Hostname: page-component-8448b6f56d-qsmjn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-25T03:36:15.206Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Dynamic gain scheduled control of a Hawk scale model

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  03 February 2016

T. Richardson ,
M. Lowenberg ,
C. Jones  and
A. Dubs
T. Richardson
Affiliation:
Department of Aerospace Engineering, University of Bristol, Bristol, UK
M. Lowenberg
Affiliation:
Department of Aerospace Engineering, University of Bristol, Bristol, UK
C. Jones
Affiliation:
Department of Aerospace Engineering, University of Bristol, Bristol, UK
A. Dubs
Affiliation:
Department of Aerospace Engineering, University of Bristol, Bristol, UK
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

When designing flight control laws using linearisations of an aircraft model about different flight conditions, some form of scheduling of the resultant gains will often be required to implement the controller over wide operating regions. In practice, the controller gains are often scheduled against relatively slowly-varying system states such as altitude or velocity. However, it may also be desirable to schedule gains against rapidly-varying states such as angle-of-attack, thereby generating a cyclic dependence through hidden coupling terms. Previous published work at Bristol has developed a numerical method of accounting for this dependence when scheduling state feedback gains against coupled states. The resulting ‘dynamic gain schedule’ is shown to significantly improve the transient response of the aircraft model during rapid manoeuvring and to reduce the chances of control surface actuator position limit saturation. In this paper, the novel design process, using eigenstructure assignment, is applied to a mathematical second-order longitudinal aircraft model which represents an approximate BAe Hawk wind-tunnel model. The dynamic gain scheduled controller is shown to work extremely well in practice when applied to the closed-loop experimental rig. Despite the highly nonlinear characteristics of the model aerodynamics and tailplane actuation system, as well as unmodelled high turbulence levels, dynamic gain scheduling demonstrates stable closed loop control even in regions where the nonlinearities are such that conventional gain scheduling fails to produce a stable response.

Type
Research Article
Information
The Aeronautical Journal , Volume 111 , Issue 1121 , July 2007 , pp. 461 - 469
Copyright
Copyright © Royal Aeronautical Society 2007 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1. Rugh, W.J. and Shamma, J.S., Research on gain scheduling, Automatica, 2000, 36, (10), pp 1401–1425.Google Scholar
2. Richardson, T., Davison, P., Lowenberg, M. and Di Bernardo, M., Control of nonlinear aircraft models using dynamic state-feedback gain scheduling, August 2003, AIAA Paper, AIAA-2003-5503.Google Scholar
3. Jones, C.D.C., Richardson, T.S. and Lowenberg, M.H., Dynamic gain-scheduled control of the ICE 101-TV, Aeronaut J, December 2005, 109, (1102), pp 593–607.Google Scholar
4. Nichols, R.A., Reichert, R.T. and Rugh, W.J., Gain scheduling for H-infinity controllers: A flight control example, 1992, Technical report, John Hopkins University, Baltimore, MD.Google Scholar
5. Jones, C.D.C., Richardson, T.S. and Lowenberg, M.H., Dynamic state-feedback gain scheduled control of the ICE 101-TV, 2004, AIAA-2004-4754.Google Scholar
6. Jones, C.D.C., Lowenberg, M.H. and Richardson, T.S., Tailored dynamic gain-scheduled control. J Guidance, Control and Dynamics, 2006,29, (6), pp 1271–1281.Google Scholar
7. Liu, G.P. and Patton, R.J., Eigenstructure Assignment for Control System Design, 1998, John Wiley and Sons.Google Scholar
8. Andry, A.N., Shapiro, E.Y. and Chung, J.C., Eigenstructure assignment of linear systems. IEEE Transactions on Aerospace and Electronic Systems, 1983, 19, (5), pp 711–728.Google Scholar
9. Sobel, K.M., Shapiro, E.Y., and Andry, A.N., Eigenstructure assignment, Int J Control, 1994, 59, (1), pp 13–37.Google Scholar
10. Jones, C.D.C., Dynamic Gain-scheduled Control of a Nonlinear UCAV Model, 2006, PhD thesis, University of Bristol.Google Scholar
11. Dutton, K., Thompson, S. and Barraclough, B., The Art of Control Engineering, 1998, Addison-Wesley.Google Scholar
12. Cook, M.V., Flight Dynamics Principles, 1997, Arnold.Google Scholar
13. Davison, P.M., Development, Modelling and Control of a Multi-degree-of-freedom Dynamic Wind Tunnel Rig, September 2003, PhD thesis, University of Bristol.Google Scholar
14. Kyle, H., An investigation into the use of a pendulum support rig for aerodynamic modelling, 2004, PhD thesis, University of Bristol.Google Scholar
15. Davison, P., Lowenberg, M. and Di Bernardo, M., Experimental analysis and modelling of limit cycles and bifurcations in a dynamic wind tunnel rig, J Aircr, July-August 2003, 40, (4), pp 776–785.Google Scholar
16. Lowenberg, M.H., Application of Bifurcation Analysis to Multiple Attractor Flight Dynamics, 1998, PhD thesis, University of Bristol.Google Scholar
17. Lowenberg, M.H., Bifurcation analysis of multiple-attractor flight dynamics. Philosophical Transactions of The Royal Society A: Mathematical, Physical and Engineering Sciences, 1998, 356, pp 2297–2319.Google Scholar
18. Carroll, J.V. and Mehra, R.K., Bifurcation analysis of nonlinear aircraft dynamics. J Guidance, Control and Dynamics, 1982, 5, (5), pp 529–536.Google Scholar