Documenti di Didattica
Documenti di Professioni
Documenti di Cultura
R.M.P. Goverde
Rapport ter verkrijging van het certicaat technologisch ontwerper aan de Technische Universiteit Delft. Presentatie van het rapport vindt plaats op 15 februari 1996 om 10.00 uur in Delft.
January 1996
Statistics, Stochastics, and Operations Research Unit Department of Technical Mathematics and Informatics Delft Universtity of Technology
Examination board: Prof. Dr. R.M. Cooke (Delft University of Technology) Drs. A.A. ten Dam (National Aerospace Laboratory NLR) Dr. H. van Maaren (Delft University of Technology) Prof. Dr. G.J. Olsder (Delft University of Technology) Ir. J. Schuring (National Aerospace Laboratory NLR) Ir. J.C. Terlouw (National Aerospace Laboratory NLR) Dr. J.W. van der Woude (Delft University of Technology)
Summary
Besides providing stability and control to aircraft, ight control systems play an increasingly important role in meeting cost and performance objectives for modern civil and military aircraft. Robust control theory o ers a systematic approach to design and evaluate ight control systems that function properly in all ight conditions and aircraft states. It deals explicitly with the uncertainties in the characteristics of the aircraft and in the environment in which it has to operate. As a consequence, ight control systems designed using robust control techniques may give a reduction in time and cost of the ight control design process, compared to classical control design methods. Under certain assumptions, the motions of aircraft can be decoupled into symmetric and asymmetric motions. Hereby, separate controllers can be designed for the symmetric and asymmetric motions, respectively. Using robust control techniques, a controller has been designed for the symmetric motions of a civil aircraft for the nal approach. A modern approach to robust control is H1 optimal control. This method can be interpreted as the minimization of the transfer matrix of the system in a worst case scenario. The resulting control law guarantees stability of the closed-loop system and achievement of the objectives for the whole class of systems induced by the uncertainty. Generally, uncertainty in a system is present at various components and is in this way highly structured. A measure of robustness that explicitly takes the structured uncertainty into account is the structured singular value or . The in uence of the structured uncertainty on system performance can be analysed by applying analysis. A combination of the techniques of H1 optimal control and analysis provides a modern approach to design and analyse robust control systems. This design approach is provided by synthesis. An aircraft can be regarded as a system having input and output signals. Parameters that vary during operation of a system cause uncertainty in the behaviour of the system. These uncertain parameters can be modelled as structured uncertainty in the system using parametric uncertainty modelling. In the design project a procedure has been developed that illustrates how variations in three or more parameters can be dealt with, as opposed to the more conventional modelling of only one or two uncertain parameters. Computational aspects have been considered to minimize computation time. Besides the parametric uncertainty, also external i
ii disturbances by wind and turbulence have been taken into account. Using synthesis, a ight control system has been designed for the model of the symmetric dynamics of the aircraft. The performance of the controller has been analysed by analysis and closed-loop time responses.
iv Hiervoor is een methode ontwikkeld om variaties in meerdere parameters te kunnen behandelen, waarbij rekentechnische aspecten in ogenschouw zijn genomen om de rekentijd te minimaliseren. Naast de parametrische onzekerheid is bij het modelleren van het vliegtuig ook rekening gehouden met externe verstoringen van het systeem door wind en turbulentie. Met behulp van -synthese is een regelaar ontworpen voor het model van de symmetrische vliegtuigbewegingen. De prestatie van de regelaar is getest door middel van -analyse en gesloten-lus tijdsresponsies.
Preface
This report presents the results of the project executed at the National Aerospace Laboratory NLR within the scope of the second year design project of the post-MSc mathematical design engineering programme \Wiskundige Beheers- en Beleidsmodellen" (WBBM) of the Delft University of Technology (TUD). In June, 1995, an action group of the Group for Aeronautical Research and Technology in Europe (GARTEUR) started the Robust Flight Control Design Challenge. In this design challenge a civil and military robust ight control design problem have been formulated which are solved by 22 research groups of the European aeronautical industry, universities, and research laboratories. My task at NLR has been to work on the civil aircraft control problem. The problem is based on the Research Civil Aircraft Model (RCAM) and considers a civil aircraft during nal approach. Roughly the rst half year of my stay at NLR, I studied the methods of robust control. The study involved an extensive literature study and experimenting with the relevant MATLAB toolboxes. Additionally, I did some work on the military control problem, the High Incidence Research Model (HIRM) benchmark. This period resulted in an NLR technical report 14]. During this period I also assisted in the editing of the HIRM manual. Moreover, I started joining the Automatic Flight Control (AFC) meetings of the Stability and Control Group of the Faculty of Aerospace at TUD. The AFC meetings are organized by J.C. van der Vaart and are intended for PhD students and students in the last stage of their study who are interested in ight control. The second part of my stay at NLR, I was engaged with the RCAM benchmark. During this period I developed some software routines for uncertainty modelling and controller design. These tools are based on existing MATLAB toolboxes. Using these tools I designed a controller for the longitudinal motions of the RCAM aircraft. This period also resulted in an NLR technical report 15]. At NLR, I thank Tonny ten Dam of Mathematical Models and Methods, and Jan Terlouw, Jan Schuring and Paul Lambrechts of Flight Mechanics, for their support during my stay at NLR. At TUD, I thank Geert Jan Olsder and Jacob van der Woude for their support from the university side. I thank Hans van Maaren for the opportunity of joining the post-MSc programme v
vi and thereby giving me the chance to further develop my interest in the applied mathematics. Finally I thank my colleagues, and especially my room-mates, at the Statistics, Stochastics, and Operations Research Unit at TUD for a great working atmosphere. My deepest appreciation goes to Guido te Brake who managed to survive my company for over 10 hours a (working) day during whole 1994, including room-mating and car-pooling. Rob Goverde Delft, January 1996
Contents
Summary Samenvatting (Summary in Dutch) Preface 1 Introduction
1.1 1.2 1.3 1.4 1.5 1.6 Robust Flight Control : : : : : The GARTEUR Project : : : : The RCAM Design Benchmark Synthesis : : : : : : : : : : : The Design Project : : : : : : : Outline of the Report : : : : : :
: : : : : :
: : : : : :
: : : : : :
: : : : : :
: : : : : :
: : : : : :
: : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : :
: : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : :
: : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : :
: : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : :
: : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : :
: : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : :
: : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : :
: : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : :
: : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : :
: : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : :
: : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : :
: : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : :
: : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : :
: : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : :
: : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : :
i iii v 1
1 2 3 4 5 5
2.1 System Descriptions : : : : : : : : : : : : 2.1.1 State-Space Realizations : : : : : : 2.1.2 Transfer Matrices : : : : : : : : : : 2.1.3 Linear Fractional Transformations : 2.2 Linear Feedback Control : : : : : : : : : : 2.3 H1 Optimal Control : : : : : : : : : : : : 2.4 Uncertainty Modelling : : : : : : : : : : : 2.4.1 Introduction : : : : : : : : : : : : : 2.4.2 Interconnections of LFTs : : : : : : 2.4.3 Real Parameter Uncertainty : : : : 2.5 The Structured Singular Value ( ) : : : : 2.6 Analysis : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : 2.7 Synthesis : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : 2.8 Control System Design Cycle Description : 2.9 Additional Reading : : : : : : : : : : : : :
6 6 7 7 9 10 13 13 13 15 18 22 24 27 27
29
viii 3.2 Aircraft Model : : : : : : : : : 3.2.1 Longitudinal Dynamics : 3.2.2 Measurement Signals : : 3.2.3 Actuator Signals : : : : 3.3 Actuator Model : : : : : : : : : 3.4 Wind and Turbulence Model : : 3.5 Reference Signals : : : : : : : :
Contents
: : : : : : :
: : : : : : :
: : : : : : :
: : : : : : : : : : : : :
: : : : : : : : : : : : :
: : : : : : : : : : : : :
: : : : : : : : : : : : :
: : : : : : : : : : : : :
: : : : : : : : : : : : :
: : : : : : : : : : : : :
: : : : : : : : : : : : :
: : : : : : : : : : : : :
: : : : : : : : : : : : :
: : : : : : : : : : : : :
: : : : : : : : : : : : :
: : : : : : : : : : : : :
: : : : : : : : : : : : :
: : : : : : : : : : : : :
: : : : : : : : : : : : :
: : : : : : : : : : : : :
: : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : :
30 30 31 31 32 32 34
4 Modelling
4.1 Introduction : : : : : : : : : : : : : : 4.2 Parameter Uncertainty Modelling : : 4.2.1 One Uncertain Parameter : : 4.2.2 Two Uncertain Parameters : : 4.2.3 Four Uncertain Parameters : : 4.3 Standard Plant for Controller Design
35
35 36 36 39 41 44
5.1 Robust Controller Design for 1-Dimensional Parameter Uncertainty 5.1.1 Introduction : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : 5.1.2 D-K Iteration : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : 5.1.3 Controller Order Reduction : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : 5.2 Robust Controller Design for 4-Dimensional Parameter Uncertainty 5.2.1 Introduction : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : 5.2.2 D-K Iteration : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : 5.2.3 Controller Order Reduction : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : :
49
49 49 49 52 52 52 52 58
6 Analysis of the Designed Controller 7 Conclusions and Recommendations References A Software Description B Nomenclature
62 68 71 74 78
Chapter 1 Introduction
1.1 Robust Flight Control
No mathematical system can exactly model a physical system. Uncertainty due to unmodelled dynamics and uncertain parameters is always present. Two additional causes of inconsistency between the mathematical model and the physical system are intentional model simpli cation, such as linearization and model reduction, and incomplete or inexact data from identi cation experiments. Robust control theory deals with the analysis and synthesis of control systems for plants with uncertainty. A robust control system copes with various stability and performance speci cations in the face of plant uncertainty 8]. Stability and control is one of the major technical challenges in the design of an aircraft. Flight control systems must function properly in all ight conditions and aircraft states in order to ensure safety of ight. The aircraft is a very complex system with lots of uncertainties due to unmodelled dynamics, parameter uncertainty, sensor noise, actuator errors, etc. Also the interaction between the aircraft and its environment has to be dealt with, including wind disturbances such as wind shears, gusts, and turbulence. Furthermore, special situations such as engine failure may be taken into account 2, 9]. Besides stability and control, the control system is playing an increasingly important role in meeting cost and performance objectives for modern civil and military aircraft. These objectives may include command and stability augmentation for superior ying qualities and manoeuvrability; automatic ight trajectory and speed control for operations in all weather conditions; manoeuvre and gust load reduction for extended service life; ride quality enhancements for crew and passenger comfort; aerodynamic and propulsion performance optimization for reduced operating cost; utter suppression and failure or battle damage recon guration for enhanced safety 2]. The control system has to provide stability and achieve the performance requirements in the face of uncertainty, without being conservative, since control laws that meet the performance requirements for unrealistic levels of uncertainty 1
Chapter 1. Introduction
sacri ce performance when applied to the real system. Flight control system design by classical control methods is time-consuming and expensive. This is due to the uncertainties that occur in characterizing the aircraft and the environment in which it has to operate. Classical control theory does not explicitly deal with these uncertainties. As a consequence the control engineer has to spend a large amount of time investigating the e ect of the neglected uncertainties on the designed control system. Even then it is not guaranteed that problems do not occur in the nal phases of a design programme because of the presence of unexpected or unmodelled dynamics, etc. Rectifying these problems at this late stage is very di cult and expensive. Robust control theory yields new design approaches to deal with complex multivariable control systems. It has been especially developed to deal with uncertainties in the characteristics of the vehicle and the environment in which it has to operate. It o ers a systematic approach to investigating and evaluating the e ects of many uncertainties on the performance of the overall system. As a consequence ight control systems designed using robust control techniques may give a reduction in time and cost of the ight control design process. Moreover, aircraft with improved performance speci cations may be designed 9].
The Group for Aeronautical Research and Technology in Europe (GARTEUR) is an organization for research collaboration in Europe in the eld of aeronautics. The GARTEUR action group FM(AG08) (Flight Mechanics Action Group 08) is concerned with \Robust Flight Control in a Computational Aircraft Control Engineering Environment (CACEE)". Subproject FM-AG03-3 aims at removing the above mentioned drawbacks and at demonstrating to European aircraft manufacturers that a signi cant improvement in the overall design process is possible by using robust control techniques. In greater detail, the aim is: To identify and apply existing and new controller design methods to robust control problems that are representative of operational industrial needs. To introduce robust controller design and analysis methods into the control law design cycle, in order to cope more e ciently with uncertainty in the models used and with operational changes that may occur. To identify tools which can be used in conjunction with multi-disciplinary design optimization to improve overall dynamic system performance. To develop robust controller design procedures that interface with industrial requirements. The GARTEUR action group FM(AG08) has de ned two robust ight control design benchmarks, which are solved by designers from the European aeronautical industry, research establishments, and universities. A wide variety of modern and classical design methods are applied, which will then be compared and evaluated. The two benchmarks cover an automatic landing control problem for the Research Civil Aircraft Model (RCAM) 9] and a high angle of attack enhanced manual control problem for the High Incidence Research Model (HIRM) 10], respectively.
Chapter 1. Introduction
but also in the sense of controller complexity and controller design time. Especially the latter is considered to be of the utmost importance for the aircraft industry. In particular, the designed controller should be robust with respect to variations in weight and center of gravity position, time delays, nonlinearities, and engine failure. Moreover, various external conditions such as wind shear and turbulence have to be taken into account. Also passenger comfort, safety, and power consumption criteria have to be considered. The present report deals with the design of the RCAM design benchmark using synthesis. The design covers the ight control system for the symmetric (longitudinal) motions of the RCAM aircraft. Robustness with respect to variations in weight and center of gravity position is considered explicitly. Time delay is not considered in the present design.
1.4
Synthesis
A modern robust control approach is H1 optimal control theory. Furthermore, a powerful tool to measure robustness is structured singular value ( ) analysis. A combination of H1 optimal control theory and analysis results in synthesis which provides a modern approach to design and analyse robust control systems. H1 optimal control theory is a highly developed theory which yields control laws such that even in the worst case scenario the stability and performance requirements are still met. Of course, the success of nding such a controller depends on the performance speci cations. If these are too demanding, no controller can be found. In this case, the objectives have to be adjusted. An e cient synthesis method has been developed using state-space algorithms. However, this approach may lead to conservative results, since it neglects possible knowledge of structure in the uncertain model 4, 17]. A way to gain better results is to exploit available information about the structure of the uncertainty. Throughout the system, uncertainties may be present. Instead of modelling these uncertainties as unstructured, the general uncertainties at the various components can be taken into account one by one explicitly, and rearranged to form structured uncertainty at the system level. This uncertainty modelling is done by making extensive use of the theory of linear fractional transformations (LFTs) 5, 16]. The in uence of structured uncertainty on system performance can explicitly be analysed by applying analysis. Analysis is therefore a powerful tool to analyse control systems for uncertain systems in a nonconservative way and during the last decade a lot of research has been done in this area. Unfortunately, no e ective synthesis methods have yet been developed to apply analysis in the design process of control systems with general uncertainty structure. However, for a restricted class of modelled uncertainties|bounded complex perturbations of the system|a -synthesis method has been developed, for which the D-K iteration
approach yields good results despite presently unsolved convergence problems. The -synthesis problem is solved here by sequentially applying H1 synthesis and analysis 1, 3, 18].
The system matrices A; B; C; and D are called the state matrix, input matrix, output matrix, and direct-feedthrough matrix, respectively. By taking the Laplace transforms, the time-domain system functions of the former section can be mapped into functions that are de ned in the frequency domain. The transfer matrix G is the input/output relation de ned in the frequency domain. In terms of state-space data the transfer matrix is given as 11 G12 G(s) = G G21 G22 ; where Gij = Ci(sIn ? A)?1Bj + Dij and s is a complex variable. Figure 2.1 shows the interpretation of G(s) as input/output relation.
wuwu zy
l
P
a. P
zy-
u-
z y-
P the (linear fractional) coe cient matrix, and l and u are called perturbations. More generally we can in the same way de ne LFTs with respect to complex rational matrices P (s), l(s), and u(s). The LFTs arise naturally in system theory when describing feedback systems: Consider a transfer matrix P (s) with inputs w and u, and outputs z and y as in Figure 2.2.a. Then the closed-loop transfer matrices from w to z of Figure 2.2.b and from u to y of Figure 2.2.c are the LFTs Fl(P; l) and Fu(P; u ), respectively. The subscripts l and u refer to whether we are closing the lower or upper loop. We thus refer to lower LFTs as closed-loop systems from the exogenous input to the objective, and to upper LFTs as closed-loop systems from the control input to the measurement. Transfer functions can also be represented by LFTs. Consider the state-space realization of a system given as x _ (t) = Ax(t) + Bu(t) y(t) = Cx(t) + Du(t): This can be reformulated as A B x(t) = P x(t) x _ (t) y(t) = C D u(t) u(t)
and the transfer matrix is G(s) = D + C (sI ? A)?1B 1 I )?1B I ( I ? A = D +C1 s s 1 = Fu(P; s I ):
This is an upper LFT with respect to a repeated complex scalar perturbation 1 sI. LFTs can be used both to describe linear feedback control systems and to model system uncertainty. As a matter of convention we restrict the use of the lower LFTs to model feedback control systems and the upper LFTs to model system uncertainty. Moreover, LFTs have the useful property that the interconnection of LFTs is again one LFT. These concepts are explained in more detail in the next sections.
G K
zy
=
w- Fl(G; K ) z -
Figure 2.3: Output feedback and the LFT Fl(G; K ). By implementing a feedback control system, a closed-loop system results, having the exogenous input w and the objective output z as only input and output,
10
2.3
H1
Optimal Control
kf k2 :=
Z1
0
f (t) 2dt
1=2
where j j is the Euclides norm de ned as jf (t)j = f (t)T f (t). It can be proven that (2.2) equals the H1 -norm of the transfer matrix from w to z in the frequency domain, kM k1 = sup (M (j!)): Here is the maximum singular value,
!2IR
(M ) :=
(M M );
with the spectral radius or largest eigenvalue. H1 is the Hardy space consisting of all complex-valued (matrix) functions of one complex variable that are analytic and bounded in the open right half plane, Re(s) > 0.
11
The H1 optimization problem is to design a feedback control system K such that the closed-loop system Fl(G; K ) is stable and the H1 -norm of the closed-loop transfer function is minimized, i.e.,
K 2A
(2:3)
The optimal control system is called the optimal H1 controller and the procedure to nd the H1 controllers is called H1 synthesis. For uncertain systems the H1 optimization problem can be interpreted as planning for the worst scenario of uncertainty in the system that can possibly occur and then optimizing the objectives for this situation. The result is that the objectives are satis ed for the whole class of problems induced by the uncertainty. The H1 optimization problem can be solved by iteration. The problem is then reformulated in checking whether a stabilizing controller K 2 A exists such that kFl(G; K )k1 < . By a search over the solution of the H1 optimization problem is obtained. An e cient state-space algorithm exists that solves the iteration problem. This procedure involves checking that two Hamiltonian matrices consisting of state-space data do not have any eigenvalues on the imaginary axis, and nding positive semidefinite solutions to two Riccati equations. In order to apply this procedure we need the following additional assumptions on our system.
Assumptions
(i) (A; B2) is stabilizable and (C2; A) is detectable. (ii) D12 has full column rank m2 and D21 has full row rank p2. (iii) The matrix A ? j!In B2 C1 D12 has full column rank n + m2 for all ! 2 IR, and A ? j!In B1 C2 D21 has full row rank n + p2 for all ! 2 IR.
Assumption (i) is necessary and su cient for the existence of stabilizing controllers. Assumption (ii) eliminates the possibility of singular problems. It requires the dimension of z to be at least that of u, while the dimension of w must be at least that of y. Put in another way, we assume that there are at least as many objectives as controls, and as many exogenous inputs as measurements. Since no measurement is error free, and no control action is costless, these are reasonable assumptions. The
12
rank conditions in assumption (iii) imply that the feedback connection of the realizations for G and K are detectable and stabilizable, corresponding to the rst and second rank condition respectively. These conditions are necessary for the existence of solutions to the two Riccati equations that are involved in the solution of the H1 optimization problem. Theorem 2.1 gives a procedure to check whether the upper bound on the H1 norm is satis ed. This theorem assumes the following additional conditions that can be made without loss of generality since any plant can be transformed into a plant satisfying these conditions 19].
Additional Assumptions
B1 T D21 D21 =
0 : I
2
?2 B1 B T
1
I1 = ?CA T 1 C1
and
?AT
? B2B2T
AT X1 + X1 A + X1 (
and
?2 B1 B T
1 1
(2:4) (2:5)
AY1 + Y1 AT + Y1 (
?2 C T C1 ? C T C2 )Y1 + B1 B T
= 0:
Theorem 2.1 Let the system (2.1) satisfy all assumptions (i)-(v) stated above. Then there exists an internally stabilizing controller K such that kFl(G; K )k1 <
i the following conditions hold: (i) The Hamiltonian matrices I1 and J1 do not have any purely imaginary eigenvalues, (ii) X1 and Y1 are positive semide nite solutions to the two Riccati equations (2.4) and (2.5) respectively, (iii) (X1 Y1 ) < 2 :
13
Note that the dimension of the controller equals the dimension of the original system. The H1 optimization problem (2.3) can now be solved by iteratively applying Theorem 2.1 using for instance a bisection algorithm. If a system is considered that does not satisfy the additional assumptions (iv) and (v) then this system can be transformed into a system that does. The H1 optimization problem is solved for this transformed system and then the controller computed for the simpler transformed system is back-transformed to obtain the controller of the original problem. Also an algorithm exists that does not need the additional assumptions (iv) and (v). The algorithms are implemented in MATLAB in the -Analysis and Synthesis Toolbox and the Robust Control Toolbox.
2.4.1 Introduction
14
2 1
u-
P2
P1
y-
u-
y-
Figure 2.4: Series connection of LFTs. Consider two LFTs with coe cient matrices P1 and P2 , respectively, de ned as
111 P112 ; P := P211 P212 ; P1 := P 2 P221 P222 P121 P122
and de ne
(2:6) 0 2 : Then the series connection or cascade system of Fu(P1; 1) and Fu(P2; 2) as in Figure 2.4 is the LFT Fu (P; ) with as de ned in (2.6) and coe cient matrix :=
P1
2
+y ? 6 +
u-
y-
P2
Figure 2.5: Parallel connection of LFTs.
15
The parallel connection of Fu(P1; 1) and Fu(P2; 2) as in Figure 2.5 is an LFT Fu (P; ) with as in (2.6) and coe cient matrix
u +
0 P 0 111 P = @ 0 P211
P121 P221 y-
+ 6
P1
1 A:
u-
y-
Figure 2.6: An LFT in a feedback loop. Consider a feedback loop containing an LFT as in Figure 2.6, where
P112 (I ? P122 )?1P121 P112 (I ? P122 )?1 : P = P111 + (I ? P122 )?1 (I ? P122 )?1P121
Clearly, for well-posedness I ? P122 has to be nonsingular. Uncertain parameters arise naturally in systems when parameters change during operation of the system. Consider for instance an aircraft. The total mass of the aircraft depends on the amount of cargo or the number of passengers at a particular ight. Mass is thus an uncertain parameter. Also the exact position of the center of gravity is uncertain due to the fact that the distribution of the cargo and/or passengers over the aircraft di ers at each ight. These parameters are real-valued and can be reformulated as time-invariant parameter variation if lower and upper estimates of the parameters can be obtained. The parameter variation in statespace data can then be modelled as upper LFTs with real perturbations which we will explain in this section.
16
is the matrix consisting of the parameter dependent system matrices. Since we assumed the parameters to be real, parameter uncertainty can naturally be modelled as real-valued parameter variations: we assume that lower and upper bounds can be obtained for all scalar parameters pi . The resulting lower and upper bound vectors for p are denoted by p and p, respectively. De ne p?p p+p p0 = 2 and s = 2 : Then with = ( 1; . . . ; r), i 2 ?1; 1] we have pi = p0i + si i; i = 1; . . . ; r: (2:9) Substituting (2.9) in (2.8) yields scaled (multi-dimensional) polynomial expressions for all varying numerators and denominators. For example, suppose a numerator is given as nij (p1; p2) = p1p2. Then with (2.9) the scaled numerator is nij ( 1; 2) = p01 p02 + p02 s1 1 + p01 s2 2 + s1s2 1 2: (2:10) The individual parts of a numerator or denominator consist of a number of terms that can be written as separate upper LFTs. For example, the three varying terms of the scaled numerator in (2.10) can be written as three upper LFTs as follows: 0 p01 s2 ; p02 s1 ; ; p s = F p02 s1 1 = Fu 0 2 0 2 2 u 1 1 1 0 1 0 and 00 0 0 s s 1 1 1 2 0 A ; 01 0 A : s1s2 1 2 = Fu @@ 1 0 2 0 1 0
Consider a vector p = (p1; . . . ; pr )T 2 IRr consisting of r bounded scalar parameters. Let the model of the perturbed system be given as a state-space realization in which the entries of the system matrices depend on the parameter p, x _ (t) = A(p)x(t) + B (p)u(t) (2:7) y(t) = C (p)x(t) + D(p)u(t): The parameter p is allowed to enter the system matrix entries as real-rational polynomials in pi . The system (2.7) can be reformulated as x _ (t) = S (p) x(t) ; (2:8) u(t) y(t) where A(p) B (p) S (p) := C (p) D(p)
17
The addition of all terms in each varying numerator can be written as a single LFT using the fact that a parallel connection of LFTs is again an LFT, see Section 2.4.2. Since we are using upper LFTs, the nominal (constant) part of each numerator results in a feedthrough term, which can be incorporated in the P22 term of the combined LFT. Using the LFTs constructed above for each term of nij ( 1; 2), and the results of Section 2.4.2 on parallel connections of LFTs, the resulting combined LFT becomes 1 00 0 0 0 0 p s 1 0 1 02 1 1 0 0 0 C B B 0 0 0 0 p01 s2 C C B C B B 0 2 0 0 C C: C B C B 0 0 0 0 s s ; Fu B 1 2 B 0 1 0 AC A A@0 @ 0 0 1 0 0 C @B 0 0 0 2 1 1 0 1 p01 p02 Setting up a single LFT description for denominator terms involves obtaining the inverse of a multi-dimensional polynomial. This inverse can be obtained by rst constructing a single LFT of the parallel connection of all the terms in the denominator, as is done above for the numerator. Then note that referring to Figure 2.6 of Section 2.4.2 we have there Fu(P; ) = (I ? Fu(P1; ))?1: This yields that we have to subtract the obtained LFT from the unit matrix and put the result in a feedback loop like Figure 2.6. The desired LFT then follows by the results of Section 2.4.2 on an LFT in a feedback loop. The well-posedness condition for an LFT in a feedback loop, i.e., the condition that (I ? P122 ) is invertible (in terms of Section 2.4.2), corresponds to the restriction that the nominal parts of all the varying denominators of a state-space model are not allowed to equal zero, so that the entries of the nominal model are bounded. Using the results of Section 2.4.2 on series connections of LFTs, the LFTs of each numerator and denominator pair of individual varying entries can now be combined as one single LFT. When a complete description of all uncertain entries in the form of LFTs is obtained, the various LFTs can be rearranged to form one single LFT. Finally, by simply interchanging rows and columns of the obtained LFT, the perturbation matrix u has a structure belonging to the set B rr := fdiag 1Ik1 ; . . . ; rIkr ] : i 2 ?1; 1]g; the normalized block-diagonal matrices with repeated real scalar blocks. It follows that uncertainty due to parameter variation in state-space data can be modelled as linear fractional uncertainty having a real perturbation structure. The above procedure is implemented in the MATLAB Parametric Uncertainty Modelling (PUM) Toolbox 16, 21]. The routine also includes a reduction procedure for the dimension of the perturbation matrix u .
18
w2 -
w1
z1 G y K z2-
Figure 2.7: The general problem with structured uncertainty. Consider the problem of an interconnected linear system with multiple independent perturbations occurring throughout, due to unmodelled dynamics, parameter variation, actuator errors, sensor noise, etc. By rearranging the system it is always possible to isolate the perturbations as a single block-diagonal perturbation as in Figure 2.7. In this way, the exogenous input and objective output can be used to describe perturbations of the system. Here we have split the exogenous input w = (w1 w2)T and the objective output z = (z1 z2)T corresponding to this structure: w1 the perturbation input of dimension m11 corresponding to system perturbations, w2 the performance input of dimension m12 corresponding to external disturbances, z1 the perturbation output of dimension p11 corresponding to system perturbations, z2 the performance output of dimension p12 corresponding to the output that has to be controlled. The perturbation matrix belongs to a set of block-diagonal matrices K that de nes the allowed perturbation block structure. Three types of blocks are possible: repeated real scalar blocks which corresponds to real parameter variation as we have seen in Section 2.4.3; repeated complex scalar blocks which can be used to approximate the repeated real scalar blocks by considering the real parameters as
19
complex; and full complex blocks which can be used to model unmodelled dynamics (this is not applied in our approach) or to de ne the so-called performance block in order to measure robust performance. This is explained in more detail in Section 2.6. For simplicity in notation we assume the full complex blocks to be square but all results are also applicable to nonsquare full complex blocks. The set K 2 C q q of block-diagonal perturbations is now de ned as
km +m +i kmr +mc +i g: (2.11) 2 IR; ic 2 C ; C i 2C r c The set K depends on the block structure K that is de ned as the m-tuple K := (k1; . . . ; kmr ; kmr +1; . . . ; kmr +mc ; kmr +mc+1 ; . . . ; km ); (2:12) r i
which de nes the number of blocks, the type of each block, and their dimensions. For compatibility we require that the sum of all block dimensions equal the total dimensions of the block-diagonal perturbation, i.e.,
m X i=1
ki = q:
Note that a block consisting of a complex scalar only, may be represented as either a repeated complex scalar block or a full block of dimension one. We are mainly interested in norm bounded subsets of K and therefore introduce
K := f
K:
( ) 1g:
(2:13)
Let for the time being M be a square complex matrix with dimensions q q.
De nition 2.1 (Structured Singular Value) Let K be given. Then for M 2 C q q the structured singular value (SSV) K(M ) is de ned as
K (M ) :=
min f ( ) : det(I ? M ) = 0g
2 K
)?1
(2:14)
unless no
K makes
K (M ) := 0.
The main motivation of the de nition of is that it answers the question of well-posedness for the LFT consisting of the closed-loop interconnection of M and . Consider the matrix feedback interconnection in Figure 2.8, where 2 K represents a structured perturbation to the nominal matrix M 2 C q q . This feedback loop represents the loop equations
z = Mw and w = z:
20
These equations give (Iq ? M )z = 0 and (Iq ? M )w = 0. A unique solution to these equations exists i Iq ? M is non-singular, yielding w = z = 0. If Iq ? M is singular then there are in nitely many solutions with arbitrarily large jwj and jzj. In this case the feedback loop is not well-posed, or in some sense \unstable". Note that we can guarantee that Iq ? M is non-singular for all 2 K with ( ) < 1 i (M ) < 1. Thus, is de ned in such a way that it answers the well-posedness question of the feedback loop in Figure 2.8. It can be thought of as a measure of the smallest structured that causes singularity in the feedback loop of Figure 2.8. If is \large" then singularity occurs already for \small" perturbations, and if is \small" then for relatively large perturbations the loop equations still have unique solutions. The precise formulations of these statements are given in the robustness theorems of Section 2.6.
w -
Figure 2.8: Feedback interconnection interpretation of M and . If the block-structure consists of one full block only, K = C q q , then K (M ) = (M ). This shows that unstructured uncertainty (no block-diagonal structure of ) is a special case of structured uncertainty. The structured singular value can thus be seen as a generalization of the singular value in the case that structure is available, hence the name. Another special case worth mentioning is when the block-structure consists of one repeated complex scalar block only, K = f Iq : 2 C g. In this case the structured singular value equals the spectral radius, K (M ) = (M ). Although the de nition of is analytically clear, its computation is not that simple since the optimization problem it involves generally has multiple local minima that are not global. Therefore lower and upper bounds are useful, since these give an approximation of and the di erence of the two bounds is a measure of the error of the approximation. Lower and upper bounds are (M ); R (M ) K (M ) where R(M ) is de ned as 0; if M has no real eigenvalues R (M ) := maxfj j : = (M ); 2 IRg; otherwise. i Thus, if M has real eigenvalues then R(M ) is the maximum of the absolute values over all real eigenvalues of M . If the block-structure contains no real blocks then R (M ) is the spectral radius of M .
21
The gap between R(M ) and (M ) may be arbitrarily large. However these can be re ned using transformations on M that do not a ect K (M ) but do a ect R (M ) or (M ). For this we de ne the subset QK of K as C =I QK := fQ 2 K : ir 2 ?1; 1]; ic ic = 1; C kmr +mc +i g i i and the set DK as DK := fdiag D1; . . . ; Dmr +mc ; d1Ikmr +mc +1 ; . . . ; dmC Ikm ] : (2.15) Di 2 C ki ki ; Di = Di > 0; di 2 IR+ g: Then for all D 2 DK and all Q 2 QK we have K (QM ) = K (M ) = K (DMD?1 ); and the bounds can be re ned as ?1 ): ( DMD (2:16) ( QM ) ( M ) inf max R K D2D Q2Q In fact the lower bound is proven to be equal to K(M ) but since the maximization over QK has local maxima which are not global, we can not guarantee to nd the global maximum and thus from a computational point of view the left-hand side of (2.16) only yields a lower bound. The function (DMD?1 ) has global minima only. However, in general the in mum is not necessarily equal to K(M ) and thus yields only an upper bound. For purely complex perturbations (mr = 0) the lower and upper bounds are usually very tight and moreover in special subcases the upper bound is even equal to K (M ). However, if mr > 0 the upper bound may be arbitrarily far o . This is due to the nature of the scaling matrices D which do not explicitly take the real perturbations into account. To obtain an alternative upper bound for the case that mr > 0 we rst de ne ^K and G ^K as two more sets of diagonal scaling matrices D ^ K := fdiag D1; . . . ; Dmr +mc ; d1Ikmr +mc+1 ; . . . ; dmC Ikm ] : D Di 2 C ki ki ; det(Di) 6= 0; di 2 C ; di 6= 0g (2.17) and ^K := fdiag g1; . . . ; gnr ; On?nr ] : gi 2 IRg; G P r with nr := m i=1 ki . An alternative upper bound is then obtained as ! # ) ( " ?1 ^ ^ 1 DM D 1 ^ (Iq + G ^ 2 )? 4 1 : ^ 2 )? 4 ? jG > 0 : (Iq + G K (M ) ^ ^inf^ ^ D2DK ;G2GK (2:18) This expression is used in the MATLAB -tools toolbox to e ciently compute an ^K is just upper bound for if real blocks are present. Note that if mr = 0 then G ^ = 0. The upper bound then reduces to that in (2.16). the zero matrix and thus G
K K
22
2.6
Analysis
From now on we let M be the transfer matrix of the closed-loop plant M := Fl(G; K ) and refer to the partition of M corresponding to the perturbation and performance variables as w1 : z1 = M11 M12 w M M z The closed-loop transfer matrix from w2 to z2 is given by the LFT Fu(M; ), see Figure 2.9. Note that the matrix M22 may be thought of as the nominal transfer matrix in the absence of perturbations.
2 21 22 2
w1
w2-
z1
2
K M (j! )]
In literature also the notation is used. Note the correspondence to the de nition of the H1 -norm kM k1. However, k k is not actually a norm since it does not satisfy the triangle inequality. Therefore, the notation is somehow awkward and will not be used in this report. Theorem 2.2 yields that if sup K M11(j!)] = 0 > 1
!2IR
kM k := ! sup 2IR
with ( ) =
2.6.
Analysis
23
Often stability is not the only property of a closed-loop system that must be robust to perturbations. Typically there are exogenous disturbances acting on the system (wind gusts, sensor noise, etc.) which result in tracking and regulation errors. Under perturbations, the e ect that these disturbances have on error signals can greatly increase. In most cases, long before the onset of instability, the closed-loop performance will degrade to the point of unacceptability. Hence the need for a robust performance test, which indicates the worst-case level of performance degradation associated with a given level of perturbations. The system in Figure 2.9 is said to satisfy robust performance if it is robustly stable and if kFu(M; )k1 < 1: To guarantee that performance is achieved for all perturbed plants we additionally consider a feedback loop closed between the performance error z2 and the exogenous input w2 with transfer matrix 0, the so-called performance perturbation. We then de ne the augmented perturbation Ka as m p (2:20) Ka := fdiag 0; ] : 0 2 C 12 12 ; 2 K g; see Figure 2.10. Note that we de ne 0 as one full complex block.
a
0
>1
then there is a perturbation with ( ) = 10 for which performance is not satis ed, i.e., for which kFu (M; )k1 = 0 > 1. Apart from constant block-diagonal perturbations only, we are also interested in feedback perturbations which are themselves block-diagonal nite-dimensional, stable, linear, time-invariant systems with block-diagonal structure of the set K. In order to deal with this we de ne M(S ) as the set of rational, proper, and stable transfer matrices. Furthermore, we de ne M( K) as the set of all norm-bounded block-diagonal stable rational transfer matrices with block structure like K, i.e., M( K) := f ( ) 2 M(S ) : (s) 2 B K for all s 2 C + g: The robustness theorems are now easily generalized to the case where K is a dynamical system as above. For this simply replace B K by M( K) in the Robust Stability Theorem 2.2 and the Robust Performance Theorem 2.3.
2.7
Synthesis
In the case of purely complex perturbations a -synthesis design procedure is developed based on the upper bound on K in (2.16). The idea is to design a controller K such that the robust performance test (2.21) is satis ed for the upper bound of , for an appropriate scaling matrix D. In the case that also real parametric uncertainty is modelled, the procedure may give conservative results since then the upper bound (2.16) is no longer a good approximation of . The alternative upper bound (2.18) for the mixed real/complex case does not have the properties on which the solution to the -synthesis problem considered below is based. The amount of conservatism can be measured by also calculating the alternative upper bound (2.18) for the scaled system. In Section 2.6 we have seen that the synthesis problem reduces to nding an internally stabilizing controller with transfer matrix K such that sup K Fl(G; K )(j!)] < 1: (2:22) In fact, by the Robust Performance Theorem 2.3 we are interested in the case where the underlying structure of the perturbations is given by Ka as given in (2.20). In order to accomplish (2.22) we want to nd internal stabilizing controllers that minimize the left-hand side of this inequality. This design procedure is called synthesis. By using the upper bound (2.16) on the -synthesis problem can be formulated as ~ Fl(G; K )D ~ ?1 k1; (2:23) inf inf kD K 2A ~
D(s)2DK !2IR
2.7.
Synthesis
25
w2 -
w1
z1 G y K z2-
a. General framework.
w2
w1u
G K
z1y
- z2
w1
b. Synthesis.
z1
Figure 2.11: D-K Iteration: sequentially applying H1 synthesis and analysis. ~ (s) is a real-rational stable minimum-phase function. where D The -synthesis procedure is solved by sequentially applying H1 synthesis and analysis. First a H1 controller is found. Then analysis is applied to analyse robustness and to scale the plant such that robustness is optimally satis ed. Then again H1 synthesis is applied to nd the H1 controller for the scaled plant, after which again analysis follows, and so on. See Figure 2.11. This iterative approach is called D-K iteration. The D-K iteration procedure is thus as follows. ~ (s) = I . 1. Initialization. Let D ~ (s) Fixed. To solve (2.23) we rst consider the case of holding 2. Holding D ~ (s) xed. We absorb the D scaling in the plant to obtain the scaled plant GD , D ~ (s), and see Figure 2.12. This requires nding a state-space realization for D constructing a state-space model for the system GD . Note that if K stabilizes G then K also stabilizes GD , and DFl(G; K )D?1 = Fl(GD ; K ). Moreover, if ~ (s) is stable, minimum-phase, and real-rational then GD is a real-rational D
26
w1D?1 w2-
G K
- D z1z2-
w1 = w2
- GD K
-z1 -z2
Figure 2.12: Scaling the plant G. transfer function matrix. Hence, solving the optimization problem ~ Fl(G; K )D ~ ?1 k1 inf kD K 2A
K 2A
inf kFl(GD ; K )k1: (2:24) Equation (2.24) is just an H1 optimization problem and can thus be solved by the methods of Section 2.3. 3. Holding K (s) Fixed. Here we suppose that an internal stabilizing K (s) is given. The optimization problem is now (2:25) min D(!)Fl(G; K )(j!)D(!)?1 ]: D(!)2D
K
is equivalent to
At each frequency (2.25) is a convex optimization problem in D. The resulting ~ (s) D can then be t with a stable, real-rational transfer function matrix D with stable inverse. 4. Stopping Criteria. If no reduction in (the approximation of) is achieved then the iteration stops, otherwise we return to step 2. A problem of D-K iteration is the fact that although the optimization problem (2.23) is convex in both D and K , it is not necessarily jointly convex, and the iteration scheme is thus not always guaranteed to converge to the global minimum with corresponding optimal K and D. The controller order obtained by synthesis is typically very high. This is because the interconnection structure does not only include the actual system, but also the models of the actuators, models of the disturbances, the performance weightings, and the D scalings by which the order of the interconnection structure for synthesis generally gets very high. The controller order can be reduced by model reduction 12]. The state-space representation of the controller is here approximated by a lower order state-space representation. The order reduction is applied in such a way that the robustness properties are still satis ed for the reduced order system.
27
28
? ? ?
? ? ? ?
' $ & %
nonlinear simulations end
y - - aircraft - 6 +
Figure 3.1: The RCAM system. The control system design is divided into two separate controller designs. This is due to the decoupling property of the aircraft dynamics into symmetric and asymmetric dynamics. Hereby, a longitudinal and a lateral controller can be designed separately. The nal control system is then obtained by taking the longitudinal and lateral controllers together. In this report we consider the design of the longitudinal controller only. All routines can also be used with respect to lateral controller design, by making some adjustments. Figure 3.1 shows the RCAM system. The various models and signals are explained in the following sections. Section 3.2 describes the state, measurement, and control variables of the aircraft for the longitudinal motions. The nonlinear model of the aircraft is not explicitly introduced in this report. A full description of the nonlinear model can be found in the RCAM problem formulation and manual 9]. Instead the nonlinear model is treated as a black box from which an LFT description is derived. However, in the design project some time has been spent on understanding and checking the nonlinear model. Some errors and inconsistencies have been reported to the GARTEUR responsible persons. Section 3.3 deals with the actuator dynamics. Section 3.4 considers the wind and turbulence models that are used in the standard plant for controller design. Finally, Section 3.5 introduces the reference signals that are used in the controller design.
31
x(1) = q pitch rate (rad=s), x(2) = pitch angle (rad), x(3) = uB velocity in x-direction (m=s), x(3) = wB velocity in z-direction (m=s). The velocities uB and wB are de ned in the body- xed reference frame. The origin of this frame is at the vehicle's centre of gravity. The XB axis is positive forward (through the nose of the vehicle), the ZB axis is positive downward, and the YB axis is positive to the right perpendicular to the XB and ZB axes. The control inputs consist of u(1) = E elevator de ection (rad), u(2) = TH throttle position of engine 1, u(3) = TH throttle position of engine 2. We assume equal throttle positions for both engines by which we can implement the throttle positions as one input in the interconnection structure for controller design. The exogenous input are w(1) = WxE longitudinal wind (m=s), w(2) = WzE vertical wind (m=s), w(3) = WxB longitudinal turbulence (m=s), w(4) = WzB vertical turbulence (m=s). The wind WE is expressed in the earth- xed reference frame, while the turbulence WB is expressed in the body- xed reference frame. The origin of the earth- xed reference frame is located on the runway longitudinal axis at the treshold. The XE axis is positive along the runway in the landing direction. The ZE axis is positive downward, and the YE axis is in the appropriate direction for a right handed axis system.
For longitudinal controller design we select the measurements y(1) = V total ground velocity (m=s), y(2) = wV velocity in z-direction (m=s). The velocity wV is expressed in the vehicle-carried reference frame. The vehiclecarried reference frame is parallel to the earth- xed frame but with the origin at the centre of gravity of the vehicle. The actuator signals are simply the control inputs for the longitudinal dynamics: the elevator de ection E , and the throttle position TH . As already remarked, we assume equal throttle positions for both engines by which we can implement the throttle position as one input in the interconnection structure for controller design.
32
10
10
-1
10
-2
10
-3
10
-4
10 -2 10
-5
10
0 Frequency (rad/s)
10
10
33
10
10
10
-1
10
-2
10 -2 10
-3
10
0 Frequency (rad/s)
10
10
Figure 3.3: Frequency response of wind model. Turbulence is a stochastic process that can be described by velocity spectra. Here, white noise is passed through a lter containing the velocity spectra. A commonly used velocity spectra for turbulence modelling is the Dryden velocity spectra. Three parameters have to be de ned to obtain a particular form of the Dryden spectra. These are the trim speed v0, the turbulence scale length Lg , and the standard deviation of the gust velocities . The longitudinal lter is in state-space de ned as the output (and state) of the system having the system matrices s v0 ; B = 2v0 ; C = 1; and D = 0: Au = ? L u u u Lg g The vertical gust velocity is given as the output (and the rst state) of the second order system having the system matrices 0 1 p3v L ! 0rg 0 1 A p Aw = ? v0 2 ? 2v0 ; Bw = @ v0 3 ; 3) (1 ? 2 Lg Lg Lg
34
10
10
10
-1
10
-2
10
-3
10 -2 10
-4
10
0 Frequency (rad/s)
10
10
Figure 3.4: Horizontal and vertical Dryden spectra. Figure 3.4 shows the Dryden velocity spectra for these values of the parameters.
Chapter 4 Modelling
4.1 Introduction
A nonlinear model of the RCAM aircraft and a set of robustness criteria were delivered by GARTEUR Action Group FM(AG08) as part of the RCAM material 9]. In order to deal with perturbations in the aircraft dynamics due to variations in the 4 parameters mass, x, y, and z, an LFT description of the aircraft is formulated. The LFT description is obtained by parameter uncertainty modelling. In the design phase the symmetric and asymmetric dynamics of the aircraft are decoupled. In this way, two linear uncertainty models are derived in LFT form with block-diagonal perturbations, corresponding to the longitudinal and lateral dynamics, respectively. This report deals with the longitudinal controller design only. The procedure and numerical tools that are used in the design of the control system are thus illustrated by the design of the longitudinal controller. The design of the lateral controller is essentially the same. The numerical tools only need small adjustments in the controller architecture and some variable declarations. Section 4.2.1 gives the uncertainty modelling procedure in the case that only one parameter is uncertain. The 1-dimensional parameter uncertainty modelling will appear very useful for various reasons. Section 4.2.2 gives some remarks about the uncertainty modelling procedure for 2-dimensional parameter uncertainty. Section 4.2.3 deals with the uncertainty modelling for the full 4-dimensional parameter uncertainty. In fact the modelling approach considered in the last mentioned section is applicable to any number of uncertain parameters. Furthermore, a standard plant has to be de ned for which the controller is designed. This standard plant contains the LFT description of the aircraft and the models for the actuators, wind, and turbulence, as given in Chapter 3. Also weighting functions are de ned to weight the output signals and to give the designed controller a desired performance. Section 4.3 considers these issues. 35
36
Chapter 4. Modelling
This section deals with the uncertainty modelling of the aircraft longitudinal dynamics for 1-dimensional parameter uncertainty. In fact, we consider only parameter variation in x, the displacement of the aerodynamic centre from the centre of gravity along the x-body axis. The other parameters are xed as y = 0, z = 0, and mass = 120 000 kg. The tools can also be used for variation in another parameter by some small adjustments in the variable declarations. The de nitions of the states, inputs, and outputs for longitudinal design are given in Section 3.2. Lower and upper bounds are given on the variation of x. The nonlinear model of the RCAM system is trimmed and linearized for 5 values of x ranging from the lower bound to the upper bound in equidistant steps. In fact any set of values for the varying parameter can be chosen with the restriction that it e ectively represents the range of the varying parameter. If varying the parameter leads to strong nonlinear behaviour (in the entries of the system matrices) more points, or more points in a subinterval where strong in uences appear, may be chosen. However, the more points are chosen the more computation time is needed. Trimming and linearization of the nonlinear aircraft model for the set of 5 points for x results in a set of 5 system matrices (Ai; Bi; Ci; Di) corresponding to the various points. As an example A1 and A5 corresponding to x = 0:2 m and x = 1:25 m, respectively, are
and
77:3657 ?0:7256 ?0:2293 ?0:6674 The next step is the classi cation of the entries in the system matrices. A preliminary nominal model is de ned as the set of system matrices corresponding to mean x (the linearized model corresponding to the 3rd value of x). Next, for the 5 linear models the entries of the system matrices are compared. An entry is classi ed as either zero, constant (other than zero), or varying. An entry is classi ed as zero if the equivalent entries for all points of x are approximately zero (with a tolerance of 10e-10). It is classi ed as constant if the equivalent entries corresponding to the various points of x are equal (with a tolerance of 10e-10). Finally, an entry is a varying entry if the equivalent entries vary with the varying parameter, in this
37
case, with x. The classi cations for the state matrix are 0v 0 v v1 Bc 0 0 0C Aclass = B A @v v v vC v v v v which is easily checked to coincide with the given A1 and A5 matrices above. The classi cations for the other system matrices are 0v c c v v v v1 B0 0 0 0 0 0 0C 0 0 v v Bclass = B A ; Cclass = 0 v v v @v c c v v v vC v 0 0 v v v v and Dclass contains zeros only, since the direct-feedthrough matrices Di are all 2 7dimensional zero-matrices. A varying entry is thus considered to be a function of the varying parameter. For the varying entries vectors are de ned containing the entries corresponding to the various points of x. These vectors can be considered to contain function values corresponding to xed values of x. The vectors are plotted against x and approximated by polynomials to obtain a description of a varying entry as a function of all possible values of x. In the case of x as varying parameter, it is accurate enough to approximate the varying entries with polynomials of order up to two in the independent variable x. It is also possible to introduce an additional independent variable such that the polynomial in x ts the function with a certain uncertainty described by the additional variable. Figure 4.1 gives an example of a 2nd order polynomial approximation for the entry a41. The polynomial is given as
38
Resulting polynomial fit 77.366 77.364 77.362 given datapoints and approximation 77.36 77.358 77.356 77.354 77.352 77.35 77.348 77.346 0.14
Chapter 4. Modelling
0.16
0.18
0.3
0.32
Figure 4.1: Polynomial approximation of entry a41. as explained in Section 2.4.3. All varying entries can thus be considered as LFTs and the overall system can be considered as an interconnection of LFTs. Using the properties of LFTs this can then be reformulated as a single LFT having one repeated real perturbation block. This perturbation block corresponds to the scaled parameter x. If we would have made use of additional variables to represent uncertainty in the polynomial ts as mentioned above we would have obtained additional perturbation blocks. In the uncertainty modelling for the longitudinal controller design 31 of the 66 entries in the system matrices are classi ed as varying entries. All these varying entries are approximated by polynomials of order up to 2. The resulting LFT description for the perturbed system consists of one repeated real perturbation block of dimension 10. The obtained nominal linear aircraft model has the system matrices 0 ?0:9825 0 ?0:0007 ?0:0161 1 B 1:0000 0 0 0 C Anom = B A; @ ?2:1936 ?9:7758 ?0:0325 0:0743 C 77:3570 ?0:7675 ?0:2264 ?0:6684 0 ?2:4379 0:2912 0:2912 0:0011 0:0160 0:0007 0:0161 1 B 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 C Bnom = B A; @ 0:1837 9:8100 9:8100 0:0304 ?0:0742 0:0325 ?0:0733 C ?6:4785 0 0 0:2450 0:6614 0:2262 0:6680 0 0:9996 0:0290 and D = 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 : Cnom = 0 nom 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ?79:8667 ?0:0283 0:9996
39
Figure 4.2 shows the frequency response of the nominal model. The above process has been implemented in MATLAB using routines of the Analysis and Synthesis Toolbox (mutools) 1] and the Parametric Uncertainty Modelling (PUM) Toolbox 16, 21]. The approximations of the varying entries by polynomials can be obtained interactively using the PUM Toolbox. Here these polynomials are named Q-polynomials in the independent parameter x. From the nominal state-space description and the Q-polynomials an LFT description is obtained using the ss2lft routine of the PUM Toolbox. In this routine also model reduction techniques from the MATLAB Control System Toolbox are implemented. Appendix A gives a brief overview of the routines used in the parameter uncertainty modelling procedure as implemented in MATLAB. The parameter uncertainty modelling with respect to two independent uncertain parameters is essentially the same as in the case of 1-dimensional parameter uncertainty. The nonlinear model is trimmed and linearized at various values for the two independent uncertain parameters. As for the 1-dimensional case, a set of values ranging from lower to upper bound is selected for both the varying parameters. Suppose that both sets contain 5 distinct values of the varying parameter. Then the nonlinear model is trimmed and linearized at 25 points corresponding to the permutations of the various values of the two varying parameters. The entries of all obtained system matrices can be classi ed in the same way as for the 1-dimensional parameter uncertainty case. However, it might be possible that an entry is a varying entry with respect to one varying parameter but not to the other. An additional routine should therefore be written that checks this phenomenon. Just apply the 1-dimensional classi cation routine for one varying parameter only, keeping the other xed. Then repeat the same procedure but with the role of the parameters reversed. The two obtained sets of classi cation matrices are then compared for the occurrence of di erent classi cations. In the case that one set classi es an entry as a varying entry and the other does not, some more investigation is needed with respect to this particular entry. In this case, it has to be checked whether the entry is also a non-varying entry with respect to the corresponding uncertain parameter, for the remaining xed values of the other parameter. Entries that are classi ed as varying for only one parameter can be handled as in the 1-dimensional case, i.e., the varying entry data can be tted by a 1-dimensional polynomial in the parameter for which it is varying only. Entries that are classi ed as varying entries for both uncertain parameters have to be tted by 2-dimensional polynomial ts in both parameters. These 2-dimensional ts are also implemented in the PUM toolbox. The entries containing the 2-dimensional polynomial ts can be represented as LFTs having a perturbation block-structure of two repeated real blocks (unless additional independent variables are used to describe the uncertainty of the ts, in which
40
Chapter 4. Modelling
10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10
-1
-2
-3
-4
10 -4 10
-5
10
-3
10
-2
10
-1
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
-1
10
-2
10 -4 10
-3
10
-3
10
-2
10
-1
10
10
10
Figure 4.2: Frequency response of the nominal aircraft longitudinal model to elevator input (upper) and throttle input (lower) for 1-dimensional parameter uncertainty.
41
case the block structure contains more blocks corresponding to these variables). Finally, the routine ss2lft transforms the state-space description containing the polynomials to one LFT having a block-structure with two repeated real blocks (unless the additional variables are used). For the longitudinal controller design this procedure is not applied. This is because there are four uncertain parameters of main importance. Note that the 1dimensional case is applied for longitudinal controller design to obtain some feeling for the e ects of the various uncertain parameters independently. The 2-dimensional parameter uncertainty case is here brie y considered for completeness. It might be valuable for the lateral controller design. For lateral controller design the 2-dimensional case might be interesting to check the e ects of varying mass and y only, since they are expected to e ect the lateral motions the most.
This section considers the uncertainty modelling of the aircraft with respect to parameter uncertainty in mass, x, y, and z at the same time. For this we have to deal with a 4-dimensional parameter uncertainty modelling. The uncertainty modelling for three or more independent uncertain parameters di ers considerably from the 1-dimensional and 2-dimensional parameter uncertainty cases. This is due to the fact that the PUM toolbox can t 1-dimensional and 2-dimensional polynomials only. Data can thus be t as a function of at most two independent parameters. The t procedure is graphically orientated and 2dimensional ts already result in 3-dimensional plots. This naturally leads to the restriction. For this reason, three or more dimensional parameter uncertainty has to be dealt with di erently. A possible approach is to regard every varying entry in the system matrices separately as an independent parameter having a lower and upper bound. This is implemented for the RCAM system. The rst step is to trim and linearize the nonlinear aircraft model for all permutations of 4 independent sets containing values of a varying parameter ranging from lower to upper bound. If we would again select 5 values of the varying parameter in each set like for the 1-dimensional case, this would lead to 54 = 625 trimmings and linearizations, which is a very time-consuming process. It is thus highly desirable to reduce this number. A considerable reduction in the number of trimmings and linearizations can be obtained if it is known that the varying entries vary monotonously with respect to a particular uncertain parameter. In this case the set of values for that parameter only has to contain the lower and upper bound on that parameter. Therefore, it is bene cial to apply 1-dimensional uncertainty modelling for each uncertain parameter separately, keeping the other uncertain parameters xed. In this way it can be
42
Chapter 4. Modelling
checked whether all entries are monotonous functions in the varying parameter, including linear and constant functions. For the 1-dimensional parameter uncertainty in x of Section 4.2.1 the varying entries are all monotonous functions in x for the particular set of xed other uncertain parameters. After some experimentation and checking the physical nonlinear model of the aircraft, it is concluded that for all possible xed values of the other uncertain parameters, the varying entries also are monotonous functions of x. For mass and z the same results are obtained. This implies that for mass, x, and z, only the lower and upper bounds have to be considered, yielding three sets containing values of a varying parameter of 2 elements. Analysis of 1-dimensional parameter uncertainty in y gives the following result. The system-matrix entries are monotonous functions in y for positive y and also for negative y, but not for the whole range of y. By checking the nonlinear aircraft model it follows that the sign of y indeed in uences the behaviour. However, if the sign is xed the varying behaviour is monotonous. This leads to a set of three values for y: the lower bound, 0, and the upper bound, since the minimum and maximum of all entries is obtained at either one of the bounds or at 0. The pre-analysis using 1-dimensional parameter uncertainty modelling thus yields, that we only have to trim and linearize the nonlinear model at 3 23 = 24 di erent permutations of values for the 4 varying parameters. This is a signi cant reduction with respect to the 625 permutations mentioned above. The second step is to obtain two sets of system matrices containing the minima and maxima of the entries over all system matrices. As an example, for the RCAM longitudinal design the lower and upper bounds on the state matrix entries are given as 0 ?1:2048 0 ?0:0015 ?0:0271 1 B 0:9970 0 0 0 C Alower = B A @ ?6:3842 ?9:7980 ?0:0414 0:0568 C 76:7752 ?1:2943 ?0:2532 ?0:7944 and 1 0 ?0:7688 0 0:0003 ?0:0085 B 1:0000 0 0 0 C Aupper = B A: @ 0:7925 ?9:7201 ?0:0242 0:0912 C 77:7185 ?0:3942 ?0:2003 ?0:5442 The classi cation of varying entries of the system matrices can be applied simply using the sets of matrices containing the lower and upper bounds. The classi cations for the entries of the state matrix are given as
0v 0 v v1 Bv 0 0 0C Aclass = B A: @v v v vC
v v v v
43
This coincides with the lower and upper bound matrices given above. The classi cations for the other system matrices are
0v v v v v v v1 B0 0 0 0 0 0 0C Bclass = B A ; Cclass = @v v v v v v vC
v 0 0 v v v v
0 0 v v ; 0 v v v
and Dclass = 02 7. In total there are 36 entries classi ed as varying entries. This is 5 varying entries more compared to the 1-dimensional parameter uncertainty of x only, as considered in Section 4.2.1. The entries that are classi ed here (in the 4-dimensional case) as varying are constants with respect to varying x. The a21 entry is varying with respect to y only. The entries b32 and b33 are varying with respect to mass only, and the entries b12 and b13 are varying in both mass and z. The other 31 varying entries are varying with respect to all 4 uncertain parameters. We here treat all varying entries the same for implementation reasons. We therefore make no distinction between the above mentioned 5 varying entries that do not vary for all 4 uncertain parameters, and the other 31 varying entries. An initial nominal linear model is de ned as the model consisting of the system matrices as given by the set of the lower bounds on all system matrix entries. The next step is to de ne independent variables each corresponding to a varying entry in the system matrices with given lower and upper bounds. Next, the varying entries are replaced by the corresponding independent variables which can vary between the lower and upper bound of the particular entries. In this way the system matrices contain the whole class of linear models induced by the uncertainty. For the longitudinal controller design 36 entries are classi ed as varying entries which yields 36 independent variables to describe the uncertainty. Again, the varying entries can be seen as a nominal value with a perturbation, which can be regarded as an LFT. The system can thus be seen as an interconnection of LFTs which can be reformulated as one single LFT using the properties of LFTs. The nal perturbation block-structure contains 36 repeated real perturbation blocks of dimension 1 corresponding to the 36 varying entries. The new nominal linear system is given by the system matrices
0 ?2:4487 0:3105 0:3105 0:0013 0:0178 0:0006 0:0178 1 B 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 C Bnom = B A; @ 0:1723 9:8100 9:8100 0:0291 ?0:0735 0:0327 ?0:0730 C
?6:4723
0 0 0:2421 0:6609 0:2265 0:6689
44
Chapter 4. Modelling
0 0 0:9982 0:0364 ; Cnom = 0 ?79:8224 ?0:0363 0:9981 and Dnom = 02 7. Figure 4.3 shows the frequency response of the nominal model. Appendix A gives an overview of the used software for the 4-dimensional parameter uncertainty modelling.
45
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10 10
3
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
Figure 4.3: Frequency response of the nominal aircraft longitudinal model to elevator input (upper) and throttle input (lower) for 4-dimensional parameter uncertainty.
46
Chapter 4. Modelling
behaves like a lag-lead lter 20], having the form !2 s + !1 ; (4:1) K! 1 s + !2 with !1 !2. The controller resulting from such a weighting exhibits proportional and integral action. Moreover, the synthesis tools automatically add derivative action for damping purposes. The integral action, evoked by the emphasis on low frequency performance, may cause overshoot. On the other hand, if no integral action is applied, a steady-state error is introduced. In particular, the weighting function of the speed error is de ned as + 10 ; WVe := 0:02 s s + 0:001 and the weighting function of the vertical speed error is de ned as s + 100 : Wwe := 0:002 s + 0:01 Figure 4.4 shows the performance weighting functions. The e ort (or actuator) weighting function is implemented to weight the control e ort. The weights are selected such that a decoupling in the elevator and throttle controls is obtained. The elevator e ort weighting is de ned as s + 10 : W E := 0:001 s + 0:1 This e ort weighting will act as a lag-lead lter, applying the largest weight at the lower frequencies. The elevator is well-suited to apply fast action. The engine e ort weighting is de ned as + 0:1 : W TH := 0:1 s s + 10 This e ort weighting will act as a lead-lag lter, which is of the form of (4.1) but with !1 !2. It applies the largest weight at the higher frequencies. In this way rapid variations in throttle settings are suppressed. Figure 4.4 shows the e ort weighting functions. The above selected weighting functions are due to Schuring 20], who uses a related controller architecture with respect to a 1-dimensional parameter uncertainty. The weighting functions were the result of a number of tuning stages to optimize the design, where the strong physical interpretations facilitated the design process. In the RCAM control design problem these weighting functions were originally used as a rst estimate. However, with respect to the tests and the closed-loop responses, there is no reason for more tuning. Nonlinear simulations will be necessary to nd out whether also good performance is obtained for the nonlinear model. Finally, the components are connected as in Figure 4.5. Appendix A gives a brief view of the routines that are used in the implementation in MATLAB of the above issues.
47
10
10
10
10
-1
10
-2
10 -4 10
-3
10
-2
10
10
10
10
10
-2
10 -2 10
-3
10
-1
10
10
10
Frequency (rad/s)
Figure 4.4: The performance weighting functions (upper) and the e ort weighting functions (lower).
48
Chapter 4. Modelling
perturbation input
- Aircraft - Wind
Model Model
perturbation output
-Turbulence
control
- Actuator
Model
- - Performance ? + Weight
er
- Actuator Weight
- e ort -
weighted
weighted errors
measurement Controller
5.1.1 Introduction
50
10
8 MAGNITUDE
0 -4 10
10
-2
10 FREQUENCY (rad/s)
10
10
3.5
2.5 MU
1.5
0.5
0 -4 10
10
-2
10 FREQUENCY (rad/s)
10
10
Figure 5.1: Magnitude (upper) and (lower) of closed-loop system at the 1st iteration for 1-dimensional parameter uncertainty.
51
10
10
10
-1
10 -4 10
-2
10
-2
1) mag data 4
10
0 -4 10
-2
10
Figure 5.2: Example of 1st order D-scaling t. The unit line is the \previous t".
1 2 3 4 14 34 46 48 0 20 32 34 11.580 1.163 0.287 0.214 peak3.738 0.508 0.285 0.204 Table 5.1: Summary of the D-K iteration for longitudinal controller design for 1dimensional parameter uncertainty.
52
made. Table 5.1 gives the iteration summary for the longitudinal controller design. Figure 5.3 shows the magnitude (maximum singular values) plot of the resulting controller. The magnitude and plot of the closed-loop system is given in Figure 5.4. The nal value of is 0:204, so robust performance is satis ed for our performance criteria. The longitudinal controller obtained by D-K iteration is a 48th order system. It is natural that the order of control systems designed by synthesis is very high. However, the order of the control system can be reduced by model order reduction techniques. For the order reduction of the control system the Hankel state reduction technique is used using the mutools routine hankmr. The bode plot of the original controller is compared to that of the reduced controller. The reduced controller is the controller having the least order such that the bode plot is equivalent to that of the original controller. Figure 5.5 shows the bode plot of the 48th order original controller obtained by the D-K iteration and the 14th order reduced controller. Next, is computed for the closed-loop system with the new (reduced) controller. Figure 5.6 shows that this plot is similar to that of the original closed-loop system and that robust performance is also satis ed by the 14th order reduced controller. The reduced controller is the nal controller of the design cycle. The controller should now be analysed to check whether it satis es the criteria of the ight control system. This can be done by computing closed-loop time responses and simulations. The results from these analyses give guidance to tune the weighting functions for performance improvement.
5.2.1 Introduction
53
10
10
10
10
-1
10 -4 10
-2
10
-2
10 Frequency (rad/s)
10
10
10
10
10
-1
10
-2
10
-3
10
-4
10
-5
10 -4 10
-6
10
-2
10 Frequency (rad/s)
10
10
Figure 5.3: Frequency response of the longitudinal controller obtained by D-K iteration for 1-dimensional parameter uncertainty.
54
0.25
0.2
10
-2
10 Frequency (rad/s)
10
10
Figure 5.4: Magnitude and of longitudinal closed-loop system obtained by D-K iteration for 1-dimensional parameter uncertainty. (or 2-dimensional) parameter uncertainty to (pre-) select good estimates for the weighting functions. This in order to minimize the number of iterations necessary for tuning in the controller design for higher dimensional parameter uncertainty. The iteration starts by calculating an H1 controller for the unscaled system. Figure 5.7 shows the singular value plot of the closed-loop system. The maximum singular value is 19:876. Second, is computed for the closed-loop system. Its peak value is 1:945. Figure 5.7 also shows as function of frequency. Next, 36 D-scalings have to be tted for the second iteration. Five of them need 2nd order ts (the 1st, 3rd, 5th, 13th, and 33rd D-scalings), the other ts are 1st order ts. Then an H1 controller is calculated for the new scaled open-loop system, after which again is computed for the closed-loop system. Five iterations have been applied of which Table 5.2 gives a summary. Again mainly 1st order D-scaling ts are applied. In the third iteration 2nd order ts are used for the same D-scalings as for the second iteration. In the fourth iteration 2nd order ts are used for the same D-scalings as in the 3rd iteration plus for the 27th D-scaling. In the fth iteration 2nd order ts are used for the 1st, 3rd, 13th, 27th, and 33th D-scalings, and 3rd order ts are used for the 5th and 20th D-scaling ts. The nal singular value of the closed-loop system is 0:830, and the nal peak value of is 0:822, by which robust performance is satis ed for the selected weighting functions. Figure 5.8 shows the singular value and plot for the resulting closed-loop system. The nal controller is shown in Figure 5.9.
55
10 Log Magnitude
10
10
-2
10 -4 10
-4
10
-2
10 Frequency (radians/sec)
10
10
Reduced controller, order 14, output 1 (original ooo ) 400 Phase (degrees)
200
-200 -4 10
10
-2
10 Frequency (radians/sec)
10
10
10 Log Magnitude
10
10
-5
10
-10
10
-4
10
-2
10 Frequency (radians/sec)
10
10
Reduced controller, order 14, output 2 (original ooo ) 400 Phase (degrees)
200
-200 -4 10
10
-2
10 Frequency (radians/sec)
10
10
Figure 5.5: Original and reduced order longitudinal controller bode plots for 1dimensional parameter uncertainty.
56
0.2
10
-2
10 Frequency (rad/s)
10
10
Figure 5.6: Plot of for closed-loop system corresponding to the reduced longitudinal controller for 1-dimensional parameter uncertainty.
1 2 3 4 5 14 96 96 98 104 0 82 82 84 90 19.876 1.318 1.001 0.862 0.830 peak1.945 1.209 0.965 0.858 0.822 Table 5.2: Summary of the D-K iteration for longitudinal controller design for 4dimensional parameter uncertainty.
57
15
MAGNITUDE
10
0 3 10
10
10
10 10 FREQUENCY (rad/s)
10
10
1.5
MU
0.5
0 3 10
10
10
10 10 FREQUENCY (rad/s)
10
10
Figure 5.7: Magnitude (upper) and (lower) of closed-loop system at the 1st D-K iteration for 4-dimensional parameter uncertainty.
58
0.8
0.7
Magnitude
0.6
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2 4 10
10
10 Frequency (rad/s)
10
10
Figure 5.8: Magnitude and for longitudinal closed-loop system obtained by D-K iteration for 4-dimensional parameter uncertainty.
The longitudinal controller obtained by D-K iteration is a 104th order system. This order is again reduced by model order reduction. Using the Hankel state reduction technique, a 15th order reduced controller is found. The bode plots of the original 104th order controller and the 15th order reduced controller are shown in Figure 5.10. Next, is computed for the closed-loop system with the new (reduced) controller. Figure 5.11 shows that this plot is similar to that of the original closed-loop system and that robust performance is also satis ed by the 15th order reduced controller. The reduced controller is the nal controller of the design cycle. Chapter 6 gives an analysis of the nal 15th order longitudinal controller.
59
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10 Frequency (rad/s)
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10 Frequency (rad/s)
10
10
Figure 5.9: Frequency response of the longitudinal controller obtained by D-K iteration for 4-dimensional parameter uncertainty.
60
10 Log Magnitude 10 10 10 10
10
10
10 Frequency (radians/sec)
10
10
200
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10 Frequency (radians/sec)
10
10
Figure 5.10: Original and reduced order longitudinal controller bode plots for 4dimensional parameter uncertainty.
61
0.8
0.7
Magnitude
0.6
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2 4 10
10
10 Frequency (rad/s)
10
10
Figure 5.11: Plot of for closed-loop system corresponding to the reduced longitudinal controller for 4-dimensional parameter uncertainty.
6.2
Analysis
In Section 5.2 we have designed a longitudinal controller of order 15. The controller is designed in such a way that of the closed-loop system is smaller than 1 and thus satis es the robust performance criteria. However, in the -synthesis procedure we had to replace the real perturbation blocks by complex blocks. We therefore also compute with respect to the original perturbation structure of 36 1-dimensional (repeated) real pertubation blocks and a complex full performance perturbation block. Figure 6.1 shows real- of the closed-loop system with the original perturbation block, and complex- of the closed-loop system with the complex perturbation block-structure as used for the controller design. It is seen that real- and complexare not that far o . This is probably due to the fact that the repeated real blocks are all of dimension 1, and are thus \only" assumed to be complex while the block dimensions stay the same. The controller designed by the (complex-) -synthesis approach, is thus also a good robust controller for the original system with the real perturbation block-structure. 62
63
0.8
0.7
0.6 Magnitude
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1 4 10
10
10 Frequency (rad/s)
10
10
Figure 6.1: Robust performance: real- and complex of the longitudinal closed-loop system of the designed controller. Since the closed-loop system satis es robust performance, the closed-loop system is also robustly stable. Robust stability is tested by computing with respect to the original real perturbation block-structure and without the performance perturbation. Figure 6.2 shows the robust stability plot. It is seen that robust stability is satis ed. It follows that the designed controller satis es the tests for the original real perturbation block-structure. The closed-loop system is thus robust to all uncertainty in the 4 uncertain parameters for the selected weighting functions.
64
0.7
0.6
0.5 realmu
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
0 4 10
10
10 Frequency (rad/s)
10
10
Figure 6.2: Robust stability: real- of the longitudinal closed-loop system of the designed controller with respect to the parameter uncertainty perturbation structure only. corresponding control inputs E and TH are shown in the lower left and right, respectively. Figure 6.4 shows the response to the same unit step in VC for the linear model with mass = 150 000 kg and the displacement of the aerodynamic center from the center of gravity (1:25; 0:2; 1:38). V should be able to track the speed command VC with a rise time tr < 12 s and settling time ts < 45 s. The plots show that these criteria are satis ed. Figure 6.5 and 6.6 show the response to a unit step in the vertical speed command wC for the same two linear models as above. Here, also good responses are obtained. Figure 6.7 and 6.8 show the responses to a step in tailwind of magnitude 13 m=s. There should be no deviation in V larger than 2.6 m=s for more than 5 s. The gures show that the deviation does not exceed the 2.6 m=s bound. Also no steady state error due to constant wind is allowed. This criteria is also satis ed.
65
wpnom, V cmd: 1
wpnom, V cmd:
we
8 6 4 2
0 0
10
20 time (s)
30
40
10
20 time (s)
30
40
Figure 6.3: Time response to a unit step in VC for the nominal model.
wp2232, V cmd: 1 Ve, Vcmd 0.05 0.04 0.03 0.02 0.5 0.01 0 0 0 10 20 time (s) 30 40 0.01 0 10 20 time (s) 30 40 wp2232, V cmd: we
8 6 4
20 15 10 5
2 0 0
Figure 6.4: Time response to a unit step in VC for the linear model with mass=150 000, x = 1:25 m, y = 0:2 m, and z = 1:38 m.
66
Ve 1.5
wpnom, w cmd:
we, wcmd
0.5
30
40
0 0
10
20 time (s)
30
40
wpnom, w cmd: delt e 0.2 0 0.2 0.02 0.4 0.6 0.8 0 10 20 time (s) 30 40 0.04 0.06 0 0.02 0
10
20 time (s)
30
40
Figure 6.5: Time response to a unit step in wC for the nominal model.
wp2232, w cmd: 0.4 Ve 1.5 wp2232, w cmd: we, wcmd
0.2
0.5
0.2 0
10
20 time (s)
30
40
0 0
10
20 time (s)
30
40
wp2232, w cmd: delt e 0.2 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0 0.02 0 0.02 0.04 0.06 0
10
20 time (s)
30
40
10
20 time (s)
30
40
Figure 6.6: Time response to a unit step in wC for the linear model with mass=150 000, x = 1:25 m, y = 0:2 m, and z = 1:38 m.
67
wpnom, 15
uw:
Ve, uw 1
wpnom,
uw:
we
wpnom,
uw: throttle
0 0.05 0
Figure 6.7: Time response to a step in tailwind of magnitude 13 m=s for the nominal model.
wp2232, uw: Ve, uw wp2232, uw: we 15 1.5 1 10 0.5 5 0 0 0 0.5 0
10
20 time (s)
30
40
10
20 time (s)
30
40
wp2232, 0.1
wp2232,
uw: throttle
10
20 time (s)
30
40
10
20 time (s)
30
40
Figure 6.8: Time response to a step in tailwind of magnitude 13 m=s for the linear model with mass=150 000, x = 1:25 m, y = 0:2 m, and z = 1:38 m.
69 1-dimensional real perturbation blocks are only replaced by complex perturbation blocks keeping the dimensions xed. Using this approach, D-K iteration therefore also yields e cient controllers for real parametric uncertainty. In the 4-dimensional parameter uncertainty case of the RCAM, it has been seen that the peak-values of with respect to the original perturbation block-structure and to the complex perturbation block-structure are indeed tight. Controllers designed using D-K iteration, have high orders but these can be e ectively reduced by the Hankel model reduction technique. For the RCAM in the full 4 parameter uncertainty case, the order of the designed controller has been reduced from 104 to 15 using this technique. For 4-dimensional parameter uncertainty the uncertainty modelling and controller design procedures are both very time-consuming. To reduce computation time for the controller design cycle it is recommended to rst consider the parameter uncertainty modelling and controller design for one uncertain parameter at a time, keeping the others xed. The motivation for this follows next. For the uncertainty modelling, representative sets of values for the 4 varying parameters have to be de ned. For all permutations of the elements in the four sets the nonlinear aircraft model is trimmed and linearized. It is thus desirable to minimize the number of points in each set to reduce the number of the time-expensive trimmings and linearizations. On the other hand, the sets have to be representative for the in uence of a varying parameter on the system-matrices entries. Therefore, it is recommended to rst apply 1-dimensional parameter uncertainty modelling with respect to one uncertain parameter at a time (keeping the other uncertain parameters xed). From these analyses conclusions can be made with respect to the varying behaviour of state-space entries for the various parameters. In particular monotonous behaviour in a varying parameter is of interest. For intervals where the varying entries are all monotonous functions of a varying parameter, only the lower and upper points of the intervals are needed in the sets of values for the varying parameter used for trimming and linearization. In the case of 4-dimensional parameter uncertainty the number of blocks in the perturbation block-structure is very high. In the case of longitudinal controller design for the RCAM model the number of blocks in the perturbation block-structure is 37, corresponding to 36 blocks for the varying entries in the state-space data, and 1 performance block. The computations for H1 synthesis and analysis are therefore very time-consuming. Also the number of D-scalings that have to be t in each D-K iteration is very high, since this number equals the dimension of the number of blocks in the perturbation structure. For the 4-dimensional case, it is therefore advisable to minimize the number of controller design cycle iterations corresponding to tuning of the weighting functions, by selecting good estimates for the weighting functions. Therefore, it is recommended that weighting functions are rst checked for per-
70
formance with respect to 1-dimensional parameter uncertainty only, for all uncertain parameters separately. Since, for 1-dimensional parameter uncertainty the perturbation blocks are much smaller and therefore the D-K iteration is much faster. If necessary, the weighting functions are tuned in these pre-analyses. It is then hoped that the weighting functions that have good performance for the individual 1-dimensional parameter uncertainty cases, also have good performance for the 4dimensional case. For the RCAM longitudinal controller design this approach has been very e ective. In the longitudinal controller design of the RCAM aircraft in this report, time delay has not been taken into consideration. Time delay can be implemented by adding a system based on a Pade approximation to the standard plant. The controller design cycle should then be repeated with respect to this standard plant. Note that the parameter uncertainty modelling of the aircraft does not have to be repeated, since the LFT of the aircraft is a separate system in the interconnection structure of the standard plant. For the nal control system of the RCAM also a lateral controller has to be designed. This can be done analogous to the design of the longitudinal controller, but with respect to another controller design architecture.
References
1] Balas, G.J., Doyle, J.C., Glover, K., Packard, A.K., Smith, R., -Analysis and Synthesis Toolbox User's Guide, MUSYN Inc. and The MathWorks Inc., Natick, 1993. 2] Blight, J.D., Dailey, R.L., Gangsaas, D., \Practical Control Law Design for Aircraft Using Multivariable Techniques", International Journal of Control, Vol. 59, No. 1, Special Edition on Aircraft Flight Control, pp. 93-137, 1994. 3] Doyle, J.C., \Analysis of Feedback Systems with Structured Uncertainties", IEE Proceedings, Vol. 129, Part. D, No. 6, pp. 242-250, 1982. 4] Doyle, J.C., Glover, K., Khargonekar, P.P., Francis, B.A., \State-Space Solutions to Standard H2 and H1 Control Problems", IEEE Transactions on Automatic Control, Vol. 34, No. 8, pp. 831-847, 1989. 5] Doyle, J.C., Packard, A., Zhou, K., \Review of LFTs, LMIs, and ", Proceedings of the 30th IEEE Conference on Decision and Control, Brighton, England, pp. 1227-1232, 1991. 6] Fan, M.K.H., Tits, A.L., \Characterization and E cient Computation of the Structured Singular Value", IEEE Transactions on Automatic Control, Vol. AC-31, No. 8, pp. 734-743, 1986. 7] Fan, M.K.H., Tits, A.L., Doyle, J.C., \Robustness in the Presence of Mixed Parametric Uncertainty and Unmodeled Dynamics", IEEE Transactions on Automatic Control, Vol. 36, No. 1, pp. 25-38, 1991. 8] Francis, B.A., Khargonekar, P.P. (Eds.), Robust Control Theory, Proceedings of a Workshop that Formed Part of the 1992-93 IMA Program on \Control Theory", The IMA Volumes in Mathematics and its Applications, Vol. 66, Springer-Verlag, New York, 1995. 9] GARTEUR Action Group FM(AG08), Robust Flight Control Design Challenge Problem Formulation and Manual: the Research Civil Aircraft Model (RCAM), GARTEUR/TP-088-3, GARTEUR, 1995. 71
72
References
10] GARTEUR Action Group FM(AG08), Robust Flight Control Design Challenge Problem Formulation and Manual: the High Incidence Research Model (HIRM), GARTEUR/TP-088-4, GARTEUR, 1995. 11] Gerlach, O.H., Vliegeigenschappen I, Lecture Notes Delft University of Technology, Faculty of Aerospace, Vol. D 26-1 & D 26-2, Delft, 1981. 12] Glover, K., \A Tutorial on Hankel-Norm Approximation", In: Willems, J.C. (Ed.), From Data to Model, pp. 26-48, Springer-Verlag, Berlin, 1989. 13] Glover, K., Doyle, J.C., \State-Space Formulae for All Stabilizing Controllers That Satisfy an H1 -Norm Bound and Relations to Risk Sensitivity", Systems & Control Letters, Vol. 11, pp. 167-172, 1988. 14] Goverde, R.M.P., Robust Flight Control System Design Using H1= -Synthesis, NLR Technical Report, TR 95356 L, National Aerospace Laboratory NLR, Amsterdam, 1995. 15] Goverde, R.M.P., Longitudinal Flight Control Law Design for the RCAM Design Challenge: the -Synthesis Approach, NLR Technical Report, TR 96063 L, National Aerospace Laboratory NLR, Amsterdam, 1996. 16] Lambrechts, P., Terlouw, J., Bennani, S., Steinbuch, M., \Parametric Uncertainty Modeling Using LFTs", Proceedings of the American Control Conference, San Fransisco, California, pp. 267-272, 1993. 17] Maciejowski, J.M., Multivariable Feedback Design, Addison-Wesley, Wokingham, 1989. 18] Packard, A., Doyle, J.C., \The Complex Structured Singular Value", Automatica, Vol. 29, No. 1, pp. 71-109, 1993. 19] Safonov, M.G., Limebeer, D.J.N., Chiang, R.Y., \Simplifying the H 1 Theory via Loop-Shifting, Matrix-Pencil and Descriptor Concepts", International Journal of Control, Vol. 50, No. 6, pp. 2467-2488, 1989. 20] Schuring, J., Example of H1 = -Synthesis in Robust Aircraft Flight Control System Design, NLR Contract Report, CR 94127 L, National Aerospace Laboratory NLR, Amsterdam, 1994. 21] Terlouw, J.C., Lambrechts, P.F., A Matlab Toolbox for Parametric Uncertainty Modelling, NLR Technical Publication, CR 93455 L, National Aerospace Laboratory NLR, Amsterdam, 1993. 22] Young, P.M., Newlin, M.P., Doyle, J.C., \Let's Get Real", In: Francis, B.A., Khargonekar, P.P. (Eds.), Robust Control Theory, Proceedings of a Workshop That Formed Part of the 1992-93 IMA Program on \Control Theory", The IMA
References
73
Volumes in Mathematics and its Applications, Vol. 66, pp. 143-173, Springerverlag, New York, 1995.
75
for both longitudinal and lateral controller design. Only some adjustments have to be made in the routine rcamum1 with respect to the declaration of the varying parameter. Routine Subroutines Comment rcamum1 trimming and linearization trim trimming (simulink) linmod linearization (simulink) select select longitudinal or lateral dynamics rcam9 nonlinear aircraft model (GARTEUR) rcamum2 creation varying data vectors rcamum3 classi cation system-matrices entries rcamum4 de nition initial nominal model rcamum5 parameter uncertainty modelling setmunc de nition uncertainty model data le (PUM) t polynomial tting (PUM) pck state-space model to system matrix (mutools) nomsys de nition initial nominal model (PUM) loadent load entry (PUM) ss2lft state-space model to LFT (PUM) Table A.1: Routines for uncertainty modelling for 1-dimensional parameter uncertainty. The uncertainty modelling for 4-dimensional parameter uncertainty is implemented in the routines um4d1 and um4d2. Table A.2 gives a short description of these routines and the most important calls to other routines which themselves can again have more calls to other routines. Also in this case, calls to standard MATLAB functions are not included in the table and the routines are applicable for both longitudinal and lateral controller design with only some small adjustments.
76
Routine Subroutines Comment um4d1 trimming and linearization trim trimming (simulink) linmod linearization (simulink) select select longitudinal or lateral dynamics rcam9 nonlinear aircraft model (GARTEUR) um4d2 parameter uncertainty modelling setmunc de nition uncertainty model data le (PUM) t polynomial tting (PUM) pck state-space model to system matrix (mutools) nomsys de nition initial nominal model (PUM) loadent load entry (PUM) ss2lft state-space model to LFT (PUM) Table A.2: Routines for uncertainty modelling for 4-dimensional parameter uncertainty. on systems or to plot system outputs are not included in the table. These routines include minfo, rifd, spoles, logspace, frsp, sel, and vplot.
77
Routine Subroutines Comment lonolrsp open-loop time responses lonolic open-loop interconnection structure trsp time response (mutools) lon1 creation interconnection structure lonact longitudinal actuator model wlonact longitudinal actuator weight wlonwind longitudinal wind model wlonturb longitudinal turbulence model wlonperf longitudinal performance weight rcamloic longitudinal interconnection structure lon2 synthesis londkdef de nition variables for dkit dkit D-K iteration (mutools, modi ed) vsvd singular value decomposition (mutools) mu computation (mutools) sbs stack matrices next to another (mutools) lon3 controller order reduction sysbal balanced realization (mutools) hankmr optimal Hankel norm approximation (mutools) starp feedback connection (Redhe er star product) (mutools) mu computation (mutools) lon4 closed-loop time responses pck state-space model to system matrix (mutools) trsp time response (mutools) Table A.3: Routines for longitudinal controller design.
Appendix B Nomenclature
General
set of stabilizing controllers, set of normalized block-diagonal perturbation matrices, K C set of complex numbers, set of n-dimensional complex vectors, Cn n m C set of n m-dimensional complex matrices, det(M ) determinant of square matrix M , dim(x) dimension of vector x, dim(M ) dimensions of matrix M , DK set of particular block-diagonal scaling matrices, ^ DK set of particular block-diagonal scaling matrices, Fl(M; l) lower linear fractional transformation of M with respect to l, Fu (M; u) upper linear fractional transformation of M with respect to u, GK set of particular block-diagonal scaling matrices, ^ GK set of particular block-diagonal scaling matrices, inf in mum, In n n-identity matrix, In m n m augmented identity matrix, K perturbation block structure, max maximum, min minimum, M complex conjugate transpose of matrix M , ? 1 M inverse of square matrix M , MT transpose of matrix M , M(S ) set of rational, proper, and stable transfer matrices, M( K) set of norm-bounded block-diagonal stable rational transfer matrices, IN set of nonnegative integers, On n n-zero matrix, 78
A B
79
QK
Z Z Z Z+
i (M )
K Ka
(M )
(M ) R (M ) i (M ) (M )
K (M )
set of particular matrices with block-diagonal structure as K, set of real numbers, set of positive real numbers, set of n-dimensional real vectors, set of n m-dimensional real matrices, supremum, time axis, set of integers, set of positive integers, set of block-diagonal perturbations, set of augmented block-diagonal perturbations, ith eigenvalue of square matrix M , largest (real) eigenvalue of Hermitian matrix M , (estimate of) H1 -norm, structured singular value, structured singular value of matrix M with respect to K, spectral radius of square matrix M , (M ) = maxi j i (M )j, maxfj i(M )j : i (M ) 2 IRg: ith singular value of matrix M , maximum singular value of matrix M .
General Variables
A B C dc i D D ~ (s) D G(s) ki K (s) m1 m2 m11 m12 mc mC mr
state (system) matrix, input (system) matrix, output (system) matrix, ith repeated complex scalar, direct-feedthrough (system) matrix, scaling matrix, real-rational stable minimum-phase approximation to D scaling, (open-loop) transfer matrix, (row and column) dimension of the ith perturbation block, feedback transfer matrix (compensator), dimension of exogenous input w(t), w(s), dimension of control u(t), u(s), dimension of perturbation input w1(t), w1(s), dimension of performance input w2(t), w2(s), number of repeated complex scalar blocks, number of full complex blocks, number of repeated real scalar blocks,
80
Appendix B. Nomenclature
closed-loop transfer matrix, dimension of state x(t), parameter, dimension of objective z(t), z(s), dimension of measurement y(t), y(s), dimension of perturbation output z1(t), z1(s), dimension of performance output z2(t), z2(s), (row and column) dimension of block-diagonal perturbation , Laplace variable, time, control input, exogenous input, perturbation input, performance input, state variable, measurement output, objective output, perturbation output, performance output, ith repeated real scalar, perturbation matrix, performance perturbation, the ith full complex block, frequency.
Aircraft Variables
Lg m q uB uC v0 vC V VC Ve wB wC we wV
turbulence scale length of Dryden spectrum, aircraft total mass, pitch rate, velocity along x-body axis, reference velocity in x-direction, trim speed, reference velocity in y-direction, total velocity, reference velocity, velocity error VC ? V , velocity along z-body axis, reference velocity in z-direction, vertical velocity error wC ? wV , velocity along z-vehicle axis,
81
x y z
longitudinal turbulence velocity, vertical turbulence velocity, longitudinal wind velocity, vertical wind velocity, reference x-position, lateral deviation, reference y-position, reference z-position, elevator de ection, throttle position, displacement of the aerodynamic centre from the centre of gravity along the x-axis, displacement of the aerodynamic centre from the centre of gravity along the y-axis, displacement of the aerodynamic centre from the centre of gravity along the z-axis, track angle, standard deviation of gust velocities for Dryden spectrum, pitch angle. Group for Aeronautical Research and Technology in EURope, High Incidence Research Model, Linear Fractional Transformation, Nationaal Lucht- en Ruimtevaartlaboratorium (National Aerospace Laboratory), Research Civil Aircraft Model, Technische Universiteit Delft (Delft University of Technology), Wiskundige Beheers- en Beleidsmodellen.
Abbreviations
GARTEUR HIRM LFT NLR RCAM TUD WBBM