launching
payloads into orbit. In light of this research gap, this study concentrates on research
directed towards a 6-DoF study of a hypersonic glider along a descent trajectory.
Furthermore, the controller that is used in this research is different from the ones
developed for the X-15, X-43 and the space shuttle. This is largely due to the fact that for
the X-15, although an adaptive controller was used, the vehicle was piloted. The X-43 used
a PID controller at a constant Mach number and altitude (details of which are given in
Section 2.4.1). The re-entry aerodynamics of the Space Shuttle (which is a bulky flat
bottomed re-entry vehicle) are very different from those of a slender winged hypersonic
vehicle intended to fly like an aircraft [71-74]. As a result, the literature review in Chapter
2 concentrates on the studies that has been carried out for slender hypersonic vehicles.
Furthermore, the comparison of the performance of controllers is also very limited [49, 50,
63, 75-78]. The studies that present a comparison between a baseline and an augmented
baseline controller are mainly for the case of missiles, helicopters and supersonic aircraft.
INTRODUCTION
11
In this context, this thesis addresses the problem of applying and comparing two control
methodologies with respect to robustness, performance and stability.
To tackle the research problem, a baseline controller is implemented to carry out the pull
up manoeuvre along the descent trajectory for a scaled GHAME (Generic Hypersonic
Aerodynamics Model Example) model. Once the pull up manoeuvre has been carried out,
the lateral/directional baseline controllers carry out a roll-manoeuvre while keeping the
sideslip angle constant at zero. The baseline controller is thereafter augmented with an
adaptive controller [66]. The augmented controller employed in this study is similar to
those presented in [59, 61, 78-82]. This study addresses the research problem by
developing a nonlinear high-fidelity simulation model.
An additional objective of this study is to apply the augmented adaptive controller to
an LTV system. In the process modified theory is applied to an LTV system, which has not
been done before. The aim of this research is reflected in the following specific research
questions that are addressed in this thesis:
I. How does the baseline controller perform for a descent trajectory in the presence of
sensor, aerodynamic, gravimetric and control surface uncertainties and failures?
II. How does the augmented controller assist in cancelling the uncertainties present
in the system and improve the performance of the baseline controller?
III. What are the performance characteristics of the adaptive augmented controller
in the presence of uncertainties?
IV. What are the robustness properties of the augmented controller compared to the
baseline controller?
V. Is this control methodology suitable for carrying out a pull up manoeuvre along the
descent phase of a suborbital ballistic trajectory to fire and test a reusable
SCRAMJET engine?
INTRODUCTION
12
1.6 Scope and Focus of the Study
The simulation and conceptual framework of this study is based on three main fields: (a)
pole placement control (PPC) (baseline controller) (b) adaptive control, and (c) control
of longitudinal and lateral/directional dynamics of a scaled GHAME hypersonic glider
along a descent trajectory. These fields provide the theoretical and conceptual framework
for this study and nonlinear high fidelity framework to test the robustness, performance
and stability characteristics of the controllers. Consequently, this research is built on the
following elements:
I. Creating a simulation environment for simulating hypersonic vehicle flight. This is
carried out in CADAC++ [13, 14]. The trajectories of the test cases are defined in this
environment.
II. Controller synthesis for the longitudinal and lateral/directional dynamics. Testing
of the baseline controller in the presence of aerodynamic uncertainties, imperfect
sensor feedback, control surface failures and gravimetric uncertainties.
III. Controller synthesis of the adaptive controller that will augment the baseline
controllers. This adaptive controller is implemented as a tool to cancel the
uncertainties that are present in the system and to improve the performance of the
baseline controller.
IV. Investigation of the robustness properties of adaptive controller as compared to
the baseline controller for a descent trajectory of a hypersonic glider.
1.7 Delimitations of the Study
As this study considers hypersonic gliders, scramjet powered HSVs are not considered.
Another aspect of hypersonic flight that isn't considered in this study is the structural
design of the system. It is also important to note that, above a certain altitude, control
authority is minimal due to low density [83-85]. In fact the density gets so low that the
INTRODUCTION
13
phenomena that leads to the need for controllers does not apply. It is under these
conditions that a Reaction Control System (RCS) is utilised to control the attitude of the
flying platform. As a result, the application of a RCS for the test case considered in this
study is deemed to be beyond the research scope.
1.8 Methodology
The tools to carry out high-fidelity, 6-DoF simulations are provided to modelling and
simulation engineers by CADAC. CADAC was created in 1978 and was written in
FORTRAN [13, 15]. Due to the fact that FORTRAN lacks the power of object oriented
programming, the latest version of CADAC has been implemented in C++. This new
architecture is called CADAC++ which helps with the conceptualisation and simulation of
aerospace vehicles. More importantly, high fidelity simulations use random variables to
model noise, disturbances and uncertain phenomenon. As the presence of uncertainties
forms the edifice of this project, the Monte Carlo simulation capability of CADAC++
makes this tool the primary choice for this study. The uncertainties that have been
included in the model are the imperfect sensor feedback and uncertainties in the
aerodynamic-look up tables, control surface and gravimetric uncertainties.
The baseline controller is responsible for stabilising the system and tracking the desired
commands under nominal conditions. The augmentation is utilised to cancel the
uncertainties in the system. As the baseline controller, a pole placement controller (PPC) is
implemented [15]. This baseline control strategy does not consider uncertainties or
nonlinearities. It is assumed that the plant dynamics are exactly known when the baseline
control law is designed. However, that is not the case. There are always assumptions made
such as neglecting some minor influences (like certain nonlinearities) depending on
parameters which only can be identified with much effort to increase the fidelity of the
model. Therefore, in the presence of uncertainties and nonlinearities, an adaptive
augmentation strategy is employed to improve the performance of the PPCs and ensure
INTRODUCTION
14
that the control objectives are met. As a result, this study forms the basis of the first
application of a PPC and an augmented PPC along a descent trajectory of a hypersonic
glider. Furthermore, the application of these two controllers to the longitudinal and the
lateral/directional dynamics of a hypersonic glider also acts as one of the main
contributions of this research.
1.9 Contribution of Dissertation
The present study addresses knowledge gaps in the hypersonic vehicle flight control
research and makes several contributions to both theory and practice. The following
contributions are made by this study to hypersonic control literature:
I. This study presents a controller that can be used to carry out a pull up manoeuvre
along the descent phase of a suborbital ballistic trajectory to bring the vehicle to the
right initial conditions and fire and test the SCRAMJET engine.
II. From a practical perspective, the study contributes by presenting longitudinal and
lateral/directional control strategies for a hypersonic glider at high and low speeds
and compares the performance and robustness of the baseline and the augmented
controller using tracking error and control surface norms and time delay margins
(TDMs).
III. From a practical perspective, this study includes the effects of imperfect sensor
feedback, aerodynamic, actuator, gravimetric uncertainties and time delays. The
disturbance rejection qualities of the controllers are presented in a high fidelity
simulation environment and form one of the main contributions of this research.
IV. The thesis provides a comparative study between the baseline and the
augmented PPC. There are very few studies comparing a baseline controller with
an adaptive controller. Although several studies present a comparative study, these
studies only consider the longitudinal dynamics of the vehicles and the results are
only presented around a constant altitude and Mach number [52, 86, 87]. The
INTRODUCTION
15
comparisons consist of the performance and the robustness comparison between
the baseline and the augmented controller.
V. The study applies a modified piecewise constant update law to an LTV system to
cancel matched and unmatched uncertainties for an augmented controller.
VI. The study presents an application of the modified implementation of an
adaptive augmented controller. This modification avoids the inversion of the
system dynamics and simplifies the control law implementation for a LTV system.
VII. The study provides a new insight into the design of the bandwidth of the low pass
filter, which forms an integral part of the controller. The design of the filter is
dependent on the characteristics of the uncertainties present and how they affect
the performance, robustness and stability of the system.
VIII. The study presents an implementation of the PPC and the augmented controller
which does not require too many resources to run on hardware. This simplifies the
transition from simulation to the flight hardware.
IX. The study shows that it is feasible to loosen one of the assumptions that is placed on
the plant dynamics when trying to realise a control objective while applying the
piecewise constant adaptation method for an LTV system.
1.10 Organisation of the Research
A description of the content of each chapter is given below:
Chapter 2: Literature Review and Conceptual Framework provides a review of the
hypersonic flight control literature and theories in related disciplines. This chapter sets out
the main theories used in this study and provides the key theoretical ideas of the research
leading to the conceptual framework for this study.
Chapter 3: Simulation Model presents the implementation of the simulation model of the
hypersonic glider. This chapter includes the description of the aerodynamic model,
INTRODUCTION
16
actuator model and sensor implementation and also provides a presentation of the vehicle
dynamics of the hypersonic glider which is used for controller synthesis.
Chapter 4: Theoretical Framework and Implementation develops the theoretical
framework of this thesis. This chapter presents the relevant theory with respect to PPC
and the adaptive control. This chapter presents the theoretical and mathematical
background of the baseline and the augmented controller. This chapter provides the
performance and stability bounds for the augmented controller.
Chapter 5: Controller Performance Comparison details the processes used to analyse and
test the performance, robustness and stability properties of the baseline and the
adaptive controller.The performance and the robustness characteristics of the controller
are tested in the presence of uncertainties. The sources of these uncertainties are also
outlined in this chapter. A detailed comparison of the PPC and the adaptive controller
is presented and the key differences in performances and robustness are highlighted.
Chapter 6: Physical Flight Parameter Analysis outlines the reasons for the controller
performances presented in Chapter 5. It further outlines the behaviour of the aerodynamic
coefficients of the vehicle in an attempt to gain an insight into what happens in a control
problem pertaining to a high speed vehicle entering the earth's atmosphere along a
descent trajectory.
Chapter 7: Conclusions and Implications presents the conclusions and a summary of the
contributions of the research together with implications for theory, methodology,
practices, and researchers. The chapter also offers some thoughts on future research and
the possible applicability of the presented control methodologies for real flight
experiments.
Fig 1.5 depicts a flow chart of the thesis outlining the connections between the various
chapters.
INTRODUCTION
17
Fig 1.5. Flow Chart of Thesis Chapters
1. Introduction
2. Literature Review
3. Simulation Model
4. Theoretical Framework and Implementation
5. Controller Performance Comparison
6. Conclusions and Future Work
6. Physical Flight Parameters Analysis
LITERATURE REVIEW
18
2 LITERATURE REVIEW
2.1 Introduction
This chapter presents the background knowledge relevant to this thesis and reviews the
control methodologies that have been employed to control hypersonic vehicles. It presents
the unique challenges that are present when dealing with the control of hypersonic
gliders. As adaptive control forms one of the main pillars of the project, a literature
review is provided which highlights the main research effort in the field of adaptive
control theory applied to airborne platforms. The main outcome of this chapter is
identification of gaps in literature.
2.2 State of the Art in Flight Control Approaches
Boeing in 1934 develop an autopilot for its flight control system for the B247. From then
on, flight controllers have moved on from their analog predecessors. Current state of the
art in terms of flight control implementation involves a combination of
electrical/electromechanical/hydraulic components. In terms of flight control laws, there is
a great wealth of literature that presents control methodologies that are used in industry
and in research [88, 89]. The industry standard in presented here.
In Europe, Airbus for its A320 uses load factor demands as its longitudinal controller. The
controller itself is a proportional integral (PI) controller (demanded control actuation
depends on error and integral of error). The commanded variables for the lateral-
directional axes are the roll rate, sideslip and bank angle. A classical PI controller is
utilised with a gain matrix for stability and roll rate/sideslip decoupling. The A340 uses a
similar structure however the controller is increased in size and flexibility which is
required as a result of considering structural vibrations in the modelling and
implementation process [90]. The controller for the A380 is further expanded to include
airframe flexibility during the design process. The flight control laws are implemented to
LITERATURE REVIEW
19
achieve desired handling qualities and flexible mode damping requirements leading to
extended controller bandwidth [91].
Fig 2.1. X-31A Post Stall Experiment Aircraft [92]
The X-31A (Fig 2.1) was a post stall experimental which was a joint project between
Germany and the USA. The main aim of this program was to test the thrust vectoring
technology. A requirement of the flight control system was to maintain controlled flight at
high angles of attack where conventional aircraft would stall [93]. A block diagram of the
flight control architecture of the X-31A is shown in Fig 2.2.
Fig 2.2. Flight Control Architecture [94]
The commanded variables for the controller were the roll, pitch and yaw rates. The sensor
provides a feedback of the body rates, angle of attack and the sideslip angle. The controller
methodology used is the LQ digital regulator (the background for this controller is in
LITERATURE REVIEW
20
Section 2.2.4). The scheduling variables for the feedback gains are angle of attack, Mach
number and altitude [93].
The Eurofighter developed by Germany, England, Spain and Italy controls the attitude
or pitch angle along the longitudinal axis and bank and heading angle along the lateral
axis. The baseline controller is designed using classical control tools. Nichols/Bode plots
and linear time responses were used to analyse the performance of the controllers. The
controller structure was changed with nonlinear elements [95-97].
The Vectored thrust Aircraft Advanced Control (VAAC) program was a program in the
UK that started in 1984. The inner loop control is a Nonlinear Dynamic Inversion (NDI)
controller (background of which is outlined in Section 2.2.3). The nonlinear dynamics of
the aircraft are used to invert the nonlinearities and a PI controller is designed to track the
pitch rate command. Additionally, the pilot commands are filtered which are the inputs to
the NDI controller [98].
Fig 2.3. NDI Controller of VAAC [88]
Furthermore, LPV control techniques are used for controller synthesis for the VAAC. The
system dynamics are written as LTI models whose coefficients were a function of
scheduling parameters. LPV loop shaping used a LPV flight model to directly
synthesize a scheduled LPV controller. This controller technique was successfully
implemented between 1995 and 1998 [99, 100].
LITERATURE REVIEW
21
Boeing used multivariable control as its primary control methodology for its aircraft fleet.
LQR/LQG based controller design has been utilised in order to achieve the desired
performance and robustness. During this process, there is a direct trade-off between
command response, control activity, disturbance rejection and loop bandwidth. The basic
design approach of the LQR controllers is outlined in Section 2.2.4. Furthermore, the
feedforward gains of the controllers are adjusted for flying qualities [101].
Looking at the history of controller development for civilian application, much has
changed in recent times compared to 15 years ago. Previously, the majority of the
controllers were designed using classical control approaches. However, now multivariable
control techniques are the standard. Furthermore, dynamic inversion is the most widely
used control design technique in the aircraft industry [88].
2.3 Complications with Hypersonic Control and Modelling
Over the past few decades, research into the control of HSVs, especially hypersonic
gliders, has become a distinctive part of research into the control of re-entry vehicles [10,
19, 47-51, 102]. Initial studies mainly focused on the static stability of hypersonic gliders
[19] followed by studies of control along a re-entry trajectory of the shuttle [58, 103, 104].
However, recently, the focus has shifted back to smaller hypersonic vehicles due to their
affordability in delivering payloads into orbit [70].
The challenges facing hypersonic vehicle control are many. One of the main challenges in
the hypersonic domain is the highly nonlinear time-varying vehicle dynamics. Another
source of complication are the uncertainties related to the airframe, atmosphere and the
control elements [17, 23, 30]. The main tasks, therefore, become designing, implementing
and testing a controller that is robust to all the uncertainties and complexities that are
present during flight. Therefore, before presenting the specific control methodologies that
have been utilised to control hypersonic vehicles, it is important to discuss the relevant
LITERATURE REVIEW
22
phenomena that are encountered in high speed flight that make control and modelling of
these vehicles a challenge.
Aerothermodynamics
The main aim behind the design of any airborne platform is to reduce the drag. The drag
is reduced by making the body more slender [105, 106]. However, this comes with its
disadvantages when it comes to hypersonic vehicles. The design of the body can lead to
heating problems. E.g.at the stagnation point at the nose the heating is inversely
proportional to the nose radius. Although drag is an issue, fundamentally hypersonic
vehicles are heat driven as in the hypersonic regime heating varies cubicly with speed,
whereas drag varies quadratically [105].
Hypersonic Flow Phenomenon
Hypersonic flow is characterized by certain physical variables becoming progressively
more important as Mach number is increased. The equation
determines the growth
of the boundary layer [3, 106, 107]. As a result, aerodynamically the body appears to be
thicker than it is due to large boundary layer displacement thickness. This leads to
stronger interaction of the boundary layer with the inviscid field. This interaction is called
viscous interaction (as outlined in Section 1.1.2). This interaction has an impact on the
pressure distribution, lift, drag, stability, skin friction and heat transfer of the vehicle [105,
108].
High Temperature Gas Effects
There are several high temperature gas dynamics effects that increase the difficulty from a
modelling and simulation point of view. The difficulties arise in the creation of the look up
tables that form the backbone of any hypersonic vehicle simulation model. They are [106]:
LITERATURE REVIEW
23
Vibrational excitation is observed around Mach 3 and fully excited around Mach
7.5 [pp. 460-461].
Caloric imperfection begin at around 800K and Mach 3.5 (specific heats change as a
function of temperature) [pp. 18-19].
dissociation at approximately 2000K at around Mach 7.5-8.5. The dissociation of
the oxygen is complete at around 4000K at around Mach 15 [pp. 460-461].
Scramjet Propulsion
For integrated hypersonic airbreathing propulsion, the whole under section of the body
forms part of the propulsion system. The forebody of the vehicle generates compression
lift. Furthermore, the aft of the body acts as the upper half of the expansion nozzle. The
forebody section of the vehicle, therefore, becomes a significant design aspect. For
example, the X-43A used three compression ramps to make the free-stream capture area as
large as possible relative to the engine intake area.
Aerodynamics-Propulsion Coupling
The "engineframe" is a concept that is unique to hypersonic vehicles. As opposed to
subsonic and supersonic aircraft, the propulsion and the aerodynamic characteristics of a
hypersonic vehicle are highly coupled. This is due to the fact that the forebody and the aft-
body of the vehicle form an integral part of the engine design. The aerodynamic
characteristics of the body determine the shape of the bow shock [105]. This in turn
influences the inlet conditions. This in turn influences thrust, lift, draft, external nozzle
conditions and the pitching moment.
Aero-Thermo-Structural-Propulsion Coupling
The slender body, in order to reduce the drag of the vehicle, leads to heating problems
because of the sharper leading edges and thinner sections. Bolender [17] notes that the
LITERATURE REVIEW
24
slender shapes of vehicles designed for sustained hypersonic flight, such as engine-
integrated scramjet-powered vehicles, can be subject to structural vibrations. This is more
likely than for blunter hypersonic vehicles designed to spend as little time in the
hypersonic regime as possible. Structural vibrations can then lead to variations in the
aerodynamic loads on surfaces and this can lead to perturbations in lift, drag and pitching
moment. This in turn can affect the thrust provided by the engine, stability and the
achievable performance of the vehicle [17]. This coupling between the different aspects of
a hypersonic vehicle further complicates the modelling and control task.
Non-Minimum Phase Dynamics
The elevator to flight path dynamics transfer function has a non-minimum phase (right
half plane) zero associated with the transfer function [17, 109]. This behaviour causes an
initial undershoot (as depicted in Fig 2.4) and the direction reverses in the step response
and also limits the closed loop performance. This behaviour of a hypersonic vehicle is
further investigated in this work.
Fig 2.4. Step Response of Non-minimum Phase System [110]
LITERATURE REVIEW
25
The aero-thermo-structural-propulsion effects are not being considered as part of the
GHAME model that is used in this research. This research however presents a solution for
tackling the non-minimum phase behaviour of the flight path angle dynamics.
Behaviour and Uncertainty of the Aerodynamic Parameters
Keeping the aforementioned difficulties in modelling and controlling hypersonic vehicles
the following subsection outlines some of the contributions made in the field of hypersonic
control. The modelling and controller complexities are presented under the headings of
linear control, linear parameter varying (LPV) control, nonlinear control, adaptive control,
trajectory control of gliders and the control of lateral/directional dynamics. This is
followed by a review of the literature pertaining to the application of adaptive control
to airborne platforms.
During the controller design process, in research oriented papers like the one authored by
Wang et. al [111] and Aksaray and Mavris [112], a time invariant model of B747 around a
trim point is used to design the controller. For example, the value of the control moment
derivative is at Mach 0.65 at an altitude of ft. Uncertainties of up to
30% are considered. However, this method cannot be used for a hypersonic glider study.
Along the nominal trajectory, it is seen in Fig 2.5 that changes too much for it to be
assumed as a constant values for the purpose of controller design.The ranges of Mach
numbers that are depicted in Fig 2.5 are significant in terms of the speed regimes that the
vehicle experiences. These include hypersonic all the way down to sub-sonic speeds. At a
speed of Mach 6, the vehicle descends through 30km. This is where the controller has full
authority. This fact leads to a sharp change in the control moment derivative, signifying
that the controller itself has to work in speed regimes that range from hypersonic to sub-
sonic.
LITERATURE REVIEW
26
Fig 2.5 Control Moment Derivative as a function of Mach Number and Altitude
In Fig 2.5 the nominal value of is shown as a black line. Whereas, the dashed blue lines
form an error envelope ( ). The maximum nominal value of is -0.2357 and
the minimum nominal value is -22.98. There is a two orders of magnitude difference
between the minimum and the maximum values. The other derivatives of the hypersonic
glider display similar behaviour in terms of changing significantly as a function of time.
Due to this reason, controller design and testing becomes a challenging task especially
because the plant model of the vehicle is highly time varying along the trajectory. It is this
fundamental difference between the B747 and the hypersonic glider regarding the change
in the aerodynamic and control derivatives, which drives the need for a baseline controller
where the desired dynamics are a function of a trajectory parameter.
2.4 Control Methodology of Hypersonic Vehicle – Longitudinal Dynamics
The main area of focus of hypersonic control has involved the investigation of control
methodologies for an air-breathing hypersonic vehicle [18, 24, 25, 29, 33, 34, 36, 37, 113,
114]. There are many difficulties associated with modelling hypersonic vehicle control and
flight tests associated with testing the reliability of control methodologies. A summary of
the difficulties are as follows [17, 18, 20, 23, 24, 26-29, 33, 47, 48, 65, 108]:
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7-30
-20
-10
0Plot of Control Moment Derivative as a function of Mach Number
Mach NumberMe
0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5 5 5.5
x 104
-30
-20
-10
0Plot of Control Moment Derivative as a function of Altitude
Altitude (m)
Me
LITERATURE REVIEW
27
I. Modelling of hypersonic vehicles involves taking into account large altitude-
velocity flight envelopes, large parameter changes and complicated environments.
These lead to strongly coupled flight dynamics characteristics, fast time varying
parameters and highly nonlinear behaviour.
II. Complications arise with the integration of the propulsion system, guidance and
control systems and the structural modes of the vehicle.
III. The modelling of hypersonic vehicles becomes even more important if it is not
possible to sustain hypersonic flight for an extended period of time.
IV. When considering hypersonic gliders, the challenges include uncertainties
(aerodynamic and gravimetric), strict state and control constraints, low control
authority and a changing flight environment.
2.4.1 Linear Control
Anderson in [1] and Wilcox et. al. in [35] present a robust controller for a wing-cone air-
breathing hypersonic vehicle. Uncertainties such as propulsion system perturbation,
flexible body bending, and uncertainty in control effectiveness are included in the early
stages of the fixed order controller design. Changes in due to the thrust-pitch coupling
are presented. The test case that is presented in both the papers is steady level flight at
86,000ft (26km) at Mach 8. A and a controller are presented. It is deduced that the
controller is too conservative. However, it is able to maintain control authority and
maintain altitude.
The focus of [32] and [36] is to carry out control synthesis for steady level flight in the
presence of uncertainties in the plant model. [36] introduces aerothermoelastic effects into
the model and presents a controller that incorporates the aerothermoelastic effects as state-
varying uncertainties into the plant model. The bounds of the error signals are provided as
a way of proving the suitability of this type of controller.
LITERATURE REVIEW
28
Gregory in [32] develops a control law for hypersonic vehicles using control and
synthesis. The control law presented is for a single stage to orbit (SSTO) air breathing
vehicle. The challenges considered in this paper are atmospheric turbulence, high
sensitivity of the propulsion system to inlet flow conditions and large uncertainties of the
parameters. An integrated flight/propulsion model is linearised as the vehicle accelerates
through Mach 8.However, the controllers, designed using modern control theory, led to
higher order controllers. This led to an increased cost of the controllers. A 9th, 7th and 5th
fixed order controllers were applied to a hypersonic vehicle and tested. The reduced order
controllers were shown to be feasible in terms of controlling hypersonic vehicles and were
able to achieve robust performance. More specifically, when control effectiveness
uncertainty is introduced into the system, there is a noticeable degradation in the
performance of the controller. A 20% uncertainty in the control effectiveness leads to
instability for the controller. On the other hand the controller is able to handle the
worst case control effectiveness scenario and still meet the performance requirements. The
performance of the controller is shown in Fig 2.6. For the case presented, the vehicle is
commanded a change in velocity of 1000ft/sec and a change in altitude of 1000ft. Although
there is significant uncertainty in the system, the deflection of the elevon (shown on the y-
axis) is less than , which was also one of the performance requirements.
Fig 2.6. -Controller Performance - Worst Case Scenario [32]
LITERATURE REVIEW
29
The linear control technique for the X-43A flight is outlined in detail by Bahmet. al. in [86].
The controller design of the X-43A was based on sequential loop closure root locus
methods. The look up table of the gains was scheduled as a function of Mach number and
angle of attack, with dynamic pressure compensation. For the longitudinal and lateral
control loops gain and phase margins of 6dB and were designed for all the flight
conditions. Lower values were accepted for the descent part of the trajectory. The
guidance loop ran at 25Hz and the controller operated at 100Hz [105]. The longitudinal
and lateral controller loops are shown in Fig 2.7 and Fig 2.8.
Fig 2.7. Longitudinal Controller Block Diagram [86]
Fig 2.8. Lateral Controller Block Diagram [86]
LITERATURE REVIEW
30
A detailed comparison of the Monte Carlo simulations and flight data is presented by
Bahmet. al. but some of the important results are included here to highlight the
importance of Monte Carlo simulations in terms of modelling and simulation of
hypersonic vehicles. For all of the results presented, the simulations created an envelope of
results within which the flight test data appeared. This is significant due to the fact that
this paper not only presented simulation results, but the authors were also able to validate
their methodology by comparing the results with data from the Mach 7 flight.
Fig 2.9. Inertial Angle of Attack from Engine Test through Recovery Manoeuvre [86]
Fig 2.10. Inertial Sideslip Angle from Engine Test through Recovery Manoeuvre [86]
LITERATURE REVIEW
31
Fig 2.11. Comparison of In-flight Altitude and Pre-flight Altitude Predictions [86]
Fig 2.12. Inertial Angle of Attack during Descent Phase [86]
LITERATURE REVIEW
32
2.4.2 Linear Parameter Varying Control
The LPV technique has been employed to define a hypersonic vehicle model. The control
strategy used for a LPV framework has concentrated on controlling the longitudinal
dynamics of a flexible air-breathing hypersonic vehicle [34, 115]. For the stability criteria,
the convergence characteristic of the output tracking error is carried out with the help of
Lyapunov stability analysis. The controller presented demonstrates that in the presence of
aerothermoelastic effects, the controller is effective in maintaining performance and robust
stability. An example of the performance of the controller is shown through the velocity
tracking error and the angle of attack tracking error (Fig 2.13 and Fig 2.14). This study was
carried out at an altitude of 80,000ft with the vehicle travelling at Mach 8.
Fig 2.13. Velocity and Velocity Tracking Error [115]
LITERATURE REVIEW
33
Fig 2.14. Angle of Attack and Angle of Attack Error [115]
LPV techniques have been used in conjunction with robust controllers ( controllers) to
formulate a framework to account for the parametric uncertainties present in the
modelling of hypersonic vehicles including aerodynamic uncertainties and structural
flexibility [87]. A parameter space involving the Mach number and altitude is utilised for
controller synthesis (shown in Fig 2.15). The results presented show (using the tracking
errors in angle of attack and velocity) that the controller is robust to disturbances,
parametric uncertainties, and modelling errors for the tracking and regulation states.
Fig 2.15. Parameter Space for Controller Design [87]
LITERATURE REVIEW
34
Cai et. al. in [116] presents an angle of attack tracking control system for a hypersonic re-
entry vehicle. The LPV theory based on a Linear Fractional Transformation (LFT) model is
applied during the controller synthesis process. A damping feedback loop is applied to
improve the system's damping characteristics and static stability. The linear dynamics
along with the damping loop is considered as the controlled plant for the LPV control
system design. A LPV reference model is defined to characterise the transient behaviour of
the controller. Using the proposed method, the controller is able to follow a step command
in angle of attack. When this controller is commanded to follow a nonlinear angle of attack
command, it tracks the angle of attack; however there is a small steady state error. The
commanded angle of attack and the corresponding steady state error is shown in Fig 2.16.
Fig 2.16. Commanded Angle of Attack (left) and Angle of Attack Error (right) [116]
2.4.3 Nonlinear Control
Studies outlining nonlinear control of hypersonic vehicles are presented in [33] and [113].
These studies concentrate on the development of a Lyapunov function to prove the
convergence of the output tracking error. These papers concentrate on presenting a model
that includes the propulsion module, and also outlines the coupling of different
components of the vehicle; for example: aerodynamics of the vehicle, the propulsion
system, the structural modes and also the controller. In [38] a nonlinear control law which
ensures good stability property is presented. The complexities that arise due to the
LITERATURE REVIEW
35
propulsion system have been taken into account. There are some potential limits of the
technique presented in this paper: (i) backstepping is an efficient way to extend the
Lyapunov function and globally control the vehicle. However it reintroduces complexity
and does not take advantage of a possible stability of rotational motion; (ii) backstepping
is inefficient when it comes to dealing with actuator saturation; (iii) the controller does not
show asymptotic convergence to the reference signal which leads to the conclusion that it
lacks quantitative robustness.
Another nonlinear control methodology is dynamic inversion (DI) [69, 113, 117, 118]. A
dynamic inversion control law is design for a conceptual hypersonic vehicle and is shown
in [117] and [118]. The control laws require an on-board model that cancels the nonlinear
dynamics of the vehicle so that the desired command responses of the closed loop system
are achieved. The dynamic inversion law design methodology is especially attractive for
application to a hypersonic cruise vehicle to avoid complex gain scheduling which is
usually required to cover a large flight envelope from subsonic to hypersonic speeds and
from sea level to high altitudes. Through robust analysis the dynamic inversion controller
is shown to maintain stability over multiple flight conditions in the presence of
uncertainties in the aerodynamic derivatives. The inherent features of dynamic inversion
are utilised to easily improve lateral-directional controller robustness through an
adjustment to the desired dynamics. The robustness is also improved by adjusting loop
gains using knowledge gained through sensitivity analysis of the controller. The resulting
controller demonstrates improved robustness, especially at critical Mach numbers.
Through the use of dynamic inversion, a minimal amount of tuning is required to
maintain stability and robustness to uncertainties as the Hypersonic Cruise Vehicle (HCV)
continues through the design process.
A dynamic inversion controller for a Generic Hypersonic Vehicle (GHV) is shown in [69].
The control laws are robust to a decrease in control surface effectiveness (multiplicative
gains of 0.15 of the nominal control surface deflection), changes in system parameters, and
LITERATURE REVIEW
36
time delays of 0.04s or less. Additionally, the control architecture is able to tolerate an inlet
unstart1 and maintain nominal tracking along a specified flight path angle trajectory.
Therefore, it is concluded that this approach of nonlinear adaptive dynamic inversion
control works well as a control architecture for the GHV. The commanded flight path
angle and the corresponding system states during an inlet unstart are shown in Fig 2.17.
Fig 2.18 shows that, after the inlet unstart, the thrust equivalence ratio is commanded to be
the maximum value. Although this is the case, thrust is not generated by the vehicle until
seconds. The vehicle still tracks the commanded flight path angle even though the
performance is degraded.
Fig 2.17. System States of Hypersonic Vehicle during Inlet Unstart [69]
1A violent breakdown of supersonic flow in the inlet and the establishment of subsonic flow through the inlet and out
in front of it [78].
LITERATURE REVIEW
37
Fig 2.18. Control and Adaptive Weight Responses during Inlet Unstart [69]
2.4.4 Adaptive Control
Various studies have presented results with regard to adaptive control of hypersonic
vehicles [5, 10, 31, 33, 38-40, 119, 120]. A small fraction of these papers and the important
results from those studies are outlined here. Somanath and Annaswamy [38] present an
adaptive controller for systems with partially known input matrix . The controller
presented is globally asymptotically stable when additional information regarding the
structure of is known. If is unknown, then the adaptive control law presented yields
a controller that is only locally stable. Xu et. al. [40] presents a study of a control of
hypersonic vehicle employing the sliding model controller. Although the longitudinal
controller performs well in the presence of parametric uncertainty, it does so at the
expense of high gains and control chattering. Yang et.al. [120] present an adaptive fuzzy
controller for the velocity and altitude systems. This paper provides the effectiveness of an
online adaptive controller with the presence of numerous disturbances such as
aerodynamic interference, measurement noise, elevator disturbance and parametric
uncertainty.
LITERATURE REVIEW
38
Wiese et. al. in [31] presents an adaptive augmented, gain scheduled baseline LQR-PI
controller applied to a Road-Runner 6-DoF generic hypersonic model. The uncertainties
introduced into the model include control effectiveness, longitudinal centre of gravity
location, aerodynamic coefficients, sensor bias and noise and input time delays. A block
diagram of the controller architecture is shown in Fig 2.19.
Fig 2.19. Augmented Controller Architecture [31]
The performance of the baseline controller is compared with the performance of two
different MRAC designs; a classical open loop reference model design, and the modified
closed loop reference model design. Both the augmentation configurations perform better
than the baseline controller in the presence of uncertainties. However, the closed loop
augmentation model offers the best performance.
The X-15 was an aircraft built and tested in the 1950s with the aim of investigating the
capability of a platform flying out of the atmosphere, re-entering the atmosphere and
landing horizontally [121]. The X-15 trajectory is shown in Fig 2.20.
Fig 2.20. Typical X-15 Trajectory [121]
LITERATURE REVIEW
39
For flight within the atmosphere a combination of rolling tail and three-axis dual
redundant stability augmentation system (SAS) was used for landing and re-entry. For
exo-atmospheric flight, hydrogen peroxide thrust rockets were used as bang-bang reaction
controls. Thrusters on the nose were used for pitch and yaw control and on the wingtips
for roll control [121]. However, the most publicised of the X-15-3 flights had onboard the
Honeywell designed dual redundant self-adaptive control system [121-123]. Dydek et. al.
in [123] presents the results from the failed flight of 1967. The adaptive controller was
designed to achieve a high level of performance throughout the entire flight envelope. By
the end of the design process, it was observed that rapid changes in the feedforward gain
would be required and the controller gains had to be near critical values during all phases
of the flight. As a result, there was a reason that the gains had to be constantly changed
and adjusted. In order to accomplish this, the system output in the frequency range, at
which instability was expected to occur, was monitored. This meant that when there were
hints of instability in the system, the gains were reduced in order to maintain the stability.
On the other hand, when no instability was observed, the gains were increased. This
resulted in the gains being adjusted to their maximum possible values while maintaining
system stability throughout the entire flight envelope [122, 123]. In 1967 after reaching
peak altitude, the vehicle began a sharp descent and entered a Mach 5 spin. Although the
pilot was able to recover from the spin, the adaptive controller was unable to reduce the
pitch angle and the airplane continued to dive. Due to rapidly increasing dynamic
pressure the aircraft broke up approximately 65000ft above sea level. However, using
modern adaptive controller and knowing what is known about limit cycles (one of the
causes of the dysfunctional adaptive controller), robustness and stability properties, the
baseline and the adaptive controllers have been redesigned and the flight has been
recreated. It is shown in Fig 2.21 [122] that a modern adaptive controller would have
successfully followed the nominal flight trajectory even in the presence of system failures.
LITERATURE REVIEW
40
Fig 2.21. Comparison of Performance of Original X-15-3 Adaptive Controller with Modern Day Adaptive
Controller [122]
The control architecture of the X-15-3 flight was a MH-96 controller and consisted of an
inner loop and a pilot model. The inner loop controls the quickly varying states, like the
longitudinal and lateral states. The pilot model controls the slowly varying state, like
altitude and speed. The controller used in the initial flight, although it was flexible and
has built in adaptive features, was unable to regain control which then ultimately led to
the crash. The Lyapunov stability based adaptive controller explicitly accounts for actuator
dynamics, parametric uncertainties, actuator saturation, unmodeled dynamics, time
delays, nonlinearities and "unknown unknowns". This fundamental difference in the
control synthesis process highlights the advancement of adaptive control as compared to
what was state of the art in the 1960s. However, it is unfortunate that it took the loss of a
pilot for researchers to understand the issues in terms of robustness and stability of
adaptive controllers.
2.4.5 Trajectory Control of Hypersonic Gliders
There is limited literature that presents the trajectory analysis of hypersonic gliders.
Methods such as extended command governor (ECG) and sliding mode control have been
employed to control the trajectory of gliders [48, 51]. More recently, pole placement
control (PPC) and adaptive control has been used to control hypersonic vehicles along a
glide trajectory [10, 16]. All of the previous studies, however, have concentrated on
controlling the longitudinal dynamics of the glider.
LITERATURE REVIEW
41
Rainey [19] is one of only a few papers that covers the stability issues for both the
longitudinal and lateral dynamics of a hypersonic glider. The two main configurations
that are presented in the paper are shown in Fig 2.22 and Fig 2.23.
Fig 2.22. Flat Top Glider [19]
Fig 2.23. Flat Bottom Glider [19]
At low angles of attack, both configurations are found to be either self-trimming or can
obtain trim. However, at higher angle of attacks the lateral and directional static stability
of the glider (irrespective of the configuration) cannot be guaranteed. One of the
recommendations of the paper is to investigate this very phenomenon.
Trajectory control studies have been carried out in [51] and [124]. These two papers
attempt to control the altitude of the hypersonic vehicle using a flight path angle
controller. The guidance loop is provided with a desired altitude. Using Eq.2. 1, this
desired altitude is converted to a desired inner loop flight path angle.
LITERATURE REVIEW
42
2. 1
If and are chosen and the flight path angle is controlled to follow the
commanded signal, , the altitude error then exponentially is regulated to zero. The test
case that is used to analyse this controller is very limited in its application as the desired
altitude is only 100m above the current position of the hypersonic vehicle.
Tournes and Hanks in [51] present a sliding mode controller for a hypersonic glider for
cruising at altitudes of 40-50km. This paper shows that without powered manoeuvres this
vehicle has a very wide reaching domain. A second-order sliding mode angle of attack
controller is employed to track a desired flight path angle. It is also shown that
considerable matched disturbances can be introduced in the model without the
deterioration of the performance and stability of the controller.
Creagh in [10] presents an adaptive controller for the longitudinal dynamics of a Mach 8
Hypersonic Glider. The system architecture is a three tier system to obtain the estimates of
model aerodynamics parameters. The process is outlined in Fig 2.24.
Fig 2.24. Flow Diagram - Adaptive Control Setup
Linear Least Squares
•used to obtain the state transition methods and control matrix parameter estimates from a second order plant model.
Fusion Algorithm
•weights preloaded lookup table parameters and the least squares estimated parameters to obtain a fused estimate.
•The least-squares estimates are favoured when system excitation is present, while lookup table parameters are favoured when system excitation is negligible. The selection of measurement variances, lookup table parameter variances and sampling data provides the system tuning input.
Update Lookup Tables
•The third tier of the adaptive control strategy is to update the lookup tables with a multiplying factor, which is calculated with a first-order filter. This enables the parameter estimates to retain trends learnt from earlier in the mission. Thus, for slow and consistent parameter changes, the closed-loop vehicle response is seen to improve slightly
LITERATURE REVIEW
43
However, as Creagh points out, due to the inherent lag of the system outlined above, this
system is not suitable in its current form for an up-and-over trajectory profile. It may be
suitable for vehicles that visit the same flight conditions multiple times (i.e. constant
altitude & Mach number).
Prime in [16] presents a adaptive controller for a re-entry vehicle configuration. The
controller is shown to be an effective control methodology for re-entry vehicles. Reduced
performance is exhibited by the controller for some of the off-nominal conditions, however
the vehicle remains stable. This paper concentrates on a time invariant reference system. A
more detailed summary of the results presented by Prime is in Section 4.5.
Goa et. al in [125] looks at trajectory optimisation of hypersonic gliders using swarm
intelligence algorithms. The algorithms are developed for the Common Aerospace Vehicle
(CAV). This vehicle is shown in Fig 2.25.
Fig 2.25. The Common Aerospace Vehicle (CAV) [125]
[125] concentrates on providing the methodology for optimizing the guidance law for the
angle of attack command. The guidance law is formulated using the minimization of a cost
function. This means that the guidance law presented is an offline design. However, an
application of this methodology is deemed to be useful if a certain guidance law can
control a family of trajectories and maintain and achieve a desired glide trajectory. One of
the terminal conditions for this glide trajectory is the altitude. This altitude in this paper is
set to 20km. The algorithm presented in [125] is successful in tracking the desired
trajectory which has reduced the value of the cost function. However, all the simulations
are carried out with perfect sensor feedback and in the absence of aerodynamic
LITERATURE REVIEW
44
uncertainties. Although the algorithm presented is a good baseline for getting an idea
about the complexities of glider trajectory study, the added layer of uncertainties makes
the control laws presented very limited in their application.
Qian et. al. in [126] outlines a flight control system based on a nonlinear disturbance
observer (NDO) for a hypersonic gliding vehicle (HGV). The type of vehicle presented in
this paper can be used to deliver a variety of payloads inside the atmosphere. The NDO is
used to estimate the unknown disturbances. The flight controller itself is a terminal sliding
mode controller. The sliding mode controller along with the NDO is effective in cancelling
the influence of the disturbances.
Baldwin and Kolmanovsky in [47] present a model predictive control (MPC) approach to
hypersonic glider flight management. This kind of control methodology can be applied to
the guidance of a vehicle with path constraints “fly to” and “fly through” phases are
utilised to check the functionality of the guidance system. The one advantage of using
MPC is its ability to adjust the trajectory in real time in response to changes such as
appearance/disappearance of exclusion zones, disturbances or failure modes. Strategies for
on-board implementations have also been proposed.
Baldwin and Kolmanovsky in [48] propose an augmentation of an inner-loop LQ-PI
controller with an ECG to handle constraints faced during hypersonic flight. The
simulation results presented demonstrate the capability of the ECG to enforce the
constraints while minimizing the degradation in the vehicle responsiveness.
2.5 Control of Hypersonic Vehicle – Lateral/Directional Dynamics
There is very limited literature on the control of lateral/directional dynamics of hypersonic
vehicles, especially hypersonic gliders. Therefore, it is important to draw on the available
literature, recognise the gaps in the literature and address them accordingly. The limited
literature on the lateral dynamics presented in [52, 54, 56, 57, 127] are summarised here.
LITERATURE REVIEW
45
Heller et. al. in [57] outlines a robust lateral controller for a hypersonic vehicle. A Multi-
Model Eigenstructure Assignment is applied to design a controller for a projected
hypersonic test vehicle featuring ramjet propulsion. The main aims of the controller design
are as follows: (i) provision of adequate flying qualities, especially in terms of reduction of
the high roll-yaw coupling, (ii) securing of robustness against multiple model
uncertainties and parameter deviations (robust stability) but also against disturbances and
failure cases, and (iii) low controller complexity (low order), high reliability and easy
feasibility. The uncontrolled system highlights the main challenges with respect to
controlling the lateral/directional dynamics of the vehicle. Issues include low damping of
all modes, instability of the Dutch roll and the high roll-yaw coupling. These issues in the
lateral/direction axis are removed using a highly augmented control system. The fixed
gain multi-mode eigenstructure assignment method yields robustness against a
considerable range of uncertainties. The controller shows good performance even in the
presence of considerable time delays, nonlinear effects like actuator deflection and rate
limitations, model uncertainties and multiple disturbances.
A six-degree of freedom study of the lateral-directional dynamics of the Space Shuttle
Orbiter is presented in [58]. Off-nominal aerodynamic characteristics are introduced into
the system by applying a multiplier to the aerodynamic parameter or by adding an
increment. Two control system modifications are presented to reduce the system’s
sensitivity to degraded aerodynamics: (i) an increase in the yaw-jet augmentation of the
rudder and (ii) a change in the angle of attack for switching to an aircraft type rudder-
aileron control system.
2.6 Adaptive Control Literature Review
adaptive control was initially developed to apply to flight control. The initial concept of
adaptive control was presented in [79, 80, 82, 128-131]. The main aim of adaptive
control is to decouple the estimation and the control loops. This allows for fast adaptation
LITERATURE REVIEW
46
without loss of robustness [22, 41, 42, 61, 63, 65, 132]. Literature depicting the application
of adaptive control are presented in [16, 22, 37, 42, 61-63, 65-67, 75, 77, 78, 114, 131, 133-
146] and are summarised here.
One of the practical applications of a full adaptive controller is outlined in [62], wherein
a controller is designed for the NASA AirSTAR flight test vehicle. The adaptive
controller is applied to a subscale turbine powered Generic Transport Model (GTM). The
controller presented directly compensates for matched as well as unmatched uncertainties.
The main motive for this program was to test the performance of the aircraft and the pilots
under adverse conditions. These conditions include unusual attitudes, surface failures and
structural damage. One of the main outcomes of this program was to test the performance
and the evaluation of the controller beyond the edge of the normal flight envelope. This is
particularly important as beyond the pre-defined flight envelope the risk of vehicle loss is
high due to limited knowledge of nonlinear aerodynamics beyond stall and the potential
for high structural loads. The corresponding controller is designed at a single operating
point at the centre of the nominal flight envelope. The analysis is carried out for variable
dynamics and damage cases in highly nonlinear areas of the flight envelope, in both
piloted and non-piloted evaluations. As a result of these simulations, a theoretical
extension of the adaptive controller that accounts for the matched as well as unmatched
dynamic uncertainties is presented. Two different sets of simulations are carried out: batch
simulations and piloted simulations. The batch simulations are carried out on the nominal
aircraft, the case where the entire rudder is missing, the case where left outboard trailing
edge flap missing, loss of outboard left wing tip, loss of entire elevator from left stabilizer
and loss of entire left stabilizer. For the case of piloted simulations: a static stability
degradation, roll damping degradation, simultaneous static and roll degradation, high
angle of attack capture task, sudden asymmetric thrust, and pilot induced upset and
recovery cases are investigated. For all the aforementioned cases, the adaptive
controller performed well.
LITERATURE REVIEW
47
Griffin et. al in [65] presents a adaptive control augmentation system to control the
lateral/directional dynamics of X-29. This study presents a comparative study between the
baseline Linear Quadratic Integral (LQI) controller and the augmented controller for the
Single Input Single Output (SISO) and the Multi Input Multi Output (MIMO) setup. The
augmentation system is once again utilised in the presence of unmatched uncertainties
which may exhibit significant cross-coupling effects. An additional advancement is the
addition of a high fidelity actuator model to the architecture to reduce the uncertainties
in the state predictor design. A predictable outcome of this study is the cancellation of the
cross coupling effects when the MIMO approach is used. It is also demonstrated that the
state predictor can be designed to match the nominal closed loop behaviour given a
certain baseline controller. As expected under nominal conditions the contribution of the
adaptive element is minimal. However, in the presence of a failure, the augmentation
system proves effective in regaining the nominal performance at the same time
eliminating the undesired sideslip-to-roll coupling. The failure scenarios covered in this
study are jammed rudder, jammed elevon and the reduction of the effect of cross coupling.
A comparison of the SISO and the MIMO augmented systems in the presence of failures is
shown in Fig 2.26.
LITERATURE REVIEW
48
Fig 2.26. L1 Augmented Controller Performance Comparison [65]
A output feedback output controller architecture has been utilised to control the
longitudinal dynamics of a missile and also for a flexible space Crew Launch Vehicle
(CLV) in [22] and [137]. Kharisov et.al in [22] outlines the functionality and applicability of
an adaptive controller for a launch vehicle which operate often in very unforgiving and
occasionally highly uncertain environments. The output feedback controller
architecture is utilised to control the low frequency structural modes. The paper also
proposes steps to validate the adaptive controller performance. The theoretical
performance bounds of adaptive controller are verified through the nonlinear
simulations. The results presented demonstrate that a single adaptive output controller
is able to handle statically unstable flexible plant with large parametric variations without
addition of notch filters, without re-tuning for different flight conditions along the first
stage trajectory and with guaranteed transient performance.
The output controller utilised to control the longitudinal dynamics of the missile autopilot
is outlined in [137]. The controller has satisfactory performance in the presence of
parametric uncertainties and time-varying disturbances. A comparative study between the
Linear Quadratic Regulator (LQR) and the Linear Quadratic Gaussian (LQG) with Loop
LITERATURE REVIEW
49
Transfer Recovery (LTR) design with the adaptive controller is presented. And the
simulations results present the clear benefits of using the controller. A further study of
the application of an adaptive controller to a missile is outlined in [75]. An control
augmentation is designed based on a novel autopilot structure for a highly, agile, tail-
controlled missile. The autopilot is designed to control the pitch and yaw accelerations
while maintaining a desired roll angle. The adaptive augmentation is implemented and
utilised to compensate for the undesirable effects of modelling uncertainties. This
augmentation is successful in increasing the robustness of the baseline controller in the
presence of significant plant uncertainties. This paper is successful in showing that,
despite the reduced complexity, the augmented controller is able to increase the robust
performance when compared to an Model Reference Adaptive Control (MRAC)
augmentation outlined in [76].
Leman in [63] presents the augmented controller for the longitudinal and the
lateral/directional dynamics for a X-48B aircraft. The piecewise constant adaptive law is
utilised to estimate the matched and unmatched uncertainties. SISO channels are utilised
on all the channels: longitudinal, lateral and directional. The performance of the baseline
controller is compared with the augmented controller in the presence of control surface
failures. An additional conclusion to be drawn from this study is the lack of high
frequency components in the control surface deflections. The augmented controller
improves the performance of the baseline controller under nominal conditions across the
entire envelope. In the event of a failure, the adaptive controller adapts to recover
desired aircraft performance and provide a predictable response to pilot inputs.
A full adaptive controller is presented by Prime in [16] to control the longitudinal
dynamics of a waverider class hypersonic vehicle where the aerodynamics are based on
NASA’s Generic Hypersonic Aerodynamics Model Example (GHAME). To test the
robustness and the performance properties of the adaptive controller, pull-up trajectory
simulations are performed using several different simulation scenarios with no change to
LITERATURE REVIEW
50
the controller configuration. The simulation scenarios covered in the paper are: (i)
Nominal conditions, (ii) Ramp reduction from nominal elevator effectiveness, to
starting at an altitude of 28km over 5 seconds, (iii) Step reduction of the elevator
effectiveness at an altitude of 28km, (iv) Reduced static margin, (v) Controller processing
delay of 10ms, and (vi) Controller processing delay of 20ms. Projection based adaptive
laws are used to compensate for the matched and the unmatched uncertainties. The
adaptive controller is shown to be an effective control methodology for a re-entry vehicle.
However, for some of the off-nominal conditions there was reduced performance.
Based on a review of the literature presented in this chapter, an controller has been
chosen as the augmentation for the following reasons:
Disturbance rejection properties within the bandwidth of the controller in the
presence of fast adaptation.
High frequency content like noise does not affect the control channel when the low
pass filter is properly designed.
piecewise-constant control law can be interpreted as a linear control law, in turn,
expediting the certification process.
The controller with the piecewise-constant update law is easy to implement.
2.7 Summary of Literature Review – the Gaps in the Field
The literature review and ideas developed herein provide the basis for the conceptual
framework for this study. Reviewing the hypersonic control literature, it is clear that there
are many studies for test cases that focus on controller performance at a fixed altitude and
Mach number in the presence of uncertainties. There are few studies presenting a control
strategy for a pull out manoeuvre of a SCRAMJET powered vehicle along the descent
phase of a suborbital ballistic trajectory. Addressing this gap will lead to an increased
interest in using SCRAMJET powered vehicles as a means of transportation to reduce
LITERATURE REVIEW
51
travel times and deliver payload into orbit (contribution number I in Section 1.9). From a
control point of view, there is limited literature that incorporates the performance and
robustness of controllers for the longitudinal and lateral/directional dynamics of a
hypersonic vehicle (contribution number II, III and IV in Section 1.9). From an adaptive
control point of view, up to this point, the adaptive and augmented controllers have
either been designed at a single operating point or the state estimator has been scheduled
at different operating points. Application of the piecewise constant adaptation method
to a LTV nonminimum phase state feedback system is presented in this study
(contribution number V and VI in Section 1.9).
2.8 Conclusion
Chapter 2 has established the main contributions made in the field of hypersonic control.
This chapter started with a brief introduction to the theoretical foundation of the most
common control methodologies presented in the literature to control airborne platforms.
Thereafter a background on typical hypersonic trajectories is presented, followed by a
discussion on the state of art of control methodologies for subsonic aircraft. An outline of
the specific difficulties associated with modelling and controlling hypersonic vehicles and
the several different longitudinal and lateral-directional control strategies utilised to
control the dynamics of a hypersonic vehicle are presented. The gaps in the literature are
outlined and, consequently, the direction of the thesis is identified.
Chapter 3 presents the simulation model utilised to set up the test cases. It also outlines
the definition and the implementation of the uncertainties.
SIMULATION MODEL
52
3 SIMULATION MODEL
This chapter presents the simulation model used in this project. Thereafter, the vehicle
model utilised for controller synthesis is presented. A description of the nonlinear second
order actuator model and the sensor model are presented. A description of the
environment and the aerodynamic model is presented along with the uncertainties and its
implementation. This chapter forms the foundation of the simulation model that is
implemented in CADAC [14]. The main aim of this research is to investigate the
performance (and the underlying reasons for that performance) of control methodologies
for hypersonic vehicle control. In order to carry out this task, the model of the hypersonic
vehicle, the aerodynamics, sensors and the actuators are all needed.
3.1 Introduction
Flight control laws are employed to change the dynamic behaviour of an aircraft.
However, before the control laws can be presented, an accurate description of the glider’s
behaviour is needed. This chapter presents the mathematical model used to describe the
behaviour of the hypersonic glider. Section 3.2 presents the linearised representation of the
glider dynamics which is used for control synthesis. Section 3.3 provides a description of
the models used to model and determine the forces and moments acting on the platform.
Section 3.4 presents the aerodynamic forces and moments. The actuator model is
presented in Section 3.5. Details of the sensor model are given in Section 3.6. Section 3.7
outlines the modelling of the actuator, gravimetric and aerodynamic uncertainties present
in the simulations. Section 3.8 presents the CADAC simulation platform that is utilised to
carry out the nonlinear simulations. The chapter ends with conclusions in Section 3.9.
3.2 Aircraft Dynamics
The dynamic behaviour of an aircraft, under the influence of forces and moments, can be
depicted using the equations of motion of an aircraft. Since the motion of the vehicle only
SIMULATION MODEL
53
has meaning in a certain frame of reference, reference frames are utilised to represent and
derive these equations. Zipfel’s implementation is used to derive the equations of motion.
In [15], Zipfel employs tensor mathematics to represent the equations. With this
formulation, the equations are independent of the frame of reference. Section 3.2.1 outlines
the frames of reference that are utilised in the nonlinear simulations.
3.2.1 Reference Frames
The frames of references utilised to carry out the 6-DoF nonlinear simulations are as
follows (the detailed relationship between these reference frames are outlined in [147]):
The inertial reference frame, , is a non-accelerating, non-rotating frame of
reference. The origin of this system is at the centre of the earth. The Z axis points
North. The X axis points towards the Vernal Equinox. The Y axis is perpendicular to
both these axes. Its direction is determined using the right hand rule.
The World Geodetic System 1984, , is widely used in GPS-based navigation. In
this reference frame, the earth is represented as an ellipsoid. The position of a plane
is represented by longitude, latitude and height.
The Earth fixed reference frame, , rotates with the earth around the spin axis.The
Z axis points north. The X axis passes through the interception point of the prime
meridian and the equator. The Y axis is perpendicular to both these axes. Its
direction is determined using the right hand rule.
The body fixed reference frame, , is attached to the vehicle. The origin of this
frame of reference is the centre of gravity of the aircraft. The X axis lies in the
symmetry plane and points forward. The Z axis lies in the symmetry plane and
points downwards. The Y axis is once again determined using the right hand rule
(this results to the Y axis pointing towards the right wing of an aircraft).
The stability axis reference frame, is similar to the body fixed reference system. It
is rotated by an angle about the y axis and an angle about the z axis.
SIMULATION MODEL
54
In CADAC [13, 15] the transformations between the frames of reference are carried out
using transformation matrices. The basics of these transformations are presented in [15]. A
small introduction to these transformations and the corresponding diagrams of the
various frames of reference are given in Appendix C.
3.2.2 Equations of Motion
The motion of an aircraft is decoupled into the longitudinal and the lateral equations [148,
149].
Longitudinal Dynamics
The full nonlinear longitudinal dynamics are presented in [15]. The full linearisation of the
nonlinear model is not shown in this document. The linearization is outlined in [148, 149].
The state space representation of the linearised equations of motion for a powered
hypersonic vehicle can be written as
3. 1
where is the system matrix, is the control gain matrix, is the
state vector, is the control input, is the number of states and is the number of
control inputs. The full linearised state space representation of the longitudinal dynamics
is:
3. 2
When considering the dynamics of the vehicle without any control input, the linear system
is a homogenous system. The system matrix, , has four eigenvalues: two pairs of complex
SIMULATION MODEL
55
conjugate pairs (typical positions of these poles for a civilian aircraft are shown in Fig 3.1).
The longitudinal motion of a flight vehicle mainly consists of two modes:
Angle of Attack Dynamics (A): the short period mode of the longitudinal dynamics
is relatively quick and well damped. The short period dynamics are represented
using the angle of attack and the pitch rate.
Phugoid Mode (P): this mode is relative slow and is poorly damped and consists
mainly of the flight path movement. It consists of the exchange between potential
and kinetic energy of an aircraft.
Fig 3.1.Typical Pole Positions for Longitudinal Motion
In order to calculate the eigenvalues for the longitudinal dynamics it is assumed that the
fast and the slow dynamics operate at significantly different rates. This allows for the
longitudinal dynamics to be sub-divided and considered separately. An example
demonstrating the difference between the two modes in shown in Fig 3.1.
Angle of Attack Dynamics
The fourth order longitudinal system can be written as
SIMULATION MODEL
56
3. 3
includes the effects of phugoid perturbation on the phugoid motion. includes the
effects of short period perturbations on phugoid motion, consists of the effects of
phugoid perturbation on short period motion and consists of the effects of the short
period perturbations on the short period motion.
can be set to a null matrix as the influence of the velocity subsystem is relatively much
slower than the influence of the angle of attack and pitch rate. Based on this simplification,
the angle of attack dynamics can be expressed using just the top left section ( .
Therefore, the second order system that explains the short period dynamics is
3. 4
The characteristic equation is
3. 5
3. 6
Comparing Eq. 3.6 with the second order equation of the form leads to:
3. 7
3. 8
SIMULATION MODEL
57
The stiffness of the angle of attack dynamics are determined mainly through the value of
. For a reasonable answer from the above equations which means that .
This leads to the definition of static stability. The damping of the short period dynamics is
determined by , and consequently by and
. The stability of the short period
dynamics depends on both and and not just from any conclusions drawn from
.
From a controller point of view the model utilised does not consider the velocity and the
pitch angle dynamics. Therefore, the short period dynamics, as presented in Eq. 3.11, are
used. The pitch dynamics presented in Eq.3. 4 is extended to include the flight path angle
dynamics in case that is the control variable. The states needed to describe these state
equations are the flight path angle , pitch rate and its integral, the pitch angle . Using
the relation (shown in Fig 3.2), the basis of the state space representation of the
flight path angle becomes
3. 9
3. 10
Combining Eq. 3.9 and Eq. 3.10 and the fact that the pitch angle is an integral of the pitch
rate, yields the following state space model of the flight path angle dynamics:
3. 11
where the dimensional derivatives are calculated from the non-dimensional derivatives
according to:
3. 12
SIMULATION MODEL
58
The plant models are used to carry out the gain calculations for the dynamic pole
placement controllers. The non-dimensional derivatives are stored in look-up tables
(figures of which are outlined and discussed in Section 3.4.1) and are converted to the
dimensional values in real time.
Fig 3.2. Relationship between Angle of Attack, Pitch and Flight Path Angle
Lateral/Directional Dynamics
The nonlinear lateral equations of motions are presented in [15]. However, the equations
for lateral/directional dynamics utilised for controller synthesis are shown in Eq.3. 13. The
states of this system are yaw rate , sideslip angle , roll rate and its integral, roll angle
. The control variables are the aileron deflection , and rudder deflection .
3. 13
SIMULATION MODEL
59
The system matrix- and the control input gain matrices are populated using dimensional
derivatives. These values are dimensionalised in real time using the non-dimensional
derivatives that are stored in look up tables. These are defined as:
3. 14
The lateral/directional dynamics have once again been written in state space form
. As is the case with the longitudinal dynamics, the behaviour
of the glider dynamics is considered without any control input. This is called the
homogeneous system. The matrix has four eigenvalues. Typically the lateral dynamics
has two real eigenvalues and a complex conjugate pair (typical position of these pole
positions is shown in Fig 3.3). The following different modes are observed in the
lateral/directional dynamics:
Roll Dynamics (R): The rotation about the roll axis. It’s aperiodic, relative quick and
is stable. As the vehicle rolls, the wing goes down and has an increased . The
opposite effect is felt by the other wing. As a result there is a difference in the lift
generated by the wings (more lift generated by the wing that goes down). The
differential lift creates a moment that restores the equilibrium ( ). If there is a
disturbance in this channel, the roll rate builds up in an exponential manner until
the restoring moment balances the disturbing force. This leads to a steady roll.
SIMULATION MODEL
60
Spiral Mode (S): the spiral motion is relatively slow and can also be unstable. A
disturbance in the roll channel results in a small side-slip ( ). The vertical stabiliser
of the aircraft now hits the oncoming air at an angle of , which causes an extra tail
lift (positive yawing moment). This yawing moment creases a positive yaw rate
which creates a positive rolling moment ( ). This increases the roll angle and
tends to increase the sideslip, thus making things worse.
Dutch Roll (D): The Dutch roll dynamics is represented using a conjugate pair. It is
a damped oscillation that couples into the roll channel. The frequency of the Dutch
roll dynamics is similar to that of the longitudinal short period mode. This mode is
a roll and yaw to the right, followed by a restoration towards the equilibrium point.
This is followed by an overshoot towards the left and then another restoration.
Fig 3.3. Typical Pole Position for the Lateral/Directional Motion
The characteristic equation for the lateral dynamics is
3. 15
where is the roll time constant, is the spiral model time constant, and and are
the damping and natural frequency of the Dutch roll dynamics. In order to simplify and
SIMULATION MODEL
61
decouple the system, the coupling effects of the roll dynamics on the yaw dynamics
are not considered. As a result and
are zero in the model. Consequently, the
state space representation of the lateral dynamics is
3. 16
The dynamics of the entire system, if coupling is not taken into account, is described using
the diagonal sub matrices represented through the and the matrices.
The roll dynamics of the system is represented using the matrix. The simplified
representation of the roll dynamics leads to
3. 17
The characteristic equation for this system is:
3. 18
Comparing Eq. 3.18 with
, the time constant for the roll dynamics is
.
The spiral mode degrades due to the integrator and also due to the simplification of the
system.
The top left section of matrix in Eq. 3. 13, describes the Dutch roll dynamics. The state
space representation of the Dutch roll dynamics is
3. 19
The characteristic equation for this subsystem is
SIMULATION MODEL
62
3. 20
Comparing the coefficients with the standard form leads to
3. 21
3. 22
The natural frequency for the Dutch roll dynamics is determined through the derivative
. This means that for stability and therefore consequently it follows that .
It is therefore concluded that the vehicle is statically stable about the lateral axis. This
means that, due to a disturbance, if there is a sideslip angle, a counter moment is
generated to restore the value to its trim value.
3.3 Model Based Forces and Moments Description
The motion of the glider is obtained by solving the equations of motion presented in
Section 3.2 and reflects only the actual motion of the vehicle when the modelled forces and
moments also approximate the actual forces and moments on the vehicle. Increasing the
details in the forces and moments is not the best approach, as the required computation
time increases to simulate the vehicle dynamics and the implementation process is time
consuming. This section discusses the forces and moments that act on the vehicle and the
way in which they are modelled. The aerodynamic forces and moments are treated
separately in Section 3.4.
SIMULATION MODEL
63
3.3.1 Weight Model
Gravity acts on the body in the Z-direction and the magnitude is , where is the mass
of the glider and the gravitational acceleration. The influence of gravity in the body is
expressed as
3. 23
As the eight acts through the centre of gravity of the glider it generates no moment. The
gravitational acceleration is modelled as a function of the glider’s altitude. It is written
as:
3. 24
where m is the mean radius of the earth. This value is in accordance with the
International Union of Geodesy and Geophysics [150].
Traditionally the mass of an aircraft is split into several parts, for example
and . As the vehicle considered in this study is a glider, and
. This means that the moments of inertia, and , and the products
of inertia, , under nominal conditions do not change for the duration of the simulation.
3.3.2 Environment Model
Aerodynamic forces and moments are included in the simulation model.
Gas Properties: The gas properties are modelled as defined by the international standard
atmosphere, ISA, or ISO 2533 [151, 152]. Within the troposphere the temperature and the
pressure are modelled by
SIMULATION MODEL
64
3. 25
3. 26
where is the temperature measured in Kelvin, is the altitude (in meters) and is the
pressure measured in Pascal. The temperature and the pressure relationships between an
altitude of 11km and 80km are:
3. 27
3. 28
The density , sonic speed , dynamic pressure and Mach number are given by
3. 29
3. 30
3. 31
3. 32
where is the speed of the glider and is the gas constant ( is ratio of specific
heats for air).
The equations presented in this section are valid under the assumption that the gas being
considered is a perfect gas. As real gas effects such as vibrational oscillation will be small
at Mach 8, the perfect gas assumption is appropriate for this research.
3.4 Aerodynamic Model
Aerodynamic forces and moments depend on variables such as airspeed, air density,
rotational rates of the aircraft, angle of attack, angle of sideslip and the deflection of the
control surfaces. The aerodynamic forces and moments are described using
SIMULATION MODEL
65
3. 33
3. 34
The gravimetric properties utilised in the force and moment equations are obtained from
[10]. The platform area is, meters, the characteristic length is meters
and the reference length is, meters.
The most common way to parameterise the aerodynamic model is with the use of Taylor
expansions. Multivariate splines [153] are also used to define the model. However, splines
are used when the resulting model needs to include large nonlinearities. The model
employed in this study is linear and therefore Taylor expansions are used. As an example,
the pitching moment is expanded as
3. 35
where
, etc. are non-dimensional coefficients. A more detailed method for
calculating the values of these parameters is presented in Section 3.4.1. These values are
also called the stability and the control derivatives of the system [148, 154].
3.4.1 Model Parameters
Different methods may be used to develop the aerodynamic data (the control and stability
derivatives) including CFD computations, wind tunnel tests, handbook methods based on
empirical data, or actual flights. The GHAME aerodynamic model is developed using
actual data from vehicles such as the Space Shuttle Orbiter, lifting body type aircraft, as
well as theories such as the modified Newtonian impact flow method. The lateral and
directional derivatives for Mach numbers higher than 8 are taken exclusively from Space
SIMULATION MODEL
66
Shuttle data. Below this speed, the lateral/directional derivatives are taken as a
combination of the space shuttle and a swept double delta configuration [7, 155].
Expanding the aerodynamic force and moment coefficients using the Taylor expansion,
only the linear terms are taken into account. The derivatives are a tabular function of Mach
number and the angle of attack. Therefore, the linearised parameterisation of the
aerodynamic forces for a conventional aircraft are
3. 36
However, the GHAME model uses the lift and the drag as force components in the X and
the Z direction respectively. Therefore, the corresponding linearised equations for the
aerodynamic forces for the GHAME model are
3. 37
SIMULATION MODEL
67
The equations presented for the forces and the moments, although the Taylor expansion of
the model, are not a representation of a linear model. For example, is a function of
and is once again multiplied by . The same is the case for the drag coefficient. The other
control and stability derivatives are linear in terms of remaining states but are nonlinear
with respect to Mach Number and . The lookup tables of the GHAME model has been
used as a representative set of coefficients for the hypersonic glider vehicle presented in
this research. The aerodynamic model with all of the above mentioned moments and the
forces is shown in Fig 3.4.
Fig 3.4. Motion Variables [156]
A table of the motion variables is shown in Table 3.1.
Table 3.1. Overview of Motion Variables of an Airborne Platform
Variable Symbol Coordinate System
Velocity Body fixed
Rotational Rate Body fixed
Position Earth fixed
Attitude Body fixed with respect to
geodetic system
Force Body fixed, stability
Moment Body fixed
SIMULATION MODEL
68
Every model needs to be validated. There have been multiple studies in validating the
aerodynamic model of the GHAME vehicle [7, 15]. Therefore, the model validation section
is not presented in this study and the aerodynamic look-up tables are used as a
representative set of tables for the hypersonic glider. The graph for the lift coefficient is
shown in Fig 3.5 in order to show an example of the different flow features that are seen in
the aerodynamic coefficients of a hypersonic vehicle throughout the whole flight envelope.
Fig 3.5. Lift Coefficient as a Function of Mach Number and Angle of Attack
Fig 3.6. Drag Coefficient
SIMULATION MODEL
69
Fig 3.7. Pitching Moment
Some of the key features of the lift coefficient that are evident in all of the aerodynamic
coefficients are as follows:
High Mach number independence: As the freestream Mach number increases, the
governing equations determine the coefficient of pressure, which can be integrated
over the surface to find the lift and drag coefficients. This means that the
coefficients are independent of Mach number when the value is sufficiently high.
This behaviour is seen in the pitching moment (Fig 3.7), drag (Fig 3.6) and also the
lift coefficient (Fig 3.5).
In the subsonic and supersonic regime, it is seen that the lift coefficient is nonlinear
in nature and the values are changing considerably as functions of Mach number
SIMULATION MODEL
70
and angle of attack. This is consistent with characteristics at the lower speed
regimes.
However, it is important to note that the discontinuities in the pitching moment
and drag coefficients that arise from shock induced separations are not included in
the aerodynamic model.
3.4.2 Generic Hypersonic Aerodynamic Model Example (GHAME) Model
The Generic Hypersonic Aerodynamic Model Example (GHAME) model is for a
hypothetical aircraft that is to be used for research purposes in order to carry out trajectory
studies and control systems design. The main aim behind the development of the GHAME
model was to model a single stage to orbit (SSTO) [6]. The GHAME model is shown in Fig
3.8. The fuselage of the GHAME model is a cylinder 20 feet in diameter and 120 feet long.
The control surfaces on the vehicle are modelled using 10 degree half cones. These
surfaces are connected to the fuselage at the halfway point.
Fig 3.8. GHAME Model [6]
The GHAME model is based on flight test data from the Space Shuttle, the X-24C and
theoretical data from a swept double-delta configuration and a 6 degree half-angle cone
using Newtonian Impact Flow method. The model consists of realistic data of
SIMULATION MODEL
71
aerodynamic coefficients for the hypersonic flight regime. The scaled down version of the
GHAME version that represents the glider in this research had the following mass
properties:
Table 3. 2. GHAME Mass Properties
Platform area
Characteristic length
Reference length
Mass
3.5 Actuator Model
For the control surfaces, rudder and elevens, second order actuators with rate and
deflection limits are included in the simulation model. The transfer function for the
actuator model is:
3. 38
where, is the natural frequency of the actuator model, is the damping of the
actuator. The SIMULINK block diagram for the second order nonlinear actuator model is
shown in Fig 3.9.
SIMULATION MODEL
72
Fig 3.9. Second Order Actuator Model
In Fig 3.9 is the generated controller and, due to the nonlinear actuator model,
the actual control deflection is given by . The figures associated with the actuator
model are outlined in Table 3.3. The physical nature of the model is understood from the
point of view of the integrators and their corresponding limitations. The right integrator
limits the actuator position. This property of the model is necessary due to the subcritical
damping. This is due to the fact that even if the commanded actuator position is within the
limit, a transient overshoot might occur due to oscillations. The limit of 'Integrator 1'
represents the actuator velocity. This attempts to mirror reality as the rotation speed of the
electric motor of the servo is subjected to constraints. This rate limitation also has an effect
on the closed loop dynamics. This is particularly the case when there are high amplitudes.
In these cases, the rate limit could lead to instability for high amplitude manoeuvres, while
small amplitude manoeuvres can be stabilised very well. Taking the rate and deflection
limits into consideration it should be noted that the behaviour of the actuator model is
nonlinear and the transfer function presented in Eq. 3.38, except for small amplitudes,
does not fully represent the actuator model shown in Fig 3.9. The aerodynamic and control
derivatives are indirectly dependent on the control surface deflections. The control surface
deflections change the angle of attack and in turn the Mach number of the vehicle. The
forces and moments the vehicle experiences change as a result of the change in the angle
of attack and Mach number.
SIMULATION MODEL
73
Table 3.3. Actuator model Parameters
Parameter Unit Perturbation
Elevon deflection limit [deg] -20 to 20
Rudder deflection limit [deg] -20 to 20
Elevon rate limit [deg/s] -400 to 400
Rudder rate limit [deg/s] -400 to 400
Damping ratio 0.7
Natural frequency [rad/s] 150
3.6 Sensor Model
Global Positioning System (GPS) and Inertial Navigation System (INS) are used for
positioning and attitude determination for hypersonic vehicles [157]. The governing
equations of INS are based on Newton’s second law. The INS implementation presented in
this report is a system wherein the GPS is also integrated. The principle of operation of an
INS is shown in Fig 3.10.
Fig 3.10. Principle of Operation of INS [1]
The equations used to implement the INS are covered in more detail in Zipfel [1]. A brief
overview of the implementation of the sensor equations is presented in this section.
The governing equations of INS navigation are based on Newton’s Laws of Motion. The
velocity of the vehicle centre of mass (c.m.) with respect to the inertial coordinates
SIMULATION MODEL
74
and also the vehicle's position with respect to an inertial reference point I, in inertial
coordinates are represented as
3. 39
3. 40
where
is the specific force measured by the accelerometers, and is the
gravitational acceleration in inertial coordinates. The integration of the angular velocity of
the vehicle with respect to the inertial frame, expressed in inertial coordinates , helps
to determine the rotation tensor of the body frame with respect to the inertial frame
. These equations of operations of the INS are outlined in Fig 3.10. In total, six
differential equations are solved for the basic navigation solution. An additional four
quaternion differential equations calculate the attitude angles.
The INS errors are denoted as . indicates the perturbations and the caret indicates the
computed values. The inertial acceleration experienced by a body is equal to the
specific force acting on the vehicle plus the gravitational acceleration . This is
expressed as
3. 41
The inertial coordinate frame is chosen. However, it is important to note that the forces
that are measured are measured in the body frame.
3. 42
The values in Eq. 3. 42 are the true values. These values that are provided to the guidance
computer are the computed variables (corrupted with INS errors). These errors are also
SIMULATION MODEL
75
called perturbations, and are the difference between computed and true values. The
component perturbation of a vector is given by
3. 43
where is the computed value of the vector and is the true value of the variable. The
errors in position, velocity, specific force and gravitational acceleration is modelled using
Eq. 3.43. is the tilt tensor of the INS. This tensor expresses the relationship between the
true inertial frame and the computed inertial frame of reference, . All the information
provided by the INS is presented in the computed frame of reference. Therefore, after
introducing these coordinate system conventions, the component perturbation is written
as:
3. 44
where
3. 45
A tilt tensor under small perturbation consists of a unit tensor and a skew symmetric
tensor:
3. 46
The perturbation tensor of rotation is expressed using small angle components:
3. 47
This skew symmetric matrix can be reduced to a tilt vector
. The
attitude perturbation is represented using a tilt vector.
SIMULATION MODEL
76
3. 48
The relationship between the transformation matrix perturbation and the tilt rotation
tensor is
3. 49
3. 50
The error equations are summarised in Table 3.4.
Table 3.4. Summary of Equations
Variable Perturbation
Velocity
Position
Specific force
Gravitational acceleration
Coordinate transformation
A diagram of the equations in Table 3.4 is shown in Fig 3.11.
Fig 3.11. Propagation of errors [1]
An in-depth derivation of the individual error equations is presented in [15] and is
therefore not covered here in detail.
Additional instrument errors need to be modelled if the effects of the INS system are to be
correctly represented in the high fidelity nonlinear simulation. The primary sources of
SIMULATION MODEL
77
errors that remain after factory and prelaunch calibrations have been included are the
random bias and noise, scale factor error and misalignment. These errors also apply to
gyroscopes.
3. 51
where is the random bias and noise,
is the scale factor error matrix and
is the misalignment matrix. Therefore, the output of the accelerometer is the measured
specific force in body coordinates.
3. 52
which is a combination of the true value
and the instrumenterror
. The errors
associated with the gyroscope take a similar form.
3. 53
where
is the random bias and noise vector,
is the diagonal scale factor error
matrix,
is the skew symmetric misalignment matrix and
defines the coupling
of the specific force. The output of the gyroscope is the measured angular rate in body
coordinates in the form
3. 54
which is comprised of the true value and the instrument error term .
Along with the error equations, it is also important to correctly initialise the INS errors.
Imperfections at the beginning of a simulation introduce initial uncertainties into the nine
states of position, velocity and attitude. These transfer alignment errors are known using
their covariance matrix , a 9 x 9 matrix of the variances and covariances of the nine-state
vector . The following equations helps initialise the initial INS error state.
SIMULATION MODEL
78
3. 55
where defines the unit standard deviation.
Sensors are compared with each other on the basis of certain performance factors, such as
bias and scale factor stability and repeatability or noise (e.g. random walk) [158, 159]. One
of the main determining factors in choosing sensors is often the budget of the project. For
this study, the sensor that is implemented is the ten degree of freedom inertial sensor –
ADIS16480 [160]. The particular sensor is chosen so as to represent a sensor module. This
is not to say that this particular sensor would be on-board a hypersonic glider vehicle. The
characteristics of this sensor are given in Table 3.5 and Table 3.6. The values presented are
1-sigma values.
Table 3.5. Performance Definition of ADIS16480 - Accelerometer
Misalignment
(rad)
Scale Factor (parts) Bias (g)
1*10-4 0.0017 16mg
Table 3.6. Performance Definition of ADIS16480 – Gyroscope
Axis to Axis
Misalignment
(rad)
Random
Walk
(rad/√s)
Scale
Factor
(parts)
Bias
(rad/s)
8.73*10-4 2.42*10-7 0.0017 3.03*10-5
For the trajectory study it is assumed that the Global positioning System (GPS) will
augment the INS. This is important as it helps in correcting the sensors errors in real time
and therefore makes sure that the position and the velocity errors in the states remain
bounded. Some of the main criteria that differentiate sensors are described as follows:
Gyro Bias: If the system operates unaided, the gyro bias indicates the increase of angular
error with time (in deg/h or deg/s).
SIMULATION MODEL
79
Gyro Scale Factor Error: This is an indication of the angular error which occurs during
rotation. E.g. with 300 ppm scale factor error (=0.03%) the angular error is in the vicinity of
after each revolution.
Misalignment: A misalignment between the gyro axes causes a cross-coupling between
the measured axes. A misalignment of 0.1 mrad inside of the system leads to a roll error of
during one revolution around the yaw axis.
Accelerometer Offset: an offset on the accelerometer leads to an error during alignment,
i.e. determination of initial roll and pitch angle.
Random Walk: this value is given in deg/sqrt(hr), shows the noise of the gyro. The higher
the noise the more noise is measure on the angular rates and on the angles.
The use of sensors introduces time latencies into the system. Therefore, sensor delays are
added into the simulation model used as a part of this study. A 22ms sensor delay is
added in the study carried out by Gregory in [66] (6ms on surface commands and 16ms on
sensor outputs). This was for the NASA AirSTAR program. A15ms delay is included to
model sensor delays in the present study.
Estimates of sensors error can be made using a Kalman filter. The Kalman Filter is mainly
used to estimate states that can only be observed indirectly or inaccurately by the system
itself. The Kalman filter works well in practice as well as in theory. It is a filter that
minimizes the variance of the estimation error [161, 162].
3.7 Sources and Modelling of Uncertainties
The controllers need to perform well in the presence of uncertainties that the vehicle
encounters over the entire trajectory and the operating environment. It is however
impossible to accurately model all the uncertainties that are present, therefore uncertainty
models play an important role in controller design and analysis.
SIMULATION MODEL
80
3.7.1 Control Surface Uncertainties
The trajectory of the glider studied in this thesis covers altitudes lower than 55km. This
means that this part of the flight occurs when the vehicle has re-entered the earth’s
atmosphere. It is important to note that once the vehicle has gone through the extreme
conditions of the sub-orbital ballistic trajectory, it is difficult to estimate the state of the
control surfaces. The reduced control system effectiveness corresponds to a possible
failure or degradation of the control surfaces, possibly due to component failures
experienced by the vehicle during ascent and descent. In light of this, it is important to test
the robustness of the controllers to various uncertainties. The different uncertainties that
are considered are:
I. The elevons are only being able to deflect to 30% of the commanded deflection.
II. There may be an uneven deflection of the elevons – the reduction in the
functionality of the control surfaces will not be identical for both the right and the
left elevons. Hence, it is important to consider the case wherein there is a different
level of functionality of the control surfaces.
III. Rudder failure – this test case investigates the scenario wherein the rudder is stuck
at a specific angle of deflection.
3.7.2 Aerodynamic and Gravimetric Uncertainties
Longitudinal
The aerodynamic errors that are considered for this analysis are the ones that occur in real
time and are unpredictable in nature. These errors may stem from structural degradation
(as a result of the mission and its trajectory), increasing radius of the leading edges or
thermal expansion effects which change the flow field enough to affect the model
parameters and structural distortion [10]. These errors are classified as parametric
uncertainties. There is also the case that the errors in the aerodynamic coefficients stem
SIMULATION MODEL
81
from the errors associated with CFD or wind tunnel measurements. This encompasses
differences between the computed aerodynamic coefficients and the real time
aerodynamic coefficients experienced by the glider. This class of errors can also arise as a
result of atmospheric disturbances along the descent trajectory. It is therefore important to
test the robustness of the controllers in the presence of these uncertainties.
For testing the performance boundaries of the PPC and the adaptive controller, the
uncertainties of the coefficients are put into an error vector [21, 119, 163]:
3. 56
where
are the multiplicative uncertainty of the longitudinal
stability of the model, the lift coefficient, elevator control derivative, the pitch damping,
the uncertainty in the drag coefficient and the elevator pitching moment derivative of the
model. The nominal values of the error vector are given by
3. 57
In the case of uncertainties being present, each element in the error vector is set to a
minimum and maximum value. These values are given in Table 3.7.
Table 3.7. Error Bounds for Error Vector - Time Invariant
Component of Error
Vector
Error Bounds
These errors are time invariant errors. The error margin is defined at the start of the
simulation and the error margin remains constant for the entire trajectory.
SIMULATION MODEL
82
Time varying changes to the aerodynamic coefficients are changing flight to test the
robustness of the controllers to real time uncertainties. Over the duration of the
simulation , Eqs.3. 58-3. 63 govern the time dependent changes in the coefficients.
3. 58
3. 59
3. 60
3. 61
3. 62
3. 63
where is the simulation time, and is the total simulation time. This simulation assesses
the system against slow-moving time-based aerodynamic errors and, as a result, provides
a further test case for the system.
Lateral
This section outlines the implementation of the corruption of the lateral aerodynamic
coefficients. For testing the performance boundaries of the PPC and the augmented
controller, the uncertainties of the coefficients are defined using an error vector [5, 119]:
3. 64
where are the multiplicative uncertainties of the aerodynamic and control derivatives.
The nominal values of the error vector are given by
3. 65
SIMULATION MODEL
83
Each element in the error vector is set to a minimum and maximum value. These values
are given in Table 3.8 below. The distribution that is presented in Table 3.8 is a uniform
distribution and the bounds that are presented are the maximum and minimum values of
the errors. The error bounds are defined based on the guidelines presented in [21].
Table 3.8. Errors Bounds of Error Vector (Time Invariant)
Component of Error
Vector
Error Bounds
These errors are time invariant errors which are defined at the start of every simulation
and remain constant for the whole simulation. The error margin is defined at the start of
the simulation and the error margin remains constant for the entire trajectory.
Gravimetric Errors
Before the pull up manoeuvre starts the gravimetric state of the vehicle cannot be
guaranteed, but can only be estimated. The structural load experienced by the vehicle can
cause changes that need to be taken into account when analysing the robustness of the
baseline and the adaptive controller. The errors considered here are:
I. Moment of Inertial Uncertainties -
II. Mass uncertainty - up to reduction in mass (the variation in the mass is 0.9 to
1.0 times the original mass of the vehicle)
SIMULATION MODEL
84
These uncertainties are defined at the start of the Monte Carlo simulations with a uniform
distribution. The 20% errors in the moment of inertia tensor along with the 10% mass error
are large. For civilian aircraft, such large changes are not expected due to the fact that
structural damage to the aircraft can have a severe effect on the ability of the aircraft to
stay airborne. Whereas, for the hypersonic case, after the ascent and descent phase there is
no way to definitively predict the state of the vehicle. Therefore, from a modelling and
control point of view, the task of designing a controller for a flight envelope becomes
significantly more challenging. As an example, in [164], for a transport class vehicle, in this
case a B747-100/200, moment of inertia uncertainties are added in the model. 5%
uncertainties are considered, which is four times less what has been considered in this
study.
Combination of Errors
The aforementioned uncertainties do not necessarily occur individually during flight.
Therefore the effects of a combination of errors and the controller’s robustness to these
uncertainties are tested. The following errors are present simultaneously in the simulation:
I. Moment of Inertia Uncertainties
II. Mass Uncertainty
III. Aerodynamic Uncertainties
IV. Rudder Failure-leading to the lack of tracking ability in the -channel.
V. Reduced deflection of the elevons.
VI. Asymmetric deflection of the elevons
The results presented for this scenario are obtained using Monte Carlo Simulations.
SIMULATION MODEL
85
3.8 Monte Carlo Simulations
The main aim of the Monte Carlo analysis is to test and analyse the controller
performance, stability and robustness to uncertainties and control surface failures during
the pull up and the roll angle manoeuvre. Statistical information is gathered after the
testing in order to be analysed to assess controller performance. The result that comes as a
result of these simulation runs is a comparative study between the baseline and the
augmented controller. Based on the results, either the performance of the baseline or that
of the augmented controller is more desirable.
Monte Carlo simulations become of paramount importance when there are various
sources of stochastic errors. Examples of sources of stochastic errors are INS errors (like
random walk, random bias and white noise), aerodynamic uncertainties, control surface
uncertainties and gravimetric uncertainties. To initialise these uncertainty variables, two
distributions are utilised: Gaussian [165] and uniform distributions [166].
3.9 Simulation Platform
Once the controllers have been implemented it is important to choose the right platform to
test the controller. This subsection introduces and outlines the main features of the
simulation framework Computer Aided Design of Aerospace Concepts (CADAC). As
outlined in [13, 14], the main reason for choosing CADAC++ written in C++ is that it
outperforms Matlab/SIMULINK© based simulations in programming, execution speed
and cost.
CADAC was jointly developed by the U.S. Air Force and the University of Florida.
CADAC++ has been used as a test bed for missiles, aircraft: unmanned aerial vehicles
(UAVs) and spacecraft. Its modular structure enables the reuse of subsystem models and
its well defined interfaces allow integration into higher level simulations.
SIMULATION MODEL
86
High fidelity simulations use random variables to model noise, disturbances and uncertain
phenomena. This means that the simulation platform should provide Monte Carlo
capabilities. This is needed so as to carry out a stochastic analysis, noting that many
repetitive runs need to be executed, each drawing a different value from the distribution.
To initialise a Monte Carlo analysis, the keyword MONTE is used in the input file. Along
with the key word, a random seed is also provided for the initialisation of the random
variables.
3.10 Conclusion
This chapter presents the six degrees-of-freedom nonlinear model of the dynamic
behaviour of the hypersonic glider. Thereafter, the linearised model is presented. This is
used for controller synthesis for the remainder of this thesis. This chapter also presents the
weight model, environment model and the aerodynamic model. A brief outline of the
simulation platform utilised is presented.
The control laws can change the dynamic behaviour of the glider. The model presented in
this chapter serves as a basis for the flight control law design. Performance and robustness
of these control laws designed are tested in CADAC++.
The mathematical frameworks and the derivation of the baseline and the augmented
controller are given in chapter 4.
THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK AND IMPLEMENTATION
87
4. THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK AND IMPLEMENTATION
This chapter presents the theoretical background about the pole placement controller
(PPC) and adaptive control. Full state feedback control architectures are presented for
the longitudinal and lateral/directional dynamics of the glider. This is followed by the
presentation of the derivation of an adaptive controller. The proofs of stability of the
full adaptive control are mostly excluded, but can be found in [41, 82, 128, 133]. Section
4.1 presents a generic autopilot structure that has been employed in this study. Section 4.2
explains the underlying theory of the PPC. This is followed by theory on adaptive
controller. Section 4.3 presents a survey of adaptive control, followed by Section 4.4 which
presents the derivation of the adaptive augmented controller that accounts for the
matched and unmatched uncertainties in the system. The performance and the robustness
metrics are outlined in Section 4.5 and 4.6 respectively. Section 4.7 presents the
performance and the stability bounds of the augmented controller. Section 4.8 presents
the validation of the modified augmented controller.
This chapter presents the first application of a modified augmented control law to a
hypersonic glider configuration, which forms the edifice of this research. The modified
control law is used to cancel out uncertainties in a LTV state feedback non-minimum
phase system.
4.1 Introduction
The general autopilot structure to control the longitudinal and lateral/directional
dynamics of the glider is shown in Fig 4.1. The overall block diagram consists of two main
subsections: (i) an outer guidance loop which provides the controller with the commanded
signal based on the desired trajectory and (ii) an inner loop stability augmentation and
attitude controller to track the guidance commands and reject disturbances. The block
THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK AND IMPLEMENTATION
88
diagram shown in Fig 4.1 shows a generic autopilot structure utilised to control the
longitudinal and lateral/directional dynamics of the hypersonic glider.
Fig 4.1. Autopilot Structure for Hypersonic Glider
The components of the autopilot structure are:
Desired Trajectory: The desired trajectory block is a function of the trajectory of the
vehicle during descent and also depends on the mission that is being carried out.
For the case of the glider considered in this thesis, the test trajectory chosen for this
research is shown in Fig 1.2. This study focuses on trajectory control from the point
where the pull up manoeuvre followed by a pulsed roll angle manoeuvre.
Guidance System: The role of the guidance system is to convert the desired
trajectory into a commanded flight path angle, , for the longitudinal controller.
For the case of the lateral/directional dynamics, the guidance loop converts the
lateral trajectory into a commanded bank, , and sideslip angle, .
Controller: This part of the autopilot consists of the inner loop controllers. It
expresses a functional relationship between the error signals (vehicle state offset)
relative to the commanded signal, and the actuation command to the elevons and
the rudder. The controller in this study operates at 100Hz. The sampling frequency
of the inner loop controller is a function of the natural frequency in the control
channels. Sampling frequency is chosen to be significantly higher than the natural
THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK AND IMPLEMENTATION
89
frequency in the flight path channel, which has a maximum frequency value of
15Hz.
Plant Model: This part models the vehicle. In this case it is the hypersonic glider
modelled using a representative set of gravimetrics and aerodynamics using look
up tables.
4.2 Pole Placement Control
State feedback PPC is a control methodology employed to stabilise the system [167, 168]
(see Fig 4.2) The state space representation of this system is (without the feedforward
matrix, )
4. 1
where for the longitudinal case for the roll and sideslip angle
dynamic is the system matrix, for the longitudinal case for the roll
and sideslip angle dynamic is the control gain matrix, for the longitudinal
case for the roll and sideslip angle dynamic is the output gain matrix,
for the longitudinal case for the roll and sideslip angle dynamic is the
state vector, is the control input, is the system output, is the number of states of the
system and is the number of control inputs. The plants considered in this thesis are all
Single Input Single Output (SISO) systems.
Fig 4.2. Block Diagram State Feedback for Stability
THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK AND IMPLEMENTATION
90
In order to stabilise the system, a feedback gain matrix is calculated. With the inclusion
of the feedforward gain, , the control law is:
4. 2
where is the commanded signal. Substituting the control law into Eq.4. 1, the state space
representation of the closed loop system is:
4. 3
This controller structure is used as the baseline controller to track the flight path , roll ,
and sideslip angle . The derivations of the feedback and feedforward gains are presented
next. The feedforward gain for the state feedback is defined in a way as to achieve steady
state tracking. In steady state, . This leads to the following equations:
4. 4
Now in order for the steady state error, to be zero the following equation needs to be
satisfied:
4. 5
which leads to:
4. 6
The one assumption that needs to be fulfilled is that the numbers of inputs are equal to the
number of outputs. Therefore the matrix is square. As the matrices and
are full rank matrices, solving for leads to the following equation for the feedforward
gain:
4. 7
THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK AND IMPLEMENTATION
91
Before implementing a PPC, the system must be controllable. The basic equation for the
controllability test is as follows:
4. 8
The system is considered controllable when the matrix is full rank.
where is the order of the system. Controllability of a system plays a key role in control
problems. Some of these problems include the stabilisation of unstable systems using
feedback control or optimal control. The controllability of a system means that an external
input has the ability to move of a system from any initial state to any other final state in a
finite time interval [169]. On the other hand, if any of the states are independent of the
control signal, then is becomes impossible to control this state variable and therefore the
system is uncontrollable. As controllability plays an important role in pole placement
control it is important to check for controllability of the mathematical model of the system
[167].
For the case of the longitudinal dynamics the controllability matrix is
THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK AND IMPLEMENTATION
92
is a full rank matrix, signifying controllability. The same procedure is carried out for
the roll and sideslip angle controller. The corresponding controllability matrices are full
rank.
4.2.1 Baseline Controller – Longitudinal Controller
Linearised plant models are used to describe the longitudinal dynamics. This plant model
is used to carry out the gain calculations for PPC. The aerodynamic and control
dimensional derivatives of the model are the pitch damping , static longitudinal
stability , normal force dependency on the angle of attack and the control moment
derivative . The non-dimensional derivatives are stored in look-up tables and are
converted to the dimensional values in real time during flight.
The flight path angle dynamics are outlined in Section 3.2.2 (see Eq. 3. 11). For the case of
controlling the trajectory, a flight path angle controller is implemented. The flight path
THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK AND IMPLEMENTATION
93
angle controller structure is the structure shown in Fig 4.2. This controller uses pitch rate,
pitch angle and flight path angle as the states. Substituting the plant model (see Eq. 3. 11)
into Eq. 4. 9 in order to calculate the feedback gains leads to
4. 9
This equation leads to the gain formula for the flight path angle controller
4. 10
where
The flight path angle dynamic is of third order. Therefore, the desired dynamic of this
system are defined using and , which are scheduled as a function of dynamic
pressure. is the desired closed loop natural frequency, is the damping ratio and is
one real pole location which is required to calculate the dynamic gains of the controller.
The gains are calculated at the controller loop frequency in the simulation or during flight
real time.
4.2.2 Baseline Controller – Lateral/Directional Controller (SISO)
This section of the report outlines the derivation of the pole placement controllers for the
lateral and directional dynamics. A general state space model has the following form as in
Eq. 4.1. The block diagram of controllers follows the controller structure (feedback plus
THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK AND IMPLEMENTATION
94
feedforward) shown in Fig 4.2.The gains of the PPC for the yaw and roll controllers are
determined using Eq. 4. 9. The systems (see Eq. 3. 17 and Eq. 3. 19) are of second order, so
the desired dynamics are represented using the second order equations:
4. 11
where represents the desired damping ratio of the system and is the desired natural
frequency. Substituting the state space models for the roll and the yaw controllers, the
feedback gains are presented. For the case of the glider as the conditions are changing
rapidly the desired characteristics are a function of a trajectory parameter; in this case the
dynamic pressure (see Fig 6.11). The feedback gains for the side slip controller are
4. 12
4. 13
and the feedback controller gains of the roll controller are
4. 14
4. 15
The feed-forward gain for both the controllers is
4. 16
where is invertible and the closed loop system matrix.
THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK AND IMPLEMENTATION
95
4.2.3 Stability and Robustness Analysis of Baseline Controller
As the baseline controller used to control the hypersonic glider is a PPC, linear tools of
analysis are utilised to analyse the stability of the system. At every simulation time step,
the controller gains are calculated. This means that at every time step the controller is
valid and the system matrices, and can be read. Consequently, for every set of
controller gains and the linear representation of the system, pole zero locations are
calculated. The pole positions characterise the stability of the system. For the robustness
analysis, the time delay margin (see Section 4.6 for details) is used.
4.3 Survey of Adaptive Control
An adaptive controller can change its behaviour in response to changes in the dynamics of
the process and the disturbances. Research into adaptive control was very active in the
1950s. The research was motivated as a way to design autopilots for high performance
aircrafts. The 3 main schemes for parameter adaptive control: gain scheduling, model
reference adaptive control and self-tuning regulators. A summary can be found in [170-
172]. The key problem is to find a convenient way of changing the regulator parameters in
response to changes in process and disturbance dynamics. The schemes differ only in the
way the parameters of the regulator are adjusted. The shortcomings of these three
adaptive schemes are addressed using adaptive control [41]. The main advantages of
utilizing adaptive control are outlined in Section 4.4.
4.4 Adaptive Control
When designing flight control systems, it is essential to provide and guarantee closed-loop
stability, adequate command tracking performance, as well as robustness to model
uncertainties, control surface uncertainties and environmental disturbances. The previous
section presented the baseline controller. This baseline controller stabilises the system.
Therefore, the task of the adaptive controller is to cancel the uncertainties present in the
THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK AND IMPLEMENTATION
96
system. In the presence of uncertainties, the performance of the baseline controller will
deteriorate. However the key question is: can the closed loop performance of the baseline
controller be restored, while operating in the presence of uncertainties? In this domain, adaptive
controllers are useful.
4.4.1 Background
adaptive control has been developed with aerospace applications in mind and has been
successfully applied for flying applications [42, 61, 62]. The use of adaptive control
allows for fast adaptation while at the same time maintaining robustness. Fast adaptation
leads to control chattering, however, the output of the controller is limited in amplitude
and frequency. This is due to the use of the low pass filter placed at the output of the
controller, and is utilised to make the controller act within the control channel bandwidth
[132].
A modified control law that compensates for both matched2 and unmatched uncertainties
has been implemented for the hypersonic glider model. The presence of unmatched
uncertainties signifies that the uncertainties lie outside the span of a linear system’s
control input matrix, Examples of unmatched uncertainties include [173-175]:
High frequency unmodelled dynamics
Actuator dynamics
Structural vibrations
Measurement noise
Round off error and truncation
Sampling delay
Cross-coupling
2 Matched uncertainties are uncertainties that enter through the control channel
THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK AND IMPLEMENTATION
97
Therefore, the compensation of the matched and unmatched uncertainties present in the
system is critical to achieve the desired performance and robustness of the hypersonic
glider. Benefits of the adaptive control methodology are its fast and robust adaptation.
This allows for desired performance achievement in both transient and steady state
tracking. The high estimation gains, previously mentioned that are part of adaptive
control, allow for the compensation of the undesirable effects of rapidly varying
uncertainties and significant changes in system dynamics. High estimation rates are also
critical to achieve guaranteed transient performance without resorting to gain scheduling
of the control parameters, persistency of excitation or control reconfiguration. Therefore,
in sum, this adaptive control scheme is chosen for the following reasons [41, 65, 176, 177]:
Decoupling of the rate of adaption and robustness
Guaranteed fast adaption, limited only by hardware constraints.
Guaranteed, bounded away from zero time delay margin
Guaranteed transient performance for a system’s input and output signal,
without high gain feedback or enforcing persistent excitation type assumptions.
Uniform scaled transient response dependent on changes in initial conditions,
unknown parameters, and reference input.
Suitable for development of theoretically justified verification and validation
tools for feedback systems.
4.4.2 Problem Formulation
The formulation of the basic derivation of the adaptive controller closely follows the
derivation of Mr Zhongjie Wang presented as part of the subject Nonlinear and Adaptive
Flight Control held at the Technical University Munich (TUM) – Institute for Flight System
Dynamics (FSD), Munich, Germany [178]. Before the controller design is carried out, a
general formulation for a nonlinear model is needed. The general formulation for a
nonlinear system is as follows:
THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK AND IMPLEMENTATION
98
4. 17
4. 18
where is the state vector, is the reference command, is the controller parameters, is
the plant parameters and is the time. In order to better represent and analyse nonlinear
systems, it is important to convert the system representation according to the following
guidelines:
1) Separate the linear part and the nonlinear part
2) Determine the matched and unmatched components of the nonlinear part.
3) Resolve the linear component into an assumed part plus an unknown uncertainty
4) Separate the input into input affine and non-affine part
5) Separate the input-and output disturbances
6) Parameterize control effectiveness
Taking into consideration these guidelines, the new general formulation of a general
nonlinear state space model is as shown in Eq. 4. 19. The equivalent representation that
exactly describes the system is:
4. 19
where:
= assumed system matrix
= system matrix uncertainties
= assumed input matrix
= input matrix uncertainties
= control effectiveness degradation
= matched input affine nonlinearity
= unmatched nonlinearities
= disturbances
= output nonlinearity
THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK AND IMPLEMENTATION
99
= assumed output matrix
= output matrix uncertainties
= matched state nonlinearity
= input offset
Due to the lack of general solution to nonlinear systems, restrictions are introduced to
illuminate the class of nonlinear systems that are controllable when using the Piecewise
Constant Update Law. The restrictions are as follows:
Uncertainties in the output equation are not considered.
Input matrix is known, i.e. .
Unmodelled internal dynamics of the system should be included in the
considerations to represent the controlled plant more completely and accurately.
With the aforementioned considerations, and some derivations, the system is
4. 20
where represents the matched component of the uncertainties and are the
unmatched uncertainties. Once the plant dynamics has been defined as in the equation
above, the control objective can be defined. The control objective is to render the output of
the stated plant to follow the desired system dynamics (to cancel out the matched and the
unmatched uncertainties):
4. 21
where is given as bounded piecewise continuous reference signal given to the control
system from the guidance computer.
To realise such a control objective, some further assumptions about the uncontrolled plant
dynamics are made, while applying the piecewise constant adaptation method. Current
THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK AND IMPLEMENTATION
100
research effort is aimed at relaxing these limitations in order to apply the theory to more
general nonlinear systems. The assumptions placed on the system are:
ASSUMPTION 1: Boundedness of
, such that holds for all ( only
assumes limited values typically fulfilled for stable mechanical systems; is an
upper bound for the uncertainties – matched and unmatched).
ASSUMPTION 2: Semiglobal Lipschitz Condition
For arbitrary that:
for all
uniformly in .
ASSUMPTION 3: Stability of Unmodelled Dynamics
The - dynamics are BIBO stable both with respect to initial conditions and the
input , i.e.: , such that for all ,
ASSUMPTION 4: Partial Knowledge of the System Input Gain
(i) is assumed to be unknown (non-singular) strictly row-diagonally
dominant matrix with known, i.e. .
(ii) Also assume that there exists a known compact convex set , such that
, and the nominal system input gain is known. By knowing we
know the rough direction in the state space which are produced by the inputs.
Using the effectiveness of the inputs acting in the direction of are defined. This
effectiveness is unknown, but assumed to be within a known interval given by
which also contains the nominal effectiveness .
However, the main assumption that is being relaxed as a result of this study is:
ASSUMPTION 5: Stability of Matched Transmission Zeroes
THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK AND IMPLEMENTATION
101
The transmission zeroes of the transfer matrix lie in the
open left half plane (the system is minimum phase the initial response to inputs
has the same direction as the steady state response).
With the above restrictions and assumptions, the control problem is accurately and
completely stated. In the next subsection, an adaptive control theory is presented. The
estimation scheme utilised is called the Piecewise Constant Adaptation Method and it is
used to solve the control problem for the nonlinear system with uncertainties that have
been stated thus far.
4.4.3 Reference System
In order to carry out the design of the adaptive controller, it is initially assumed that all
the uncertainties are known. This is assumed in order to calculate the performance and the
stability bounds of the system [41]. When all the uncertainties of the system are known,
this system is called the reference system. The ideal desired reference system is
4. 22
Defining as transfer function from to , leads to:
4. 23
The reference system is:
4. 24
THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK AND IMPLEMENTATION
102
4. 25
(the derivation of the control laws are presented in the subsequent equations)
The closed loop reference system “ ” with the ideal control signal is
equivalent to the ideal desired reference system “ ”. When a low pass filter is
introduced in the control signal , it cuts off high frequency content of the high gain
estimation algorithm. This leads to a closed loop reference system which describes the
reduced control target. As the unknown parameters are part of the control law, the
reference system is not implementable, but is only used for assessment, such as
performance bounds, transient performance and system stability. Reference system and
reference control signal is
4. 26
Rewriting the reference system in frequency domain leads to
4. 27
where is the Laplace transform of: and defining
, whose Laplace transform is to depict the initial
conditions. This leads to
4. 28
THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK AND IMPLEMENTATION
103
4. 29
To make is more readable the following intermediate variables are introduced:
Using these intermediate variables leads to:
4. 30
4. 31
As is known, a prefilter can be chosen to render , which leads
to
. Therefore the ideal reference
output is as follows:
4. 32
In order to derive the formula for the influence of the initial condition is omitted. It
is shown that non-zero initial condition only leads to an exponentially decaying additional
contribution. This leads to:
4. 33
4. 34
THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK AND IMPLEMENTATION
104
4. 35
4. 36
As discussed previously, it is ideal to avoid high frequency content in the control channel,
which is key to control theory. Therefore, a bandwidth limiting low-pass filter is
multiplied with the control signal for the reference system:
4. 37
Substituting the above control signal back into the plant dynamics leads to the closed loop
reference system. This is as following:
4. 38
Once again a few intermediate variables are introduced for the ease of reading:
With the above definition, the closed loop reference system is
THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK AND IMPLEMENTATION
105
4. 39
where
The extensive proofs of the full adaptive controller are not shown here (see [41]), however
the bounds of the states and the control signal of reference system are as follows:
4. 40
where and are system dependent positive constants. The mathematical derivation of
these two uniform bounds also leads to the norm condition, which is the essential core
of the whole theory by representing how to design and assess the low-pass filter .
These bounds together with the normal condition guarantee the stability of the closed-
loop reference system, as introducing the low pass filter implies that the uncertainties
cannot be completely cancelled. In order to satisfy the norm condition the is
choosen in a way such that
4. 41
If the norm condition is met, the closed-loop reference system is stable with bounded
reference states and bounded reference control signal, i.e. BIBO stable.
THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK AND IMPLEMENTATION
106
4.4.4 Closed Loop Control Structure
Once the analysis of closed-loop reference system has been carried out, the next step is
to design and implement the closed loop control structure, using the piecewise constant
adaptation method. The main aim is to render the controlled plant arbitrarily close to the
closed loop reference system both in transient and steady state period with derivable
stability and performance bounds. The state predictor is presented next.
State Predictor
The plant dynamics are
4. 42
In contrast to the reference system, the state predictor depends on estimations of the
system input gain matrix and the uncertainties within and outside the span of , i.e.
and . But in the approach with piecewise constant adaptiation law, there is no explicit
online estimation of . Instead, , the best a priori available estimation of , replaces the
system input gain matrix and novelly defined combines the estimation of the error
( and the uncertainty in the span of , i.e. together. Based on this idea, we
firstly rewrite the plant dynamics as
4. 43
All the uncertainties within the span of is considered as a part of and all the
uncertainties that are within the span of are considered within . Therefore, the plant
dynamics is further rewritten as:
THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK AND IMPLEMENTATION
107
4. 44
And once the plant dynamics are reformulated in this way, the modified state predictor is
implemented as following:
4. 45
Therefore, the state predictor has a structure, with only two uncertainties and ,
which is estimated by the piecewise constant adaptation law.
Control Law
The plant dynamics are:
4. 46
The control objective is:
4. 47
Similar to the analysis of reference system, to realise such a control objective, the design
of the control law is as follows. However, before that is done, both the systems needs to be
written in the frequency domain:
4. 48
4. 49
THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK AND IMPLEMENTATION
108
Equating the two above expressions results in the derivation of the control law:
4. 50
Introducing the low pass filter in order to cut off the high frequency components
leads to
4. 51
In Eq. 4. 51 it is assumed that the values of the uncertainties are known. But only the
estimates of the uncertainties are available. Therefore Eq. 4. 51 is changed to
4. 52
The low pass filter is designed to carry out a trade-off between performance and
robustness and how the uncertainties affect the performance on a particular channel.
Adaptive Law
The next step is to derive the piecewise constant update law for the control law. The
actual plant dynamics and the corresponding state predictor dynamics are
Plant:
The plant dynamics are seen in Eq. 4. 46 and the state predictor is seen in Eq. 4. 48 The
aforementioned plant and state predictor dynamics leads to the following error dynamics:
THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK AND IMPLEMENTATION
109
4. 53
Solving Eq. 4. 53 as an ordinary differential equation leads to:
4. 54
where is the sampling time. Based on the idea of the piecewise constant adaptation law,
and are constants for and so on. As:
4. 55
4. 56
Substituting Eqs.4. 55 and 4. 56 into 4. 54 leads to:
4. 57
4. 58
where
THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK AND IMPLEMENTATION
110
4. 59
where . At this stage it is important to note the change in the domain. Further
defining certain terms as:
4. 60
4. 61
Leads to the following representation:
4. 62
With the new notation, the prediction error at the sampling time is
4. 63
where:
4. 64
4. 65
Therefore, it is clear from the derivation that the initial conditions for the integral is the
previous time step and is independent of . The equations above consist of a recursive
term, . The adaptive update parameter is derived by cancelling out this
recursive component.
THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK AND IMPLEMENTATION
111
Therefore the piecewise constant adaptive law is:
4. 66
The detailed derivation of the stability criteria of the controller via the norm
condition and the corresponding proofs of the transient and steady-state performance of
the reference system is not given in this thesis. The derivation can be found in Chapter 5
of [41].
4.4.5 Augmented Controller Derivation
A typical controller has the architecture as depicted in Fig 4.3. The main components of
an adaptive controller are the state predictor, the feedback control system and the
adaptation law. Also an important aspect of this scheme of control is the low pass filter
which helps to decouple fast adaptation and guaranteed robustness.
THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK AND IMPLEMENTATION
112
Fig 4.3. Adaptive Controller Model
Vehicle Plant Dynamics:
The actual closed plant dynamics of the vehicle is
4. 67
where closed loop plant model which includes the baseline controller. is the control
input matrix. is chosen so that and are the control gain matrices for
the matched and the unmatched uncertainties. includes the matched uncertainties and
includes the unmatched uncertainties.
is the feedforward gain. is
the adaptive control signal. The main control objective is to design an augmentation law
that compensates for the matched and unmatched uncertainties on the output of the
system and ensures that the output tracks the desired output , given a certain
reference signal . This is to occur both in transient and steady state while all signals
remain bounded.
THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK AND IMPLEMENTATION
113
Desired Plant Dynamics:
The desired closed loop plant dynamics is shown in Eq. 4. 68. The plant model presented
here is a SISO plant model
4. 68
State Predictor:
4. 69
where and are the estimates of the matched and the unmatched uncertainties
respectively, is a matrix used to assign faster poles for the prediction error dynamics
and is . The estimates of these uncertainties are provided by the piecewise wise
constant update law.
Control Law:
is the adaptive control signal and the matching condition in the presence of
uncertainties is:
THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK AND IMPLEMENTATION
114
4. 70
where and
. is the output of the actual
plant and is the output of the desired plant. As the values of the uncertainties are
not known, the estimates of the uncertainties are used to formulate the control law.
Furthermore, as only certain frequencies of this uncertainty can be cancelled in Eq.4. 70, a
low pass filter is added as part of the adaptive control signal. The uncertainties in a system
comprise of low and high frequency components. In an attempt to cancel out all the
frequency components of the uncertainty, control chattering would be introduced. This
would lead to control saturation and degrade the physical system. Therefore, the adaptive
law is modified as:
4. 71
However, for a nonminimum phase system is unstable. Scheduling
can lead to the switching itself being unstable. Therefore, it needs to be carried out
carefully. However, the scheduling the pole-zero cancellation (to cancel the unstable pole)
can lead to unpredictable closed loop dynamics. Therefore, the inverse of the DC gain is
utilised to carry out the LTV implementation of the transfer function. This method was
first proposed by Che et. al. in [179].
An inherent property of transfer function is utilised to formulate the modified
implementation of the adaptive augmentation signal. The property of transfer functions is:
the inverse of the dc gain of is equal to the steady state value of . Using this method
the new adaptive signal is
4. 72
In non-matrix form:
THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK AND IMPLEMENTATION
115
The main advantage of this implementation is that the inversion of the system dynamics is
avoided. This means that this form of the equation can be implemented for a
nonminimum phase LTV system. As the system is time varying, the implementation in Eq.
4. 72 cannot be directly used. is implemented as a state space model. This
modification of the control law is formulated for SISO systems, as the inverse of
is guaranteed. At no point during the trajectory, is the value of
equal to zero; for example: The minimum value of is 0.0197 for the
longitudinal case.
Low Pass Filter :
For the filter used in the control structure to be a low pass filter, has to be strictly
proper. This means that the numerator degree must be lower than the denominator
degree. Furthermore, a prerequisite on this filter is that it needs to be stable. As a result the
structure of the filter is
4. 73
where is a transfer function that leads to be stable and proper with a DC gain of
one; . There are conditions placed on in order to obtain the desired . The
transfer function needs to have a relative degree of greater than zero. The
implementation of this filter is shown in Fig 4.4. For the case of a first order filter,
. This leads to a structure shown in Eq. 4.82.
The structure of the low pass filter is therefore given by
4. 74
where is the bandwidth of the low pass filter. In the case of the hypersonic glider two
first order filters of different bandwidths are implemented for the matched and the
THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK AND IMPLEMENTATION
116
unmatched uncertainties. In order to suppress the effect of uncertainties in the control
channel that have a higher frequency content, the bandwidth of is less than
which is a direct result of the nature of uncertainties that make up the matched and
unmatched uncertainties.
Fig 4.4. Filter with Constant Cut-Off Frequency
Piecewise Constant Update Law
The piecewise constant adaptation law is for the modified state predictor is given by
4. 75
The augmentation for the PPC, is implemented in SIMULINK© and compiled into C
code. The version of Matlab/SIMULINK© used is R2012b.
ωC
D(s) u uL1
-
+
C(s)
THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK AND IMPLEMENTATION
117
4.5 Performance Metric (Comparison of Controllers)
In order to compare the baseline to the augmented controller, it is important to select
performance metrics. This subsection outlines the performance metrics utilised to compare
the PPC with the augmented controller.
The analytical performance of an adaptive controller is mainly limited to the tracking error
norms. For a full adaptive controller these bounds can be obtained from the Lyapunov
stability proof. However, these analytical bounds are too conservative [180]. The
performance of an adaptive controller can be analysed during and after a simulation run
using various quantities, for example:
The settling time after a step reference command
A Fourier analysis to evaluate the spectral content of the tracking error or the
control signal.
The largest load factor etc.
There are several other metrics that have been utilised to analyse the performance of
adaptive controller but the metrics that are utilised to compare the controllers in this study
are as follows:
A performance metric is the norm of the tracking error. The tracking error norm is
defined as:
4. 76
where . The normalised norm is:
4. 77
THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK AND IMPLEMENTATION
118
The benchmark case (only baseline) in the absence of uncertainties is taken as the reference
system. The deflection of the control surface of this reference system is labelled as .
The baseline control signal in the presence of uncertainties is denoted via and the
control signal in the augmentation configuration is denoted via . Therefore, the energy
of the deviation between the reference system and the control signal in the presence of
uncertainties is defined as a normalised metric for the control signal [180]. This metric is
calculated as follows:
4. 78
4.6 Time Delay Margin
The time delay margin (TDM) is the maximum amount of time-delay that the system can
experience before instability occurs [181, 182]. For adaptive control, the adaptive gain
needs to be carefully selected in order to not reduce the robustness of the closed loop
system. This reduction at some stage might render the closed loop system unstable. This
robustness metric is known as the TDM. For a given adaptive gain of a closed loop system,
there is a corresponding input delay for which the system is on the verge of instability
[183].
The robustness of a feedback control system is an important issues especially when it
comes to adaptive control. In the field of robust control it is a well know fact that high gain
in the feedback loops leads to increased effort in the control channel and consequently a
reduction in phase margin [184]. Within the scope of adaptive control, high adaptive
gains, which lead to fast adaptation, can cause undesired high-frequency oscillations in the
control channel and sensitivity to time delays [182]. Phase margins cannot be used for
robustness analysis as adaptive controllers are nonlinear. Therefore, TDM is used to test
for the system robustness.
THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK AND IMPLEMENTATION
119
For the case of a MRAC type controller, when the adaptation gain is too high, this type of
controller displays next to no time delay margin. This is not the case for an adaptive
control. By incorporating a time delay in the relevant transfer functions, the TDM of the
adaptive controller is guaranteed to stay bounded away from zero in the presence of fast
adaptation [65]. The low pass filter in the control architecture is what helps to decouple
robustness and adaption, and thus decouple control from estimation. The bandwidth of
this low pass filter can adjust the robustness margins of the closed loop system. Reducing
the bandwidth of the low pass filter increases the TDM at the cost of reduced performance.
On the other hand, increasing the bandwidth of the low pass filter improves the
performance of the closed loop system, however with a reduced TDM. The effects of
varying bandwidth on the TDM is presented by Leman in [63] and by Bierling in [181].
The main issue with TDM is the lack of an analytical method to determine this value for a
system. Pade approximation [185] and Razumikhin Method [186, 187] has been used to
approximate the TDM. For the case of the Pade approximation, the lower bounds of the
final result it deemed to be too conservative. The Razumikhin Method provides reasonable
results for scalar system, however that still leads to conservative values for the TDM. As a
result, within the scope of this study, the TDM is calculated through simulation.
The state space of a system with no delays has the following representation:
4. 79
In the presence of delays in the input channel, the corresponding state space
representation is as follows:
4. 80
where is the delay that is introduced into the system. For all of the cases presented in
literature, and especially for LTI systems, the time delay margin is calculated by dividing
THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK AND IMPLEMENTATION
120
the phase margin with the gain crossover frequency [188]. However, for a LTV system, the
phase margin and the gain crossover frequency changes along the trajectory. Therefore,
from an analysis point of view, input delays have been added in till the point where the
system shows signs of instability.
4.7 Stability and Performance Bounds - Augmented Controller
When a piecewise constant controller is used, the following theoretical bounds can be
established [41]:
4. 81
4. 82
4. 83
4. 84
4. 85
4. 86
where , and refer to the variables and states associated with the ideal
reference system, and the constants and are positive constants. The derivation of
the bounds are not shown and can be found in [41] and [189]. To derive the bounds, the
sampling time needs to be sufficiently small. The sampling time is related to the
processing rate of the CPU. The aforementioned bounds are subject to the norm
condition:
4. 87
To carry out the proofs of stability and derive the performance bounds, the low pass filter
needs to make sure that for a given certain , there exists a so that the norm
THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK AND IMPLEMENTATION
121
condition holds, with the definitions:
, and
.
4.8 Validation of Modified Augmented Control Law
This section of the controller design looks at the validation of the modified augmented
control law as applied to a simplified case. This test is carried out to test the performance
of the controller for a simple SISO LTI test case before being applied to the hypersonic
vehicle. This is an important step in the design process as it gives confidence in the fact
that the controller does not just work for an isolated case. Rather, this section acts as a way
of proving that the controller can be applied to various classes of linear systems. There are
three different avenues to validate a controller. They are:
Flight Test
Hardware-In-the-Loop Simulations
Simulation based validation
This project considers a simulation based validation for preparation for future work.
Results in this section gives the confidence before the modified control law is applied to
the hypersonic test case. The SISO system considered as a test case is
The system considered is the roll dynamics at one point along the descent trajectory (at an
altitude of 2km). The system considered for this validation test is of the following form
4. 88
THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK AND IMPLEMENTATION
122
For this case is . is a step command and a ramp command with a gradient of
one. The uncertainties added to the system are static uncertainties: and
. The values of the matched and unmatched uncertainties are arbitrarily set for
testing purposes. The performance of the system without the augmentation, with the
original implementation of the augmentation (shown in Eq. 4. 71) and the modified
augmented control law (shown in 4. 72).
4.8.1 Nominal Case - Step and Ramp Input
The case presented here outlines the performance without the augmentation for the step
and the ramp command in the roll channel. The matched and the unmatched uncertainties
are set to zero. Both the step and the ramp command is introduced into the system at
. For both the cases, the system tracks the input without any steady state error. For
the case of the ramp input, there is a slight delay in the tracking variable. This is consistent
with systems tracking time varying commands.
Fig 4.5. System Output - Step Response
THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK AND IMPLEMENTATION
123
Fig 4.6. System Output - Ramp Input
4.8.2 Uncertainties - Step Input
The performance of the system in the presence of matched and unmatched uncertainties is
presented. The behaviour of the tracking variable is shown in Fig 4.7. Although stable, the
performance is severely degraded due to the presence of uncertainties for the case when
the augmentation is turned off.
Fig 4.7. Response to Step Input with Uncertainties
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 100
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
Time(s)
Magnitude
Output Variable Plot y_p
Input Signal
Baseline Only Response
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 100
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
3
3.5
Time(s)
Magnitude
Output Variable Plot y_p
THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK AND IMPLEMENTATION
124
To determine the transient behaviour of the modified augmented control law as compared
to the original, only the matched component of the augmentation law is utilised to test the
performance and compare it to the complete augmentation setup. Therefore, for the next
test case the adaptive control law is . The adaptive signal magnitude is shown in
Fig 4.9 which depicts the control signal compensating for the uncertainties in the system.
However, it is seen in Fig 4.8, that the performance of the system is not restored. This is
due to the unmatched uncertainties being present in the system, and the unmatched
component of the adaptive control law being turned off.
Fig 4.8. Performance of System - Matched Component of Adaptive Law
Fig 4.9. Adaptive Signal Magnitude
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 100
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
1.2
1.4
1.6
Time(s)
Magnitude
Output Variable Plot y_p
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10-0.05
-0.045
-0.04
-0.035
-0.03
-0.025
-0.02
-0.015
-0.01
-0.005
0
Time(s)
Adaptive C
ontr
ol S
ignal
Adaptive Control Commanded Signal
THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK AND IMPLEMENTATION
125
As the unmatched contribution of the control law is not considered in the above diagram,
there is a steady state error that is introduced into the tracking variable. The plots of the
original control law (which involves inverting the system dynamics), and the modified
control law (which involves using the inverse DC gain of the system dynamics) are shown
in Fig 4.10 and Fig 4.11. The modified control law exhibits a slightly larger overshoot and a
slightly slower response as compared to the original adaptive control law. However, the
advantage of avoiding the inversion of the system dynamics is seen as enough of an
advantage to allow this slight worsening in the performance.
Fig 4.10. System Performance - Unmatched Component Turned On
Fig 4.11. Adaptive Signal Contribution (Original and Modified)
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10-0.2
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
1.2
Time(s)
Tra
ckin
g V
ariable
Performance Comparison
Original Control Law
Modified Control Law
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10-0.07
-0.06
-0.05
-0.04
-0.03
-0.02
-0.01
0
Time(s)
Tra
ckin
g V
ariable
Adaptive Signal Contribution
Original Control Law
Modified Control Law
THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK AND IMPLEMENTATION
126
The steady state behaviour of both the adaptive control laws is identical. However, the
transient behaviour shows a difference. The modified controller with its inverted DC gain
of the system dynamics shows a slower response. This can be seen by the behaviour of the
adaptive signal. The red line in Fig 4.11 reaches it steady state value a bit later than the
black line.
4.8.3 Uncertainties - Ramp Input
In the presence of uncertainties, the performance of the system to a ramp input is shown in
Fig 4.12. The black line in the figure is the commanded signal. Once again, although the
response is stable, the performance is significantly degraded due to the presence of
uncertainties without the augmentation.
The blue and the green lines show the performance of the system with the original and the
modified adaptive control law. Once again the steady state performance for both the
augmentation is identical. The transient behaviour is similar as to the once seen with the
step input. The transient behaviour is only slightly worse at the very start of the
simulation.
Fig 4.12. System Performance
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10-2
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
Time(s)
Magnitude
Ramp Input Test with Uncertainties
Input Signal
Output without Augmentation
Original Implementation of Augmentation
Modified Implementation of Augmentation
THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK AND IMPLEMENTATION
127
4.9 Conclusion
This chapter has outlined the theory that underlines the two control methodologies that
are implemented and tested during this research project. The underpinning concepts of
the PPC and the adaptive controller are outlined in this chapter. This chapter also
outlines the underlying mathematical concepts that govern the two control methodologies.
Furthermore, the modified adaptive control law is validated using a simulation based
study. The modified augmented controller has been presented along with a simulation
based validation of the augmented controller. An augmented controller for an LTV
nonminimum phase state feedback system has been presented. Using this modification
eliminates ASSUMPTION 5 (see Section 4.4.2).
The following chapter outlines the test cases and scenarios used to test the robustness and
performance of the PPC and the augmented adaptive controller. Sources of
uncertainties are also defined in Chapter 5. Chapter 5 also presents the performance and
robustness analysis of the controllers.
CONTROLLER PERFORMANCE COMPARISON
128
5. CONTROLLER PERFORMANCE COMPARISON
5.1 Introduction
This chapter presents the results obtained through nonlinear simulations of the SISO
longitudinal and SISO lateral/directional baseline and the augmented controllers.
Section 5.2 contains the analysis of the baseline controller. The pole-zero plots of the
baseline controllers at various points along the trajectory are analysed for the stability and
property. Section 5.3 presents the comparative results between the PPC and the
augmented controllers for the longitudinal dynamics. Section 5.4 presents the results of the
lateral/directional control strategies employed to control the glider once the pull up
manoeuvre has been carried out. A detailed comparison of the performance of the PPC
and the augmented controllers is given in these sub sections. Section 5.5 presents an
analysis of the uncertainties in the systems and presents a fundamental difference between
the controllers that leads to a difference in performance. Section 5.6 presents a TDM
analysis of the longitudinal and lateral controllers. Section 5.7 presents the main
conclusions drawn from this chapter.
5.2 Baseline Controller
The baseline controller is a dynamic pole placement controller, wherein the desired
dynamics of the closed loop system are defined as a function of the dynamic pressure.
Therefore, it is important to ensure that the poles of the closed loop system are stable.
5.2.1 Longitudinal Controller
The longitudinal controller carries out the pull-up manoeuvre. This manoeuvre is
extremely aggressive and demanding for the controller. Therefore, during the manoeuvre
it is important to ensure that the synthesis process has produced a controller that it
stabilises the plant. In order to determine the stability of the baseline controller, the pole
zero plot is utilised. This is depicted in Fig 5.1. All of the poles are placed on the left hand
CONTROLLER PERFORMANCE COMPARISON
129
side of the imaginary axis. This signifies stability. One of the zeros of the system is on the
right hand side of the imaginary axis. This is the nonminimum phase behaviour eluded to
in Section 2.3.
Fig 5.1. Pole Zero Plot of Closed Loop Dynamics - Longitudinal Dynamics
5.2.2 Lateral/Directional Controller
The pole-zero plots is utilised to depict the stability roll and sideslip dynamics. Both the
pole-zero plots show that the systems are stable for the duration of the flight. All of the
poles are on the left hand side on the imaginary plane which means that the systems are
stable (see Fig 5.2 and Fig 5.3). The directions of the arrow is the direction of the poles take
as the vehicle descends and the controller carries out the lateral/directional manoeuvre.
-50 -40 -30 -20 -10 0 10 20 30 40 50-6
-4
-2
0
2
4
60.80.950.9780.99
0.995
0.998
0.999
1
1
0.80.950.9780.99
0.995
0.998
0.999
1
11020304050
Pole-Zero Map
Real Axis (seconds-1)
Imagin
ary
Axis
(seconds
-1)
CONTROLLER PERFORMANCE COMPARISON
130
Fig 5.2. Pole Zero Plot of Closed Loop Lateral Dynamics
Fig 5.3. Pole Zero Plot of Closed Loop Directional Dynamics
The robustness analysis of the lateral and the longitudinal controllers is outlined in Section
5.6.
-8 -7 -6 -5 -4 -3 -2 -1 0-6
-4
-2
0
2
4
60.120.240.360.480.620.76
0.88
0.97
0.120.240.360.480.620.76
0.88
0.97
12345678
Pole-Zero Map
Real Axis (seconds-1)
Imagin
ary
Axis
(seconds
-1)
-6 -5 -4 -3 -2 -1 0-3
-2
-1
0
1
2
30.160.340.50.640.760.86
0.94
0.985
0.160.340.50.640.760.86
0.94
0.985
123456
Pole-Zero Map
Real Axis (seconds-1)
Imagin
ary
Axis
(seconds
-1)
CONTROLLER PERFORMANCE COMPARISON
131
5.3 Longitudinal Control – Baseline and Augmentation
To evaluate and establish the performance of the pole placement and augmented
controllers, the descent trajectory analysis is performed using several different scenarios. It
is important to note that the implementation of the adaptive controller is not changed for
the different scenarios. The different test scenarios are outlined in Table 5.1.
Table 5.1. Simulation Scenarios
Nominal conditions. The aerodynamic parameters as per the GHAME database: PPC S1
Nominal conditions. The aerodynamic parameters are not changed and are used as
per the GHAME database: augmented controller
S2
PPC with gravimetric errors S3
augmented controller with gravimetric errors S4
PPC with reduced actuator functionality S5
augmented controller with reduced actuator functionality S6
PPC with aerodynamic uncertainties. S7
augmented controller with aerodynamic uncertainties. S8
PPC with time varying aerodynamic uncertainties S9
augmented controller with time varying aerodynamic uncertainties S10
PPC with a combination of errors S11
augmented controller with a combination of errors S12
All the scenarios are analysed using Monte Carlo simulations in CADAC++. In flight, all
experiments contain an INS module. Therefore, by default the sensor module has been
turned on. The benchmark scenario is in the presence of sensor dynamics and no
uncertainties. Table 5.2 contains the initial conditions for the trajectory control simulation
case.
Table 5.2. Simulation Parameters: Initial Conditions
Altitude
(km)
Pitch
Angle
(deg)
Angle of
Attack
(deg)
Velocity
(m/s)
Roll
Angle
(deg)
Heading
angle
(deg)
Flight Path
angle (deg)
55 -47 23 2381 (Mach
6.60)
0 0 -70
CONTROLLER PERFORMANCE COMPARISON
132
5.3.1 Results and Analysis
The benchmark test case (S1 and S2) of the flight path angle controller is presented in Fig
5.4. The pull up manoeuvre is carried out using the flight path angle command. The flight
path angle controller is able to perform the pull manoeuvre and tracks the desired flight
path angle. The controller has authority when the error between the commanded and the
actual flight path angle starts reducing. This is also the point where no further spikes are
seen by the augmented controller. This signifies, that once control authority is present, the
estimator states in the controller follow the actual vehicle states. According to Fig 5.4
and Fig 5.15 the error starts reducing at around 9 seconds at an altitude of 38km. At this
altitude the density is high enough for the control surfaces to create enough control
moment for the vehicle to start tracking the commanded variable.
Fig 5.4. Benchmark Case (S1 and S2)
0 10 20 30 40 50 60-70
-60
-50
-40
-30
Time (s)
(d
eg)
Flight Path Angle Tracking
Commanded
Baseline
Augmentation
0 10 20 30 40 50 600
2
4
6x 10
4
Time (s)
Altitude (
m)
Altitude Profile
Trajectory - Baseline
Trajectory - Augmentation
0 10 20 30 40 50 60-40
-20
0
20
40
Time (s)
(
deg)
Control Surface Deflection
- Baseline
- Augmentation
CONTROLLER PERFORMANCE COMPARISON
133
Fig 5.5 shows the performance of the PPC and the augmented controller in the presence
of reduced control surface deflection. The test case describes a scenario when the elevens
can only deflect 30% of the commanded deflection. It is seen that the augmentation
configuration improves the performance of the baseline controller even with reduced
control surface deflection. From the control deflection it is seen that the augmented
controller reduced control surface oscillation and as a result there are reduced oscillations
in the tracking variable . This happens at around at an altitude of 38km. The
improved tracking ability is a result of the estimation of uncertainties in the Piecewise
Update Law and the reduction in oscillations is due to the low pass filter in the adaptive
controller structure.
Fig 5.5. Reduced Elevon Functionality
0 10 20 30 40 50 60-80
-60
-40
-20
Time (s)
(d
eg)
Flight Path Angle Tracking
Commanded
Baseline
Augmentation
0 10 20 30 40 50 600
2
4
6x 10
4
Time (s)
Altitude (
m)
Altitude Profile
Trajectory - Baseline
Trajectory - Augmentation
0 10 20 30 40 50 60-10
-5
0
5
10
Time (s)
(
deg)
Control Surface Deflection
- Baseline
- Augmentation
CONTROLLER PERFORMANCE COMPARISON
134
Fig 5.6 – Fig 5.11 show the performance of the baseline and the augmented controllers
in the presence of time varying errors (S9 and S10). This scenario describes a situation
where in the aerodynamic properties of the glider changes along the descent trajectory.
This can happen as the structure may be in a reduced state of functionality towards the
end of the suborbital ballistic trajectory (see Fig 1.2) and as the atmospheric conditions
change it may lead to further degradation of the aerodynamic features of the vehicle. Once
again the augmented controller is able to improve the performance of the baseline
controller from a control oscillation point of view and also from the point of view of the
oscillation in the tracking variable. The two main cases where the time varying
aerodynamic uncertainties effect the performance of the baseline controller are (Fig
5.6) and (Fig 5.10). The tracking variable along with the control surface oscillate in the
presence of time varying uncertainties in these two aerodynamic coefficients. The
augmented controller is able to reduce the oscillation in both the tracking variable and also
the control surface deflection. For the remainder of the test cases, the behaviour of the
augmented controller and the PPC controller are similar to cases S1 and S2.
For the case when the drag coefficient is corrupted, it has an impact on the lift to drag ratio
of the vehicle. And a change in the drag characteristics leads to a change in the angle of
attack, which in turn leads to a change to the lift properties of the vehicle. And this change
in the drag coefficient and the subsequent change in the lift coefficient deviates from the
stored values of the lift coefficient in look up tables which are used to calculate the gains of
the controllers during the course of the simulation. This deviation causes the gains to take
on values that causes the fluctuations in the tracking variable.
For the case of the uncertainties in , it is a measure of the tendency of the vehicle to fly
nose first. The static stability or the longitudinal static margin of a vehicle is in direct
relation to the position of the centre of gravity and the neutral point. The static margin of a
vehicle can be estimated by calculating . From Fig 5.6, although the moment
CONTROLLER PERFORMANCE COMPARISON
135
derivative was decreased, the corresponding decrease in the lift coefficient lead to an
increase in the static margin. This is analogous to a forward move in the centre of gravity.
This leads to the aircraft becoming more stable. However, the disadvantage is that the
drag increases, which is known as trim drag, and vehicle manoeuvrability suffered as can
be clearly seen from the figure below. The decrease in manoeuvrability is depicted
through the sluggish response and the tracking ability of the flight path angle of the
vehicle.
Fig 5.6. LTV Error in (S9 and S10)
0 10 20 30 40 50 60-70
-60
-50
-40
-30
Time (s)
(d
eg)
Flight Path Angle Tracking
Commanded
Baseline
Augmentation
0 10 20 30 40 50 600
2
4
6x 10
4
Time (s)
Altitude (
m)
Altitude Profile
Trajectory - Baseline
Trajectory - Augmentation
0 10 20 30 40 50 60-40
-20
0
20
40
Time (s)
(
deg)
Control Surface Deflection
- Baseline
- Augmentation
CONTROLLER PERFORMANCE COMPARISON
136
Fig 5.7. LTV Error in (S9 and S10)
0 10 20 30 40 50 60-70
-60
-50
-40
-30
Time (s)
(d
eg)
Flight Path Angle Tracking
Commanded
Baseline
Augmentation
0 10 20 30 40 50 600
2
4
6x 10
4
Time (s)
Altitude (
m)
Altitude Profile
Trajectory - Baseline
Trajectory - Augmentation
0 10 20 30 40 50 60-40
-20
0
20
40
Time (s)
(
deg)
Control Surface Deflection
- Baseline
- Augmentation
CONTROLLER PERFORMANCE COMPARISON
137
Fig 5.8. LTV error in (S9 and S10)
0 10 20 30 40 50 60-70
-60
-50
-40
-30
Time (s)
(d
eg)
Flight Path Angle Tracking
Commanded
Baseline
Augmentation
0 10 20 30 40 50 600
2
4
6x 10
4
Time (s)
Altitude (
m)
Altitude Profile
Trajectory - Baseline
Trajectory - Augmentation
0 10 20 30 40 50 60-40
-20
0
20
40
Time (s)
(
deg)
Control Surface Deflection
- Baseline
- Augmentation
CONTROLLER PERFORMANCE COMPARISON
138
Fig 5.9. LTV Error in (S9 and S10)
0 10 20 30 40 50 60-70
-60
-50
-40
-30
Time (s)
(d
eg)
Flight Path Angle Tracking
Commanded
Baseline
Augmentation
0 10 20 30 40 50 600
2
4
6x 10
4
Time (s)
Altitude (
m)
Altitude Profile
Trajectory - Baseline
Trajectory - Augmentation
0 10 20 30 40 50 60-40
-20
0
20
40
Time (s)
(
deg)
Control Surface Deflection
- Baseline
- Augmentation
CONTROLLER PERFORMANCE COMPARISON
139
Fig 5.10. LTV Error in (S9 and S10)
0 10 20 30 40 50 60-70
-60
-50
-40
-30
Time (s)
(d
eg)
Flight Path Angle Tracking
Commanded
Baseline
Augmentation
0 10 20 30 40 50 600
2
4
6x 10
4
Time (s)
Altitude (
m)
Altitude Profile
Trajectory - Baseline
Trajectory - Augmentation
0 10 20 30 40 50 60-40
-20
0
20
40
Time (s)
(
deg)
Control Surface Deflection
- Baseline
- Augmentation
CONTROLLER PERFORMANCE COMPARISON
140
Fig 5.11. LTV Error in (S9 and S10)
0 10 20 30 40 50 60-70
-60
-50
-40
-30
Time (s)
(d
eg)
Flight Path Angle Tracking
Commanded
Baseline
Augmentation
0 10 20 30 40 50 600
2
4
6x 10
4
Time (s)
Altitude (
m)
Altitude Profile
Trajectory - Baseline
Trajectory - Augmentation
0 10 20 30 40 50 60-40
-20
0
20
40
Time (s)
(
deg)
Control Surface Deflection
- Baseline
- Augmentation
CONTROLLER PERFORMANCE COMPARISON
141
Table 5.3 presents the results of S3 and S4, S7 and S8 and S11 and S12. Table 5.3 outlines
the mean altitude and flight path angle and the corresponding standard deviations. The
most important test case to be analysed is the combination of errors. In this case the
augmented controller is successful in reducing the standard deviation of the final altitude
and also reduces control surface oscillations.
Table 5.3. Uncertainties Analysis Monte Carlo Simulation (S3 and S4, S7 and S8, S11 and S12)
At 60 seconds (Baseline) At 60 seconds (Baseline +
Augmentation)
Mean Standard
Deviation
Mean Standard
Deviation
Gravimetric
Uncertainties
Altitude (m) 6319.72 210.60 6166.90 20.11
Flight Path
Angle (deg)
-55.67 0.02 -54.80 0.0058
Aerodynamic
Uncertainties
Altitude (m) 6252.78 309.35 5926.57 501.68
Flight Path
Angle (deg)
-55.69 0.13 -54.84 0.06
Combination
of
Uncertainties
Altitude (m) 5643.33 1527.48 5529.40 1352.92
Flight Path
Angle (deg)
-55.88 0.18 -56.04 0.12
Fig 5.12 depicts the performance of the PPC and the augmented controller in the
presence of gravimetric errors. The changes in the moments and products of inertia
represents a change in the position of the centre of gravity, which leads to differences in
the values of the aerodynamic and control coefficients as compared to the nominal case.
This difference is the cause of the oscillations. These differences and oscillations are also
consistent in the case of aerodynamics uncertainties and also when there are a
combination of uncertainties present. The augmented controller is able to cancel these
oscillations. Having cancelled out these oscillations, the augmented controller is able to
track the flight path angle. The performance of the augmented controller is
consequently better than the PPC.
CONTROLLER PERFORMANCE COMPARISON
142
Fig 5.12. Gravimetric Errors (S3 and S4)
0 10 20 30 40 50 60-80
-60
-40
-20
Time(s)
(d
eg)
Flight Path Angle Tracking
0 10 20 30 40 50 600
2
4
6x 10
4
Time(s)
altitude (
m)
Altitude Profile
0 10 20 30 40 50 60-40
-20
0
20
40
Time(s)
(
deg)
Control Surface Deflection
Commanded
Baseline
Augmentation
Trajectory - Baseline
Trajectory - Augmentation
- Baseline
- Augmentation
CONTROLLER PERFORMANCE COMPARISON
143
Fig 5.13. Aerodynamic Uncertainties
Fig 5.13 shows the performance of the PPC and augmented controller in the presence of
aerodynamic errors. Once again the augmented controller is able to cancel the oscillations
in the tracking variable and also the control surface deflections. This alleviates the load on
the structure of the glider. So the augmented controller proves to be advantageous from
a control and structural point of view. As seen in Fig 5.6, uncertainties with can cause
the response of the flight path angle to be more sluggish. The differences initial responses
in Fig 5.13 is also due to the uncertainties in .
0 10 20 30 40 50 60-80
-60
-40
-20
Time(s)
(d
eg)
Flight Path Angle Tracking
0 10 20 30 40 50 600
2
4
6x 10
4
Time(s)
altitude (
m)
Altitude Profile
0 10 20 30 40 50 60-40
-20
0
20
40
Time(s)
(
deg)
Control Surface Deflection
Commanded
Baseline
Augmentation
Trajectory - Baseline
Trajectory - Augmentation
- Baseline
- Augmentation
CONTROLLER PERFORMANCE COMPARISON
144
Fig 5.14. Combination of Errors
Fig 5.14 shows the performance of the PPC and the augmented controller in the
presence of aerodynamic, gravimetric and actuators uncertainties. This test case is the
most realistic test case as it is most likely that the errors that occur won’t occur
individually. Therefore, it is important to test the robustness of the controller for multiple
uncertainties in the system. The augmented controller significantly improves the
performance of the baseline controller in cancelling oscillations in the flight path angle and
also the control surface deflection.
0 10 20 30 40 50 60-80
-60
-40
-20
Time(s)
(d
eg)
Flight Path Angle Tracking
0 10 20 30 40 50 600
2
4
6x 10
4
Time(s)
altitude (
m)
Altitude Profile
0 10 20 30 40 50 60-10
-5
0
5
10
Time(s)
(
deg)
Control Surface Deflection
Commanded
Baseline
Augmentation
Trajectory - Baseline
Trajectory - Augmentation
- Baseline
- Augmentation
CONTROLLER PERFORMANCE COMPARISON
145
– Norm of Tracking Error
The tracking error norm is employed to compare the performance of the baseline to
the augmented controller. The tracking error norm is
5. 1
For the nominal case for the baseline controller, is 6.51. The
for the
augmented set up for the nominal case is 8.06. Table 5.4 outlines the for the case for
time invariance errors.
Table 5.4. Tracking Error Norm – Monte Carlo Runs
Baseline Augmentation Percentage
Improvement (%)
Gravimetric 7.68 7.33 4.56
Aerodynamic 7.58 6.78 10.55
Combination 14.89 12.78 14.22
The for the time varying case is shown in Table 5.5.
Table 5.5. Tracking Error Norm for Time Varying Errors
Baseline Augmentation Percentage
Improvement (%)
8.88 5.76 35.06
15.67 14.07 10.21
12.56 10.68 14.97
12.64 12.76 -0.95
15.68 13.21 15.75
14.14 14.11 0.21
CONTROLLER PERFORMANCE COMPARISON
146
From Table 5.4 and Table 5.5 the following conclusions are drawn:
For the cases where there is a change in of less than 10%, it is regarded
that the PPC and the augmented controllers give no difference in
performance.
The two main cases where the augmentation improves the performance of the
baseline is time varying changes of and .
The augmentation significantly decreases in the presence of gravimetric,
aerodynamic uncertainties and combination of errors. It is important to point out
that the combination of errors is the most important test case, as that test case
most accurately describes what could happen in a real test flight. Therefore, the
improvement of the performance of the tracking error norm is particularly
important and promising with the augmented controller.
Tracking Error and Tracking Error Acceleration
The error dynamics and its acceleration is utilised as a performance metric to compare the
performance of the PPC and the augmented controller. It is seen that for all the cases of
uncertainties (Fig 5.15 – Fig 5.25), the rate of change of the error dynamic settles at zero
quicker for the augmented controller as compared with the baseline controller. This
means that the augmented controller improves the settling time of the tracking
variable. Another important fact to note is that the steady state error is significantly
improved when the augmentation is turned on. This is evident from the steady state value
of .
CONTROLLER PERFORMANCE COMPARISON
147
Fig 5.15. Benchmark Scenario (S1 and S2)
Fig 5.16. Reduced Actuator Functionality (S5 and S6)
0 2000 4000 6000 8000 10000 12000-20
-15
-10
-5
0
5
10
15
20
Time(s)
eP (
trackin
g e
rror
- deg)
Output Variable Tracking Error
eP - Baseline
eP - Augmentation
0 2000 4000 6000 8000 10000 12000-20
-15
-10
-5
0
5
10
15
20
Simulation Time Steps
e
P /
t
Error Dynamics Acceleration
eP / t - Baseline
eP / t - Augmentation
0 2000 4000 6000 8000 10000 12000-20
-15
-10
-5
0
5
10
15
20
Time(s)
eP (
trackin
g e
rror
- deg)
Output Variable Tracking Error
eP - Baseline
eP - Augmentation
0 2000 4000 6000 8000 10000 12000-20
-15
-10
-5
0
5
10
15
20
Simulation Time Steps
e
P /
t
Error Dynamics Acceleration
eP / t - Baseline
eP / t - Augmentation
CONTROLLER PERFORMANCE COMPARISON
148
Fig 5.17. Time Varying Uncertainty
Fig 5.18. Error Dynamics and Acceleration
0 2000 4000 6000 8000 10000 12000-20
-15
-10
-5
0
5
10
15
20
Time(s)
eP (
trackin
g e
rror
- deg)
Output Variable Tracking Error
eP - Baseline
eP - Augmentation
0 2000 4000 6000 8000 10000 12000-20
-15
-10
-5
0
5
10
15
20
Simulation Time Steps
e
P /
t
Error Dynamics Acceleration
eP / t - Baseline
eP / t - Augmentation
0 2000 4000 6000 8000 10000 12000-20
-15
-10
-5
0
5
10
15
20
Time(s)
eP (
trackin
g e
rror
- deg)
Output Variable Tracking Error
eP - Baseline
eP - Augmentation
0 2000 4000 6000 8000 10000 12000-20
-15
-10
-5
0
5
10
15
20
Simulation Time Steps
e
P /
t
Error Dynamics Acceleration
eP / t - Baseline
eP / t - Augmentation
CONTROLLER PERFORMANCE COMPARISON
149
Fig 5.19. Error Dynamics and Acceleration
Fig 5.20. Error Dynamics and Acceleration
0 2000 4000 6000 8000 10000 12000-20
-15
-10
-5
0
5
10
15
20
Time(s)
eP (
trackin
g e
rror
- deg)
Output Variable Tracking Error
eP - Baseline
eP - Augmentation
0 2000 4000 6000 8000 10000 12000-20
-15
-10
-5
0
5
10
15
20
Simulation Time Steps
e
P /
t
Error Dynamics Acceleration
eP / t - Baseline
eP / t - Augmentation
0 2000 4000 6000 8000 10000 12000-20
-15
-10
-5
0
5
10
15
20
Time(s)
eP (
trackin
g e
rror
- deg)
Output Variable Tracking Error
eP - Baseline
eP - Augmentation
0 2000 4000 6000 8000 10000 12000-20
-15
-10
-5
0
5
10
15
20
Simulation Time Steps
e
P /
t
Error Dynamics Acceleration
eP / t - Baseline
eP / t - Augmentation
CONTROLLER PERFORMANCE COMPARISON
150
Fig 5.21. Error Dynamics and Acceleration
Fig 5.22. Error Dynamics and Acceleration
0 2000 4000 6000 8000 10000 12000-20
-15
-10
-5
0
5
10
15
20
Time(s)
eP (
trackin
g e
rror
- deg)
Output Variable Tracking Error
eP - Baseline
eP - Augmentation
0 2000 4000 6000 8000 10000 12000-20
-15
-10
-5
0
5
10
15
20
Simulation Time Steps
e
P /
t
Error Dynamics Acceleration
eP / t - Baseline
eP / t - Augmentation
0 2000 4000 6000 8000 10000 12000-20
-15
-10
-5
0
5
10
15
20
Time(s)
eP (
trackin
g e
rror
- deg)
Output Variable Tracking Error
eP - Baseline
eP - Augmentation
0 2000 4000 6000 8000 10000 12000-20
-15
-10
-5
0
5
10
15
20
Simulation Time Steps
e
P /
t
Error Dynamics Acceleration
eP / t - Baseline
eP / t - Augmentation
CONTROLLER PERFORMANCE COMPARISON
151
Fig 5.23. Gravimetric Uncertainties
Fig 5.24. Aerodynamic Uncertainties
0 2000 4000 6000 8000 10000 12000-15
-10
-5
0
5
10
15
Simulation Time Steps
eP (
trackin
g e
rror)
Output Variable Tracking Error
0 2000 4000 6000 8000 10000 12000-20
-15
-10
-5
0
5
10
15
20
Simulation Time Steps
e
P /
t
Error Dynamics Acceleration
eP - Baseline
eP - Augmentation
eP / t - Baseline
eP / t - Augmentation
0 2000 4000 6000 8000 10000 12000-15
-10
-5
0
5
10
15
Simulation Time Steps
eP (
trackin
g e
rror)
Output Variable Tracking Error
0 2000 4000 6000 8000 10000 12000-20
-15
-10
-5
0
5
10
15
20
Simulation Time Steps
e
P /
t
Error Dynamics Acceleration
eP - Baseline
eP - Augmentation
eP / t - Baseline
eP / t - Augmentation
CONTROLLER PERFORMANCE COMPARISON
152
Fig 5.25. Combination of Uncertainties
Control Signal Metric
The benchmark case (only baseline) in the absence of uncertainties is taken as the reference
system. The deflection of this reference system (nominal system without uncertainties) is
labelled as . The baseline control signal in the presence of uncertainties is denoted via
and the control signal in the augmented controller is denoted via . The energy of
the deviation between the reference system and the control signal in the presence of
uncertainties is defined as a normalised metric for the control signal [180]. The control
surface deflection for the different test cases deviates from the maximum deflection limit
of at different times. Consequently, the norm (the maximum overshoot from the
reference deflection) is not utilised as the value for all the cases would be . As there is a
distinct transition from the point in time the controller stops working in open loop
(maximum control deflection) and starts tracking the output variable, this transition from
open to closed loop could is best captured using the norm as it best highlights the
oscillations of the augmented and baseline control surface deflections as compared to the
nominal case. It also provides a measure of both actuator position and rate limits [180].
In the presence of uncertainties if ; this signifies a reduction in the energy
usage of the control surfaces when the augmented controller is used. This in turn means
0 2000 4000 6000 8000 10000 12000-5
0
5
10
15
20
Simulation Time Steps
eP (
trackin
g e
rror)
Output Variable Tracking Error
0 2000 4000 6000 8000 10000 12000-20
-15
-10
-5
0
5
10
15
20
Simulation Time Steps
e
P /
t
Error Dynamics Acceleration
eP - Baseline
eP - Augmentation
eP / t - Baseline
eP / t - Augmentation
CONTROLLER PERFORMANCE COMPARISON
153
that the augmented controller reduces the load on the hinge joints and the subsequent
structure. The control surface metric is shown in Eq. 5. 2. From the results it is seen that
once the augmented controller is turned on, the control effort that is added by the
adaptive controller attempts to bring the system’s behaviour closer to the desired
behaviour to that of the reference system. Hence, the adaptation successfully carries out its
intended task.
5. 2
Table 5.6 outlines and for the test cases.
Table 5.6. Control Surface Metric
Baseline ( Augmentation Improvement (%)
(LTV) 5.364 5.142 4.32
(LTV) 1.389 0.139 90.0
Actuator
Uncertainties
0.246 0.223 9.35
Gravimetric
Errors
0.232 0.097 58.2
Aerodynamic
Uncertainties
1.283 0.877 31.6
Combination
of Errors
0.680 0.49 27.9
Most of the uncertainty test cases presented in Table 5.6 shows a reduction in the control
metric when the augmented controller is turned on. For the test cases not presented in
Table 5.6, there was a minimal change in the metric. It is seen that for most of the cases
< . This means that the augmentation not only cancels out the uncertainties and
improves the performance of the baseline controller, it also manages to decrease the
amount of energy usage by the control surface. This in turn reduces the oscillations in the
tracking variable and also alleviates the structural load.
CONTROLLER PERFORMANCE COMPARISON
154
5.4 Lateral and Directional Control
In order to evaluate and establish the performance and robustness of the pole placement
and adaptive controllers, the manoeuvres are performed using several different
scenarios. It is important to note that the implementation of the controllers are not
changed for the different scenarios. The test cases are
Table 5.7. Simulation Scenarios – Lateral/Directional
Nominal Conditions: perfect state feedback. Baseline controller L1
Pole Placement Controller with rudder failure L2
Pole Placement Controller with reduced aileron functionality L3
Pole Placement Controller with gravimetric errors L4
Pole Placement Controller in the presence of aerodynamic uncertainties L5
Pole Placement Controller in the presence of combination of L2-L5. L6
Augmented Controller under nominal conditions L7
Augmented Controller with rudder failure L8
Augmented Controller with reduced aileron functionality L9
Augmented Controller with Gravimetric Errors L10
Augmented Controller in the presence of aerodynamic uncertainties L11
Augmented Controller in the presence of combination of L2-L5 L12
5.4.1 Results and Analysis
Table 5.8 presents the initial conditions for the trajectory control simulation case.
Table 5.8. Conditions - Trajectory Control
Altitude
(km)
Pitch
Angle
(deg)
Angle of
Attack
(deg)
Velocity
(m/s)
Roll
Angle
(deg)
Heading
angle
(deg)
Flight Path
angle (deg)
6.00 -53.83 1.86 221.02
(Mach
0.65)
0 0 -55.70
A pulsed roll-manoeuvre (3 pulses) is carried out on the descent trajectory to display the
effectiveness of the controllers in varying atmospheric conditions. This tests the
CONTROLLER PERFORMANCE COMPARISON
155
performance and robustness of the scheduled baseline controller where the desired
dynamics are a function of dynamic pressure (see Fig 6.11 for the dynamic pressure).
Fig 5.26. Roll Angle Tracking - Benchmark Case (L1 and L7)
In the benchmark case, the PPC is able to track the desired roll angle. In the presence of no
uncertainties, the augmented controller is unable to improve the performance of the
baseline controller. This indicates that the baseline controller has stabilised the system
under nominal conditions and perform well under nominal conditions. This point is
0 10 20 30 40 50 60-10
0
10
20
30
Time (s)
(
deg)
Roll Angle Tracking
Commanded
Baseline
Augmentation
0 10 20 30 40 50 601000
2000
3000
4000
5000
6000
7000
Time (s)
Altitude (
m)
Altitude Profile
Trajectory - Baseline
Trajectory - Augmentation
0 10 20 30 40 50 60-6
-4
-2
0
2
4
Time (s)
(
deg)
Control Surface Deflection - aileron
a - Baseline
a - Augmentation
CONTROLLER PERFORMANCE COMPARISON
156
further highlighted by the difference in the tracking error norm in the nominal case as
presented in Table 5.9.
Fig 5.27. Reduced aileron deflection (L3 and L9)
In the case of reduced aileron function, the baseline controller in Fig 5.27 shows
significantly less oscillations as compared to the augmented controller. Once the
augmentation is operational, although the steady state tracking ability of the controller
improves, the oscillations increase in the transient period.
0 10 20 30 40 50 60-10
0
10
20
30
40
Time (s)
(
deg)
Roll Angle Tracking
Commanded
Baseline
Augmentation
0 10 20 30 40 50 601000
2000
3000
4000
5000
6000
7000
Time (s)
Altitude (
m)
Altitude Profile
Trajectory - Baseline
Trajectory - Augmentation
0 10 20 30 40 50 60-3
-2
-1
0
1
2
Time (s)
(
deg)
Control Surface Deflection - aileron
a - Baseline
a - Augmentation
CONTROLLER PERFORMANCE COMPARISON
157
Fig 5.28. Asymmetric Elevon Deflection (L3 and L9)
The asymmetric deflection is defined as 10%, which means that there is a 10% difference in
the deflection between the left and right elevon. The baseline controller for the first two
commanded pulses shows inability to track the desired value in the form of a steady state
error. However, the augmented controller from the very start of the simulation is able
to track the desired roll angle. The importance of this test case lies in the realistic nature of
the uncertainty. Uncertainties are not likely to occur in a symmetric manner. Therefore, the
improved performance with the augmented controller is especially encouraging.
0 10 20 30 40 50 60-10
0
10
20
30
40
Time (s)
(
deg)
Roll Angle Tracking
Commanded
Baseline
Augmentation
0 10 20 30 40 50 601000
2000
3000
4000
5000
6000
7000
Time (s)
Altitude (
m)
Altitude Profile
Trajectory - Baseline
Trajectory - Augmentation
0 10 20 30 40 50 60-6
-4
-2
0
2
4
Time (s)
(
deg)
Control Surface Deflection - aileron
a - Baseline
a - Augmentation
CONTROLLER PERFORMANCE COMPARISON
158
Fig 5.29. Gravimetric Errors (L4 and L10)
Fig 5.29 highlights that the gravimetric uncertainties do not have a profound impact on the
performance of the PPC and the augmented controller. However, the augmented
controller does improve the steady state tracking ability and the settling time of the PPC
controller.
0 10 20 30 40 50 60-10
0
10
20
30
40
Time(s)
(
deg)
Roll Angle Tracking
0 10 20 30 40 50 601000
2000
3000
4000
5000
6000
7000
Time(s)
altitude (
m)
Altitude Profile
0 10 20 30 40 50 60-6
-4
-2
0
2
4
Time(s)
a (
deg)
Control Surface Deflection
Commanded
Baseline
Augmentation
Trajectory - Baseline
Trajectory - Augmentation
a - Baseline
a - Augmentation
CONTROLLER PERFORMANCE COMPARISON
159
Fig 5.30. Aerodynamic uncertainties (L5 and L11)
In the presence of aerodynamic uncertainties, once again the differences between the PPC
and the augmented controller aren’t too pronounced. However, it does seem that the
augmentation performs better in the transition region and also has a reduced steady state
error as compared to the baseline. It can also be seen from the diagram, that the steady
state value is reached quicker when the augmentation as compared to the baseline. This
means that the augmentation improves the overall performance of the baseline controller
in the presence of aerodynamic uncertainties.
0 10 20 30 40 50 60-10
0
10
20
30
40
Time(s)
(
deg)
Roll Angle Tracking
0 10 20 30 40 50 601000
2000
3000
4000
5000
6000
7000
Time(s)
altitude (
m)
Altitude Profile
0 10 20 30 40 50 60-6
-4
-2
0
2
4
Time(s)
a (
deg)
Control Surface Deflection
Commanded
Baseline
Augmentation
Trajectory - Baseline
Trajectory - Augmentation
a - Baseline
a - Augmentation
CONTROLLER PERFORMANCE COMPARISON
160
Fig 5.31. Rudder Failure: -7.5 to 7.5 degrees (L2 and L8)
The rudder failure case presented in this research is when the rudder is stuck between -7.5
and 7.5 degrees. The PPC fails (although stable) to track the desired value. Despite the
severe failure the augmented controller is able to track the desired roll angle. The
aileron deflection increases for the augmented controller in order to correct for this error.
0 10 20 30 40 50 60-20
0
20
40
60
80
Time(s)
(
deg)
Roll Angle Tracking
0 10 20 30 40 50 601000
2000
3000
4000
5000
6000
7000
Time(s)
altitude (
m)
Altitude Profile
0 10 20 30 40 50 60-6
-4
-2
0
2
4
Time(s)
a (
deg)
Control Surface Deflection
Commanded
Baseline
Augmentation
Trajectory - Baseline
Trajectory - Augmentation
a - Baseline
a - Augmentation
CONTROLLER PERFORMANCE COMPARISON
161
Fig 5.32. Combination of errors (L6 and L12)
The most realistic case in terms of dealing with uncertainties is shown in Fig 5.32. Before
the pull out phase of the trajectory the glider will most likely have a multitude of
uncertainties. None of the uncertainties mentioned up to this point occur as an isolated
event. The uncertainties that are introduced into the system include aerodynamic
uncertainties, gravimetric uncertainties, actuator uncertainties (asymmetric elevon
0 10 20 30 40 50 60-60
-40
-20
0
20
40
60
Time(s)
(
deg)
Roll Angle Tracking
0 10 20 30 40 50 600
2000
4000
6000
8000
Time(s)
altitude (
m)
Altitude Profile
0 10 20 30 40 50 60-6
-4
-2
0
2
4
Time(s)
a (
deg)
Control Surface Deflection
Commanded
Baseline
Augmentation
Trajectory - Baseline
Trajectory - Augmentation
a - Baseline
a - Augmentation
CONTROLLER PERFORMANCE COMPARISON
162
deflection) and rudder failure (-7.5 to 7.5 degrees). As shown in Fig 5.32, the PPC,
although stable, is unable to track the desired roll angle. Under some conditions, the value
of the roll angle reaches as high as and as low as . The augmented controller is
able to track the commanded roll angle even in the presence of such uncertainties and
rudder failure.
Main Conclusions from Roll Angle Tracking
The main conclusions that are drawn from the test cases presented in Table 5.7 (lateral test
cases) from a performance point of view are:
The augmented controller is able to marginally improve the performance of the
baseline controller in the presence of gravimetric and aerodynamic uncertainties.
The augmented controller is able to improve the tracking ability and in turn
reduce the steady state error in the presence of asymmetric elevon deflection.
The augmented controller significantly improves the performance of the baseline
controller when there is major rudder failure (Fig 5.31). The PPC is unable to follow
the commanded roll angle, whereas the augmented controller displays minimal
steady state error when there is a rudder failure.
There is a significant improvement in the performance and tracking ability of the
controller when the augmentation is turned on in the presence of multiple
uncertainties. As seen in Fig 5.38 the augmentation is able to track the commanded
roll angle even in the presence of significant uncertainties.
For all the test cases, there is an increase in the aileron deflection (therefore in turn
the elevon deflection) when compensation for the errors that are present in the
system. This leads to an increase in the control surface metric in the
lateral/directional case as seen in Table 5.11.
CONTROLLER PERFORMANCE COMPARISON
163
Table 5.9. Roll Tracking Error Norm
Baseline Augmentation Percentage
Improvement
(%)
Baseline 26.42 26.51 -0.342
Rudder Failure (-7.5 to 7.5 deg) 71.73 25.37 64.64
Reduced elevon function 36.25 31.63 12.74
Asymmetric elevon deflection 30.87 25.93 16.02
Gravimetric uncertainties 26.21 25.37 3.24
Aerodynamic uncertainties 26.53 25.65 3.34
Combination of errors 112.20 26.99 75.94
The for the side slip angle showed minimal change therefore it has not been
presented here. The commanded sideslip angle is . There are oscillations in the sideslip
angle only when the roll controller is carrying out the roll manoeuvre. The tracking error
norm for the roll angle is shown in Table 5.9. The main conclusions and the corresponding
explanations of the behaviour of the controller are as follows:
For the benchmark case, the augmented controller is able to reduce the
tracking error norm; however the change is not significant. This leads to the
conclusion that the baseline controller has been tuned (in this research) and
satisfactorily carries out the stabilisation and tracking job in the nominal case.
The most pronounced changes in the tracking error norm are the rudder failure
cases. When there is a rudder failure, the norm is significantly worse when only
the PPC is operating. The augmentation is able to significantly reduce this
tracking error to values close to the benchmark case. This is due to the secondary
effect of deploying the rudder [190]. The rudder deflection induces a sideslip
angle (yawing motion). This leads to faster airflow over one of the elevons,
leading to this elevon generating more lift and in turn inducing a rolling
moment. And when only the baseline controller is working, it is unable to
CONTROLLER PERFORMANCE COMPARISON
164
account for it because it is unable to account for the difference between the
desired and the actual performance of the controller.
In the case of reduced elevon function, where the deflection is limited to only ,
although the tracking error norm is reduced, it is not reduced to the value that is
the case in the benchmark scenario.
In the case of asymmetrical elevon deflection, the performance of the controller is
similar to that of a failed rudder case. The different levels of deflection of the
elevons cause a difference in the local angle of attack. This leads to increased lift
on elevon with a higher deflection. This inequality in the amount of lift
generated by the control surfaces leads to the roll angle controller being unable
to track the commanded value. However, once again, the augmented controller
corrects the error and merges the actual and the desired performance.
The most important improvement is when there is a combination of errors. The
tracking error norm when only the baseline is operating is 112.20. However,
when the augmented controller is operating, the tracking error norm is 26.99.
This result is particularly encouraging and shows that in the presence of vast
amounts of uncertainties and system failures, the augmented controller gives
extremely promising improvements in terms of the tracking performance.
These differences in the performance of the baseline and the augmented controller are due
to the uncertainties that are present in the system. Under nominal conditions, the values
for the aerodynamic and control derivatives that are provided to the controller are from a
certain point in the look up tables. These values mirror what the vehicle experiences.
However, in the presence of uncertainties, the values that the flight controller are fed are
different to the ones the vehicle experiences. This difference leads to degradation in the
performance of the baseline controller. And it is this difference that the augmentation can
estimate and compensate and restore the controller behaviour close to nominal behaviour.
CONTROLLER PERFORMANCE COMPARISON
165
The same control surface metric is utilised to analyse the deflection of the elevons and the
rudder for the lateral/directional dynamics.
Table 5.10 presents the mean and the standard deviation of the altitude for the failure
cases for the lateral/directional dynamics. For the case where there are aerodynamic and
gravimetric errors, there is little improvement in terms of the standard deviation of the
altitude when the augmented controller is running. However, in the presence of rudder
failure and also a combination of errors the augmented controller significantly
improves the standard deviation. The mean altitudes for both the configurations do not
vary considerably.
Table 5.10. Altitude Mean and Standard Deviation (Lateral Test Cases)
Baseline – Mean
(Standard Deviation) –
meters
Augmentation – Mean
(Standard Deviation) -
meters
Rudder Failure
( )
1418.35 (53.81) 1437.15 (2.92)
Gravimetric uncertainties 1463.94 (39.63) 1466.56 (39.79)
Aerodynamic uncertainties 1076.92 (2.29) 1079.72 (2.28)
Combination of errors 933.70 (42.06) 957.69 (14.88)
Table 5.11. Control Surface Metric
Baseline ( Augmentation
Percentage
Change (%)
Rudder Failure
( )
1.70 2.03 19.41
Reduced elevon function 0.77 0.89 15.58
Asymmetric elevon
deflection
0.21 0.68 223.81
Gravimetric uncertainties 0.11 0.81 636.36
Aerodynamic uncertainties 0.12 0.67 458.33
Combination of errors 2.01 2.15 6.97
CONTROLLER PERFORMANCE COMPARISON
166
The main conclusions drawn from Table 5.11 are
All of the values for were greater than . As the system was decoupled, the
ailerons, and therefore in turn the elevons, have to be deflected more to account for
the uncertainties in the roll channel.
High values for are seen for the rudder failure cases, where the steady state
errors were the highest.
The highest value for is when there is a combination of errors present in the
system.
These increases in the control effort are expected, as the difference between the
performance of the baseline and augmented controllers different. The augmented
controller is able to recognise the difference in the actual and desired performance and
takes corrective measures in the form of added control deflection in the aileron channel.
5.4.2 Behaviour of Additional Lateral/Directional Aircraft States
For some of the test cases presented in this paper the rudder is inoperable. For this case,
the system loses one of its input channels and it is not possible to control both the bank
angle and sideslip angle (the two control objectives). Fig 5.33 depicts the behaviour of the
sideslip angle , roll rate and yaw rate . The behaviour shown in Fig 5.33 is for a
functioning rudder which indicates control authority in both the channels. The sideslip
angle, along with yaw and roll rate, deviate from their commanded and nominal values of
zero when the glider is commanded to carry out a roll manoeuvre.
CONTROLLER PERFORMANCE COMPARISON
167
Fig 5.33. Behaviour of Additional Aircraft States (Rudder is functioning)
Fig 5.33 with its time histories of the variables shows the effect of a roll manoeuvre on the
other aircraft states. The secondary effect of rolling is yawing. A change in the roll angle
induces a sideslip angle and consequently a change in causes a change in the yaw rate.
However due to the presence of control authority in the channel, the rudder is able to
cancel out this deviation in and null the rates.
0 10 20 30 40 50 60-2
-1
0
1
2
Time (s)
(
deg)
Sideslip Angle
0 10 20 30 40 50 60-100
-50
0
50
100
Time (s)
p (
deg/s
ec)
Roll Rate
0 10 20 30 40 50 60-20
-10
0
10
20
Time (s)
r (d
eg/s
ec)
Yaw Rate
CONTROLLER PERFORMANCE COMPARISON
168
Fig 5.34. Behaviour of Aircraft States - Presence of Uncertainties
In Fig 5.34, the plot represents the time histories of the additional aircraft states, in the
event that there is a rudder failure and is inoperable at a particular angle. As the system is
represented using two SISO models, it results in the loss of control authority in the
channel and consequently leads to the inability of the controller to track the desired
sideslip angle. This means that the ailerons, which is still functioning, has no control
authority in the channel. As a result, although the roll angle tracks the desired value
with the operating augmentation, it does not have an impact on and therefore, a non
zero value is seen in Fig 5.34.
0 10 20 30 40 50 60-4
-2
0
2
4
Time (s)
(
deg)
Sideslip Angle
0 10 20 30 40 50 60-100
0
100
200
Time (s)
p (
deg/s
ec)
Roll Rate
0 10 20 30 40 50 60-40
-20
0
20
40
Time (s)
r (d
eg/s
ec)
Yaw Rate
CONTROLLER PERFORMANCE COMPARISON
169
The main limitation of SISO controllers is that the functioning ailerons do not have control
authority in the directional channel when there is a rudder failure. This aspect of the
behaviour of the controller synthesis is highlighted in Fig 5.34. Even with the
augmentation on, the sideslip angle is not tracked in the case of a rudder failure.
Therefore, for future work the application of a MIMO baseline controller to control the
lateral/directional dynamics is to be considered. With a MIMO controller, the oscillations
and steady state errors in the sideslip angle channel could be compensated when a roll
angle is commanded. This is due to the fact that the control surfaces have control authority
on the tracking variables, as can be seen in Eq. 5.3. Furthermore, when there is a rudder
failure, the functioning aileron cannot cancel out the effects that the failed rudder has on
the sideslip angle. This is due to the limitations introduced at the modelling stage as a
result of the decoupling. The decoupling and its corresponding limitations are presented
next.
The fourth order MIMO representation of the lateral dynamics have been discussed in
Chapter 3 (Section 3.2.2 Eq. 3. 13). The decoupled lateral/directional dynamics are shown
in Eq. 3. 17 and 3. 19. In the MIMO case, the sideslip angle can be controlled through the
aileron , and the rudder . This means that even if the rudder experiences a failure, the
sideslip angle can be controlled using an aileron deflections. In the SISO representation of
the sideslip angle dynamics, the only control input is the rudder. Therefore, when the
rudder is stuck at a particular angle, as shown in Fig 5.34, the sideslip angle takes on a
particular offset value based on the angle of the rudder position. Although the ailerons
would not be able to overcome severe rudder failure, they would be able to reduce the
errors and make the value of the sideslip angle closer to the commanded variable.
The roll angle is an integral of the roll rate. It can be controlled via an aileron and rudder
deflection in the MIMO case. However, in the SISO case, the only input is the aileron
deflection. When the rudder fails it induces a sideslip angle. This means that the oncoming
flow, one side of the aircraft (and consequently one elevon) is faster than the other one.
CONTROLLER PERFORMANCE COMPARISON
170
The elevon with faster airflow, generates more lift which leads to the aircraft to roll. This
behaviour exhibits the secondary nature of deploying the rudders in flight and also why
baseline controller needs to be a MIMO controller in order to cancel out the cross-channel
coupling effects. It is clear to see that the baseline controller is not able to deal with the
cross coupling issues due to the lack of cross-channel control authority on the respective
channels. On the other hand, the adaptive augmentation recognises the difference in the
desired and the actual behaviour and corrects for this error by adding to the aileron
deflection to correct for the roll angle steady state error. This increase in the aileron
deflection is particularly visible in Fig 5.32.
5.5 Uncertainties in the System
Additional to just presenting, what the controller improves in the system, it is also
important to present at a fundamental level, how and why the augmented controller
improves the performance of the baseline controller. The analysis of the matched and the
unmatched uncertainties estimated by the state estimator in the Piecewise Constant
Update Law are presented here.
5.5.1 Longitudinal Dynamics
The longitudinal dynamics of the hypersonic glider are represented using a third order
system. There is only one control input which means that the matched uncertainties are a
scalar number and the unmatched uncertainties are represented using a matrix,
. The entire estimated uncertainties vectors is as follows: .
The uncertainties that are present in the system for the nominal case are shown in Fig 5.35.
As the uncertainties that are estimated are close to zero, the adaptive control signal
contribution is minimal. Therefore the performance between the nominal and the
augmented controller is also not significant, as can be seen from Fig 5.4.
CONTROLLER PERFORMANCE COMPARISON
171
For the non-nominal case, the estimated uncertainties are shown in Fig 5.36. As the
estimated uncertainties are more, there is more of a contribution to the control effort from
the augmentation. This contribution is what leads to the augmented controller cancelling
out these estimated uncertainties and improve the performance of the baseline controller.
It is evident that the baseline controller is unable to cancel out the uncertainties in the
initial part of the manoeuvre. This is due to the fact that the baseline control synthesis does
not take into account the uncertainties that could be present in the system. The adaptive
controller adds the following components to the control law:
. This additional component explicitly
includes the estimated uncertainties (matched and unmatched), that are shown in Fig 5.35
and Fig 5.36. The aim of the control law therefore, becomes cancelling these uncertainties
in the system and restoring and improving the performance of the baseline controller,
which is succeeds in achieving (as shown by the blue line in Fig 5.36).
Fig 5.35. Estimate of Uncertainties - Nominal Conditions
0 10 20 30 40 50 60-2
-1
0
1
Time(s)
1(e
stim
ate
)
Matched Certainties Estimates
Baseline
Augmentation
0 10 20 30 40 50 60-0.2
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
Time(s)
2(e
stim
ate
21)
Unmatched Certainties Estimates
Baseline
Augmentation
0 10 20 30 40 50 60-0.08
-0.06
-0.04
-0.02
0
Time(s)
2(e
stim
ate
22)
Unmatched Certainties Estimates
Baseline
Augmentation
CONTROLLER PERFORMANCE COMPARISON
172
Fig 5.36. Estimate of Uncertainties – Presence of Uncertainties
5.5.2 Lateral Lateral/Directional Dynamics
The uncertainties that are present in the lateral and directional channels are estimated
using a state estimator of the augmented controller. For the nominal case, the estimated of
the uncertainties are shown in Fig 5.37 and for the case with uncertainties in Fig 5.38.
0 10 20 30 40 50 60-4
-2
0
2
4
Time(s)
1 (
estim
ate
)
Matched Uncertainties Estimates
0 10 20 30 40 50 60-4
-2
0
2
Time(s)
2 (
estim
ate
21)
Unmatched Certainties Estimates
0 10 20 30 40 50 60-0.4
-0.2
0
0.2
0.4
Time(s)
2 (
estim
ate
22)
Unmatched Certainties Estimates
Baseline
Augmentation
Baseline
Augmentation
Baseline
Augmentation
CONTROLLER PERFORMANCE COMPARISON
173
Fig 5.37. Estimate of Uncertainties - Nominal Conditions
Fig 5.38. Estimate of Uncertainties –Uncertainties
0 10 20 30 40 50 60-0.05
0
0.05
0.1
0.15
Time(s)
1(e
stim
ate
)
Matched Certainties Estimates
Baseline
Augmentation
0 10 20 30 40 50 60-1
-0.5
0
0.5
1
Time(s)
2(e
stim
ate
)
Unmatched Certainties Estimates
Baseline
Augmentation
0 10 20 30 40 50 60-0.4
-0.2
0
0.2
0.4
Time(s)
1(e
stim
ate
)
Matched Uncertainties Estimates
0 10 20 30 40 50 60-20
-10
0
10
20
Time(s)
2(e
stim
ate
)
Unmatched Certainties Estimates
Baseline
Augmentation
Baseline
Augmentation
CONTROLLER PERFORMANCE COMPARISON
174
The reasoning for the improvement of the augmented controller as compared to the
baseline controller is similar to the longitudinal controller. The augmented control law
explicitly includes the estimated uncertainties. As a result, it is able to cancel the matched
and unmatched uncertainties in the system whereas the baseline controller is not, as it
does not consider the existence of uncertainties is the system (control law of the baseline
controller from Section 4.2: ).
This is the fundamental difference between the controllers that leads to a difference in
performance and also robustness. The difference is a result of the control law and the
assumptions that are made. For the baseline, controller, it is assumed that there are no
uncertainties in the system. The augmented controller however, takes into account the
uncertainties in the system, estimates them and then compensate them.
5.6 Time Delay Margin
The robustness of the system has been tested through the time delay margin (TDM). This
sub-section presents the TDMs of the longitudinal and the lateral controllers and whether
the values presented here agree with theory is also discussed.
As previously mentioned, the bandwidth of the filter has an effect on the time delay
margin and also the performance of the controller. By reducing the bandwidth of the low
pass filter, the TDM can be increased at the cost of reduced performance. On the other
hand, increasing the bandwidth leads to improved performance at the cost of reduced
robustness (lower TDM) [63]. The adaptive controller is able to improve the
performance of the baseline controller significantly in the presence of uncertainties.
However, from a robustness point of view, there is a marked reduction. The TDM is still
bounded away from zero, although the margins are reduced. For a filter architecture,
which is of the first order, Table 5.12 outlines the time delay that can be introduced into
the input channel before the system becomes marginally stable.
CONTROLLER PERFORMANCE COMPARISON
175
Table 5.12. Time Delay Margin Comparison
Longitudinal Baseline Augmentation
Nominal 79ms 30ms
Reduced Control Surface
Deflection
215ms 84ms
Time Varying Error ( ) 64ms 23ms
Time Varying Error ( ) 78ms 28ms
Time Varying Error ( ) 73ms 27ms
Time Varying Error ( ) 78ms 29ms
Time Varying Error ( ) 69ms 22ms
Time Varying Error ( ) 77ms 26ms
Gravimetric uncertainties 71ms 25ms
Aerodynamic uncertainties 73ms 26ms
Combination of errors 117ms 67ms
Lateral (Roll) Baseline Augmentation
Nominal 162ms 74ms
Rudder failure (1.0 deg) 154ms 64ms
Rudder Failure (-7.5 to 7.5
deg)
146ms 60ms
Reduced elevon function 113ms 51ms
Asymmetric elevon
deflection
149ms 67ms
Gravimetric uncertainties 158ms 71ms
Aerodynamic uncertainties 161ms 73ms
Combination of errors 133ms 52ms
A reduction of the TDM for the adaptive case is consistent with what has been presented
in theory and especially by Leman in [63]. The reduction in TDM is a result of the trade off
between performance and robustness. The performance of the adaptive controller is better
than the baseline controller. This results in a reduction in the robustness margin. In the
event that this project has TDM requirements, this can be changed using the bandwidth of
the low pass filter in the architecture in order to meet the requirement.
CONTROLLER PERFORMANCE COMPARISON
176
5.7 Conclusion
This chapter has presented the simulation results for the baseline controller and the
augmented controller. Stability and performance metrics have been utilised to show that
the augmented controller performs better and improves the performance of the baseline
controller in the presence of uncertainties. In the case of rudder failure, the augmentation
is able to significantly improve the performance of the PPC. The main conclusion is the
successful implementation of an augmented controller to a descent trajectory of a
hypersonic glider. The application and the performance of the adaptive controller show
the viability of such a controller for such a trajectory. This is especially important as the
piecewise constant update law has not been applied to a LTV state feedback case before.
Additionally, the augmented controller improved the performance of the baseline
controller over a wide velocity range. These speeds ranged from velocities in the
hypersonic (Mach > 5) to sub-sonic (Mach < 1.0) range.
An additional important conclusion from this chapter, as a con0sequence of applying SISO
controllers, is that a MIMO controller should be considered for the baseline controller to
control the lateral/directional dynamics of the hypersonic glider. This point is most
evident when there is a rudder failure and the controllers have no authority to change the
error introduced in the sideslip angle channel. A TDM analysis has carried out for the
longitudinal and lateral cases. The TDM was significantly reduced when the augmentation
was turned on. However, the analysis did prove what the theory claims in terms of
bounded away from zero TDM.
FLIGHT PARAMETER ANALYSIS
177
6. FLIGHT PARAMETER ANALYSIS
The performance metrics have proven that the augmented controller improves the
performance of the baseline controller. This is concluded through the tracking error norm,
control surface norm and additionally the standard deviation of the final altitude at the
end of the longitudinal test cases and the lateral test cases. However, it is important to
connect the performance of the controller with the physical parameters during flight, for
example Mach number and altitude. Some of the reasons for the behaviour of the tracking
variable are presented in Chapter 5, however a deeper look into the physical behaviour of
the vehicle is presented here. It is also important to assess the behaviour of the
aerodynamic coefficients during nominal flight and also in the presence of uncertainties.
The data presented in this chapter forms an envelope along the trajectory within which the
controller has been able to stabilise the system and carry out the control objective.
Furthermore, the results presented illustrate the suitability of the controllers to bring a
vehicle to the right initial condition to fire and test a SCRAMJET engine.
6.1 Flight Parameters - Longitudinal Dynamics
Flight parameters such as the altitude indicate what the vehicle is experiencing during
flight. The physical parameters also give a deeper insight into understanding the
behaviour of the vehicle and as to why the controller performed a certain way.
Appreciating the envelope within which the controller has been tested further helps
understand the limits of the controllers presented in this study and also the scope of its
application in the hypersonic area. Furthermore, it helps generate an understanding of
how the performance of the controller is degraded in the presence of uncertainties. The
physical and operational environment together with the maths help form an overall
picture of what the vehicle is experiencing.
FLIGHT PARAMETER ANALYSIS
178
6.1.1 Mach Number and Altitude
The Mach number vs. altitude profile (Fig 6.1) shows the conditions experienced by the
vehicle. Based on the flight conditions shown in this diagram, a suitable baseline controller
methodology is selected. This helps in deciding upon a scheduling parameter, if necessary.
In this case, because the flight parameters including Mach number and altitude change
significantly (see Fig 6.1), the scheduling of the baseline controller is necessary. A fixed
gain controller, although stable from a performance point of view, would prove ineffective
for the entire flight envelope. This is due to the desired closed loop dynamics being
unscheduled as a function of the flight parameters. Dynamic pressure (see Fig 6.2) is used
as a scheduling variable when defining the desired dynamics of the pole placement
baseline controller. The first point on the trajectory (top right of Fig 6.1) is where the
vehicle is at an altitude of 55km and is travelling at approximately Mach 6.8. As the
vehicles descends at an altitude of approximately 35km, the vehicle begins to decelerate as
a result of the higher air density and the corresponding increase in the drag coefficient (as
highlighted in Fig 6.5). As the vehicle continues to travel through the atmosphere and
descends, it decelerates to subsonic speeds. Note that the blue and the red lines
correspond to the envelopes generated by the baseline controller and the augmented
controller. Within the envelope not all of the trajectories overlap. As a result of the errors
and uncertainties being estimated by the adaptive controller, the trajectory of the
vehicle changes. As the error is estimated and a corresponding adaptive correction is
added to the control deflection, this leads to the change in the final altitude and the
standard deviation after the pull up phase and the bank angle manoeuvre.
The way the Mach number varies with the altitude very much depends on the
uncertainties that are present in the system. Therefore, for various uncertainties the Mach
number and altitude profile vary (as is clear from the red and the blue lines). Based on the
Monte Carlo Simulations, a range of Mach numbers and altitudes have been determined
within which the controller needs to function and carry out the control objective. From Fig
FLIGHT PARAMETER ANALYSIS
179
6.1 it is clear to see that, although the augmentation is not able to significantly narrow the
flight envelope, at no stage of the envelope, is the envelope widened when the
augmentation setup is used. The main point to note from Fig 6.1 is that both the
augmented and baseline controller, in the presence of uncertainties, are able to stabilise the
vehicle and maintain the vehicle within a sensible flight envelope.
Fig 6.1. Mach Number Altitude Envelope of the Vehicle – Longitudinal
Note also that the controller needs to control the dynamics of the glider from a hypersonic
flight regime (Mach > 5) to sub-sonic flight regimes (Mach < 1).
Fig 6.2. Dynamic Pressure (Longitudinal Manoeuvre)
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 80
1
2
3
4
5
6x 10
4
Mach Number
Altitude(m
)
Mach number and Altitude profile for flights
Augmentation Results
Baseline Results
Nominal
0 10 20 30 40 50 600
2
4
6
8
10
12
14x 10
4
Time(s)
Dynam
ics P
ressure
(P
ascal))
Dynamics Pressure Plot for Longitudinal Manoeuvre
Dynamic Pressure limit of 20 kPa
Mach Number limit of 5
FLIGHT PARAMETER ANALYSIS
180
Fig 6. 3. Mach Number, Altitude and Angle of Attack Time Histories
Fig 6.2 and Fig 6. 3 outline the times histories of the dynamic pressure, Mach number,
altitude and the angle of attack. This helps is understanding the state of the vehicle when
it comes to the initial conditions for introducing the SCRAMJET powered section into the
mission and trajectory (marked as "OW" in Fig 6.2 and Fig 6. 3). Siddiqui and Ahmed in
[191] show usable ranges of dynamic pressure are 20 to 200 kPa for a SCRAMJET (see Fig
6.2). SCRAMJET operation depends on the design and geometry of the engine. If the
0 10 20 30 40 50 600
2
4
6
8M
ach N
um
ber
Time(s)
Mach Number Profile
0 10 20 30 40 50 600
2
4
6x 10
4
Altitude (
m)
Time(s)
Altitude Profile
0 10 20 30 40 50 60-10
0
10
20
30
(
deg)
Time(s)
Angle of Attack
Dynamic Pressure limit of 20 kPa
Mach Number limit of 5
Dynamic Pressure limit of 20 kPa
Mach Number limit of 5
Dynamic Pressure limit of 20 kPa
Mach Number limit of 5
FLIGHT PARAMETER ANALYSIS
181
vehicle is flying too slow, it becomes a RAMJET [192]. Consequently, for this work, a
freestream Mach number greater than 5 is considered as the lower limit for SCRAMJET
operation (highlighted in Fig 6. 3). Although the vehicle never reaches a dynamic pressure
of (maximum dynamic pressure of ), it does cross the Mach 5 limit. The
dynamic pressure and Mach number conditions are seen in Fig 6. 3 and depict the window
within which the SCRAMJET engine could be started. As stated in the motivation in
Section 1.2, the controller can accomplish a pull up to allow the SCRAMJET to operate.
The angle of attack is approximately at at a speed of
. These results indicate that this control methodology can be used to reach certain
initial conditions at a certain altitude to enable the SCRAMJET engine to operate.
Although the parameter values mentioned above are not ideal initial conditions for the
engine, this study is a step towards the goal of integrating the powered section of the
mission into a sub-orbital ballistic trajectory.
6.1.2 Aerodynamic Characteristics
An important parameter to understand the behaviour of the vehicle is the angle of attack.
Fig 6.4 shows the angle of attack as a function of Mach number, altitude and simulation
time. For the nominal case (the dotted green line), there are much smaller oscillations in
the angle of attack than in other cases. The lack of oscillations carries over to the behaviour
of the lift to drag (L/D) ratio, the drag coefficient, the lift coefficient and the moment
coefficient.
FLIGHT PARAMETER ANALYSIS
182
Fig 6.4. Angle of Attack - Longitudinal
When uncertainties are present in the system, both the baseline and the augmented
controller show oscillations in the presence of uncertainties. The oscillations are either in
the region of the atmosphere where the control authority is minimal or when the vehicle is
transitioning into a region of higher density at an altitude of approximately 35km. Note
that the oscillations take place in a region where the Mach number is high (Mach > 6).
However, once the vehicle is flying in denser air and starts slowing down, the oscillations
are reduced significantly in the case of both the baseline and augmented controllers. The
initial oscillations in the angle of attack in the presence of uncertainties cause the lift and
drag properties of the vehicle to change. This in turn changes the nature of the physical
interaction the vehicle has with the atmosphere. These uncertainties lead to oscillations in
the angle attack, which causes oscillations in the drag and lift forces of the vehicle, and this
has an impact on the vehicle flight trajectory as seen in Fig 6.1. Consequently, the lift to
drag (L/D) ratio also oscillates (as shown in Fig 6.7).
0 10 20 30 40 50 60-20
-15
-10
-5
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
Time(s)
Angle of Attack
Augmentation
Baseline
Nominal
FLIGHT PARAMETER ANALYSIS
183
Fig 6.5. Drag Coefficient for the Pull Up Trajectory
Fig 6.6. Lift Coefficient for Pull Up Trajectory
0 10 20 30 40 50 600.05
0.1
0.15
0.2
0.25
0.3
0.35
0.4
0.45
0.5
0.55
Time(s)
cD
Drag Coefficient
Augmentation
Baseline
Nominal
0 10 20 30 40 50 60-0.3
-0.2
-0.1
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
Time(s)
Cl
Lift Coefficient
Augmentation
Baseline
Nominal
FLIGHT PARAMETER ANALYSIS
184
Fig 6.7. Lift to Drag Ratio for Longitudinal Test Case
In the case where there are various uncertainties present in the system, it is not just the lift
and drag forces that are affected. As all of the aerodynamic coefficients are stored in look
up tables and are functions of Mach number and angle of attack, a fluctuation in the angle
of attack leads to fluctuations in all of the force and moment coefficients. This includes the
pitching moment coefficient (shown in Fig 6.8)
Fig 6.8. Pitching Moment Coefficient - Longitudinal
0 10 20 30 40 50 600
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
3
3.5
Simulation Time
Lift
of
Dra
g R
atio
Lift to Drag Ratio for Entire Trajectory
Augmentation
Baseline
Nominal
0 10 20 30 40 50 60-10
-8
-6
-4
-2
0
2
4
6
8x 10
-3
Time(s)
cm
Pitching Moment Coefficient
Augmentation
Baseline
Nominal
FLIGHT PARAMETER ANALYSIS
185
The pitching moment shown in Fig 6.8 is the total pitching moment coefficient of the
vehicle. The pitching moment consists of four parts: the pitch damping derivative,
longitudinal static stability derivative, reference moment coefficient and the control
moment derivative. Fig 6.9 (plotted as a function of time), shows that, due to the
oscillations in the angle of attack, the individual parts of the moment coefficient also
oscillate. Most importantly the change in the longitudinal static stability and the control
moment coefficients have the greatest impact in terms of the behaviour of the vehicle itself
and control authority. When the effects of all of these fluctuations are combined, this leads
to a degradation in the performance. Consequently, as the physical behaviour deteriorates,
at the same time the look-up tables at that corresponding point of the flight are telling the
baseline controller that is it flying under different conditions to what the vehicle is
experiencing in reality. This is the primary reason that leads to the degradation in
performance.
Fig 6.9. Pitching Moment Coefficient as a function of Time
These differences and also the uncertainties are all estimated by the state estimator in the
augmented controller. The corresponding equations read as follows:
0 10 20 30 40 50 60-5
-4
-3
-2
-1
Time(s)
Pitch D
am
pin
g D
erivative
0 10 20 30 40 50 60-1.8
-1.6
-1.4
-1.2
-1
-0.8
-0.6x 10
-3
Time(s)
Sta
tic S
tabili
ty D
erivative
0 10 20 30 40 50 60-0.03
-0.02
-0.01
0
0.01
0.02
Time(s)
Refe
rence P
itchin
g M
om
ent
0 10 20 30 40 50 60-6
-5
-4
-3
-2
-1
0x 10
-4
Time(s)Contr
ol S
urf
ace P
itchin
g M
om
ent
Derivative
Augmentation
Baseline
nominal
Augmentation
Baseline
nominal
Augmentation
Baseline
nominal
Augmentation
Baseline
nominal
FLIGHT PARAMETER ANALYSIS
186
.
and are the estimated uncertainties that are provided by the piecewise constant
update law. The update law is able to estimate these uncertainties and restore the
performance of the controller close to nominal performance. The terms and are
not present as part of the control law when only the baseline controller is switched on as
opposed to the augmented control law,
. The baseline control law, as derived in
Section Pole Placement Control, is . This control law does not take into
account the uncertainties that could be present in the aerodynamic and control derivatives.
As the baseline controller does not directly incorporate the presence of uncertainties in the
system, they cannot be compensated for, resulting in worsened performance. For the
same reason, a similar behaviour of the controller occurs in the roll channel.
6.2 Flight Parameters - Lateral/Directional Dynamics
For the second part of the trajectory, a similar approach is utilised to analyse the
aerodynamic variables, as is the case with the longitudinal dynamics. Once again the
aerodynamic behaviour of the lateral/directional dynamics is used to represent the flight
envelope. This assists with controller design.
6.2.1 Mach Number and Altitude
The flight envelope is shown in Fig 6.10 for the aircraft during the lateral/directional
manoeuvre. The manoeuvre consists of carrying out three roll angle manoeuvres of
while holding the sideslip angle at . Although there is less variation in the Mach number
and altitude, there is a enough of a change from start to finish for there to be a need for a
scheduled baseline controller. As a result, once again the baseline controller on the roll and
sideslip angle channels are scheduled as a function of dynamic pressure. Furthermore, at
this stage of the trajectory, the speed at which the vehicle is travelling is no longer
FLIGHT PARAMETER ANALYSIS
187
hypersonic speed. This means that the vehicle needs to be able to fly at sub-sonic speeds as
well during this manoeuvre.
Fig 6.10. Mach Number Altitude Map for Second Part of Trajectory
Fig 6.11. Dynamic Pressure (Lateral/Direction Manoeuvre)
0.2 0.25 0.3 0.35 0.4 0.45 0.5 0.55 0.6 0.65 0.70
1000
2000
3000
4000
5000
6000
7000
Mach Number
Altitude(m
)
Mach Number Altitude Envelope
Augmentation
Baseline
Nominal
FLIGHT PARAMETER ANALYSIS
188
6.2.2 Aerodynamics Characteristics
Fig 6.12 and Fig 6.13 show the angle of attack and the lift to drag ratio for the second part
of the trajectory. The increase in the angle of attack is due to the commanded flight path
angle. This increase in angle of attack leads to an increase in the lift coefficient which in
turn increases L/D. The variations in the angle of attack and consequently L/D ratio occur
exactly when a roll angle is commanded. This is as a result of the change in the local angle
of attack when the vehicle executes the roll manoeuvre. The rolling action induces an
increase in the angle of attack on the up-going wing, and an decrease in angle of attack on
the down-going wing. This change in the angle of attack is seen in Fig 6.12. This creates an
opposing aerodynamic moment, which is called the roll damping derivative which is
shown in Fig 6.14.
Fig 6.12. Angle of Attack for Lateral Part of the Trajectory
0 10 20 30 40 50 600
2
4
6
8
10
12
Time(s)
(
deg)
Angle of Attack
Augmentation
Baseline
Nominal
FLIGHT PARAMETER ANALYSIS
189
Fig 6.13. Lift to Drag Ratio for Lateral Part of Trajectory
The rolling and the yawing moments of the vehicle seen in Fig 6.14 and Fig 6.15 show
minimal change during the second part of the flight. However, the variations in the
aerodynamic coefficients of the plant model for the lateral and directional dynamics (see
Fig 6.17 and Fig 6.16) are relatively large. These variations are signification enough that a
baseline controller by itself would not be sufficient. This is confirmed using the results
presented in Section 5.4.
Fig 6.14. Rolling Moment Coefficient
0 10 20 30 40 50 600
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
3
3.5
Time(s)
L/D
Lift to Drag Ratio
Augmentation L/D
Baseline L/D
Nominal Case
0 10 20 30 40 50 60-12
-10
-8
-6
-4
-2
0
2
4
6
8x 10
-3
Time(s)
Rolli
ng M
om
ent
Rolling Moment Coefficient
Augmentation
Baseline
Nominal
FLIGHT PARAMETER ANALYSIS
190
Fig 6.15. Yawing Moment Coefficient
The control and aerodynamic coefficients for the roll dynamics are shown in Fig 6.16. The
envelope is extremely wide for the case of the roll damping derivative. This is caused by
the failure of the rudder. Note that it is physical changes in the forces and moments that
the vehicle experiences being plotted here.
The look up tables that feed the controller the aerodynamic and control derivatives are
different from those that the vehicle is experiencing. This difference in where the glider is,
compared to where the aircraft thinks it is, is the reason for the degradation in the
controller's performance. The figures shown in this chapter capture the range of values
that the glider experiences. However, the range of values that the flight controller is given
is considerably narrower. Using a piecewise constant adaptive law this difference is
estimated in the form of uncertainties and is corrected for the adaptive controller using
a control input in the roll channel.
0 10 20 30 40 50 60-0.015
-0.01
-0.005
0
0.005
0.01
0.015
Time(s)
Yaw
ing M
om
ent
Yawing Moment Coefficient
Augmentation
Baseline
Nominal
FLIGHT PARAMETER ANALYSIS
191
Fig 6.16. Lateral Dynamics Derivatives
0 10 20 30 40 50 60-0.18
-0.16
-0.14
-0.12
-0.1
-0.08
-0.06roll damping derivative
Time(s)
CLp
0 10 20 30 40 50 602.35
2.4
2.45
2.5
2.55
2.6x 10
-3
Time(s)
CLa
Aileron Roll Control Derivative
Augmentation
Baseline
Nominal
Augmentation
Baseline
Nominal
FLIGHT PARAMETER ANALYSIS
192
Fig 6.17. Directional Dynamics Derivatives
0 10 20 30 40 50 60-0.15
-0.1
-0.05Yaw Damping Derivative
Time(s)
cln
r
0 10 20 30 40 50 600
0.005
0.01Beta Yawing Moment Derivative
Time(s)
cln
0 10 20 30 40 50 60-0.019
-0.018
-0.017Beta Side Force Derivative
Time(s)
CY
0 10 20 30 40 50 60-1.5
-1
-0.5x 10
-3 Rudder Yawing Moment Derivative
Time(s)
clnr
0 10 20 30 40 50 600
2
4x 10
-3
Time(s)
CYr
Rudder Side Force Derivative
Augmentation
Baseline
Nominal
FLIGHT PARAMETER ANALYSIS
193
6.3 Conclusion
This chapter presents the aerodynamic characteristics experienced by the vehicle during
the trajectory. The aerodynamic envelope of the vehicle helps in controller design,
selecting the scheduling parameters and also scheduling the desired dynamics of the
closed loop plant. Furthermore, the envelope formed as a result of the uncertainties
present in the system are further evidence that an augmentation is needed along this
trajectory in order to improve the performance. At the fundamental level, the augmented
control law directly accounts for the uncertainties in the system with the presence of
and whereas the baseline controller does not. Additionally, the controller pull ups
the vehicle to being the vehicle to the initial conditions for future studies to include a
SCRAMJET stage at part of the descent trajectory.
The next chapter concludes the study and also presents scope for future work. Chapter 7
outlines the main contributions of this study and the main conclusions that are drawn
from Chapter 5 and Chapter 6 in terms of the performance of the controllers.
CONCLUSIONS AND FUTURE WORK
194
7. CONCLUSIONS AND FUTURE WORK
This chapter presents the main conclusions drawn from the study. It presents the
theoretical implications of the work conducted and its potential application to real flight
systems. It also presents the answer to the main research problem that is posed at the
beginning of this thesis. This chapter concludes by outlining the potential future direction
of this work.
7.1 Conclusions
The motivation of the study was to investigate methodologies to control a hypersonic
glider over a wide range of conditions, from Mach 6 down to subsonic speed. In order to
carry out this research, detailed Monte Carlo simulations were carried out in order to
compare the performance and robustness properties of the baseline and the augmented
controller (contribution number II - IV in Section 1.9). During the course of the research,
gaps in the existing adaptive control theory were identified. The gaps in theory are
related to the control of a LTV nonminimum phase state feedback system. Using the
results presented in this research, the aforementioned gaps in the theory and its
application have been addressed and filled.
A modified augmented control law is presented. This enables the application of the
piecewise constant adaptive update law to an LTV state feedback system. As the new
control law does not require an inversion of the system dynamics, the implementation is
suitable for application to nonminimum phase systems (contribution number V and VI in
Section 1.9). The main implication of this modification is the elimination of ASSUMPTION
5 in Section 4.4.2 (stability of matched transmission zeros). As a result of this modification,
it is suggested that future studies use the modification that has been presented in Section 0
(contribution number IX in Section 1.9).
CONCLUSIONS AND FUTURE WORK
195
Some general guidelines are proposed for the design of the low pass filter. Some rules
with respect to the bandwidth design of the low pass filter are presented for the cases
where minimal information is known about the system. This makes the design process
simpler and makes the design dependent on the nature of the system (contribution
number VII in Section 1.9).
An analysis of the flight parameters in Chapter 6 demonstrates the applicability of the
baseline and augmented controllers over a wide range of speed regimes (from hypersonic
to subsonic) (see Section 6.1.1 and 6.2.1). Furthermore, the ability of the controllers to carry
out the objectives over a wide range of values of the aerodynamic and control coefficients
(see Section 6.1.2 and 6.2.2) highlights the suitability of a PPC and an augmented PPC
to pull the vehicle of its ballistic trajectory and go into a horizontal path to fire the
SCRAMJET and cruise at a certain altitude (as stated in Section 1.2) (contribution number I
- IV in Section 1.9).
The systems, along with the baseline controller, presented in this thesis are implemented
in C++. The adaptive controller is presented in SIMULINK©. Once the SIMULINK© code
is compiled into C code, the resulting code is simply a series of matrix manipulations. This
implementation of the systems and the adaptive controller makes the transition of this
study from the simulation world to the real world seamless (contribution number VII in
Section 1.9).
The answers to the research problems posed in Section 1.5 are as follows:
I. How does the baseline controller perform for a descent trajectory in the presence of
sensor, aerodynamic, gravimetric and control surface uncertainties and failures?
Pole placement controllers are used to stabilise the system (see Section 4.2 and Section 5.2).
However, in the presence of uncertainties and failures, the performance of the baseline
controllers deteriorate (see Section 5.3.1 and 5.4.1). The synthesis of the baseline controllers
CONCLUSIONS AND FUTURE WORK
196
assume nominal conditions. Therefore, in the presence of uncertainties and system failures,
degradation in performance is expected.
II. How does the augmented controller assist in cancelling the uncertainties present
in the system and improve the performance of the baseline controller?
In the presence of uncertainties, although stable, the performance of the baseline controllers
worsen (see Section 5.3.1). This is due to the plant models of the longitudinal and
lateral/directional dynamics. These models do not include the uncertainties present in the
system. The piecewise constant update law in the adaptive controller estimates these
uncertainties in the system (see Section 5.5). The resulting control law (see Section 0)
accounts for the estimates of the uncertainties in the system and introduces a control signal
that attempts to cancel out the matched and unmatched uncertainties in the system under a
certain frequency (within the bandwidth of the low pass filter).
III. What are the performance characteristics of the adaptive augmented controller
in the presence of uncertainties?
The tracking error norm (see Section 5.3.1 and 5.4.1) demonstrates that the augmentation
cancels out the effects of the uncertainties and failures in the system. This helps to bring the
performance of the augmented controller closer to the nominal closed loop behaviour. For the
test case where a combination of errors are present, the tracking error norm improves by
14.22% for the longitudinal dynamics and by 75.94% for the lateral dynamics.
IV. What are the robustness properties of the augmented controller compared to the
baseline controller?
The robustness analysis of the baseline and augmented controllers are demonstrated using
the Time Delay Margin (TDM) (see Section 5.6). The adaptive controller demonstrates a
reduced TDM margin (bounded away from zero, as the theory predicts, seen in Section 4.4).
This research shows simulation results for the longitudinal and lateral controllers for an
LTV state feedback system. For the test case where a combination of errors are present, the
TDM reduces from 117ms to 67ms for the longitudinal dynamics, and from 133ms to 52ms
for the lateral dynamics.
CONCLUSIONS AND FUTURE WORK
197
V. Is this control methodology suitable for carrying out a pull up manoeuvre along the
descent phase of a suborbital ballistic trajectory to fire and test a reusable
SCRAMJET engine?
The baseline and the augmented controllers carry out the pull up manoeuvre and bring the
vehicle to the right initial conditions (as seen in Chapter 6, Fig 6.2 and Fig 6. 3) to test a
SCRAMJET engine. The controllers showed that even in the presence of uncertainties and
failures, the vehicle, in future studies, can be bought to the right Mach number, angle of
attack and dynamic pressure to fire the engine.
7.2 Further Research
As a consequence of this project, there are several areas in which this work can be further
progressed, as outlined next.
Landing the Glider: No study has yet performed a full trajectory simulation study to
include the landing of a hypersonic glider. One of the experimental requirements for the
HiFire 4 vehicle presented in [12] is to “land” the vehicle. In this context landing means
impact the ground at a low speed and low rate of descent. However, a study can be
undertaken for a slightly larger glider to include landing gear in order to land the glider
on a runway (similar to the Space shuttle landing).
Full Adaptive Controller: Prime [3] presents a full adaptive controller, however it was
only for the longitudinal dynamics. The reference model utilised in the controller was
linear time invariant (LTI). An important future direction would be to implement a LTV
reference model of the adaptive controller to take full advantage of changing
atmospheric conditions to cancel the matched and the unmatched uncertainties.
Filter Design for the adaptive controller: Although control theory has been
successfully applied in this study, the lack of a general design strategy for makes an
adaptive controller difficult to implement for certain systems. Although there are
CONCLUSIONS AND FUTURE WORK
198
guidelines that are provided regarding the design of the bandwidth of the filter, no
concrete methodology is outlined. Future work should concentrate on formulating
guidelines for the design of the low pass filter.
Baseline Controller: The baseline controllers presented in this study are SISO controllers.
Due to the inherent coupling of the dynamics of a glider it is important to implement a
MIMO controller as the baseline. However difficulties arise from the fact that the system
presented is a LTV system. Three possible options that can be considered for control
strategies for the baseline controller are State Dependent Riccati Equation (SDRE), NDI
and MIMO PPC (using the place function in Matlab to calculate the feedback gains).
Exo-Atmospheric Control: A reaction control system can be included as part of the initial
lateral/directional control in the upper atmosphere. With the implementation of a RCS, the
whole descent trajectory from an altitude of 100km can be tested. The RCS system can also
be implemented to control the rates of the vehicle along all the 3 axes of rotations. This is
important in order to have the desired initial conditions at the point in the trajectory when
the control surfaces have control authority.
Full trajectory analysis: A combination of endo-atmospheric control, adaptive control,
operation of the SCRAMJET and the landing of the hypersonic glider can be combined to
form a study which involves studying the complexities, robustness, performance and
stability properties of the controller over the entire suborbital ballistic trajectory.
References
199
References
[1] M. R. Anderson, A. Emami-Naeini, and J. H. Vincent, "Robust Control Law
Development for a Hypersonic Cruise Aircraft," in American Control Conference,
1991, 1991, pp. 839-845.
[2] G. E. Chamitoff, "Robust intelligent flight control for hypersonic vehicles," 0572199
Ph.D., Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Ann Arbor, 1992.
[3] J. J. Bertin and R. M. Cummings, "Fifty years of hypersonics: where we've been,
where we're going," Progress in Aerospace Sciences, vol. 39, pp. 511-536, 8// 2003.
[4] X. Cai, "Fault Detection/Isolation and Fault Tolerant Control for Hypersonic
Vehicle," 3442600 Ph.D., North Carolina State University, Ann Arbor, 2010.
[5] T. E. Gibson and A. Annaswamy, "Adaptive Control of Hypersonic Vehicles in the
Presence of Thrust and Actuator Uncertainties," in AIAA Guidance, Navigation and
Control Conference and Exhibit, ed: American Institute of Aeronautics and
Astronautics, 2008.
[6] O. Murillo, "A fast ascent trajectory optimization method for hypersonic air-
breathing vehicles," Doctor of Philosophy, Aerospace Engineering, Iowa State
University, 2010.
[7] J. J. Araki, "Reentry dynamics and handling qualities of a generic hypersonic
vehicle," Master of Science in Aeronautics and Astronautics Dept. of Aeronautics
and Astronautics, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Massachusetts 1992.
[8] W. Janicki, "ASYMPTOTIC ANALYSIS OF HYPERSONIC VEHICLE dynamics
along entry trajectoy," Masters of Science, Department of Aeronautics and
Astronautics, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Boston, 1991.
[9] K. Bowcutt, A. Paull, D. Dolvin, and M. Smart, "HIFiRE: an international
collaboration to advance the science and technology of hypersonic flight," presented
at the 28th International Congress of the Aeronautical Sciences, Brisbane, QLD,
Australia, 2012.
[10] M. Creagh, P. Beasley, and M. Kearney, "Adaptive Control for a Hypersonic Glider
using Parametric Feedback from System Identification," AIAA Guidance, Navigation
and Control Conference, 2011.
References
200
[11] R. Boyce, S. Gerard, and A. Paull, "The HyShot Scramjet Flight Experiment - Flight
Data and CFD Calculations Compared," in 12th AIAA International Space Planes and
Hypersonic Systems and Technologies, ed: American Institute of Aeronautics and
Astronautics, 2003.
[12] T. Smith, K. Bowcutt, J. Selmon, L. Miranda, B. Northrop, K. Lau, et al., "HIFiRE 4: A
low-Cost Aerodynamics, Stability, and Control Hypersonic Flight Experiment," in
17th AIAA International Space Planes and Hypersonic Systems and Technologies
Conference, ed: American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics, 2011.
[13] P. Zipfel, "A C++ Architecure for Unmanned Aerial Vehicle Simulations," in AIAA
Infotech@Aerospace 2007 Conference and Exhibit, ed: American Institute of Aeronautics
and Astronautics, 2007.
[14] A. Bérard, A. Rizzi, and A. Isikveren, "CADac: A New Geometry Construction Tool
for Aerospace Vehicle Pre-Design and Conceptual Design," in 26th AIAA Applied
Aerodynamics Conference, ed: American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics,
2008.
[15] P. Zipfel, Modelling and Simulation of Aerospace Vehicle Dnamics. Reston, Virginia:
American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics, 2007.
[16] Z. D. Prime, Con and B. Cazzolato, "Longitudinal L1 Adaptive Control of a
Hypersonic Re-entry Experiment," 15th Australian International Aerospace Congress
(AIAC15), 2013.
[17] M. A. Bolender, "An overview on dynamics and controls modelling of hypersonic
vehicles," in American Control Conference, 2009. ACC '09., 2009, pp. 2507-2512.
[18] D. O. Sigthorsson, "Control-Oriented Modeling and Output Feedback Control of
Hypersonic Air-Breathing Vehicles," The Ohio State University, 2008.
[19] R. Rainey, "Static Stability and Control of Hypersonic Gliders," NASA Technical
Document, 1958.
[20] F. A. Faruqi, State space model for autopilot design of aerospace vehicles [electronic
resource] / Farhan A. Faruqi. Edinburgh, S. Aust: Defence Science and Technology
Organisation, 2007.
[21] K. J. Murphy, R. J. Nowak, R. A. Thompson, B. R. Hollis, and R. Prabhu, "X-33
Hypersonic Aerodynamic Characteristics," Journal of Spacecraft and Rockets, vol. 38,
pp. 670-683, 2001/09/01 2001.
References
201
[22] E. Kharisov, I. Gregory, C. Cao, and N. Hovakimyan, "L1 Adaptive Control for
Flexible Space Launch Vehicle and Proposed Plan for Flight Validation," in AIAA
Guidance, Navigation and Control Conference and Exhibit, ed: American Institute of
Aeronautics and Astronautics, 2008.
[23] C. Coleman and F. A. Faruqi, "On Stability and Control of Hypersonic Vehicles,"
2009.
[24] H. Li, P. Lin, and D. Xu, "Control-oriented Modeling for Air-breathing Hypersonic
Vehicle Using Parameterized Configuration Approach," Chinese Journal of
Aeronautics, vol. 24, pp. 81-89, 2// 2011.
[25] D. Ge, X. Huang, and D. Gao, "Multi-Loop Gain-Scheduling Control of Flexible Air-
Breathing Hypersonic Vehicle," International Journal of Innovative Computing,
Information and Control, vol. 7, pp. 5865-5880, 2011.
[26] D. Derek, T. Sean, D. James, and B. Michael, "Flight Envelope Calculation of a
Hypersonic Vehicle Using a First Principles-Derived Model," in 17th AIAA
International Space Planes and Hypersonic Systems and Technologies Conference, ed:
American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics, 2011.
[27] M. A. D. Bolender, David, "Flight Path Angle Dynamics of Air-Breathing
Hypersonic Vehicles," 2005.
[28] E. A. Morelli, "Flight-Test Experiment Design for Characterizing Stability and
Control of Hypersonic Vehicles," Journal of Guidance, Control, and Dynamics, vol. 32,
pp. 949-959, 2009/05/01 2009.
[29] K. Shahriar, "Nonlinear and Linear Longitudinal and Lateral-Directional Dynamical
Model of Air-Breathing Hypersonic Vehicle," in 15th AIAA International Space Planes
and Hypersonic Systems and Technologies Conference, ed: American Institute of
Aeronautics and Astronautics, 2008.
[30] K. Austin, "Evolutionary design of robust flight control for a hypersonic aircraft,"
PhD Thesis, School of Engineering, The University of Queensland, 2002.
[31] D. Wiese, A. Annaswamy, J. Muse, and M. A. Bolender, "Adaptive Control of a
Generic Hypersonic Vehicle," in AIAA Guidance, Navigation, and Control (GNC)
Conference, ed: American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics, 2013.
[32] I. Gregory, R. Chowdhry, J. Mcminn, and J. Shaughnessy, "Hypersonic vehicle
control law development using H infinity and mu-synthesis," 1992.
References
202
[33] L. Fiorentini and A. Serrani, "Nonlinear adaptive control design for non-minimum
phase hypersonic vehicle models with minimal control authority," in Decision and
Control, 2009 held jointly with the 2009 28th Chinese Control Conference. CDC/CCC
2009. Proceedings of the 48th IEEE Conference on, 2009, pp. 1405-1410.
[34] M. A. Bolender and D. B. Doman, "Nonlinear Longitudinal Dynamical Model of an
Air-Breathing Hypersonic Vehicle," Journal of Spacecraft and Rockets, vol. 44, pp. 374-
387, 2007/03/01 2007.
[35] Z. D. Wilcox, W. MacKunis, S. Bhat, R. Lind, and W. E. Dixon, "Robust nonlinear
control of a hypersonic aircraft in the presence of aerothermoelastic effects," in
American Control Conference, 2009. ACC '09., 2009, pp. 2533-2538.
[36] C. Sun, Y. Huang, C. Qian, and L. Wang, "On modeling and control of a flexible air-
breathing hypersonic vehicle based on LPV method," Frontiers of Electrical and
Electronic Engineering, vol. 7, pp. 56-68, 2012/03/01 2012.
[37] L. Yu, C. Chengyu, E. Cliff, N. Hovakimyan, A. Kurdila, and K. Wise, "L1 adaptive
controller for air-breathing hypersonic vehicle with flexible body dynamics," in
American Control Conference, 2009. ACC '09., 2009, pp. 3166-3171.
[38] A. Somanath and A. Annaswamy, "Adaptive control of hypersonic vehicles in
presence of aerodynamic and center of gravity uncertainties," in Decision and Control
(CDC), 2010 49th IEEE Conference on, 2010, pp. 4661-4666.
[39] H. Xu, M. D. Mirmirani, and P. A. Ioannou, "Adaptive Sliding Mode Control
Design for a Hypersonic Flight Vehicle," Journal of Guidance, Control, and Dynamics,
vol. 27, pp. 829-838, 2004/09/01 2004.
[40] B. Xu, D. Gao, and S. Wang, "Adaptive neural control based on HGO for hypersonic
flight vehicles," Science China Information Sciences, vol. 54, pp. 511-520, 2011/03/01
2011.
[41] N. Hovakimyan and C. Cao, "L1 Adaptive Control Theory: Guaranteed Robustness
with Fast Adaptation," 2010.
[42] M. Zareh, M. Rezaei, J. Roshanian, and A. Khaki-sedigh, "Flight control of a launch
vehicle using an L1 adaptive controller " Proceedings of the Institution of Mechanical
Engineers, Part I: Journal of Systems and Control Engineering, vol. 224, pp. 113-124,
2010.
[43] E. Lavretsky and K. Wise, "Robust and Adaptive Control With Aerospace
Applications," 2013.
References
203
[44] J. Lee, "Modeling and controller design for hypersonic vehicles," 3190406 Ph.D., The
University of Kansas, Ann Arbor, 2005.
[45] D. Sigthorsson, P. Jankovsky, A. Serrani, S. Yurkovich, M. Bolender, and D. B.
Doman, "Robust Linear Output Feedback Control of an Airbreathing Hypersonic
Vehicle," Journal of Guidance, Control, and Dynamics, vol. 31, pp. 1052-1066,
2008/07/01 2008.
[46] O. U. Rehman, B. Fidan, and I. R. Petersen, "Uncertainty modeling and robust
minimax LQR control of multivariable nonlinear systems with application to
hypersonic flight," Asian journal of control, vol. 14, pp. 1180-1193, 09/01 2012.
[47] M. Baldwin and I. Kolmanovsky, "Hypersonic glider guidance using Model
Predictive Control," in American Control Conference (ACC), 2013, 2013, pp. 5550-5555.
[48] M. Baldwin and I. Kolmanovsky, "Constrained inner-loop control of a hypersonic
glider using Extended Command Governor," in American Control Conference (ACC),
2013, 2013, pp. 5556-5561.
[49] S. Banerjee, M. Creagh, R. Boyce, B. Baur, Z. Wang, and F. Holzapfel, "L1 Adaptive
Control Augmentation Configuration for a Hypersonic Glider in the Presence of
Uncertainties," in AIAA Guidance, Navigation, and Control Conference, ed: American
Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics, 2014.
[50] S. Banerjee, T. Vanyai, Z. Wang, B. Baur, and F. Holzapfel, "L1 Augmentation
Configuration for a Lateral/Directional Manoeuvre of a Hypersonic Glider in the
Presence of Uncertainties," in 19th AIAA International Space Planes and Hypersonic
Systems and Technologies Conference, ed: American Institute of Aeronautics and
Astronautics, 2014.
[51] C. Tournes and G. Hanks, "Hypersonic glider control using higher order sliding
mode control," in Southeastcon, 2008. IEEE, 2008, pp. 274-279.
[52] C. Breitsamter, T. Cvrlje, B. Laschka, M. Heller, and G. Sachs, "Lateral-Directional
Coupling and Unsteady Aerodynamic Effects of Hypersonic Vehicles," Journal of
Spacecraft and Rockets, vol. 38, pp. 159-167, 2001/03/01 2001.
[53] A. Brent and A. Neil, "Robust estimator design applied to the lateral dynamics of a
hypersonic vehicle," in Navigation and Control Conference, ed: American Institute of
Aeronautics and Astronautics, 1991.
[54] T. Cvrlje, C. Breitsamter, B. Laschka, M. Heller, and G. Sachs, "Unsteady and
coupling aerodynamic effects on the lateral motion in hypersonic flight," in 9th
References
204
International Space Planes and Hypersonic Systems and Technologies Conference, ed:
American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics, 1999.
[55] A. M. Drummond, "Lateral dynamics of flight on a great circle," AIAA Journal, vol.
10, pp. 247-251, 1972/03/01 1972.
[56] M. Erwin, "Adaptive Lateral Flight Control for a Winged Re-entry Vehicle," in
AIAA Guidance, Navigation, and Control Conference and Exhibit, ed: American Institute
of Aeronautics and Astronautics, 2003.
[57] M. Heller, F. Holzapfel, and G. Sachs, "Robust lateral control of hypersonic
vehicles," in 18th Applied Aerodynamics Conference, ed: American Institute of
Aeronautics and Astronautics, 2000.
[58] H. Stone and R. Powell, "Entry Dynamics of Space Shuttle Orbiter With Lateral-
Directional Stability and Control Uncertainties at Supersonic and Hypersonic
Speeds," 1977.
[59] E. Kharisov, K. K. Kim, N. Hovakimyan, and X. Wang, "Limiting Behavior of L1
Adaptive Controllers," in AIAA Guidance, Navigation, and Control Conference, ed:
American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics, 2011.
[60] X. Enric, H. Naira, C. Chengyu, D. Vladimir, K. Isaac, and G. Irene, "L1 Adaptive
Flight Control System: Flight Evaluation and Technology Transition," in AIAA
Infotech@Aerospace 2010, ed: American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics,
2010.
[61] E. Xargay, N. Hovakimyan, V. Dobrokhodov, I. Kaminer, C. Cao, and I. Gregory,
"L1 Adaptive Control in Flight," in Advances in Intelligent and Autonomous Aerospace
Systems. vol. Volume 241, ed: American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics,
Inc., 2012, pp. 129-172.
[62] I. Gregory, C. Cao, E. Xargay, N. Hovakimyan, and X. Zou, "L1 Adaptive Control
Design for NASA AirSTAR Flight Test Vehicle," in AIAA Guidance, Navigation, and
Control Conference, ed: American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics, 2009.
[63] T. Leman, E. Xargay, G. Dullerud, N. Hovakimyan, and T. Wendel, "L1 Adaptive
Control Augmentation System for the X-48B Aircraft," in AIAA Guidance,
Navigation, and Control Conference, ed: American Institute of Aeronautics and
Astronautics, 2009.
[64] J. Wang, F. Holzapfel, E. Xargay, and N. Hovakimyan, "Non-Cascaded Dynamic
Inversion Design for Quadrotor Position Control with L1 Augmentation," presented
References
205
at the 2nd CEAS Specialist Conference on Guidance, Navigation & Control, Delft
University of Technology, Delft, The Netherlands, 2013.
[65] B. Griffin, J. Burken, and E. Xargay, "L1 Adaptive Control Augmentation System
with Application to the X-29 Lateral/Directional Dynamics: A Multi-Input Multi-
Output Approach," in AIAA Guidance, Navigation, and Control Conference, ed:
American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics, 2010.
[66] I. Gregory, E. Xargay, C. Cao, and N. Hovakimyan, "Flight Test of an L1 Adaptive
Controller on the NASA AirSTAR Flight Test Vehicle," in AIAA Guidance,
Navigation, and Control Conference, ed: American Institute of Aeronautics and
Astronautics, 2010.
[67] G. Irene, X. Enric, C. Chengyu, and H. Naira, "Flight Test of L1 Adaptive Control
Law: Offset Landings and Large Flight Envelope Modeling Work," in AIAA
Guidance, Navigation, and Control Conference, ed: American Institute of Aeronautics
and Astronautics, 2011.
[68] Z. Prime, C. Doolan, and B. Cazzolato, "Longitudinal L1 Adaptive Control of a
Hypersonic Re-entry Experiment," 15th Australian International Aerospace Congress
(AIAC15), 2013.
[69] R. Elizabeth, V. John, A. M. Jonathan, and A. B. Michael, "Nonlinear Adaptive
Dynamic Inversion Applied to a Generic Hypersonic Vehicle," in AIAA Guidance,
Navigation, and Control (GNC) Conference, ed: American Institute of Aeronautics and
Astronautics, 2013.
[70] D. Preller, S. Banerjee, M. Smart, and A. M. Creagh, "Longitudinal Control Strategy
for Hypersonic Accelerating Vehicles," in AIAA Guidance, Navigation, and Control
(GNC) Conference, ed: American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics, 2013.
[71] E. Hirschel and C. Weiland, "Short Introduction to Flight Trajectories for
Aerothermodynamicists," in Selected Aerothermodynamic Design Problems of
Hypersonic Flight Vehicles, ed: Springer Berlin Heidelberg, 2009, pp. 11-57.
[72] E. Hirschel and C. Weiland, "Aerothermodynamic Design Problems of Winged Re-
Entry Vehicles," in Selected Aerothermodynamic Design Problems of Hypersonic Flight
Vehicles, ed: Springer Berlin Heidelberg, 2009, pp. 59-127.
[73] E. Hirschel and C. Weiland, "Aerothermodynamic Design Problems of Winged
Airbreathing Vehicles," in Selected Aerothermodynamic Design Problems of Hypersonic
Flight Vehicles, ed: Springer Berlin Heidelberg, 2009, pp. 129-209.
References
206
[74] E. Hirschel and C. Weiland, "Aerothermodynamic Design Problems of Non-Winged
Re-Entry Vehicles," in Selected Aerothermodynamic Design Problems of Hypersonic
Flight Vehicles, ed: Springer Berlin Heidelberg, 2009, pp. 211-278.
[75] F. Peter, F. Holzapfel, E. Xargay, and N. Hovakimyan, "L1 Adaptive Augmentation
of a Missile Autopilot," in AIAA Guidance, Navigation, and Control Conference, ed:
American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics, 2012.
[76] F. Peter, M. Leitao, and F. Holzapfel, "Adaptive Augmentation of a New Baseline
Control Architecture for Tail-Controlled Missiles Using a Nonlinear Reference
Model," in AIAA Guidance, Navigation, and Control Conference, ed: American Institute
of Aeronautics and Astronautics, 2012.
[77] M. Bichlmeier, F. Holzapfel, E. Xargay, and N. Hovakimyan, "L1 Adaptive
Augmentation of a Helicopter Baseline Controller," in AIAA Guidance, Navigation,
and Control (GNC) Conference, ed: American Institute of Aeronautics and
Astronautics, 2013.
[78] M. Geiser, E. Xargay, N. Hovakimyan, T. Bierling, and F. Holzapfel, "L1 Adaptive
Augmented Dynamic Inversion Controller for a High Agility UAV," in AIAA
Guidance, Navigation, and Control Conference, ed: American Institute of Aeronautics
and Astronautics, 2011.
[79] C. Cao and N. Hovakimyan, "L1 adaptive controller for a class of systems with
unknown nonlinearities: Part I," in American Control Conference, 2008, 2008, pp. 4093-
4098.
[80] C. Cao and N. Hovakimyan, "L1 adaptive controller for nonlinear systems in the
presence of unmodelled dynamics: Part II," in American Control Conference, 2008,
2008, pp. 4099-4104.
[81] S. Hui, Z. Quanyan, N. Hovakimyan, and T. Basar, "L1 adaptive control for positive
LTI systems," in American Control Conference (ACC), 2011, 2011, pp. 13-18.
[82] N. Hovakimyan, V. Patel, and C. Cao, "Rohrs Example Revisited by L1 Adaptive
Controller: The Classical Control Perspective," in AIAA Guidance, Navigation and
Control Conference and Exhibit, ed: American Institute of Aeronautics and
Astronautics, 2007.
[83] C. Michael, A. V. S. Paul, and T. Sandy, "An Attitude Control Strategy Using Four
Cold Gas Thrusters for the SCRAMSPACE 1 Experiment," in 18th AIAA/3AF
International Space Planes and Hypersonic Systems and Technologies Conference, ed:
American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics, 2012.
References
207
[84] S. Banerjee, A. M. Creagh, and R. R. Boyce, "An Alternative Attitude Control
Strategy for SCRAMSPACE 1 Experiment," in AIAA Guidance, Navigation, and
Control Conference, ed: American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics, 2014.
[85] S. Tirtey, R. Boyce, L. Brown, and M. Creagh, "The SCRAMSPACE I Hypersonic
Flight Experiment Feasibility Study," in 17th AIAA International Space Planes and
Hypersonic Systems and Technologies Conference, ed: American Institute of
Aeronautics and Astronautics, 2011.
[86] B. Catherine, B. Ethan, M. John, B. David, B. Roger, and S. Brian, "The X-43A Hyper-
X Mach 7 Flight 2 Guidance, Navigation, and Control Overview and Flight Test
Results," in AIAA/CIRA 13th International Space Planes and Hypersonics Systems and
Technologies Conference, ed: American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics,
2005.
[87] H. Hughes and F. Wu, "LPV H∞ Control for Flexible Hypersonic Vehicle," in
Control of Linear Parameter Varying Systems with Applications, J. Mohammadpour and
C. W. Scherer, Eds., ed: Springer US, 2012, pp. 413-444.
[88] G. J. Balas, "Flight Control Law Design: An Industry Perspective," European Journal
of Control, vol. 9, pp. 207-226, // 2003.
[89] B. Mattos, "Flight Control Law Design: An Industry Perspective," ed, 2008.
[90] C. Favre and C. Favre, "Fly-by-wire for commercial aircraft: the Airbus experience,"
International journal of control, vol. 59, pp. 139-157, 1994.
[91] J. Becker and W. Luber, "Flight control design optimization with respect to flight
and structural dynamic requirements," in 6th Symposium on Multidisciplinary
Analysis and Optimization, ed: American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics,
1996.
[92] "Flight tests have resumed of the X-31A research aircraft," Aviation Week & Space
Technology, vol. 156, p. 20, 2002 Jun 17 2002.
[93] H. Beh, B. Fischer, and R. v. d. Bunt, "High angle of attack approach and landing
control law design for the X-31A," in 40th AIAA Aerospace Sciences Meeting & Exhibit,
ed: American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics, 2002.
[94] P. Huber and P. Seamount, "X-31 High Angle of Attack Control System
Performance," 1994.
References
208
[95] O. Hans-Christoph, O. Robert, and H. Martin, "Experiences with Eurofighter
Handling Qualities Testing," in AIAA Atmospheric Flight Mechanics Conference, ed:
American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics, 2009.
[96] M. Nikolaus and O. Robert, "Three-Stage Gradient-Based Optimization Scheme in
Design of Feedback Gains Within Eurofighter Primary Control Laws," in AIAA
Guidance, Navigation, and Control Conference and Exhibit, ed: American Institute of
Aeronautics and Astronautics, 2006.
[97] O. Robert, H. Martin, and H. Rainer, "Realization of the Eurofighter 2000 Primary
Lateral/Directional Flight Control Laws with Differential PI-Algorithm," in AIAA
Guidance, Navigation, and Control Conference and Exhibit, ed: American Institute of
Aeronautics and Astronautics, 2004.
[98] S. Phill and B. Andrew, "Flight test experience of a non-linear dynamic inversion
control law on the VAAC Harrier," in Atmospheric Flight Mechanics Conference, ed:
American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics, 2000.
[99] "An H(infinity) loop-shaping design for the VAAC Harrier," in Flight Control
Systems, ed: American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics, 2000, pp. 348-373.
[100] P. George, G. Keith, D. M. Glenn, and P. Yoge, "Development of a 'reliable' LPV
model for the longitudinal dynamics of DERA's VAAC Harrier," in AIAA Guidance,
Navigation, and Control Conference and Exhibit, ed: American Institute of Aeronautics
and Astronautics, 2000.
[101] J. D. Blight, R. Lane Dailey, and D. Gangsaas, "Practical control law design for
aircraft using multivariable techniques," International Journal of Control, vol. 59, pp.
93-137, 1994/01/01 1994.
[102] S. Srikanth and R. Armando, "Performance Based Control-Relevant Design for
Scramjet-Powered Hypersonic Vehicles," in AIAA Guidance, Navigation, and Control
Conference, ed: American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics, 2012.
[103] P. A, "Thermally controlled entry guidance for shuttle," in Guidance and Control
Conference, ed: American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics, 1972.
[104] K. W. Iliff, R. E. Maine, and D. R. Cooke, "Space Shuttle stability and control
derivatives estimated from the first entry," Journal of Guidance, Control, and
Dynamics, vol. 6, pp. 264-271, 1983/07/01 1983.
[105] J. J. Dickeson, "Control Relevant Modeling and Design of Scramjet-Powered
Hypersonic Vehicles," 3507907 Ph.D., Arizona State University, Ann Arbor, 2012.
References
209
[106] J. D. Anderson, Hypersonic and high-temperature gas dynamics. Reston, Va: American
Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics, 2006.
[107] J. J. Bertin, Hypersonic aerothermodynamics. Washington, DC: American Institute of
Aeronautics and Astronautics, 1994.
[108] D. Jeffrey, R. Armando, S. Srinkanth, S. Donald, K. Akshay, K. Jaidev, et al.,
"Control-Relevant Modeling, Analysis, and Design for Scramjet-Powered
Hypersonic Vehicles," in 16th AIAA/DLR/DGLR International Space Planes and
Hypersonic Systems and Technologies Conference, ed: American Institute of
Aeronautics and Astronautics, 2009.
[109] M. A. Bolender and D. Doman, "Flight Path Angle Dynamics of Air-Breathing
Hypersonic Vehicles," 2005.
[110] J. B. Hag and D. S. Bernstein, "Nonminimum-phase zeros - much to do about
nothing - classical control - revisited part II," vol. 27, ed. New York: The Institute of
Electrical and Electronics Engineers, Inc. (IEEE), 2007, p. 45.
[111] W. Tao, X. Wenfang, and Z. Youmin, "Adaptive Sliding Mode Fault Tolerant
Control of Civil Aircraft with Separated Uncertainties," in 48th AIAA Aerospace
Sciences Meeting Including the New Horizons Forum and Aerospace Exposition, ed:
American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics, 2010.
[112] D. Aksaray and D. Mavris, "STATISTICAL STABILITY AND CONTROL
ANALYSIS TO INVESTIGATE THE CONTROL EFFORT OF IMPROVING
HANDLING QUALITY CHARACTERISTICS," presented at the 28th Congress of
the International Council of the Aeronautical Sciences, Brisbane, Australia 2012.
[113] L. Fiorentini, A. Serrani, M. A. Bolender, and D. B. Doman, "Nonlinear control of a
hypersonic vehicle with structural flexibility," in Decision and Control, 2008. CDC
2008. 47th IEEE Conference on, 2008, pp. 578-583.
[114] L. Yu, C. Chengyu, C. Eugene, H. Naira, and K. Andy, "Design of an L1 Adaptive
Controller for Air-breathing Hypersonic Vehicle Model in the Presence of
Unmodeled Dynamics," in AIAA Guidance, Navigation and Control Conference and
Exhibit, ed: American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics, 2007.
[115] Z. D. Wilcox, W. MacKunis, S. Bhat, R. Lind, and W. E. Dixon, "Lyapunov-Based
Exponential Tracking Control of a Hypersonic Aircraft with Aerothermoelastic
Effects," Journal of Guidance, Control, and Dynamics, vol. 33, pp. 1213-1224, 2010/07/01
2010.
References
210
[116] G. Cai, J. Song, and X. Chen, "Flight control system design for hypersonic reentry
vehicle based on LFT–LPV method," Proceedings of the Institution of Mechanical
Engineers, Part G: Journal of Aerospace Engineering, vol. 228, pp. 1130-1140, June 1,
2014 2014.
[117] L. Howard, R. Stephen, D. Charles, and Y. Hussein, "Robust Nonlinear Dynamic
Inversion Control for a Hypersonic Cruise Vehicle," in AIAA Guidance, Navigation
and Control Conference and Exhibit, ed: American Institute of Aeronautics and
Astronautics, 2007.
[118] W. Jing, W. Qian, and A. Jianliang, "Dynamic Inversion-Based Control System of a
Hypersonic Vehicle with Model Uncertainty," in 18th AIAA/3AF International Space
Planes and Hypersonic Systems and Technologies Conference, ed: American Institute of
Aeronautics and Astronautics, 2012.
[119] T. E. Gibson, L. G. Crespo, and A. M. Annaswamy, "Adaptive control of hypersonic
vehicles in the presence of modeling uncertainties," in American Control Conference,
2009. ACC '09., 2009, pp. 3178-3183.
[120] Z.-h. Yang and Y.-s. Feng, "Disturbances analysis for a hypersonic vehicle based on
adaptive fuzzy control," in Fuzzy Systems and Knowledge Discovery (FSKD), 2011
Eighth International Conference on, 2011, pp. 123-128.
[121] H. A. Rediess, "Flight Dynamics and Control: From the Douglas Skyrocket to the
Space Shuttle," Journal of Guidance, Control, and Dynamics, vol. 35, pp. 721-731,
2012/05/01 2012.
[122] Z. T. Dydek, A. M. Annaswamy, and E. Lavretsky, "Adaptive control and the
NASA X-15 program: A concise history, lessons learned, and a provably correct
design," in American Control Conference, 2008, 2008, pp. 2957-2962.
[123] Z. T. Dydek, A. M. Annaswamy, and E. Lavretsky, "Adaptive Control and the
NASA X-15-3 Flight Revisited," Control Systems, IEEE, vol. 30, pp. 32-48, 2010.
[124] M. Xu, L. Liu, G. Tang, and K. Chen, "Study on guidance approaches of hypersonic
glide-cruise vehicle during cruise and attack phases," in Systems and Control in
Aeronautics and Astronautics (ISSCAA), 2010 3rd International Symposium on, 2010, pp.
1491-1495.
[125] X.-Z. Gao, Y. Wu, X. Wang, K. Zenger, and X. Huang, "Trajectory Optimization in
Reentry Phase for Hypersonic Gliding Vehicles Using Swarm Intelligence
Algorithms," in Practical Applications of Intelligent Systems. vol. 124, Y. Wang and T.
Li, Eds., ed: Springer Berlin Heidelberg, 2012, pp. 361-371.
References
211
[126] Q. Chengshan, S. Changyin, H. Yiqing, M. Chaoxu, Z. Jingmei, and Z. Ruimin,
"Design of flight control system for a Hypersonic Gliding Vehicle based on
nonlinear disturbance observer," in Control and Automation (ICCA), 2013 10th IEEE
International Conference on, 2013, pp. 1573-1577.
[127] W. Qingkai, P. Edward, and H. Xun, "Lateral Stability Analysis of Hypersonic
Vehicle under Pressure Fluctuation by Solving Mathieu Differential Equation," in
AIAA Atmospheric Flight Mechanics Conference, ed: American Institute of Aeronautics
and Astronautics, 2012.
[128] C. Cao and N. Hovakimyan, "Design and Analysis of a Novel L1 Adaptive Control
Architecture With Guaranteed Transient Performance," IEEE transactions on
automatic control, vol. 53, p. 586, 03/01 2008.
[129] C. Chengyu and N. Hovakimyan, "Guaranteed Transient Performance with L1
Adaptive Controller for Parametric Strict Feedback Systems," in American Control
Conference, 2007. ACC '07, 2007, pp. 4786-4791.
[130] C. Chengyu and N. Hovakimyan, "Design and Analysis of a Novel L1 Adaptive
Controller, Part I: Control Signal and Asymptotic Stability," in American Control
Conference, 2006, 2006, pp. 3397-3402.
[131] C. Chengyu and H. Naira, "L1 Adaptive Output Feedback Controller for Non
Strictly Positive Real Reference Systems with Applications to Aerospace Examples,"
in AIAA Guidance, Navigation and Control Conference and Exhibit, ed: American
Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics, 2008.
[132] J. Saeid, I. Petros, and E. R. Lael, "What is L1 Adaptive Control," in AIAA Guidance,
Navigation, and Control (GNC) Conference, ed: American Institute of Aeronautics and
Astronautics, 2013.
[133] C. Cao and N. Hovakimyan, "L1 Adaptive Output-Feedback Controller for Non-
Strictly-Positive-Real Reference Systems: Missile Longitudinal Autopilot Design,"
Journal of Guidance, Control, and Dynamics, vol. 32, pp. 717-726, 2009/05/01 2009.
[134] A. Giulio, C. Elisa, P. Irene, Q. Fulvia, H. Naira, and X. Enric, "L1 Adaptive Control
of Flexible Aircraft: Preliminary Results," in AIAA Atmospheric Flight Mechanics
Conference, ed: American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics, 2010.
[135] B. J. Guerreiro, C. Silvestre, R. Cunha, C. Cao, and N. Hovakimyan, "L1 adaptive
control for autonomous rotorcraft," in American Control Conference, 2009. ACC '09.,
2009, pp. 3250-3255.
References
212
[136] V. Helena, F. Walter, C. Ronald, X. Enric, and H. Naira, "Magnetic Momentum
Control of a Satellite Augmented with an L1 Adaptive Controller," in AIAA
Guidance, Navigation, and Control (GNC) Conference, ed: American Institute of
Aeronautics and Astronautics, 2013.
[137] J. Wang, C. Cao, N. Hovakimyan, R. Hindman, and B. Ridgely, "L1 Adaptive
Controller for a Missile longitudinal Autopilot Design," in AIAA Guidance,
Navigation and Control Conference and Exhibit, ed: American Institute of Aeronautics
and Astronautics, 2008.
[138] I. Kaminer, A. Pascoal, E. Xargay, N. Hovakimyan, C. Cao, and V. Dobrokhodov,
"Path Following for Small Unmanned Aerial Vehicles Using L1 Adaptive
Augmentation of Commercial Autopilots," Journal of Guidance, Control, and
Dynamics, vol. 33, pp. 550-564, 2010/03/01 2010.
[139] K.-K. Kim and N. Hovakimyan, "Multi-Criteria Optimization for Filter Design of L1
Adaptive Control," Journal of Optimization Theory and Applications, vol. 161, pp. 557-
581, 2014/05/01 2014.
[140] G. Li, W. Wenhai, and Z. Siyu, "Application of L1 Adaptive Control Augmentation
to the Flying Wing Unmanned Aerial Vehicle," in Knowledge Acquisition and
Modeling (KAM), 2011 Fourth International Symposium on, 2011, pp. 222-225.
[141] V. V. Patel, C. Chengyu, N. Hovakimyan, K. A. Wise, and E. Lavretsky, "L1
Adaptive Controller for Tailless Unstable Aircraft," in American Control Conference,
2007. ACC '07, 2007, pp. 5272-5277.
[142] A. Pettersson, K. J. Astrom, A. Robertsson, and R. Johansson, "Analysis of linear L1
adaptive control architectures for aerospace applications," in Decision and Control
(CDC), 2012 IEEE 51st Annual Conference on, 2012, pp. 1136-1141.
[143] B. Randy, C. Chengyu, and H. Naira, "An L1 Adaptive Pitch Controller for
Miniature Air Vehicles," in AIAA Guidance, Navigation, and Control Conference and
Exhibit, ed: American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics, 2006.
[144] C. Ronald, X. Enric, H. Naira, C. Chengyu, and G. Irene, "L1 Adaptive Control
under Anomaly: Flying Qualities and Adverse Pilot Interaction," in AIAA Guidance,
Navigation, and Control Conference, ed: American Institute of Aeronautics and
Astronautics, 2010.
[145] P. Vijay, C. Chengyu, H. Naira, W. Kevin, and L. Eugene, "L1 Adaptive Controller
for Tailless Unstable Aircraft in the Presence of Unknown Actuator Failures," in
References
213
AIAA Guidance, Navigation and Control Conference and Exhibit, ed: American Institute
of Aeronautics and Astronautics, 2007.
[146] C. Wang, W. Chuan, S. Michael, and C. Chengyu, "Pilot-Induced Oscillation
Suppression by Using L1 Adaptive Control," Journal of control science and engineering,
vol. 2012, pp. 1-7, 2012.
[147] G. Cai, B. Chen, and T. Lee, "Coordinate Systems and Transformations," in
Unmanned Rotorcraft Systems, ed: Springer London, 2011, pp. 23-34.
[148] M. Mayrhofer, O. Wagner, G. Sachs, R. Callies, M. Dinkelmann, M. Wächter, et al.,
"Flight Mechanics and Control," in Basic Research and Technologies for Two-Stage-to-
Orbit Vehicles, ed: Wiley-VCH Verlag GmbH & Co. KGaA, 2005, pp. 421-497.
[149] W. F. Phillips, Mechanics of flight. Hoboken, N.J: Wiley, 2004.
[150] S. G. Philander, "International Union of Geodesy and Geophysics (IUGG)," ed: Sage
Publications, 2012.
[151] "The International Civil Aviation Organization Standard Atmosphere," Nature, vol.
179, pp. 299-300, 02/09/print 1957.
[152] C. National Geophysical Data, "U.S. standard atmosphere (1976)," Planetary and
Space Science, vol. 40, pp. 553-554, 4// 1992.
[153] K. Höllig, "Multivariate Splines," SIAM Journal on Numerical Analysis, vol. 19, pp.
1013-1031, 1982.
[154] R. C. Nelson, Flight stability and automatic control, 2nd ed. ed. Boston, Mass:
WCB/McGraw Hill, 1998.
[155] V. Phuong and D. J. Biezad, "Longitudinal Control of Hypersonic Aircraft: an Alpha
Follow-Up Scheme," in Aerospace Control Systems, 1993. Proceedings. The First IEEE
Regional Conference on, 1993, pp. 440-444.
[156] M. V. Cook, "Chapter 2 - Systems of Axes and Notation," in Flight Dynamics
Principles (Third Edition), M. V. Cook, Ed., ed: Butterworth-Heinemann, 2013, pp. 13-
32.
[157] M. Maheshwari, M. Mukesh Kumar, N. Shah, H. Muhammad, and M. Aurangzeb
Rashid, "GPS Aided Inertial Navigation System," INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF
RECENT TECHNOLOGY AND ENGINEERING, vol. 2, pp. 22-26, 11/30 2013.
References
214
[158] P. D. Groves. (2007). Principles of GNSS, Inertial, and Multi-sensor Integrated
Navigation Systems. Available:
http://UQL.eblib.com.au/patron/FullRecord.aspx?p=338782
[159] V. Kempe, "Inertial MEMS - Principles and Practice," ed: Cambridge University
Press.
[160] A. D. Inc., "Ten Degrees of Freedom Inertial Sensor with Dynamic Orientation
Outputs: Data Sheet - ADIS16480," A. Devices, Ed., ed. Norwood: Analog Devices,
Inc, 2012.
[161] C. Lubin, H. Baiqing, L. An, and Q. Fangjun, "Strapdown inertial navigation system
alignment based on marginalised unscented kalman filter," Science, Measurement &
Technology, IET, vol. 7, pp. 128-138, 2013.
[162] H. W. Sorenson, Kalman filtering: theory and application New York: IEEE Press, 1985.
[163] B. R. Cobleigh. (1998, Development of the X-33 Aerodynamic Uncertainty Model.
NASA Technical Document. Available:
https://ia600604.us.archive.org/28/items/nasa_techdoc_19980055123/19980055123.pd
f
[164] S. Jong-Yeob and B. Christine, "Robustness Analysis and Reliable Flight Regime
Estimation of an Integrated Resilient Control System for a Transport Aircraft," in
AIAA Guidance, Navigation and Control Conference and Exhibit, ed: American Institute
of Aeronautics and Astronautics, 2008.
[165] F. Hargrave, "Gaussian distribution," ed: Wiley, 2001.
[166] J. Black, "Uniform Distribution," ed: Oxford University Press, 2009.
[167] K. Ogata, State space analysis of control systems. Englewood Cliffs, N.J: Prentice-Hall,
1967.
[168] E. E. Ostertag, "State Space Control Design," in Mono- and Multivariable Control and
Estimation. vol. 2, ed: Springer Berlin Heidelberg, 2011, pp. 1-76.
[169] K. Ogata, Modern control engineering. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall, 2002.
[170] J. Aseltine, A. Mancini, and C. Sarture, "A survey of adaptive control systems,"
Automatic Control, IRE Transactions on, vol. 6, pp. 102-108, 1958.
References
215
[171] B. Wittenmark, "A survey of adaptive control applications," in Dynamic Modeling
Control Applications for Industry Workshop, 1997., IEEE Industry Applications Society,
1997, pp. 32-36.
[172] K. S. Narendra and A. M. Annaswamy, Stable adaptive systems: Prentice-Hall, Inc.,
1989.
[173] Y. Bong-Jun, Y. Tansel, S. Jong-Yeob, and C. Anthony, "LMI-Based Analysis of An
Adaptive Flight Control System with Unmatched Uncertainty," in AIAA
Infotech@Aerospace 2010, ed: American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics,
2010.
[174] T. Bradley, W. Jonathan, S. Yuri, and A. Reza, "Integral sliding mode autopilot for
rocket stabilization with unmatched disturbances," in AIAA Guidance, Navigation,
and Control Conference, ed: American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics,
2012.
[175] T. N. Nhan, "Multi-Objective Optimal Control Modification Adaptive Control
Method for Systems with Input and Unmatched Uncertainties," in AIAA Guidance,
Navigation, and Control Conference, ed: American Institute of Aeronautics and
Astronautics, 2014.
[176] E. Xargay, N. Hovakimyan, and C. Chengyu, "L1 adaptive output feedback
controller for nonlinear systems in the presence of unmodeled dynamics," in
American Control Conference, 2009. ACC '09., 2009, pp. 5091-5096.
[177] E. Xargay, N. Hovakimyan, and C. Chengyu, "Benchmark problems of adaptive
control revisited by L1 adaptive control," in Control and Automation, 2009. MED '09.
17th Mediterranean Conference on, 2009, pp. 31-36.
[178] I. o. F. S. Dynamics. (2014, 13.10.2013). Nonlinear and Adaptive Flight Control.
Available: http://www.fsd.mw.tum.de/research/flight-control/nonlinear-and-
adaptive-flight-control/
[179] J. Che, I. Gregory, and C. Cao, "Integrated Flight/Structural Mode Control for Very
Flexible Aircraft Using L1 Adaptive Output Feedback Controller," in AIAA
Guidance, Navigation, and Control Conference, ed: American Institute of Aeronautics
and Astronautics, 2012.
[180] C. Heise, M. Leitao, and F. Holzapfel, "Performance and Robustness Metrics for
Adaptive Flight Control - Available Approaches," in AIAA Guidance, Navigation, and
Control (GNC) Conference, ed: American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics,
2013.
References
216
[181] T. Bierling, "Comparative Analysis of Adaptive Control Techniques for Improved
Robust Performance " PhD, Lehrstuhl für Flugsystemdynamik Technischen
Universität München, Munich, 2014.
[182] A. Dorobantu, P. Seiler, and G. J. Balas, "Time-Delay Margin Analysis for an
Adaptive Controller," Journal of Guidance, Control, and Dynamics, vol. 35, pp. 1418-
1425, 2012/09/01 2012.
[183] N. Nhan and S. Erin, "On Time Delay Margin Estimation for Adaptive Control and
Robust Modification Adaptive Laws," in AIAA Guidance, Navigation, and Control
Conference, ed: American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics, 2011.
[184] C. Chengyu, P. Vijay, R. Konda, H. Naira, L. Eugene, and K. Wise, "Are Phase and
Time-Delay Margins Always Adversely Affected by High-Gain?," in AIAA
Guidance, Navigation, and Control Conference and Exhibit, ed: American Institute of
Aeronautics and Astronautics, 2006.
[185] A. Anuradha, J. Jinho, and L. Eugene, "Stability Margins for Adaptive Controllers in
the Presence of Time-Delay," in AIAA Guidance, Navigation and Control Conference
and Exhibit, ed: American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics, 2008.
[186] K. I. Abraham, B.-M. Shahar, and N. Nhan, "Time Delay Margin Computation via
the Razumikhin Method for an Adaptive Control System," in AIAA Guidance,
Navigation, and Control Conference, ed: American Institute of Aeronautics and
Astronautics, 2009.
[187] C. D. Heise and F. Holzapfel, "Time-delay margin computation of Model Reference
Adaptive Control using the Razumikhin theorem," in Decision and Control (CDC),
2014 IEEE 53rd Annual Conference on, 2014, pp. 529-535.
[188] M. Buddy and H. Jonathan, "L1 Adaptive Control for Indoor Autonomous Vehicles:
Design Process and Flight Testing," in AIAA Guidance, Navigation, and Control
Conference, ed: American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics, 2009.
[189] E. Xargay, N. Hovakimyan, and C. Chengyu, "L<inf>1</inf> adaptive controller for
multi-input multi-output systems in the presence of nonlinear unmatched
uncertainties," in American Control Conference (ACC), 2010, 2010, pp. 874-879.
[190] M. Asselin, An introduction to aircraft performance. Reston, Va: American Institute of
Aeronautics and Astronautics, 1997.
[191] A. Siddiqui and G. Ahmed, "Design and Analysis on Scramjet Engine Inlet,"
International Journal of Scientific and Research Publications, vol. 3, pp. 1-12, 2013.
References
217
[192] W. H. Heiser and D. T. Pratt, Hypersonic airbreathing propulsion. Washington, D.C:
American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics, 1994.
Appendix A
218
Appendix A
Frames of Reference and Coordinate Transformation
The graphical representations of the various frames of references utilised in this research
are shown below.
Fig A. 1. Frames of Reference - Aircraft
Fig A. 1 shows all of the frames of references used in flight mechanics. The red line that is
labelled reference meridian is the prime meridian running through the London
Observatory. The figure above depicts the various frames of reference explained and
outlined in Section 3.2.1.
Every transformation is a linear mapping that is represented using a matrix. For example
if a frame of reference is rotated about the z-axis at an angle , then the matrix used to
describe this rotation is as follows:
Frames of Reference and Coordinate Transformation
219
C. 1
The corresponding rotations about the other axes are as follows:
C. 2
C. 3
The matrices and are the matrices that are used for all sequences of
rotations. An example of a series of three rotations is presented next. The rotation
sequence is as follows:
C. 4
The above equation consists of the following rotations:
1. Rotation about the z-axis through an angle of
2. Rotation about the "new" y-axis through an angle of
3. Rotation about the "new" x-axis through an angle of
The multiplication of the transformations matrices leads to the following solution.
C. 5
A more specific example is presented next. The transformation from the stability to the
body fixed axis is presented next. The transformation when written in short hand is
written as
C. 6
Frames of Reference and Coordinate Transformation
220
where is the angle of attack and is the sideslip angle. Expanding the above equation
leads to:
C. 7
C. 8
A graphical representation of the stability and the body fixed axis is depicted in Fig A. 2.
Fig A. 2.Body and Stability Axis of Aircraft