An Integrated Approach to Aircraft Modelling

and Flight Control Law Design

Gertjan H.N. Looye

An Integrated Approach to Aircraft Modelling
and Flight Control Law Design
An Integrated Approach to Aircraft Modelling
and Flight Control Law Design

PROEFSCHRIFT

ter verkrijging van de graad van doctor

aan de T ech nisch e U niversiteit D elft,
op gezag van de R ector M agnifi cu s p rof. dr. ir. J .T . F okkem a,
voorzitter van h et C ollege voor P rom oties,
in h et op enb aar te verdedigen
op w oensdag 1 6 janu ari 2 0 0 8 om 1 0 .0 0 u u r

door

Gertjan Hendrik Nicolaas LOOYE

ingenieu r lu ch tvaart en ru im tevaart

geb oren te M aasland
Dit proefschrift is goedgekeurd door de promotor:
P rof.dr.ir. J .A . M ulder

Toegev oegd promotor: Dr. Q .P . C hu

Samenstelling promotiecommissie:

R ector M a gn ifi cus v oorz itter

P rof.dr.ir. J .A . M ulder Techn ische U n iv ersiteit Delft, promotor
Dr. Q .P . C hu Techn ische U n iv ersiteit Delft,
toegev oegd promotor
P rof.dr. C .W . S cherer Techn ische U n iv ersiteit Delft
P rof. Dr.-In g. P . V örsma n n Techn ische U n iv ersitä t C a rolo-W ilhelmin a ,
B ra un schw eig, Duitsla n d
P rof. Dr.-In g. R . L uckn er Techn ische U n iv ersitä t B erlin , Duitsla n d
P rof.dr.ir. M . V erha egen Techn ische U n iv ersiteit Delft
Dr.-In g. J . B a ls Deutsches Z en trum für L uft- un d R a umfa hrt,
O b erpfa ff en hofen , Duitsla n d
P rof.dr. Z . G ürda l Techn ische U n iv ersiteit Delft, reserv elid

C ov er:
The highly ma n oeuv ra b le a n d post-sta ll ca pa b le X -3 1 A ex perimen ta l a ircra ft:
con cepts from this thesis w ere a pplied to this a ircra ft in the V EC TO R progra m.
A cry lic on ca n v a s pa in tin g b y R ob ert J a n L ooy e ( Private collection Dr. Steinhauser)

C opy right c 2 0 0 7 b y G .H .N . L ooy e

A ll rights reserv ed. N o pa rt of the ma teria l protected b y this copy right n otice ma y
b e reproduced or utilised in a n y form or b y a n y mea n s, electron ic or mecha n ica l,
in cludin g photocopy in g, recordin g or b y a n y in forma tion stora ge a n d retriev a l
sy stem, w ithout the prior permission of the a uthor.

IS B N / EA N : 9 7 8 -9 0 -5 3 3 5 -1 4 8 -2

Ty peset b y the a uthor usin g the LATEX Documen ta tion S y stem.

P rin ted b y R idderprin t O ff setdrukkerij B V , R idderkerk, The N etherla n ds.
To Claudia
Summary

LIGHT Control Laws (FCLs) make the difference between the dynamic be-
F haviour of an aircraft of its own, and what it actually fl ies and feels like
to the pilot and passenger. To this end, FCLs consist of dynamic feedback and
feedforward transformations of sensor and command signals into suitable control
defl ections, providing desired manual or automatic fl ying behaviour and passenger
comfort, under clear as well as turbulent atmospheric conditions.
Flight control laws have to meet a large amount of performance and safety re-
q uirements in order to ensure they perform reliably in all fl ight conditions, under
adverse operating conditions, in the event of hardware failures, etc. Feedback of
sensor measurements hereby not only infl uences, but also brings about strong in-
teraction between aircraft fl ight – , airframe structural – , control system hardware
– , sensor – , engine – , and landing gear dynamics, thus involving several engineer-
ing disciplines simultaneously. As a conseq uence, the design of fl ight control laws
is a challenging, multi-disciplinary design task.
The multi-disciplinary aspect in FCL design is becoming more and more impor-
tant. In order to improve over-all effi ciency, aircraft designs are continuously
pushed to physical limits. This results in for example more fl exibility of the air-
frame structure and “ just-right” sized actuators and control surfaces. Also, the
availability of control laws is more and more exploited, e.g. to actively reduce
loads on the airframe, to provide active stabilisation, and to reduce structural
vibrations. The current design process for fl ight control laws is not well con-
figured for an inherently multi-disciplinary approach. The main reason is that
multi-disciplinary aspects are addressed only after the principal design loop, in
analyses performed by specialist departments. This usually gives rise to req uests
for fixes, resulting in additional design loops.
The objective of this thesis is to develop concepts and methods for a new process
that allows for easy incorporation of multi-disciplinary aspects in fl ight control
design from the beginning. The prereq uisite for doing this is the availability of
integrated multi-disciplinary aircraft models that not only include fl ight dynam-
ics, but also accurately describe structural dynamics, airframe loading, systems
dynamics, etc. As an example, an integrated model allows control bandwidth to
be adjusted, while keeping a close watch on airframe loading. This will save time
consuming design iterations with the loads department afterwards.
Multi-disciplinary aircraft modelling req uires a generic model structure that al-
viii Summary

lows for straight-forward integration of components from various disciplines, as

well as methods for appropriate incorporation of data sources behind these com-
ponents, especially in case overlaps exist. In this thesis, such a model structure is
defined exploiting object-oriented modelling techniques. The difference between
object-oriented modelling and contemporary approaches is that implementation
is based on “native” physical rather than “simulation-ready” differential equa-
tions. This allows model components on the one hand to be implemented using
engineering discipline-specific physical equations, and on the other hand to in-
terconnect these components in integrated models based on a common modelling
language. The first contribution of this thesis is the development of a new gener-
alised structure for multi-disciplinary aircraft models and its implementation in
the object-oriented modelling language M odelica.
Even in case of a multi-disciplinary design, the flight control laws still have to
go through discipline-specific analyses, especially flutter, loads, and systems. It
is therefore very important to directly incorporate data sources from these de-
partments, so that design iterations due to model incompatibilities are avoided.
Particularly in the case of aeroelasticity, this is a challenging problem, since aeroe-
lastic and rigid aircraft flight dynamics models have several overlaps. The second
contribution of this thesis is a procedure for merging equations of motion and
aerodynamics behind both types of models in an appropriate way.
Simulation requires the model to be available in the form of Ordinary Differential
Equations (ODEs) or Differential Algebraic Equations (DAEs). A characteristic
aspect of object-oriented modelling is that these equations are automatically
generated from the implemented physical model equations. To this end, reliable
symbolic algorithms are readily available. Besides suitable models for control
design analysis, this offers the interesting possibility of automatic model inversion.
Various nonlinear synthesis techniques, like Nonlinear Dynamic Inversion, are
based on inversion of nonlinear model equations, resulting in control laws for a
part of or the full flight envelope in one shot. The th ird contribution of this
thesis is the idea of combining automatic model inversion and inversion-based
controller synthesis for rapid-prototyping. This allows the control designer to
experiment with control command variables, control allocation, requirements for
control sizing sizing, etc. in very short design cycles, supporting key decisions that
heavily impact the eventual control structure, or even the over-all control concept.
It also allows the control department to release preliminary, but representative
control laws to other engineering departments early on in the aircraft design
process, e.g. allowing for early closed loop assessment of flight loads. In this thesis
rapid-prototyping control law design from an object-oriented aircraft model is
demonstrated on manual control laws for an aircraft manoeuvring on the ground.
In case the rapid prototyping design is promising, detailed design follows. In this
thesis this is discussed for nonlinear dynamic inversion-based control laws for in-
ner loops of an automatic landing system for a small aircraft. Hereby especially
feedback signal synthesis and robustness issues due to differences between the ac-
tual aircraft dynamics and the inverted model equations are addressed. In case of
NDI the traditional approach is to achieve robustness in design of the outer-loop
Summary ix

control law. As a fourth contribution, this thesis proposes a different way. Un-
certain model parameters, which also appear in the inverse model equations, are
used as additional degrees of freedom in parameter synthesis. The combined NDI
and outer loop control laws are then tuned simultaneously to meet performance
and robustness specifications using multi-objective optimisation. Robustness is
hereby addressed by directly incorporating robustness measures as optimisation
criteria, and by simultaneously addressing nominal and selected worst-case pa-
rameter combinations in the optimisation.
In the current design process, tuning of control laws is mostly performed man-
ually. However, multi-disciplinary design requires a considerably larger set of
criteria set to be addressed simultaneously. For this reason the use of multi-
objective optimisation for tuning of free control law parameters is recommended.
The underlying min-max approach allows the large amounts of (usually conflict-
ing) multi-disciplinary design criteria and constraints to be addressed efficiently,
aiming to achieve best-compromise solutions. Relative importance of criteria is
expressed using scaling functions that have a clear physical interpretation. The
optimisation problem is not necessarily convex: the main objective however is
to automatically search for satisfactory design solutions. Obviously, suitable
aircraft dynamics models needed for evaluation of numerical criteria are auto-
matically generated from the object-oriented model structure described above.
As a fifth contribution this thesis extends the approach of multi-objective optimi-
sation to large controller structures that consist of multiple interacting functions.
A sequential tuning strategy is proposed in which new controller functions are
sequentially added to the synthesis, eventually resulting in optimisation of the
over-all control system. This strategy allows inner loop functions to be tuned
in combination with various outer loop functions. This may considerably reduce
control law complexity, since duplication of functionality is avoided.
The contributions described above have been combined into a simplified flight
control law design process. This process has been applied for the design of an
automatic landing system for a small passenger aircraft. The proposed tuning
strategy allowed the same set of inner loops to be used with all outer loop con-
troller functions, like glide slope and localiser tracking, and flare and runway
alignment in case of cross wind. Before flight testing, autoland control laws are
extensively tested using Monte Carlo (MC) analysis, often giving rise to new de-
sign iterations in a second design loop as described above. In the autoland design
MC analysis has been directly incorporated in the tuning process, demonstrating
that this additional loop can be avoided using the proposed design process. The
autoland system was successfully tested in six automatic landings, without the
need for any re-tuning of control law parameters.
x Summary
Contents

Summary vii

1 In tro d uc tio n 1
1.1 Flight control laws . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
1.2 The flight control law design process . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
1.3 Future developments in flight control law design . . . . . . . . . . . 10
1.4 Objective of the thesis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
1.5 General approach . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
1.6 Overview and contributions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15

2 M ulti-d isc ip lin ary airc raft mo d e l d e ve lo p me n t usin g o b je c t-o rie n te d

mo d e llin g te ch n iq ue s 19
2.1 Current practice in multi-disciplinary modelling . . . . . . . . . . . 21
2.1.1 Model implementation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
2.1.2 Model integration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
2.1.3 Aircraft modelling for flight control law design . . . . . . . 27
2.2 The aircraft model structure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28
2.2.1 The world model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29
2.2.2 The atmosphere model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30
2.2.3 The terrain model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31
2.2.4 The airport infrastructure model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31
2.2.5 Rigid and flexible aircraft models . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31
2.3 The Modelica Flight Dynamics Library . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37
2.4 Automatic code generation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39
2.5 Application example: ATTAS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40
2.5.1 Starting the model project . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41
2.5.2 Aircraft-specific model components . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43
2.5.3 Specification of inputs, outputs, and parameters . . . . . . 43
2.5.4 Model translation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45
2.6 Conclusions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47
xii Contents

3 Integration of rigid and aeroelastic aircraft models using the

residualised model method 53
3.1 Review of aircraft flight dynamics models . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 57
3.1.1 Equations of motion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 57
3.1.2 External forces and moments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 58
3.2 Review of aeroelastic aircraft models . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 59
3.2.1 Equations of motion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 59
3.2.2 External forces . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 61
3.3 Integration of flight dynamics and aeroelastic models . . . . . . . . 62
3.3.1 Equations of motion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 62
3.3.2 External forces and moments: the residualised model method 64
3.4 Application example . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 65
3.5 Coupling using aeroelastic state space models . . . . . . . . . . . . 67
3.5.1 Aeroelastic state space model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 70
3.5.2 The RM method in state space form . . . . . . . . . . . . . 71
3.5.3 Correction of aeroelastic state space models . . . . . . . . . 72
3.6 Application example (Continued) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 73
3.7 Conclusions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 76

4 R apid prototyping using inversion-based control and object-oriented

modelling 81
4.1 Object-oriented modelling of aircraft flight dynamics . . . . . . . . 84
4.1.1 Object-oriented modelling . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 84
4.1.2 Object-oriented modelling of the aircraft-on-ground . . . . 87
4.2 Translation of object-oriented models . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 90
4.3 Inverse model generation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 93
4.4 A rapid prototyping design process . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 97
4.5 Aircraft-on-ground control design application . . . . . . . . . . . . 101
4.6 Conclusions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 111

5 D esign of robust autopilot control law s w ith N onlinear D ynamic

Inversion 113
5.1 Nonlinear Dynamic Inversion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 116
5.2 The Aircraft Model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 119
5.2.1 Nonlinear model equations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 119
5.2.2 Linearised model equations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 120
5.3 Dynamic inversion attitude control laws . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 122
5.3.1 Automatic control law generation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 124
5.3.2 Implementation aspects . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 125
5.4 Robust parameter synthesis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 128
5.4.1 Robustness . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 128
5.4.2 Stability . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 130
5.4.3 Design criteria . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 130
5.4.4 Scaling of criteria . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 132
5.4.5 Parameter synthesis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 133
Contents xiii

5.5 Assessment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 134

5.5.1 Analysis w.r.t. synthesis criteria . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 134
5.5.2 Robust stability analysis with µ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 137
5.6 Flight test results . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 150
5.7 Conclusions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 150

6 Design of autoland controller functions with multi-objective op-

timisation 155
6.1 The aircraft model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 160
6.2 The applied design process . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 161
6.3 The controller architecture . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 162
6.4 Optimisation problem set-ups . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 168
6.5 Controller optimisation strategy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 174
6.6 Formulation of the basic optimisation problem . . . . . . . . . . . 176
6.7 Controller optimisation results . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 177
6.8 Flight test results . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 182
6.9 Conclusions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 185

7 C onclusions 189
7.1 An integrated flight control law design process . . . . . . . . . . . 191
7.2 Recent application examples . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 196
7.3 Lessons learnt . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 198
7.4 Recommendations for future research . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 200

A ppendices 20 3

A Model building for control law design 20 5

A.1 Simulation models for design analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 207
A.2 Interactive desktop simulation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 210
A.3 Computation of initial conditions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 210
A.3.1 Trim computation using the model ODE . . . . . . . . . . . 211
A.3.2 Trim computation by model inversion . . . . . . . . . . . . 217
A.4 Linearisation of the aircraft model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 218
A.5 Parametric models for robustness analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 219

B E quations of motion of a fl ex ible aircraft 221

B.1 Review of structural dynamics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 223
B.1.1 Structural eigenvalue problem . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 223
B.1.2 The half-generalised equations of motion . . . . . . . . . . . 224
B.1.3 The generalised equations of motion . . . . . . . . . . . . . 225
B.1.4 Recovery of physical degrees of freedom . . . . . . . . . . . 226
B.1.5 Orthogonality of modes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 227
B.2 The equations of motion of a flexible aircraft . . . . . . . . . . . . 229
B.2.1 Approach for derivation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 230
xiv Contents

B.2.2 Kinetic energy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 233

B.2.3 Floating reference frames . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 235
B.2.4 Potential energy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 238
B.2.5 Application of Lagrange’s equations . . . . . . . . . . . . . 238
B.2.6 Kinematic equations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 239
B.2.7 Application of local forces and moments . . . . . . . . . . . 241
B.2.8 Summary of result . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 242
B.3 Concluding remarks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 243

Bibliography 245

Nomenclature 259

Index 271

Samenvatting 275

Ack nowledgements 279

Curriculum vitae 281

Chapter 1

Introduction
2 Introduction

Abstract
Control laws as present in the flight control computers of modern aircraft
provide the functionality for safe manual and automatic control in flight.
The design of flight control laws (F CL s) consists of the actual design
phase, followed by a validation phase that involves ex tensive simulations,
rig tests and, eventually , flight tests. Multi-disciplinary aspects play an
important role, since F CL s not only improve aircraft flight dy namics, but
also aff ect structural dy namics, airframe loading, sy stem dy namics, etc.
Currently these aspects are not addressed until the validation phase, fre-
q uently resulting in late design iterations. In future aircraft design projects
interactions between flight control and other engineering disciplines will
become considerably stronger, req uiring multi-disciplinary aspects to be ad-
dressed from the beginning. This is where this thesis aims to contribute.
Three aspects will be addressed in detail: development of integrated multi-
disciplinary aircraft models to allow a wide range of design criteria to be
evaluated and addressed in sy nthesis of the control laws, development of
approaches for handling various ty pes of uncertainty and model variation
in tuning of design parameters, and the integration of these methodologies
into a design process structure that allows complex control law structures
to be handled effi ciently and transparently .
 3

N the early days of aviation, the pilot used to control the aircraft with the
I help of cockpit controls that were directly linked with aerodynamic control
surfaces via mechanical elements such as rods, cables and trolleys. Stabilisation,
compensation of coupled responses to steering inputs (e.g. turn co-ordination),
rejection of atmospheric disturbances, manoeuvring of the aircraft, and navigation
were performed by the pilot alone, supported by early cockpit instruments only.
The current situation in military and civil aircraft is quite different. Although
mechanical linkage between cockpit control devices and control surfaces and en-
gines has remained in designs well into the seventies and eighties of the previous
century, the tasks of the pilot in military and civil aircraft have been increas-
ingly automated. Starting with active dampers – basic autopilot modes, stability
and command augmentation systems and automatic landing systems have evolved
over decades, leading to full-authority digital control systems as present in today’s
aircraft. A detailed historical overview and interesting references can be found in
Ref. [84].
Modern civil transport aircraft are flown using the so-called flight guidance and
control (FG& C) systems [38, 15], comprising the flight control system (FCS), the
flight management system (FMS), the automatic flight control system (AFCS),
and mostly also some form of structural control (SC) or active loads control
(ALC). In Figure 1.1 the functions of these systems have been ordered according
to their hierarchical level in the form of a block diagram. Several components
of the system, to be discussed subsequently, are operated via control devices,
displays, and panels in the cockpit (top left). Eventually, actuation systems are
commanded that drive control surfaces (painted black in the aircraft depicted top
right) and engines to make sure the aircraft responds in the desired way.
1. flight control (FC). This task is performed by the FCS. This system allows
the pilot to manually steer the aircraft with the help of the side stick or con-
trol column, and pedals. With the help of feedback and feedforward control
algorithms the FCS allows the (auto-) pilot to directly command aircraft
motion variables, such as body angular rates, accelerations, or combinations
thereof, and makes sure these commands are tracked accurately and inde-
pendently (de-coupling), especially under atmospheric disturbances. Ex-
tensive protection features prevent the pilot from bringing the aircraft into
dangerous flight situations, outside its envelope of safe operation. Velocity
and flight path are controlled with the help of throttles and speed brakes. In
case of system failures, the cockpit controls are electronically directly linked
to control surfaces (“direct law”), bypassing all levels of automation. The
pilot uses the FCS to perform manual, short-term steering tasks, mainly
during take-off, landing, and ground operation.
2. flight guidance (FG ). This task is performed by the AFCS, consisting of the
autopilot and autothrottle. The pilot selects modes of operation and enters
target values for speed, altitude, vertical speed, and heading via the glare
shield control unit (see Figure). The autopilot and autothrottle compute
appropriate command signals that are executed by the FCS. Stability and
4 Introduction

command augmentation is provided by the FCS, or by the AFCS itself. The

pilot uses the AFCS to perform longer term tasks automatically.
3. flight management (FM). The FMS has extensive capability to predict and
optimise aircraft performance as a function of flight plan parameters and to
automatically execute complete flight plans using autopilot and autothrottle
modes. The pilot may enter and optimise the flight plan or load a stored
one via the multi-purpose control and display unit (MCDU, see Figure).
The pilot uses the FMS to manage long term tasks that may span nearly
the entire flight.
In modern aircraft, the control surface and engine actuators are commanded with
the help of electronic signals. For this reason, electronic flight control systems
are more commonly known as fly-by-wire (FBW) systems. The FC functionality
is implemented in the flight control computer (FCC). Besides probable weight
reduction due to partial replacement of mechanical equipment and considerable
reduction in maintenance costs, the greatest virtue of fly-by-wire lies in the FCC.
The possibility of tailoring the dynamic aircraft responses to command inputs
considerably reduces pilot work load and has allowed for the development of
highly agile combat aircraft with otherwise unflyable aerodynamically unstable
and aerodynamically nonlinear airframe configurations. In the civil sector, FBW
has allowed the airliner manufacturer Airbus to develop a complete aircraft family
with a high level of handling commonality, allowing transition of flight crews from
one type to the other with minimum training effort.
Flight control, flight guidance, and flight management are so-called primary air-
craft control functions, intended for stabilising and manoeuvring of the over-all
aircraft. Since the early seventies aircraft are more and more equipped with so-
called secondary control functions, addressing the loading and dynamic behaviour
of the airframe structure. The airframe is a lightweight construction that has to
withstand peak and fatigue loads caused by gusts, manoeuvring, engine and sys-
tem failures, etc. Active Loads Control (ALC) functions allow for reduction of
these loads at critical locations in the airframe, for example by active damping of
structural modes, or by distributing loads in a more favourable way (e.g. using
ailerons to move the lift distribution over the wing in-board, in order to reduce
bending moments at the root). To this end, ALC functions use strategically dis-
tributed accelerometers and available control surfaces. In this way, fatigue life of
the structure is increased and peak loads are reduced, allowing for reduction of
structural weight. As an example, the introduction of active loads control avoided
the need for structural reinforcement of the outer wing of the longer range (500
series) derivative of the Lockheed 1011 Tristar [13]. Structural control functions
may be implemented to dampen resonant airframe structural modes that cause
passenger and pilot discomfort. An example is the comfort in turbulence function
(CIT) in the Airbus A340 [119].
Besides primary and secondary flight control functions, actuators are equipped
with local control systems as well, allowing for accurate positioning of the control
surface, and with the possibility to detect internal failures. Most engines are
1.1 Flight control laws 5

equipped with a full authority digital engine control (FADEC) system, which
augments the otherwise highly nonlinear throttle responses and allows for direct
commanding of for example the engine pressure ratio (EPR) or fan shaft speed
(N1 ).

F M = F l i g h t M a n a g e m e n t

F G = F l i g h t G u i d a n c e

F C = F l i g h t C o n t r o l

S L C = S t r u c t u r a l a n d L o a d C o n t r o l

A L C = A c t i v e L o a d C o n t r o l

S C = S t r u c t u r a l C o n t r o l

A P = A u t o p i l o t

g l a r e s h i e l d A T H R = A u t o t h r o t t l e

S C A = S t a b i l i t y a n d C o m m a n d A u g m e n t a t i o n
c o n t r o l u n i t

d i s p l a y s

p r i m a r y c o n t r o l s u r f a c e s

s e n s o r s

M C D U

c o n t r o l

d e v i c e s
s
t t l e
r o
t h

b a c k - u p

" d i r e c t l a w "

3 2 1
A c t u a t i o n
* A e r o d y n a - A i r c r a f t
m i c c o n t r o l S e n s o r s
F G F C d y n a m i c s
F M s u r f a c e s
A P , A T H R S C A
* E n g i n e s
S L C
A L C , S C

a t t i t u d e
f l i g h t p a t h , A t t i t u d e r a t e s ,
t r a j e c t o r y & r a t e s ,
s p e e d a c c e l e r a t i o n s
a c c e l .

F l i g h t g u i d a n c e a n d c o n t r o l s y s t e m s

Figure 1.1: The relation between displays, controls, and control laws in a modern
transport aircraft

1.1 Flight control laws

Subject of this thesis are the algorithms in the various systems that contain the
intelligence to perform the various control and guidance tasks discussed in the
previous section: the flight control laws (FCLs). The dynamic behaviour of the
flight control system, and therefore the dynamic behaviour of the complete air-
craft, is governed by these control laws. Consequently, the FCS and its FCLs
are flight-critical and obviously must be available at all times during flight. The
probability of failure resulting in loss of the aircraft has to be extremely remote,
i.e. less than 1 in 1 billion flight hours (< 10−9 ) (paragraph 25.1309 in [49]).
The design of the flight control laws is a very challenging task for a variety of
reasons:
6 Introduction

• Even the most basic control tasks are subject to a large number of design
requirements. For example, handling qualities criteria have to be met, sta-
bility must be guaranteed (which may be challenging in case the pilot is in
the loop), and control activity must be limited (especially in turbulent con-
ditions). Control law behaviour must further be accepted by pilots, often
giving rise to additional qualitative and subjective criteria to be met;
• Control laws have to work over the full operating envelope of the aircraft1 .
Aircraft flight dynamics may be highly nonlinear as a function of the flight
condition and flight attitude, requiring control law scheduling as a function
of these parameters;
• Sensor signals can usually not be used directly, but need processing through
complementary filters to reduce the effect of atmospheric disturbances, through
notch filters to reduce structural dynamics content of signals, through es-
timation algorithms to compute signals not directly measurable (e.g. side
slip angle often requires this), etc.;
• Implementation aspects must be kept in mind, like capacity of the FCC and
certification of software;
• Most control law development work is performed well before the first air-
craft has flown. This means that the design team has to rely on data from
theoretical methods, wind tunnel experiments, and extrapolation from pre-
vious programs. Consequently, robustness to tolerances in the data is an
important issue in design and clearance of the FCLs;
• Control laws rely on sensors and use actuators to perform their tasks. These
devices may fail. The design team has to make sure that the control laws
under no circumstance make things worse than they are (uncontrollability,
instability!). Failures must be handled properly, even if this means that
functionality is reduced or completely deactivated (so-called “direct law”,
see Figure 1.1);
• As already discussed in the previous section, FCLs consist of many many
functions. Each function requires the above issues to be considered individ-
ually, but ...;
• ... at the same time, have to be safely integrated in the over-all system;
• Beyond handling of complex aircraft flight dynamics, flight control law de-
sign integrates many engineering areas. The reason is illustrated in the form
of a block diagram in Figure 1.2. The collection of interconnected blocks
constitutes the over-all dynamics of the aircraft, involving:
– flight dynamics (aerodynamics, propulsion, environment, loading, etc.);
1 Actually, even beyond, since the aircraft must be recoverable from the most awkward flight

attitudes
1.2 The flight control law design process 7

– airframe structural dynamics;

– sensor system dynamics;
– actuation system dynamics;
– engine dynamics;
– flight control laws.
By closing the feedback interconnection, FCLs bring about strong inter-
action between dynamics of all sub-systems. As already noted, in case of
manual control the integrated dynamics in turn are influenced by the human
pilot closing an additional loop. These interactions need to be addressed
carefully in the design process and involve close co-operation with other
engineering departments.

e le ctro n ic co n tro l s u rface aircraft m o tio n /

co n tro l actu ato r / e n gin e d e fle ctio n s d e fo rm atio n ,
co m m an d s s ign als thru s t airflo w , e tc.
Au to p ilo t s e ttin gs
F light EFC S Actu atio n Aircraft flight S e n so r
C o n tro l d e lay s s y s te m & e n gin e & s tru ctu ral s y s te m
L aw s & filte rin g d y n am ics d y n am ics d y n am ics
P ilot steering
atmospheric disturbances

s e n s o r s ign als (b u s )
D isplay s,
motions, ...
Integrated aircraft dynamics

Figure 1.2: Feedback interaction of flight control laws, aircraft dynamics, and
system dynamics

1.2 The flight control law design process

In order to handle the challenges described in the p rev iou s sections, flight control
laws req u ire a thorou gh and well organised design p rocess. A lthou gh the details of
this p rocess look diff erently at each aircraft manu factu rer, a general stru ctu re can
mostly be recognised. In the frame of the G A R T E U R Flight M echanics A ction
G rou p 0 8 on R obu st Flight C ontrol [7 7 ], Irv ing dev elop ed a model of su ch an
indu strial flight control law design p rocess for military aircraft flight control laws
[5 3 ]. T his model describes the interactions between the flight control and other
inv olv ed engineering discip lines in detail. Figu re 1 .3 dep icts a more simp lifi ed
form, based on a scheme p resented by Fielding and L u ckner in R ef. [3 8 ]. S tarting
p oint are C u stomer and A irworthiness R eq u irements, the fi nal resu lt is the control
laws integrated within the fu lly q u alifi ed and certifi ed aircraft.
8 Introduction

C u s to m e r & A ir w o r th in e s s
R e q u ir e m e n ts

D esig n A irc ra ft / S ystem s

P h ilo so p h y D a ta & M o d els
D eta iled d esig n
req u irem en ts

B a selin e
F C L S tru c tu re

B a s e lin e F C L
C o m p . / G ra p h .
D esig n D eta iled F C L
C riteria D esig n / A n a lysis

no
Off-line Design
Ok? 1
yes

F C L In teg ra tio n /
C o d in g

C o m p . / G ra p h .
A ssessm en t A ssessm en t A S E (* ) L o a d s (* * )
C riteria , T est (C lea ra n c e) A n a lysis A n a lysis
S p ec ific a tio n s

no
Ok? 2
yes D e s ig n
s ta n d a r d F C L
H /W & S /W P ro -
d u c tio n /In teg ra tio n

F C S S ystem
T est R ig T estin g
S p ec ific a tio n (Iro n B ird )

no
Ok? 3
yes F lig h t
s ta n d a r d F C L
A irc ra ft
In teg ra tio n

F lig h t T est F lig h t

S p ec ific a tio n T estin g

no
Ok? 4
P r o d u c tio n
yes s ta n d a r d F C L
(fin a l u p d a te )

F u lly C e r tifie d a n d Q u a lifie d F lig h t C o n tr o l L a w s

(* ) A S E = A ero serv o ela stic , c o n d u c ted
b y a ero ela stic ity d ep a rtm en t
(* * ) C o n d u c ted b y lo a d s d ep a rtm en t

Figure 1.3: Flight control laws design process (based on [38])

1.2 The fl ight control law design process 9

The depicted process has four main iteration loops:

• Loop 1: Off-line design. In this phase actual design of control laws takes
place. B ased on their required functionality, a baseline structure is devel-
oped. The choice of control devices, command variables, functional break-
down into loops and components, etc. will largely depend on the philosophy
of the design team.
The nex t step is detailed design of control law functions, based on the base-
line structure and aircraft and system models/ data that are available at the
time. D etailed design requirements are based on customer and airworthiness
requirements, as well as in-house criteria. These in turn may be formulated
in the form of computational and graphical criteria that relate to design
methods that are used within the design group. For ex ample, specific min-
imum stability margins may be required, or bounds on time and frequency
responses may be imposed.
W ithin the controller structure, parameters, complementary filters, estima-
tors, nonlinear functions, etc. are defined and tuned to best meet the speci-
fications, after which the control laws are ex tensively tested using linear and
nonlinear simulations. N owadays, for control law synthesis and analysis a
wide range of methodologies is available, see for ex ample [77].

• Loop 2 : A ssessm ent a nd c lea ra nce. After integration of designed control law
functions, ex tensive assessment is carried out. This assessment may involve
real time simulation in the flight simulator, ex tensive robustness analysis
against tolerances in model data (especially in the case of military aircraft),
performance of analyses as required for certification (e.g. Monte Carlo anal-
ysis in the case of automatic landing), etc. In this phase not only control law
performance and robustness is addressed, but also interaction with airframe
structural dynamics and loads. To this end, the control law specification is
released to the disciplinary departments involved. The aeroelastic depart-
ment will perform ex tensive aeroservoelastic analysis in order to make sure
flutter margins of the closed-loop system (Figure 1.2 ) are preserved over the
aircraft flight envelope, for all weight and balance conditions and configu-
rations. Loads analysis is performed to make sure that a.o. manoeuvre and
gust loads design envelopes are not ex ceeded due to flight control system
action.
Any design deficiency that shows up in this phase gives rise to the second
design cycle. According to Irving, control laws that passed this phase have
reached the maturity of D esign S ta nda rd.

• Loop 3: R ig testing. B efore installation in the first aircraft, all on-board

systems are integrated in a test rig, the so-called iron bird. As part of
the over-all FCS, the flight control laws are ex tensively tested in this iron
bird in order to validate proper functioning in interaction with the systems
hardware. Especially failure cases are investigated that are risky and costly
10 Introduction

to test in flight. The iron bird may be operated in combination with the
flight simulator, allowing realistic test scenarios to be performed. Design
deficiencies may arise from over-looked aspects (e.g. unanticipated failure
scenarios), or deficiencies in system models. Especially nonlinearities may
adversely affect control law performance. In this case, the model needs to
be updated before adapting the control laws (Figure 1.3, top right).
The flight control laws status after satisfying the hardware test specifications
is designated Flight Standard by Irving.
• Loop 4 : Flight testing. This loop involves extensive validation of the control
laws in the aircraft in flight. O bviously, the number of tests will be limited
because of time, cost, safety, and environmental constraints. Therefore,
flight test results are partly intended to validate results from the second
design phase. In case of design deficiencies, control law updates may be
required. The final version (p ro du ctio n standard) will be certified with the
aircraft.
The design cycles may involve various stages in the off-line design process. Design
modifications may be initiated in Detailed FC L Design / Analy sis, in the B aseline
FC L Stru ctu re, as well as in the Detailed Design Req u irements. Even a change in
design philosophy may appear to be necessary, but hopefully at an early stage.
Especially in the case of military aircraft, the Assessment and C learance phase
may proceed on parts of the flight envelope or specific functions, as FCLs for other
parts, or other FCL functions, enter rig and flight testing.
In case of a new aircraft type or derivative, the development of the aircraft models
(top right in Figure 1.3) is a process by itself, which runs in parallel with the
FCL design. Major updates usually result from new wind tunnel experiments
(e.g. after configuration changes) and, in a later stage, from flight tests. Model
improvements require most analyses to be performed over again and frequently
force the control laws to be updated as well. Clearance results as presented to the
authorities for certification must eventually be produced using the most up-to-
date model data, since consistency with flight test results has to be demonstrated
[37].

1.3 Future developments in fl ight control law de-

sign
The design and certification of flight control laws is hardly ever a routine job. In
the first place, automation in the cockpit progresses continuously from aircraft
program to aircraft program, and existing functions are expected to deliver more
performance with each new design (e.g. higher cross-wind limits for automatic
landing). In the near future, new modes such as automatic take-off and drive-by-
wire control laws during taxiing will be introduced, further reducing pilot work
load and eventually allowing for full automation of the flight from push-back at
the departure airport until parking at the terminal of the destination airport [28].
1.3 Future developments in fl ight control law design 11

Besides the extension of FCS functionality, also aircraft design is progressing

rapidly, pushing more and more towards physical limits. Currently, the relative
amount of composites in the structure is about to increase dramatically. For
example, both the Boeing 787 and the Airbus A350 X WB will feature fuselages
made out of Carbon Fibre Reinforced P lastic (CFRP ). Composites allow for opti-
misation of fibre directions and density, resulting in dramatic weight reduction of
the over-all airframe, but simultaneously increasing its flexibility (see Figure 1.4).
Also system hardware is more and more subject to weight reduction, resulting in

Figure 1.4: H ighly flexible wing design of the Boeing 787 Dreamliner (Image
source: The Boeing Company, photo nr. K 6 39 6 5-03)

“ just-right” selection of actuators [112].

Increased airframe flexibility and “ just-right” siz ing of actuators heavily impact
control law performance. The other way around, the flight control system will also
more and more impact (transport aircraft) airframe design, since it for example
allows for relaxation of natural stability of the aircraft, resulting in lower fuel
consumption2 .
From the above it will be clear that flight control laws will become more complex
and that their interaction with other engineering areas in aircraft design will
become more important than ever.

The current industrial design process is not well configured to accommodate this.

The most important reasons are:

1. Even nowadays, too many design deficiencies are sorted out via iteration
loops beyond the off-line design phase [38, 76 ]. This causes high costs, since
2 Relaxed stability allows the tailplane to be smaller and lighter, and the centre of gravity of

the aircraft may be moved aft, so that the tailplane will contribu te to over-all lift in eq u ilibriu m
cru ise fl ight [1 5 ].
12 Introduction

from loop 2 onwards (Figure 1.3), more and more people, departments, and
test equipment get involved. Depending on the required modification, inter-
mediate steps may have to be performed over again, costing progressively
more engineering time and resources. As can be seen from the figure, loads
and aeroelasticity aspects are not addressed in detail until specialist depart-
ments perform flight loads analyses with the FCLs included. The impact
of late design iterations along the third loop will increase significantly as
actuators are sized more tightly. Finding trade-offs between control law
performance and, for example, airframe loading via loop 2 will be impracti-
cal and expensive;

2. Models used for FCL design allow for evaluation of criteria primarily re-
lated to flight dynamics and handling characteristics. Usually, only static
aeroelastic effects (flight shape deformation of the airframe) are taken into
account. Analysis of flight loads, detailed analysis of actuation system dy-
namics, and assessment of structural dynamics influences require special
models, only available within the respective engineering departments;

3. Controller synthesis parameters are mainly tuned by hand. Design require-

ments for control laws usually do not translate directly into specifications
for the applied controller synthesis method. This requires manual iteration
between controller synthesis and validation against the requirements. Multi-
disciplinary design means that additional criteria and constraints must be
taken into consideration. Finding trade-offs then quickly becomes a very
tedious task;

4. There is a lack of design methodologies that allow for fast adaptation of

flight control laws to changes in the aircraft configuration. Such a method-
ology allows the flight control design team to contribute and rapidly adapt
representative flight control laws to the emerging (preliminary) aircraft con-
figuration from the earliest design stages. This will be very valuable as FCLs
are to become a more and more integral part of the over-all aircraft design
and design optimisation. Furthermore, this allows the FCL design team to
more accurately (less conservatively) formulate specifications for sizing and
positioning of aerodynamic control surfaces and for sizing of control system
hardware.

1.4 Objective of the thesis

The general objective of this thesis is formulated as follows:
Propose a design process (focusing on the off-line phase) and methodologies that
inherently facilitate multi-disciplinary design of fl ight control laws.
In response to the shortcomings listed in the previous section, the following de-
tailed objectives are set:
1.5 General approach 13

• Develop a model structure for aircraft flight dynamics that allows for easy
and intuitive integration of model components and data from other engi-
neering disciplines, allowing for multi-disciplinary design analysis;

• Develop a model integration methodology that specifically allows aeroelastic

effects to be included in flight dynamics models, based on agreed-on model
data from loads and aeroelasticity disciplines;

• Develop a rapid-prototyping methodology that allows for quick generation

of representative control laws for aircraft design analysis in the preliminary
design phase;

• Extend methodologies that allow for automatic robust tuning of flight con-
trol laws, eventually allowing for automatic multi-disciplinary compromise
tuning of FCL parameters.

As a principal constraint, the methodologies must be able to fully incorporate

existing know-how, experience and lessons learnt in the flight control department.

1.5 General approach

At the DLR Institute of Robotics and Mechatronics the (off-line) design process
for flight control laws has been a central research area since the mid-nineties. In
1997 a process structure as depicted in Figure 1.5 was proposed, developed in the
frame of a German national project called First-Shot Approach in flight control
law design (FSA).
The process consists of the following steps:

• Modelling. This involves development of the aircraft model, including all

relevant dynamic effects (flight dynamics, actuator and sensor dynamics,
etc.), and modelling of the FCS with the selected controller structure. The
model depends on varying or uncertain parameters p and tuning parameters
T . The formulation of numerical design criteria from the functional design
requirements is another important modelling activity. Modelling work that
was performed in the frame of the FSA project is described in [91].

• Analysis and Selection. Before tuning of design parameters (T ), open loop

dynamics are analysed and a selection of parameter configurations (e.g.
flight cases) as well as design criteria is made, based on which the design
parameters are to be tuned.

• Tuning and Compromising. This step is mostly performed automatically

with the help of multi-objective optimisation. To this end, the software
environment MOPS is used [52]. An important means of achieving a ro-
bust design is to simultaneously address nominal and worst-case parameter
configurations (selected in the previous step) in the optimisation.
14 Introduction

Modelling
* F u nc tiona l des ign * c om p onents (p ,T )
req u irem ents * a irc ra ft m odel (p ,T )
* P h y s ic s * c ontroller / filters (T )
* Model da ta * F C S (p ,T )
* c riteria (p ,T )

Ana ly s is & S elec tion

* E v a lu a tion & s y nth es is m odels
* S u b ta s k s & c riteria

T u ning & C om p rom is ing

(T -V a ria tion)

no
A
Ok?
y es

As s es s m ent
(p -V a ria tion)

no B 1
Ok?
y es

Figure 1.5: FSA Flight control laws off-line design process

• Assessment. Finally, before release for hardware implementation, the con-

trol laws are tested extensively as a function of model parameters p in worst-
case analyses.

The process consists of two main loops. The first loop (A) is based on opti-
misation results where the designer decides upon shifting trade-offs (via criteria
scaling), or in some cases, structural changes to the controller. Loop (B) is based
on assessment results and may involve replacement or selection of additional pa-
rameter cases to be taken into account in the optimisation in order to improve
robustness. The design work based on the process described above is discussed in
detail in [50].
The FSA process has two key elements that make it highly suitable for multi-
disciplinary flight control law design. Firstly, the adopted object-oriented mod-
elling technology is well suited for multi-disciplinary model integration, as will be
explained in the following section. Secondly, multi-objective optimisation is able
to handle large amounts of criteria simultaneously (up to O(102 ) or more). This
provides enough room to address multi-disciplinary aspects.
1.6 Overview and contributions 15

The structure of the FSA process puts less emphasis on control law architecture
design (in Figure 1.5 referred to as a modelling activity) and on the way how
complex control laws are handled. These aspects are to be improved upon in the
frame of this thesis.

1.6 Overview and contributions

The structure of this thesis is depicted in Figure 1.6. Each of the five core chapters
addresses a different aspect of flight control law design and aircraft modelling,
and therefore can be read independently. As indicated by the fat flare trajectory,
the chapters sequentially add key elements that result in a new design process
structure proposed in Chapter 7.

A pp.B

3 . F le x . a ircra ft
m ode l inte g r.

2 . M ulti-dis cip lin.

A /C m ode lling
1. Introduction

7 . C onclus ions
A pp.A
4 . R a p id F C L
p rototy p ing

5 . N D I-b a s e d
F C L de s ig n

6 . A utola nd s y s te m
de s ig n

Figure 1.6: Structure of the thesis

Chapter 2: Multi-disciplinary aircraft model development

using object-oriented modelling techniques
This chapter proposes the use of object-oriented modelling techniques to develop
integrated aircraft models that allow flight dynamics as well as inter-disciplinary
effects to be addressed from the beginning in the design process. Object-oriented
16 Introduction

modelling allows model components from various engineering areas to be com-

bined in a single model, but still to be represented in their discipline-specific form.
The contribution of the chapter is a new physically-oriented generic aircraft model
structure, suitable for implementation of rigid as well as flexible aircraft, in slow
low up to fast high flight regimes. In addition, the underlying methodology al-
lows for easy implementation of model uncertainty and for automatic generation
of run-time code for various types of control design analysis.

Chapter 3: Integration of rigid and aeroelastic aircraft models

using the residualised model method

One aspect that is absent in contemporary aircraft models for control design is
airframe flexibility. The influence of control laws on flutter margins and airframe
loading is currently left to the loads and aeroelasticity department, giving rise
to design iterations along loop 2 (Figure 1.3) in case problems show up. Taking
aeroelastic aspects into account in the flight control design model allows these
design iterations to be eliminated. This however requires the integration of rigid
and aeroelastic aircraft models, which is not an obvious task due to overlaps be-
tween both model types. In Chapter 3 these overlaps are identified and solved
mathematically in the form of the so-called residualised model method. In addi-
tion, a procedure is developed that also allows the aeroelasticity department to
improve its models regarding flight mechanical aspects.

Chapter 4: Rapid prototyping using inversion-based control

and object-oriented modelling

As depicted in Figure 1.3, two key aspects in the off-line design phase are the
adopted control design philosophy, and the baseline controller structure. In case
of standard flight control functions the design choices are strongly influenced or
even imposed by previous aircraft programs. However, in the near future new
functions will be introduced, like drive-by-wire for taxiing on the ground. Key
decisions like selection of control variables, control allocation and sizing, etc. are
still open. A possibility for rapid prototyping would be an excellent means to
study the implications of such choices and to support fundamental decisions,
both in flight control as well as over-all aircraft design. Even for conventional
control functions, rapid prototyped control laws may be passed on as a preliminary
design to other departments for aircraft-level design analysis (e.g. control sizing).
Such a rapid-prototyping process is enabled by object-oriented modelling. This
methodology namely allows for automatic generation of nonlinear control laws
based on inversion of model equations, like Nonlinear Dynamic Inversion (NDI).
This will be demonstrated in, and is main contribution of, Chapter 4.
1.6 Overview and contributions 17

Chapter 5: Design of robust autopilot control laws with nonlin-

ear dynamic inversion
As has been demonstrated in Chapter 4, Nonlinear Dynamic Inversion (NDI) is a
nonlinear multi-variable design technique providing decoupled and uniform com-
mand responses over the aircraft flight envelope in one shot. In combination with
automatic generation of the control laws from an object-oriented model imple-
mentation, NDI is a highly attractive methodology from a design effi ciency point
of view. However, the method may result in design solutions that, if not appropri-
ately taken care of, are highly sensitive to modelling errors. Chapter 5 addresses
this issue in two ways. In the first place, it is shown how with the help of multi-
objective optimisation a robust design can be achieved by combining robustness
measures (like gain and phase margins) as design criteria, and by simultaneous
tuning of control law parameters for different uncertain parameter combinations.
It is further shown that uncertain model parameters that also show up in the
inverse model equations in the controller, may be effectively used as additional
degrees of freedom to achieve a robust design. The chapter covers a complete
FCL design from modelling to flight test, demonstrating the capabilities of NDI
and the proposed method for robust control law synthesis.

Chapter 6: Design of autoland controller functions with multi-

objective optimisation
This chapter combines and extends Chapters 3 to 5 into an integrated off-line de-
sign process, applied to the design of an autoland control system. The proposed
process allows for structured design of complex control laws that consist of mul-
tiple interacting functions. This allows controller complexity to be reduced, since
a single control function can be tuned for use with various outer loop functions.
It is shown that multi-objective optimisation allows for direct incorporation of a
variety of criteria and assessment methods (including Monte Carlo analysis) into
the tuning process of control law parameters, avoiding design iterations in loop 2
(Figure 1.3) afterwards.

Chapter 7: Conclusions
In this chapter the design process proposed in Chapter 6 is generalised and it is
shown how the other contributions of this thesis fit in. Current developments and
some recent applications are discussed. In addition, some lessons learnt will be
shared and recommendations for future work are made.
18 Introduction
Chapter 2

Multi-disciplinary aircraft
model development using
object-oriented modelling
techniques
20 Multi-disciplinary aircraft model development

Abstract
In this chapter a physically-oriented model structure for complex multi-
disciplinary aircraft dynamics models is presented. For implementation
the object-oriented modelling language M odelica is used. Object-oriented
modelling (OOM ) is based on implementation of “ nativ e” physical, rather
than simulation-ready differential and algebraic equations, allowing v ari-
ous engineering discipline-specific modelling methods to be combined in a
single model implementation. The proposed aircraft flight dynamics model
structure comes with the Flight Dynamics Library, a M odelica library con-
taining re-usable components, as well es base classes for aircraft-specific
components. The model structure allows for implementation of flexible as
well as rigid aircraft, in slow low up to fast-high flight regimes. Another
important adv antage of OOM is that v arious types of runtime models may
be automatically generated from a single implementation. From a control
point of v iew, this allows for automatic generation of models for nonlin-
ear simulation analysis, inv erse models for trimming and inv ersion-based
synthesis techniques, linear symbolic models for robustness analysis, etc.
In this chapter the main principles of OOM , the new aircraft model struc-
ture, and an example aircraft model implementation will be described.

C o n tributio n s

• A new, physically-oriented generic structure for air v ehicles and

env ironment models, v alid for:
– rigid as well as flexible airframe structures ...
– ... of v ehicles in slow or fast flight, at low or high altitudes, or
anywhere in between.
• The presented modelling methodology is the basis for contributions
in subsequent chapters.

P ublicatio n
G ertjan Looye, Simon H eck er, Thiemo K ier, Christian Reschk e, J ohann
Bals: Multi-disciplinary aircraft model development using object-oriented
modelling techniques, International Forum on Aeroelasticity and Struc-
tural Dynamics (IFASD), M unich, G ermany, J une 2 0 0 5 .
2.1 Current practice in multi-disciplinary modelling 21

IMULATION plays an important role in aircraft design and certification. Well

S known is the role of simulation in the development of flight control laws and
in the analysis of flight loads. Also in specification, testing and integration of
on-board systems, simulation is more and more used to reduce development time
and hardware cost.
In the continuous drive to improve efficiency, the aircraft design is more and
more pushed to its physical limits. An obvious result is that interactions be-
tween engineering disciplines become stronger and stronger. A classical example
is increasing airframe flexibility as a result of light weight design, interfering with
aircraft flight dynamics, and affecting passenger comfort. For this reason, there is
a growing need to address these interactions in simulation (or other model-based)
analyses. This in turn requires the involved engineering aspects to be present
in the underlying models, requiring the availability of multi-disciplinary aircraft
dynamics models. A major problem hereby is that engineering departments re-
sponsible for the various aspects of aircraft design develop models for their specific
types of analysis, based on modelling methods and tools that are common place
in the specific engineering area. Consequently, bringing model implementations
and data together into a multi-disciplinary simulation model is a very challenging
task. In the following section various approaches to achieve this will be reviewed
and compared.

2.1 Current practice in multi-disciplinary modelling

In order to put current practice in model integration of physical systems in general,
and aircraft dynamics in particular, in perspective, it is helpful to have a look at
steps a model typically goes through from conception to simulation1 . These steps
are depicted in Figure 2.1.
The first step is to clearly define what is to be modelled. This involves the
system, its behaviour of interest, and the role of and the bounds with respect to
its environment. Of course, this is mostly determined by the intended application
of the model. For example, for flight loads analysis the dynamic distribution
of air loads over the aircraft is of prime interest, whereas the influence of the
environment is limited to gravity and the (ideal) atmosphere. For piloted flight
simulation, only the total aerodynamic forces and moments acting on the airframe
are of interest, whereas the detailed modelling of for example the terrain and
Earth’s rotation and curvature are relevant. This first step in the modelling
process will be referred to as specification level.
The second step, which takes place at level referred to a as system level, is the
break down of the system into components and the specification of their inter-
connections. This in most cases is obvious. An important decision to be made
is which data sources will be used. For example, the aerodynamic model may
be obtained from an aerodynamics department, computed in-house using some
1 As will be discussed later on, the steps also apply to model applications other than simula-

tion.
22 Multi-disciplinary aircraft model development

1
Sp ec ific a tio n level Physical system and
mod elling scope

2
System level
Physical component
b reak -d ow n

3 Physical component / connec-

P h ysic a l level tion eq u ations, alg orithms .

4
O rd inary D ifferential /
M a th ema tic a l level
D ifferential A lg eb raic E q n.’s

5
R u n time level S imu lation mod el

Figure 2.1: Levels in development of a physical system

CFD method, or obtained from model identification during a planned flight test
campaign.
The third step is to actually formulate the equations and algorithms that underlie
the model components and to make sure the required data is available. The
equations are based on laws of physics, application rules that come with data
sources (e.g. aerodynamics), international model standards (e.g. International
Standard Atmosphere), algorithms as implemented in a system’s control unit,
etc. Interconnections between model components may for example be constraints,
energy flows, or signal flows. The third step in the modelling process will be
referred to as physical level.
The fourth step is to collect all equations and to derive mathematical standard
forms, like ordinary differential (ODEs) or differential algebraic equations (DAEs),
suitable for time simulation of the model. For this reason, the level this step is
performed at will be referred to as mathematical level. For derivation of ODEs or
DAEs it is necessary to specify which variables are to be considered as inputs2 ,
as outputs, or as states. This means that from this moment on, the causality of
the model is fixed.
Finally, the model is connected with a simulation algorithm, allowing the actual
model simulation to be performed. This algorithm strongly depends on the na-
ture of the model. For example, whether the model has been brought into the
form of ordinary differential or differential algebraic equations (ODEs or DAEs),
the extent of stiffness of these equations, whether the simulation model contains
2 If any, since systems do not necessarily have inputs. However, physical systems considered

in this thesis (aircraft) in general do.

2.1 Current practice in multi-disciplinary modelling 23

continuous states, discrete states or both, or whether state events should be han-
dled or not. T he im p lem entation m ay involve inline (local) integ ration of m odel
states, a state vector m ay be p assed to an ex ternal integ ration alg orithm , or var-
ious com p onents m ay be integ rated seq uentially using diff erent alg orithm s in a
seq uence of m ini sim ulation runs. T his fi fth step in the m odelling p rocess is at
the so-called simulation level.

2.1.1 Model implementation

F rom F ig ure 2 .1 an interesting observation can be m ade. A ctual im p lem entation
of m odel com p onents, storing into and retrieving from reusable libraries, and
integ ration into a full m odel usually tak es p lace at a m athem atical level (step
4 ). A fter sorting and solving the m odel eq uations and alg orithm s based on the
unk nown variables, a function or collection of functions is coded. F or a continuous
sy stem such a function ty p ically im p lem ents:

ẋ = f (x, u, p)
(2 .1 )
y = h(x, u, p)

where x ∈ IR nx is a vector containing m odel states with dim ension nx , the vector
u ∈ IR nu contains m odel inp uts, y ∈ IR ny contains m odel outp uts, and p ∈ IR np
contains constant p aram eters that m ay be set by the user p rior to sim ulation. In
the p ast, coding of this function was p erform ed using a p rog ram m ing lang uag e lik e
C or F O R T R A N . N owaday s, block diag ram s have becom e very p op ular, allowing
subsy stem s in the above form to be g rap hically interconnected via their inp uts and
outp uts. S ince the variables in u and y have been ex p licitly identifi ed as inp uts
and outp uts resp ectively , m odel im p lem entation at this level is also referred to as
“ causal” m odelling .
In a num ber of eng ineering dom ains im p lem entation at the p hy sical level (step 3 )
has becom e com m on p ractice. F or ex am p le, for construction of m ulti-body sy s-
tem m odels software is available that off ers com p onent libraries (bodies, joints,
hing es, ex ternal forces, etc.) from which a m odel m ay be constructed g rap hi-
cally . T he sam e holds for electronic circuits, for which a rang e of p rog ram s and
com p onent libraries is readily available. T he diff erential (alg ebraic) eq uations are
g enerated autom atically , ex p loiting the discip line-sp ecifi c m odel structures. A
well k nown m odelling p aradig m that has found ap p lication in various eng ineering
discip lines are bond g rap hs, based on energ y and energ y ex chang e between com -
p onents [1 6 ]. In 1 9 9 1 W illem s laid the foundation for what has becom e k nown as
the B ehavioural A p p roach to the descrip tion of dy nam ical sy stem s [1 0 2 ], strong ly
advocating m odel descrip tion at the p hy sical level and p roviding a m athem atical
fram ework for describing sy stem behaviour and (control-relevant) sy stem p rop er-
ties. In the B ehavioural A p p roach p hy sical com p onent break -down is referred to
as “ tearing ” and describing the com p onent behaviour as “ z oom ing ” [1 3 9 ].
Im p lem entation at the p hy sical level has a num ber of advantag es over doing this
at a m athem atical level:
24 Multi-disciplinary aircraft model development

- 1 +
R 2 1/L
R 1= 10

R 2 = 10 0
S
+ +
A C =220

+
C = 0 .0 1

L = 0 .1

+ 1
1/R 1 1/C S
-

Figure 2.2: Block diagram implementation (right) of an electronic circuit (left).

From [8 8 ].

1. In level 3, causality of the model is not fixed yet, whereas at level 4 causality
is inherent to the implemented differential equations. As a result, from an
implementation at level three, different runtime models with different sets
of (reversed) inputs and outputs may be generated from one and the same
model.

2. D ifferential equations for simulation are just one form of executable model
code. Other forms are static equations, symbolic linear state space models,
L inear Fractional Transformations (L FTs), etc. From level 3, the form of
the runtime model is still open.

3. In level 3 model component interconnections may be specified via physical

equations. From step 4 onwards, model components can only be intercon-
nected via their inputs u and outputs y. This makes adding new components
more complicated and easily results in a non-physical model structure. The
latter becomes even worse, since within the components all unknowns have
to be brought to the left-hand side, obscuring the original physical equa-
tions. This can be illustrated via a (by now) classical example in Figure 2.2.
To the left a simple electronic circuit is shown. To the right the same model
is depicted as a block diagram. It will be clear that, when only provided
with the block diagram, quite some reverse engineering effort is required
to find the underlying physical equations and to picture the original circuit
structure.

In practice, the above restrictions do not pose severe problems, since within most
engineering areas application-specific work-arounds and program libraries have
been developed that considerably reduce the coding effort. For example, for the
block diagram-based modelling tool Simulink [8 1] libraries for various engineering
domains are readily available.
2.1 Current practice in multi-disciplinary modelling 25

2.1.2 Model integration

Multi-disciplinary modelling involves the integration of model components and
data from various engineering disciplines into a single model. In Figure 2.3 it
is shown that this may be done at the three candidate levels of implementation.
The first problem that nearly always arises is that different engineering disciplines
use different modelling methods and simulation tools. Looking at Figure 2.3, a
pragmatic approach would be to couple models at the very lowest level, namely
by means of distributed or co-simulation. This avoids the need of translating
or importing any model from the one simulation tool into the other, and allows
for geographically distributed simulation. Standards for hierarchical organisation
and interfaces for data exchange are available, like for example the H igh-Level
Architecture (H LA) [26]. The latter is for example used by the U S Department
of Defence (DoD) to perform battle field simulations with multiple players. The
modelling scope of this chapter however is initially limited to a single aircraft.
In this respect, co-simulation (also referred to as “loosely coupled” simulation)
is for example used in coupling multi-body packages with engineering-specific
environments, like FE M software, CFD solvers, etc. [62].
Aircraft models used for fl ight control and loads analysis must be fast in order
to allow ten thousands of simulations to be performed in a reasonable amount of
time (so-called “loop-capability”). An important disadvantage of co-simulation
is that it involves multiple simulations-processes only communicating via com-
puted trajectories. This does not allow for optimisation of the integrated model
and causes problems as soon as algebraic loops between model components arise.
Several control analysis methods require the model to be available in a specific
form, like a Linear Fractional Transformation (LFT). Being at the lowest mod-
elling level, co-simulation provides the runtime model in one form only. Finally,
as soon as more than two or three disciplines are involved, mastering the model
and simulation becomes a complicated task for a single engineer and may become
costly because of software licenses of involved programs.
Therefore, a more usual approach is to integrate models at level 4. This requires a
common implementation platform, if only at the point of linking compiled model
component software. This approach is greatly facilitated by the fact that many
modelling platforms nowadays allow for model export in the form of runtime
simulation code. A main program may then be written that sequentially calls the
involved model component codes and provides data exchange in between. Another
possibility is to import an external model code into the (designated) main model
by means of a function call. Disadvantages of this approach is that the model
code from the one engineering department remains a black box to engineers in
the other.
In some cases, model platforms used by different disciplines are identical. For
example, the block diagram modelling tool Simulink provides dedicated libraries
for various engineering areas and finds ever wider acceptance. For fl ight dynamics
modelling for example, several libraries are readily available [104, 126, 29]. In-
tegration of model components based on a common implementation platform is
26 Multi-disciplinary aircraft model development

Disc ip line A Disc ip line B

1 1
Sp ec ific a tio n level Physical system and Physical system and
mod elling scope mod elling scope

2 2
System level Physical component Physical component
b reak -d ow n b reak -d ow n

3 P h y sic al interc onnec tion 3 Physical component / con-

Physical component / con-
P h ysic a l level nection eq u ations, alg orithms nection eq u ations, alg orithms

4 I/O interc onnec tion 4

O rd inary D ifferential / O rd inary D ifferential /
M a th ema tic a l level D ifferential A lg eb raic E q n.’s D ifferential A lg eb raic E q n.’s

5 5
R u n time level S imu lation mod el T rajec tory interc onnec tion S imu lation mod el
Distributed / Co-simulation

H /W in th e loop simulation

Figure 2.3: Various levels of interconnection between physical system models

relatively easy. Unfortunately, Figure 2.2 clearly shows that this still does not
solve the “black box” problem.
Another important problem remains. Model components may only communicate
via data flows and model components must be executed in a given sequence. This
causes problems as soon as components algebraically depend on each others data.
Such algebraic loops require expensive iterative solving or very short simulation
time steps in case loops are broken artificially.
Apparently, level 4 is not necessarily a suitable level to (1) implement models and
(2) to integrate models. The problems sketched above disappear when taking the
model implementation one level up, namely to level 3. Since at this level inter-
connection equations are still physical, connection of model components can be
performed in the form of physical equations as well. Of course, this implemen-
tation approach has an important prerequisite. It must be possible to combine
models from various disciplines and based on various modelling paradigms into a
single implementation. As it is diffi cult and unnatural to, for example, implement
a block diagram in a multi-body package.
This problem was recognised by Elmqvist, who in 197 8 proposed a dedicated
modelling language, called Dymola (Dynamic Modelling Language) [30]. The
basic philosophy behind this language is:
1. implementation takes place at the level 3: physical objects and phenomena
and their interactions may be implemented as model objects and model
interactions respectively in a one-to-one fashion;
2. the language serves as a common base for development of discipline-specific
component libraries.
The result of the second point is that model components may be composed from
discipline-specific libraries. The common language base allows these components
2.1 Current practice in multi-disciplinary modelling 27

to be combined in a single model. At the time, issues like algebraic loops between
model components and structural singularities in models prevented practical use
of the language. By 1991 most of these issues had been resolved [32], resulting
in a first release of a modelling and simulation environment based on the Dy-
mola language, also called Dymola (Dynamic Modelling Laboratory) [4]. In the
mean time, several other research groups started developing dedicated physical
modelling languages and tools. All languages are strongly supported by graph-
ical tools, allowing model components to be constructed from discipline-specific
libraries using “drag-and-drop”. Since libraries may in turn be based on discipline-
specific modelling paradigms, an electronic circuit (for example) also graphically
looks as such, and a control law may still be implemented in the form of a block-
diagram.
In 1996 several developers in the physical modelling field, as well as simulation
and modelling experts, started joint work to develop a common, free physical
modelling language standard, named Modelica. In 2000 the non-profit Modelica
Association was founded, with the objective to maintain, develop and promote the
Modelica language. By now, the Modelica language has achieved a high degree of
maturity and several modelling tools (“Modelica translators”) have become avail-
able, featuring graphical model composition and extensive simulation capabilities.
In 2006 Dassault Systèmes announced that the systems simulation extension of
its CATIA CAD software will be based on the Modelica language. A wide range
of libraries has been developed (e.g. multi-body systems, electronics, thermody-
namics, block diagrams, power trains, hydraulics, pneumatics, fuel cells, bond
graphs) that on the one hand allow for composition of discipline-specific model
components, while on the other hand these components may be used along side in
an integrated multi-disciplinary model. This allows for development of large scale,
intuitively structured hierarchical models. P apers on several complex examples
may be downloaded from the Modelica home page [89].

2.1.3 Aircraft modelling for fl ight control law design

For development of flight control laws, object-oriented model implementation
(level 3) is a very attractive approach.

• Flight control law design requires both understanding of control engineering,

but more importantly, a thorough understanding of the behaviour of the
aircraft. Model visibility is therefore very important. This is best achieved
by implementation using physical model equations and based on physically
structured model components.
• Analysis of flight control laws involves large amounts of simulation runs
(∼ 104 ) to evaluate control law performance at different flight conditions,
weight and balance configurations, with different uncertain parameter val-
ues, etc. Object-oriented modelling allows for automatic generation of
highly optimised simulation code from the multi-disciplinary model imple-
mentation.
28 Multi-disciplinary aircraft model development

• Various types of control design analysis require the model to be available in

different forms. For nonlinear simulation, ODEs are required, for robustness
analysis symbolically linearised parametric state space models are used, for
accurate trim computation static inverse models are very useful. So far, the
main focus in this chapter has been on simulation. By taking implementa-
tion one level up, object-oriented modelling allows various forms of runtime
models for various forms of control design analysis to be automatically gen-
erated from one and the same model.
In 1995 Moormann developed a first library (at the time, based on the Dymola
language) for object-oriented modelling of aircraft flight dynamics [92]. Objective
was to build a solid basis for constructing integrated dynamic aircraft models,
including flight dynamics, detailed on board system dynamics, structural dynam-
ics, etc. First applications were a generic transport and a fighter aircraft [77] and
a first flexible aircraft shortly thereafter [72]. Since then, the library has been
expanded and applied to complex aircraft models that include e.g. system hy-
draulics and electronics [91, 93]. In the frame of the international projects REAL
(Robust and Efficient Autopilot control Laws design, funded by the EU in the
fifth frame work programme [110]) and the G ARTEUR action group AG -11 on
clearance of flight control laws [39], the automatic generation of inverse models for
fast trim computation and nonlinear control laws was applied for the first time.
In 2005 , the DLR Flight Dynamics Library was considerably revised. Main rea-
son was the development of a new generalised aircraft model structure, which is
the main contribution of this chapter. The versatility of the Modelica language
allowed this structure to be implemented in a one-to-one fashion. In the following
section the new model structure is discussed (Section 2.2), based on which the
Flight Dynamics Library has been organised (Section 2.3). In Section 2.4 the au-
tomatic generation of model code for model simulation and analysis is discussed,
followed by an example application. Finally, conclusions are drawn in Section 2.6.

2.2 The aircraft model structure

The objective of this section is to introduce and motivate the basic structure of
an aircraft model as it may be composed from the Flight Dynamics Library. The
structure of this library will be discussed thereafter. The full specification of the
underlying Modelica language is given in [90].
In constructing complex models the choice of hierarchy is crucial, since this largely
determines how model components interact. For the Flight Dynamics Library a
top-level model structure as shown in Figure 2.4 has been adopted. It consist
of one or more aircraft, and environment objects (The avionics component and
input and triangular-shaped output connectors will be discussed in Section 2.4).
The environment objects include a w orld, atmosp h ere, terrain, and airp ort model.
Note that the (in this case, single) aircraft model has no direct link with the
environment models, which physically makes sense. Using the so-called inner-
outer feature of the Modelica language, these models provide field functions. For
2.2 The aircraft model structure 29

Figure 2.4: Top-level of model: aircraft and environment

example, the aircraft may request its surrounding atmospheric conditions from
the atmosphere model by sending its local inertial position. Any other aircraft
(or e.g. sensor) object in the model may do this as well. This is different from
most block-oriented libraries, where an atmospheric model is directly linked to,
and thus occupied by, the one aircraft. The ability to easily include multiple air
vehicles is useful for applications involving mutual interactions, like towed gliders,
wake vortexes, air-to-air refuelling, release of missiles, etc.

2.2.1 The world model

In the following subsections the environment models in Figure 2.4 (world, atmo-
sphere, terrain, airport) will be discussed. These components determine validity
of the over-all model to a large extent. Most important is the world model (in
this case, the Earth), since it provides the inertial reference in the form of the
so-called Earth-Centred Inertial (ECI) reference frame. Its origin is attached to
the Earth’s centre of mass, its orientation is fixed with respect to reference stars
30 Multi-disciplinary aircraft model development

[55]. In addition, the model component has the following functions:

• Provide the geodetic reference. As indicated in Figure 2.4, to this end the
World Geodetic System 1984 [7] (WGS84) is used. The object implements
an Earth-Centred Earth-Fixed (ECEF) reference frame, which has the same
origin as the ECI, but rotates with the Earth. The attitude of the ECEF
(w.r.t. ECI) is available in a connector. A set of functions transform ECI
and ECEF referenced position vectors into geodetic longitude, latitude, and
height co-ordinates (w.r.t. WGS84 ellipsoid) and vice versa. For a given
longitude and latitude, another function provides the local undulation of
the so-called EGM96 (Earth Gravitational Model 1996) geoid with respect
to the WGS84 ellipsoid, providing the Mean Sea Level (MSL) reference [68].

• Implement a model of the Earth’s gravitation. The gravitational model

to be used with WGS84 is the Earth Gravitational Model 1996 (EGM96),
provided in the form of tables describing equi-potential surfaces a function
of longitude and latitude. Currently, a more simplified height and geocentric
latitude-dependent (Ref. [125] - Eqn.(1.4-16)) and a constant gravity model
are available.

• Implement a model of the Earth’s magnetic field. This field is required

to compute indications of compass models. The model is based on the
US National Geo-spatial-Intelligence Agency (NGA) World Magnetic Model
(WMM), which is published every five years and predicts the time-varying
intensity and direction of the magnetic field as a function of WGS84 longi-
tude, latitude and height. The current model covers 2005 till 2010 [83].

Double-clicking on the world object in Figure 2.4 allows a number of parameters

to be set, like whether the Earth is rotating or in rest, initial day time, and the
type of gravity model (approximate EGM96, height independent, or constant).
The features of the object may be overkill for many applications, but provide
sufficient generality for use with for example high speed and high altitude flight
vehicles. Furthermore, the applied WGS84 ensures compatibility with standard
GPS equipment, most flight simulator vision systems, navigation system models,
etc. Obviously, any parameter set in the world and other environment models
applies to all components in the aircraft model.

2.2.2 The atmosphere model

The second environmental object in Figure 2.4 is the atmosphere. Normally,
the International Standard Atmosphere (ISA) as a function of the height above
MSL is used. Alternatively, parameters for constant atmospheric conditions may
be entered. The air mass is nominally assumed to be in rest with respect to
the ECEF, explaining why a connection with the world ECEF-connector exists.
However, the component also foresees implementation of wind fields. Currently,
wind components in northern and eastern directions may be entered at a reference
2.2 The aircraft model structure 31

altitude of 100 ft above the Earth surface. A simple Earth boundary layer model
logarithmically reduces the wind velocity to zero on the ground.

2.2.3 The terrain model

To the right in Figure 2.4 a terrain model has been added. A component contain-
ing highly detailed, or simple parametrised models of the Earth’s surface may be
selected from the library. Depicted in Figure 2.4 is a terrain model as used for
automatic landing control law design and certification, based on EASA CS-AWO
specifications [37]. The location, elevation, direction, and slope of a runway may
be specified, as well as slopes and steps in the terrain below the approach path. A
simple function call from e.g. an aircraft sensor then returns the corresponding lo-
cal terrain elevation above MSL or the WGS84 ellipsoid, allowing for computation
of for example the radio altitude.

2.2.4 The airport infrastructure model

The airport object implements earth-fixed navigational equipment (e.g. VOR,
DME, ILS systems at specified locations). In the figure the ILS equipment of
the one runway as positioned in the EASA CS-AWO terrain model is included.
Specific characteristics like glide slope angle and antenna transmitter positions
may be specified via parameters. Any other model object may obtain its local
glide slope and localiser deviation via a simple function call.

2.2.5 Rigid and fl exible aircraft models

The core of the model structure is of course the component that represents the
actual aircraft. The Flight Dynamics Library foresees the implementation of rigid
just as well as flexible ones. A typical model structure for a flexible transport
aircraft is shown in Figure 2.5. The components resemble physical parts an aircraft
consists of (airframe, engines, actuators, sensors), and phenomena it is influenced
or driven by (kinematics, aerodynamics, wind).

Component interconnections
The one-to-one implementation of the depicted physical objects and phenomena
is enabled by the physical nature of the interconnections. Each component has
one or more mechanical connectors. Such a connector defines a physical attach-
ment point on the object. For the engines and sensors this is the point at which
it is attached to the airframe. Aerodynamic forces actually act all over the air-
frame. However, in flight mechanics usually only the summed effect with respect
to some reference point, like the Aerodynamic Centre (AC), is of interest. Also for
the aerodynamic forces in the aeroelastic aerodynamic model in fact only their
summed effect is considered due to so-called left-generalisation with rigid and
flexible eigenmodes, as will be described in Sections 3.1 and B.2.7. Therefore, the
aerodynamic models need a single connector only. The variables contained in the
32 Multi-disciplinary aircraft model development

Figure 2.5: Structure of a Flexible Aircraft model in Figure 2.4

connectors are given in Table 2.1. In this table Fl is the local frame of reference

Name Description Type

Fl Force vector in Fl flow
Ml Moment vector in Fl flow
R0 Position vector in FE C I across
Tl,0 Direction cosine matrix from FE C I into Fl across
Ωl Rotational speed w.r.t. FE C I , resolved in Fl across

T a b le 2.1 : Variables in the mechanical connector

the connector variables are defined in. The position and orientation of Fl with
respect to FE C I (the Earth-Centred Inertial frame of reference) are defined by R0
and Tl,0 respectively. Remember that by the inclusion of the world model at the
2.2 The aircraft model structure 33

top-level, see Figure 2.4, FECI has been defined as the basic reference frame for all
model components. Although Ωl in the connector is superfluous (orientation and
rotational speed are kinematically directly related), the variable is included for
efficiency reasons as explained in [98]. The reasons for using Tl,0 to describe the
orientation of Fl are that the description does not become singular (as opposed to
for example Euler angles when θ = ±π / 2) and that within the object the matrix
is ready for use to transform local variables between the local and ECI reference
frames. Again, a more elaborate explanation is given in [98].
The forces and moments in the connector are declared as flow variables, whereas
kinematic variables are declared as across variables. The difference between both
types is best illustrated via an example, see Figure 2.6. The three numbered
objects are linked at the connector of object 3. The across variables in the three
connectors are now related as follows:

R 0 1 = R0 2 = R 0 3
Tl,01 = Tl,02 = Tl,03
Ωl1 = Ωl2 = Ωl3

This simply implies that the local reference frames in the three objects are merged:
they have the same position and orientation. The flow variables are related as
follows:

Fl1 + Fl2 + Fl3 = 0

Ml 1 + Ml 2 + Ml 3 = 0

The basic interpretation is that the sum of inflowing and outflowing quantities
must be zero. In this case, the relations basically imply the balance of forces at
connector C3. Note that no direction of variables is assumed: the interconnections
just add two types of connector equations.

1 2
C 2

C 1
3 C 3

Figure 2.6: Interconnection example of three objects

Besides mechanical interconnections, Figure 2.5 also shows a Databus on top, to

which most components have been connected. This type of interconnection will
be discussed at the end of this section.
34 Multi-disciplinary aircraft model development

Kinematics
The backbone of the model depicted in Figure 2.5 are the k inematics and airframe
components. The first defines a “North-East-Down” (NED) local vertical frame
with its origin moving with a fixed position in the aircraft, preferably the centre
of gravity. The object also defines a right-handed body-fixed reference frame with
its origin at the same location, but with a fixed attitude w.r.t. the airframe (x-
axis towards the nose, z-axis down). The attitudes and inertial positions of both
reference systems are available in the two connectors. The one on top represents
the aircraft body reference system (Fl (Table 2.1) is Fb ), the one belows represents
the vehicle-carried NED reference frame (Fl is Fv ). For the kinematics block
various versions are available or in preparation, like 6 Degrees of Freedom (DOF)
with Euler angles and WGS84 co-ordinates as states, as well as versions with 3
DOF (longitudinal or lateral), Q uaternion states, or Earth-fixed position states.

A irframe
The difference between a rigid and a flexible aircraft is, in fact, only in the airframe
object. In case of a rigid airframe, it contains the standard Newton-Euler force
and moment equations with respect to a body reference system [15] (attitude
and position in lower connector). Although the origin of this reference system is
preferably the centre of gravity (for compatibility with standard flight dynamics
models), a fixed point w.r.t. the undeformed airframe shape may be more useful
for referencing reasons. The local gravity acceleration is obtained by a call to the
world object (Figure 2.4). Note that the computation of gravity depends on the
method that is selected in the world object. In case of a flexible airframe, linear
elastic equations of motion in modal form augment the Newton-Euler equations
[137, 21, 106]. The body axes system is hereby considered as a so-called mean
axis system. The momentary shape of the airframe is characterised by states in
the form of generalised co-ordinates (also called mode shape multipliers). The
underlying data (modal mass, damping, stiffness, and mode shape matrices) are
automatically read from a specified file prior to simulation. More details on
nonlinear equations of motion of flexible aircraft can be found in Appendix B.
Connection of the airframe object to the k inematics object (see Figure 2.5) makes
that the reference systems in both connectors merge, i.e. from then on the airframe
is moving freely with respect to the inertial reference, according to kinematic
equations described in the k inematics object.
The airframe object has a second connector on top (see Figure 2.5). This con-
nector may contain a different reference frame with a constant offset, or may
simply be identical to the body frame (to be specified via an offset parameter). It
is intended for interconnection of for example external force model components,
sensor models, etc. In case of a flexible airframe also generalised co-ordinates
and generalised forces are contained in addition to the variables in Table 2.1.
Note that the kinematic equations that describe the position and orientation of
the local reference frames are contained in the k inematics object. Application
of Newton’s second law in case of a constant airframe mass relates the external
2.2 The aircraft model structure 35

forces with the acceleration of the airframe by:

X d 2 R0
Fb = Tb,0 m (2.2)
dt2
P
where Fb is the sum the external forces w.r.t. body axes acting on the airframe
via both connectors. It is sufficient to implement the equation in this form: the
model compiler will symbolically differentiate R0 . For more details, see Ref. [98].

External forces and moments

The airframe equations of motion are primarily driven by aerodynamic and propul-
sion forces and moments. These are computed in corresponding model compo-
nents in Figure 2.5. These components often need to be prepared for each aircraft
type individually, since application rules and data (sources) behind aerodynam-
ics and propulsion models may strongly differ. For this reason, a base class is
available that already defines interfaces and the connector, as well as equations
for computation of key variables like the angle of attack, side slip, and true air-
speed. Local wind velocities are hereby requested from the atmosphere model in
Figure 2.4. The user may develop own model components, inheriting this base
class.
Besides the airframe, each component may be developed around its own local ref-
erence frame. In case of aerodynamics, these may for example be the stability or
wind axes. Interconnection with the airframe follows via a transformation object
(e.g. AeroR ef in Figure 2.5). This object has two connectors representing two
reference systems. The offset (position, orientation) in between may be specified
via parameters that become visible and can be edited by double-clicking on the
object. The object also relates the forces and moments that act along the con-
nector reference systems. When connecting a model with the airframe object, the
transformation object makes sure that the kinematics between the local compo-
nent and the airframe reference systems are correctly related, as well as forces
and moments are applied correctly.
The aircraft model in Figure 2.5 has two aerodynamics models (right hand side).
The upper one (Aero) contains forces and moments as induced by the over-all
motion of the aircraft (“rigid aerodynamics”), usually also corrected for quasi-
steady deformation of the airframe. The underlying model may be based on
complex application rules, table look-ups, etc. In case a data set is not avail-
able or incomplete, computational tools as described in [58] are available. The
lower aerodynamics component (aerody namicsF lex) computes unsteady (gener-
alised) forces and moments as induced by flexible deformation of the airframe.
For this component extensive pre-processing tools have been developed, involving
application of the Doublet-Lattice Method, axis transformations, Rational Func-
tion Approximation and removal of quasi-steady effects (already accounted for
in the rigid aerodynamics model), see Chapter 3 and [59] for more details. The
unsteady aerodynamic data are read from a user-specified data file at simulation
start.
Note that the Aero component is connected to the lower airframe connector via
36 Multi-disciplinary aircraft model development

the AeroRef object, whereby the latter describes the offset between the airframe
body axes and the aerodynamic reference system. The upper aerodynamics com-
ponent is directly connected with the upper airframe connector, making use of
generalised co-ordinates declared therein. In case kinematics and the balance
between aerodynamic and actuation forces are relevant, a direct interconnection
between the actuators and aerodynamics models may be added.
The engine models (top left) are connected to the airframe via a slightly different
type of transformation. Instead of an offset, the number of a structural grid
point, where the object is to be attached, may be specified. At simulation start the
transformation object requests the rows of the modal matrix that apply to the grid
point from the airframe object, allowing it to continuously compute the kinematic
relation and force balance between its connectors as a function of the offset from
the airframe reference and the local deformation, see also Appendix B. This for
example implies that directional thrust variations due to local deformation at the
engine attachment point are automatically taken into account.

S ensor models
The very same principle as used for interconnecting engine models with the air-
frame structure also applies to the sensor models, located in the top-right corner
of Figure 2.5. A set of sensor types is available in the library. For example,
accelerometers compute local accelerations at their point of attachment (speci-
fied via grid point number, or offset) as a function of the inertial motion of the
airframe, its position in the airframe reference, as well as the local airframe de-
formation.
The ILS, GPS, and radio altimeter sensors obtain their values by making a func-
tion call to the airport, world, and terrain environment models respectively (Fig-
ure 2.4), passing on their momentary inertial position as an argument. In this
way, for example multiple GPS sensor objects may be included at various loca-
tions on the airframe. Each object can request its very local co-ordinates from
the world object.

L ocal wind eff ects

As already discussed in Section 2.2.2, mean winds are computed in the atmo-
sphere block at the top level of the model in Figure 2.4. However, turbulence
models are usually described in aircraft body axes, whereby delays as gusts travel
along the airframe, are taken into account. This is described in the localW ind ob-
ject (lower left, in this case based on EASA CS-AWO specifications for autoland
assessment). Random turbulence velocities are obtained from dedicated filters
(Dryden, K arman) that use white noise signals as inputs. This noise is provided
via an external connector.

S ystems
On-board systems are included in the actuators component. This component
may describe actuators and hydraulic / electric systems using simple transfer
2.3 The Modelica Flight Dynamics Library 37

functions, as well as highly detailed physical models, constructed from hydraulics

and electronics libraries. The library currently only provides the first variant, since
detailed on-board system models are unique for each type or family of aircraft
and are usually provided by systems specialists. A recent example of on-board
system model implementation using Modelica can be found in [11].

Avionics bus
Finally, the thin bar at the top of Figure 2.5 represents a so-called data bus. This
bus includes signals that one would typically find on avionics buses in the aircraft,
like the readings of all sensors, command signals to engine and control surface
actuators, gear status, etc. For this reason, the sensor, actuator, and engine
models have been attached to the bus object. The bus is also accessible from
outside and allows direct connection to elements from the Modelica block diagram
library. This enables a control system composed using this library to directly
communicate with the aircraft data bus. When connecting a model component
the user is asked which variable is to be inserted into, or retrieved from the data
bus. A large amount of commonly used variables has been pre-defined, but the
user is of course free to add more. It is important to point out that in case of
a bus, any signal connector may be connected. For example, the G P S and ILS
objects via their connections contribute their respective outputs to the D atabus.
In case of standard connectors however, both connectors have to be of the same
type (e.g. mechanical as defined above).

2.3 The Modelica Flight Dynamics Library

The top-level structure of the Flight Dynamics Library is depicted in Figure 2.7.
The Modelica branch in the depicted tree (top) contains the principal standard
libraries delivered with Modelica (as listed in Section 2.1). The branches of the
Flight Dynamics Library will be briefly described below:

• ProjectTemplate contains a basic library structure for an aircraft. Each

aircraft type has its own models for aerodynamics, propulsion, systems,
landing gears, etc. These models are built on base classes that already com-
pute all basic variables (e.g. for aerodynamics, angle of attack, calibrated
airspeed, etc.) and are stored in this structure. The project template con-
tains a very simple, but readily working aircraft model. The user may copy
this template into an own project and start implementing aircraft-specific
components, or add components from the Flight Dynamics or any other
Modelica library.

• A erod y n amics contains example aerodynamic models for use in rigid and
flexible aircraft models, as well as base classes that the user may extend
(inherit) to develop his own aircraft-specific model components. Each air-
craft type or family namely tends to use unique application rules. For this
38 Multi-disciplinary aircraft model development

reason, newly implemented aerodynamics components are stored within the

aircraft project (see ProjectTemplate).

• Airframes contains rigid and flexible airframe model objects. The rigid
ones may have constant mass and inertia tensor (entered via parameters),
or these may change at a given rate (e.g. as a function of fuel consumption).
The flexible airframe component loads its mass, and modal data from an
external file (usually a Matlab mat-file [80]).

• E nv ironment contains all environment-related models as described at the

beginning of Section 2.2.

• E x amples contains actual implementations of aircraft models, as for ex-

ample depicted in Figures 2.4 and 2.5.

• G ear currently contains a simplified landing gear model for which basic
properties may be set and which may be attached to the airframe object in
Figure 2.5. A base class containing a standard interface for interconnection
with the airframe is provided for implementation of detailed landing gear
models, e.g. composed with help of the multi-body library by specialists in
the field.

• Interfaces contains all library-specific connector types, as well as the data

bus that was discussed Section 2.2.5.

• K inematics contains the Kinematics object as described in the previous

section.

• Propu lsion contains, as for the aerodynamics, example engine model im-
plementations, as well as base classes that allow the user to implement his
own propulsion models.

• S ystems mainly contains sensor models (accelerometers, ILS, GPS, etc.)

with time constants and noise if desired, and simple transfer function-based
actuator models.

• Transformations contains standard transformations between reference sys-

tems.

• Types contains type definitions for internal variables, to which the user
may add his own.

• U tilities contains miscellaneous functions e.g. for reading external data

files.

Within a dedicated Modelica modelling and simulation environment, like Dymola

(Dynamic Modelling Library [4]) aircraft models may be composed from the li-
brary using drag and drop, see Figure 2.8. After copying a component into the
2.4 Automatic code generation 39

M od elica s tan d ard

m u lti-en g in eerin g
library

M od elica
F lig h t D yn am ics L ibrary

{ Aircraft project library

Figure 2.7: Top-level structure of the Flight Dynamics Library

mod el, its parameters may be ed ited by d ouble-click ing on the object. For ex am-
ple, in case of the fl ex ible airframe the number of mod es to be consid ered may
be altered , as w ell as the w ay of hand ling remaining mod es (e.g. truncation or
resid ualisation).

2.4 Automatic code generation

A fter mod el composition has been fi nished , a mod el translator sorts and solves all
mod el eq uations accord ing to specifi ed inputs and outputs into O rd inary Diff er-
ential E q uations (O DE ’s) or Diff erential A lgebraic E q uations (DA E ’s), suitable
for use in simulation. This is thus the automated transition from level 3 to level
4 in Figure 2 .1 . A mod elling tool that is w ell capable of d oing this is Dymola [4 ].
B esid es a graphical mod elling environment and ad vanced symbolic algorithms,
the tool off ers ex tensive simulation and d ata analysis capabilities. H ow ever, the
mod el cod e may be used in other engineering environments and simulation tools
as w ell, lik e for ex ample M atlab/ S imulink [8 1 ]. For this environment an ad d i-
tional tool set has been d eveloped that automatically generates trimming and
linearisation scripts, allow ing the user to easily specify and accurately compute
initial cond itions prior to simulation, see A ppend ix A .
A simple w ay of specifying mod el inputs and outputs is show n at the top of Fig-
ure 2 .4 . H ere a so-called avionics block has been connected to the bus connector
of the aircraft. A t this main mod el level, also input and output connectors have
been d efi ned . The avionics block injects pilot throttle and control surface input
command s (from Throttle, C ontrols connectors) into the d ata bus. O utput vari-
ables of interest, in this ex ample case navigation and aird ata signals are read from
40 Multi-disciplinary aircraft model development

Figure 2.8: Graphical aircraft model composition using drag and drop from the
library

the bus and passed on to output connectors NavOut and A ird ata respectively.
More details on model translation and automatic generation of inverse models
will be discussed in Chapter 4.

2.5 Application example: ATTAS

This section discusses the implementation of an example model using the Flight
Dynamics Library. The aircraft is DLR ’s fly-by-wire test bed ATTAS (Advanced
Technologies Testing Aircraft System [17 ]), a V FW -6 14 small passenger aircraft
(3̃0 passengers) with two turbofan engines mounted on top of the wings, see
Figure 2.9 . This model was originally developed in the frame of the EU project
R EAL [110 ] for automatic landing control laws design and is the bases for for
flight control law designs described in Chapters 5 and 6 of this thesis.
2.5 Application example: ATTAS 41

Figure 2.9: DLR’s VFW-614 Advanced Technologies Testing Aircraft System

(ATTAS)

2.5.1 Starting the model project

From the Flight Dynamics Library a new aircraft model project is started by
copying the aircraft model template (Figure 2.7) and saving it under a new name,
in this case ATTAS. This new project is a small library by itself, containing all
aircraft specific model components as well as a first integrated model, ready for
translation. For ATTAS, the following model components need to be developed
or adapted from default implementations:

• Aerodynamics: based on a base class that defines equations for typical aero-
dynamic variables like angle of attack, angle of side slip, true airspeed, Mach
number, etc. ATTAS-specific application rules and aerodynamic coeffi cient
data are implemented [105]. In addition, for the aerodynamic model multi-
plicative uncertainty is added to the coeffi cients in order to cover potential
differences with the actual aerodynamics;

• P ropulsion: the ATTAS is equipped with Rolls-Royce turbofan engines.

Starting from an engine base-class, application rules for thrust computa-
tion and equations of motion for engine shaft dynamics are implemented,
including effects such as hysteresis in the fuel control unit;

• Sensors: the ATTAS is equipped with a range of sensors for air data, in-
ertial measurements (accelerometers, etc.), guidance (ILS, Radio altitude),
etc. These sensors are combined into a sensor system model, composed of
components readily available in the Flight Dynamics Library.

• Actuators: the ATTAS is amongst others equipped with ailerons, rudder,

elevators, and trimable horiz ontal stabiliser. These surfaces are driven by
42 Multi-disciplinary aircraft model development

actuators, which have been modelled as first order transfer functions with
rate and position limits.

N o landing gear model is included, since within the scope of the REAL project
simulations are stopped as soon as the first main gear touches the ground. The
composed model is shown in Figure 2.10. N ote that the structure is very similar
to Figure 2.5. ATTAS only has two engines and is modelled as a rigid airframe,
so that a single rigid body suffices to represent its inertial properties. The engines
of the VFW-614 are mounted on top of the wings, resulting in strong influence on
the air flow over the horizontal tailplane. This explains the direct links between
the engine and aerodynamics model components in Figure 2.10.

Figure 2.10: Implementation of the ATTAS model

2.5 Application example: ATTAS 43

2.5.2 Aircraft-specific model components

Sensors available for use by the control laws are collected in the object in the top-
right corner. The contents of this component are shown in Figure 2.11. To the
right, two signal vectors are built: yMeas, containing signals available for feedback,
and ySim containing signals for analysis only. All signals have been specified and
grouped accordingly in Table 2.2. Both signal vectors are put on the bus (top and
to the right). Most of the individual signals are readily available on the bus (e.g.,
true and calibrated airspeed are released to the bus by the Aerodynam ics object)
and are sent through first-order filters with time constants between 0.1 and 0.3
seconds, representing simplified sensor dynamics. A more physical approach is
used for the ILS and altitude sensors. For example, the glide slope sensor (top
IL S object) is attached near the nose of the aircraft. The grey connector F ref
to the left is attached to an airframe reference point (Figure 2.10). The object
G sR ef describes kinematic relations and force balance between the reference point
and the sensor attachment point (this component is from the Modelica Multibody
Dynamics Library [98]). The glide slope sensor in this way knows its local inertial
position and attitude and submits these to an airport environment model, which
will be discussed shortly. The latter returns the local glide slope signal, which is
passed on by the sensor model to the yMeas vector. In order to represent sensor
lag and disturbances, the signal is filtered and corrupted with noise as specified in
EASA Certification Specifications – All Weather Operations [37]. Similarly, the
localiser sensor obtains the signal in the rear of the aircraft. The guidance sensor
models are aircraft independent and readily available from the Flight Dynamics
Library.
The top-level of the model is depicted in Figure 2.12. The ATTAS component
represents Figure 2.10. Below are the environment models. As discussed before,
the w orld model provides the inertial reference, gravity models, etc. For this model
the Earth is assumed to be flat and non-rotating, which is specified via a simple
menu, see Figure 2.13. The terrain model is a simple parametrised one, which
again is specified for use in automatic landing certification [37]. Any component
of the aircraft model may interrogate the terrain model to obtain for example its
local height above the Earth surface (e.g. radio altimeter). The airp ort model
contains runway properties, like direction, slope, length, etc., as well as navigation
equipment, like ILS transmitters. As mentioned before, ILS sensor models submit
their local inertial position and become their very own local ILS indications in
return.

2.5.3 Specification of inputs, outputs, and parameters

The model depicted in Figure 2.12 can, after translation, be used for nonlinear
simulation. The inputs are shown to the left. These include noises (n), com-
manded control surface and throttle deflections (uc ), and other inputs (uo , e.g.
stabiliser setting). The C ontrols component collects all inputs and puts them
on the data bus. As can be seen from Figure 2.10, the engines and systems are
44 Multi-disciplinary aircraft model development

Figure 2.11: Implementation of the ATTAS sensor suite

connected to the data bus as well, allowing them to grab the appropriate inputs.
The avionics component in Figure 2.12 collects sensor and other signals of interest
from the data bus and makes them available as model outputs (right). Complete
lists of inputs and outputs of the ATTAS model are provided in Tables 2.2 and 2.3
for future reference.

The data behind the various model components has been obtained from compu-
tational methods and (flight test) experiments. Many of the parameter values
have tolerances, even up to 30% . Also, the runway and terrain models are of
parametric nature to allow for Monte Carlo analysis-based control law certifica-
tion. For future reference, all parameters are listed in Tables 2.4 and 2.5. By
declaring these parameters at the top level of the model, they become accessible
from outside and may be modified prior to simulation.
2.5 Application example: ATTAS 45

Figure 2.12: ATTAS model for nonlinear simulation

2.5.4 Model translation

Once inputs, outputs and parameters have been specified, the model can be trans-
lated into differential equations for simulation (Figure 2.1). The inputs and out-
puts as selected above will result in the following set of ordinary differential and
algebraic equations:

ẋ = f (x, u, p ) (2.3)
yM eas = hM eas (x, u, p )
yS im = hS im (x, u, p )
(2.4)

where x is the state vector (states are automatically selected, but the user may
enforce specific variables to be assigned as such), u is the input vector, contain-
ing the entries of Table 2.3, yM eas and yS im are the aforementioned vectors of
46 Multi-disciplinary aircraft model development

Figure 2.13: Selection of parameters for the world model

measurement and analysis signals. The model compiler may provide the above
equations in symbolic as well as algorithmic form (e.g. c-code).
From a control design point of view, numerical integration of the equations 2.3
allows for nonlinear simulation analysis of the aircraft with control laws. However,
this is not sufficient. For example:

• Accurate computation of initial conditions is extremely important for time

domain evaluation of the closed-loop system (e.g. step responses). There-
fore, highly accurate methods and tools are required for trimming the model
in a given flight condition and for a given weight and balance configuration;

• Most control analysis methods are linear, requiring the model to be available
accordingly. The nonlinear model equations may be linearised numerically
or symbolically.

Some control design-relevant aspects of aircraft modelling are discussed in Ap-

pendix A, with examples based on the ATTAS model.
Besides regular simulation models, inverse models of ATTAS have been generated
as well. In Chapter 5 an application to generation of inversion-based control laws
is described.
2.6 Conclusions 47

2.6 Conclusions
In this chapter a new physically-oriented structure for aircraft flight dynamics
models has been proposed. This structure applies to flexible just as well as rigid
aircraft. Furthermore, the environment models allow for implementation of flight
vehicles flying at a wide range of flight conditions from low to high speed and
from ground level to large altitudes. For example, Earth curvature and rotation,
may be fully taken into account. Based on the object-oriented modelling lan-
guage Modelica, this structure could be implemented one-to-one in a graphical
modelling environment. Re-usable components and base components have been
organised in a library structure, allowing for drag-and-drop model construction.
Modelica comes with a large array of discipline-specific libraries for electronics,
hydraulics, multi-body systems, etc. Due to the common language base, model
components can be constructed from these libraries and integrated in a single
multi-disciplinary aircraft model.
From a flight control point of view, various kinds of run time models for design
analysis can be generated from one and the same aircraft model implementa-
tion. Examples, like nonlinear simulation models, (symbolic) linearised models,
dynamic and static inverse models, etc. are given in Appendix A. As will be seen
in the following chapters, this automation aspect saves considerable engineering
time and guarantees consistency between various model forms.
48 Multi-disciplinary aircraft model development

Nr. Symbol Name Unit

M easu red (yM eas )
1 Vc as c alibrated airsp eed m/s
2 Vt as tru e airsp eed m/s
3 Vg g rou nd sp eed m/s
4 pb roll rate ra d /s
5 qb p itch rate ra d /s
6 rb yaw rate ra d /s
7 nx long itu d inal total load fac tor∗ g
8 ny lateral total load fac tor∗ g
9 nz v ertic al total load fac tor∗ g
10 φ roll ang le ra d
11 θ p itch ang le ra d
12 ψ h ead ing ang le (0 ≤ ψ < 2π) ra d
13 χ track ang le (0 ≤ χ < 2π) ra d
14 α ang le of attack ra d
15 γ fl ig h t p ath ang le ra d
16 VZ v ertic al sp eed (p ositiv e d ow n) m/s
17 εgld g lid e slop e d isp lac ement sig nal A
18 εlo c loc aliser d isp lac ement sig nal A
19 Hr a rad io altitu d e sig nal m
20 Hbar o baro altitu d e sig nal m
21 m total airc raft mass kg
22 xC G x -p osition of C oG in Fac m
23 N 1 mean of fan sh aft sp eed s %
Simu lation analysis (yS i m )
1 β sid eslip ang le ra d
2 M M ach nu mber –
3 F total th ru st N
4 dF th ru st d iff erenc e betw een both eng ines N
5 Hlg h eig h t of land ing g ears abov e g rou nd m
6 D x -D istanc e from A / C R E F to ru nw ay th resh old m
7 y y-off set of airc raft c g from c entre line m
∗
L oad fac tors are p ositiv e in n ega tiv e d irec tions of Fb

Table 2.2: Output definitions

2.6 Conclusions 49

Nr. Symbol Name Unit in

1 δAc Commanded aileron deflection rad uc
2 δ Ec Commanded elevator deflection rad uc
3 δ Rc Commanded rudder deflection rad uc
4 δT T ailplane deflection rad uo
5 δ T h r1c T hrottle command for engine 1 – uc
6 δ T h r2c T hrottle command for engine 2 – uc
7 w nT u rbx W hite noise for x-turbulence in Fe – n
8 w nT u rby W hite noise for y-turbulence in Fe – n
9 w nT u rbz W hite noise for z -turbulence in Fe – n
10 w ngld W hite noise for glide slope disturbance – n
11 w nloc W hite noise for localiser disturbance – n
12 αdist (Sinusoidal) alpha sensor disturbance rad n
13 N 1dist W hite noise for engine fan shaft speed % n

Table 2.3: Input definitions

50 Multi-disciplinary aircraft model development

Nr. Symbol Name Unit in

1 m total airc raft mass
(k now n p arameter: ou tp u t 21 in T able 2.2) kg pa
2 xC G C entre of g rav ity x -p osition in Fac
(k now n p arameter: ou tp u t 22 in T able 2.2) m pa
3 T0 T emp eratu re at mean sea lev el (M SL ) K pe
4 WX3 3 W ind (33ft abov e g rou nd ) in Fe x -d irec tion m/ s pe
5 WY 3 3 W ind (33ft abov e g rou nd ) in Fe y-d irec tion m/ s pe
6 HW S Starting h eig h t of w ind sh ear abov e ru nw ay m pe
7 W Sx Sp ec ifi c w ind sh ear in Fe x -d irec tion m/ s pe
8 T WS T ime c onstant for sp ec ifi c w ind sh ear s pe
x
9 xP O Srw y Inertial x -p osition of ru nw ay th resh old m pe
10 Hrw y H eig h t of ru nw ay th resh old abov e sea lev el m pe
11 ψrw y H ead ing of ru nw ay ra d pe
12 γrw y Slop e of ru nw ay ra d pe
13 Lrw y L eng th of ru nw ay m pe
14 γg ld IL S g lid e slop e ang le ra d pe
15 hg g ld G lid e slop e referenc e h eig h t m pe
16 ∆ lo c D isp lac ement of loc aliser sig nal A pe
17 γt r Slop e of terrain before ru nw ay – pe
18 Ht r T errain h eig h t step before th resh old m pe
19 Xt r x -p osition of h eig h t step w .r.t. th resh old m pe
20 ∆ CD u nc ertainty lev el of CD – pu
21 ∆ CLh u nc ertainty lev el of CLh – pu
22 ∆ CY u nc ertainty lev el of CY – pu
∂ ε
23 ∂ α unc u nc ertainty lev el of ∂∂ αε
– pu
∂ ε
24 ∂ α g runc u nc ertainty lev el of ∂∂ αε
g r
– pu
25 ∆ CLg r u nc ertainty lev el of CLαg r and CLF , g r – pu
h
26 ∆ C l0 u nc ertainty lev el of Clβ , Clβ, lg , and Clβ, g r – pu
27 ∆ C m0 u nc ertainty lev el of Cm0 , Cmlg , CmM a , Cm0, g r , and Cmβ – pu
28 ∆ Cn0 u nc ertainty lev el of Cnβ , Cnβ, lg , and Cnβ, g r – pu
29 ∆ C lp u nc ertainty lev el of Clp and Clp, M a – pu
30 ∆ C lr u nc ertainty lev el of Clr and Clr, α – pu
31 ∆ C mq u nc ertainty lev el of Cmq and Cmq, lg – pu
w b
32 ∆ Cn p u nc ertainty lev el of Cnp and Cnp, α – pu
33 ∆ Cn r u nc ertainty lev el of Cnr , Cnr, lg , and Cn – pu
β̇
34 ∆ C lδ u nc ertainty lev el of Clδ and Clδ , α – pu
a a a
35 ∆ C lδ u nc ertainty lev el of Clδ – pu
r r
36 ∆ CLδ u nc ertainty lev el of CLδ – pu
eh eh
37 ∆ Cn δ u nc ertainty lev el of Cnδ – pu
a a
38 ∆ Cn δ u nc ertainty lev el of Cnδ – pu
r r
39 ∆ Ix u nc ertainty lev el of Ix – pu
40 ∆ Iy u nc ertainty lev el of Iy – pu
41 ∆ Iz u nc ertainty lev el of Iz – pu
42 ∆ Ixz u nc ertainty lev el of Ixz – pu
43 b lpl back lash of p ow er lev er ra d pu
44 δ̇Amax max imu m aileron rate ra d / s pa
45 δAmax max imu m aileron d efl ec tion ra d pa
46 δ̇Emax max imu m elev ator rate ra d / s pa
47 δEmi n minimu m elev ator d efl ec tion ra d pa
48 δEmax max imu m elev ator d efl ec tion ra d pa
49 δ̇Rmax max imu m ru d d er rate ra d / s pa
50 δRmax max imu m ru d d er d efl ec tion ra d pa

Table 2.4: ATTAS parameter definitions

2.6 Conclusions 51

Parameter Minimum Default Maximum Unit

1 m 16500 18500 20500 kg
2 xCG -0.6950 (0.22 c̄) -0.7898 (0.25 c̄) -0.8845 (0.28 c̄) m
3 T0 219.15 (-54◦ C) 288.15 (15◦ C) 328.15 (55◦ C) K
4 WX33 -15.432 (30kts Head) 0 5.144 (10kts Tail) m/s
5 WY 33 -10.288 (20kts R ight) 0 10.288 (20kts Left) m/s
6 HW S 3.048 (10ft) 9.144 (30ft) 30.34 (= 100ft) m
7 W Sx ± 2.572 0 ± 5.144 m/s
8 T WS 2 6 10 s
x
9 xP OSrwy 0 0 0 m
10 Hrwy 0 0 2800 m
11 ψrwy 0 0 2π rad
12 γrwy -0.01 0 0.01 rad
13 Lrwy 1700 4000 4500 m
14 γgld 2.85 18π0 3 18π0 3.15 18π0 rad
15 hggld 15.24 (= 50ft) 16.5 (= 54.1ft) 18.288 (= 60ft) m
16 ∆loc -5·10−6 0 5·10−6 A
17 γtr -0.02 0 0.15 –
18 Htr 0 0 12.192 m
19 Xtr 0 0 200 m
20 ∆CD -0.1 0 0.1 –
21 ∆CLh -0.1 0 0.1 –
22 ∆CY -0.3 0 0.3 –
∂ε
23 ∂α unc -0.1 0 0.1 –
∂ε
24 ∂α grunc -0.1 0 0.1 –
25 ∆CLgr -0.3 0 0.3 –
26 ∆Cl0 -0.3 0 0.3 –
27 ∆Cm0 -0.1 0 0.1 –
28 ∆Cn0 -0.3 0 0.3 –
29 ∆Clp -0.3 0 0.3 –
30 ∆Clr -0.3 0 0.3 –
31 ∆Cmq -0.3 0 0.3 –
32 ∆Cnp -0.3 0 0.3 –
33 ∆Cnr -0.3 0 0.3 –
34 ∆Clδ -0.3 0 0.3 –
a
35 ∆Clδ -0.3 0 0.3 –
r
36 ∆CLδ -0.1 0 0.1 –
eh
37 ∆Cnδ -0.3 0 0.3 –
a
38 ∆Cnδ -0.3 0 0.3 –
r
39 ∆Ix -0.1 0 0.1 –
40 ∆Iy -0.1 0 0.1 –
41 ∆Iz -0.1 0 0.1 –
42 ∆Ixz -0.3 0 0.3 –
43 blpl 3.5 18π0 3.5 18π0 3.5 18π0 rad
44 δ̇Amax 75 18π0 75 18π0 75 18π0 rad/s
45 δAmax 25 18π0 25 18π0 25 18π0 rad
46 δ̇Emax 30 18π0 30 18π0 30 18π0 rad/s
47 δEmin −20 18π0 −20 18π0 −20 18π0 rad
48 δEmax 15 18π0 15 18π0 15 18π0 rad
49 δ̇Rmax 25 18π0 25 18π0 25 18π0 rad/s
50 δRmax 25 18π0 25 18π0 25 18π0 rad

Table 2.5: ATTAS parameter ranges

52 Multi-disciplinary aircraft model development
Chapter 3

Integration of rigid and

aeroelastic aircraft models
using the residualised model
method
54 Integration of rigid and aeroelastic aircraft models

Abstract
This chapter describes a procedure for development of an integrated model
of a fl ex ible aircraft by combining available fl ight dynamics and aeroelastic
models. B oth types of models largely complement each other. H owever,
two overlaps are typically present that should be properly tak en care of.
In the fi rst place, rigid aircraft fl ight dynamics models usually already
tak e the deformation of the airframe q uasi-statically into account in the
aerodynamics computation. Second, aeroelastic models also contain so-
called rigid-body modes that correspond with the fl ight dynamics degrees
of freedom. The adopted solution is to leave the fl ight dynamics model un-
changed, and to remove rigid modes and the q uasi-static infl uence on the
fl ight dynamics from the aeroelastic model. This so so-called “ residualised
model method” is ex tended to properly handle so-called unsteady aerody-
namic lag states. As a spin-off result, it will be shown how the proposed
procedure can be used to correct rigid body dynamics in an aeroelastic state
space model.

C o n tributio n s
• A general procedure for integrating fl ight mechanics and aeroelastic
models of aircraft, based on available industry-standard data sources;
• P roper handling of unsteady aerodynamic eff ects in aeroelastic mod-
els for integration with flight mechanics models;
• A s a sp in-off resu lt: a correction method to imp rov e the flight me-
chanics degrees of freedom within u nsteady aeroelastic state sp ace
models u sing a linearised flight mechanics model.

Publication
G ertjan L ooy e: Integration of rigid and aeroelastic aircraft models using
th e residualised model meth od, International F oru m on A eroelasticity
and S tru ctu ral D y namics (IF A S D ), M u nich, G ermany , J u ne 2 0 0 5 .
Integration of rigid and aeroelastic aircraft models 55

LIGHT dynamics and aeroelastic models play an important role in the air-
F craft design process. The fi rst are among others used for dev elopment of
the fl ight control law s, handling q uality assessment and, in comb ination w ith dis-
trib uted aerodynamic force and mass models, for manoeuv re loads analysis. In
fl ight dynamics (F D ) models the airframe is mostly assumed to b e rigid, or to
deform q uasi-statically as a function of the fl ight state and control surface defl ec-
tions. A eroelastic (A E ) models describ e complex unsteady interactions b etw een
airframe structural dynamics and the airfl ow . These models are among others
used for computation of fl utter margins and gust loads analysis, as w ell as design
of structural control law s. A lthough fl ight dynamics and aeroelastic models are
dev eloped b y separate engineering disciplines, there has long since b een a grow ing
interest in dev elopment of integrated models. The references [1 3 7 , 4 1 , 1 1 3 , 6 7 , 4 5 ]
as w ell as the impressiv e w ork b y N A S A -Langley in this fi eld [2 1 , 1 8 , 2 0 , 8 ] are
only a few ex amples. O ne reason is that aircraft tend to get more and more fl ex -
ib le due to lighter and increasingly slender airframe designs. A s a conseq uence,
neglecting of structural dynamics on fl ight dynamics and loads, or measures lik e
application of low -pass fi lters on sensor signals used b y the fl ight control system
(F C S ), may no longer do. A nother reason is that tak ing structural dynamics into
account early on in the design of the fl ight control law s allow s direct trade-off s to
b e made b etw een e.g. control b andw idth and fl ight loads or fl utter margins. This
w ill av oid the possib le need for re-tuning of control law s on req uest of the loads
and fl utter departments afterw ards. Integrated models further allow for design of
integrated aeroelastic and fl ight control law functions.
A s a b asic principle, dev elopment of integrated aircraft models should use agreed-
on components from the inv olv ed engineering disciplines, rather than each disci-
pline to dev elop its integrated models from scratch. This not only sav es eff ort,
b ut more importantly, it prev ents inconsistencies b etw een v arious models, w hich
may hamper rather than improv e the ov er-all design process. This b asic principle
is the motiv ation for the w ork as describ ed in this chapter.
The prob lem is, giv en a fl ight dynamics and an aeroelastic model, how to properly
comb ine these into an integrated aircraft model. C urrent practice is that fl ight
dynamics models are b ased on nonlinear N ew ton-E uler eq uations of motion for a
rigid b ody and aerodynamic forces and moments are computed using coeffi cient
tab les and application rules as a function of the aerodynamic fl ight state. The co-
effi cient tab les are ob tained from handb ook methods, C F D analyses, w ind tunnel
ex periments, and ev entually, from fl ight test. A eroelastic models are b ased on lin-
ear structural eq uations as resulting from modal analysis of a fi nite element model.
C omputation of unsteady aerodynamic loads is mostly done in the freq uency do-
main for the harmonically deforming airframe using the D oub let-Lattice method
(D LM ) [6 ]. S ince results are ob tained in the freq uency domain, sev eral methods
are av ailab le for approx imation in the Laplace domain, allow ing for use in time
simulation [5 7 , 1 0 9 , 1 3 3 ]. A lthough aeroelastic and fl ight dynamics models are
complementary, there are tw o major ov erlaps. In the fi rst place, the fl ight dynam-
ics aerodynamic model nearly alw ays already tak es the q uasi-steady deformation
of the airframe as a function of the fl ight state into account. To this end aero-
56 Integration of rigid and aeroelastic aircraft models

dynamic coefficients are corrected using so-called flex factors. Aeroelastic models
on the other hand, usually contain so-called rigid body modes as resulting from
modal analysis of the unrestrained airframe structure. Including these modes in
the Doublet-Lattice computation results in an aerodynamic model for rigid and
flexible airframe motion, as well as interactions in between. Consequently, the
AE model includes flight dynamics-related states and rigid aircraft (unsteady)
aerodynamics.
Simply leaving out the flex factors and rigid modes from the flight dynamics and
aeroelastic models respectively is generally not the best option. The flex factors
mostly result from trim computations using CFD methods that give more accu-
rate results in steady flow conditions as compared with DLM. Furthermore, flight
dynamics models, including the flex factors, are eventually matched with flight
test data as soon as these become available. Changing these models thereafter
should be avoided. Finally, leaving the quasi-steady effects to the aeroelastic
model builds in a dependency on the number of modes that is included in the
structural model. On the other hand, rigid aerodynamics in AE models as re-
sulting from DLM are not as accurate [113], since the method is less suited for
predicting drag and steady forces.
Alternative approaches have therefore been proposed by W inther et al [140] and
by K önig and Schuler [114]. B oth methods have in common that, besides an add-
on term in case of the first approach, the flight dynamics model is left untouched.
The difference is in the underlying assumptions and in the implementation. An in-
depth analysis and comparison is given in R ef. [108]. The K önig-Schuler method
applies a modal transformation that replaces rigid modes in the AE model with
the quasi-flexible flight dynamics model states. The integration method as pro-
posed in this chapter originates from the work by W inther. The methodology
basically states that the flight dynamics model is a fully flexible one with all
aeroelastic dynamics quasi-statically residualised as a function of flight dynamic
states and control inputs. This implies that when “ re-implementing” aeroelastic
dynamics, only dynamic increments – without the quasi-steady contribution– need
to be added. Therefore, as a proper name for this approach Residualised Model
(RM) method is proposed.
As presented in R ef. [140] the method has two limitations: (1) the presented
aeroelastic model structure does not include aerodynamic lag states resulting
from the aforementioned R ational Function Approximation (R FA) of the unsteady
aerodynamics, and (2) the aeroelastic model is treated in its state space form. The
linear nature of the latter limits validity of the integrated model. For example,
the dynamic pressure in the AE model remains fixed and inertial coupling ef-
fects are not easily included. Therefore, in this chapter the model integration
will first be discussed at the level of aerodynamic models and the equations of
motion, facilitating future incorporation of detailed interaction effects. At the
end the application to aeroelastic state space models in line with R ef. [140] will
be discussed. Consequently, the chapter is structured as follows. In Sections 3.1
and 3.2 some relevant basics of flight dynamics and aeroelastic models will be
reviewed. In Section 3.3 the integration of equations of motion and aerodynamic
3.1 Review of aircraft fl ight dynamics models 57

model components will be discussed. In Section 3.5 the application to state space
models is described, including a spin-off result for correcting rigid body modes
in aeroelastic state space models. Application examples are given in Sections 3.4
and 3.6. Finally, conclusions are drawn in Section 3.7.

3.1 Review of aircraft fl ight dynamics models

This section is intended to give a brief overview of the structure of aircraft flight
dynamics models, and to introduce relevant symbols and notations simultane-
ously.

3.1.1 Equations of motion

Flight dynamics models are mostly based on Newton-Euler six degrees-of-freedom
equations of motion for a rigid body. The equations consist of force and moment
equations with respect to a body-fixed reference system Fb , preferably with its
origin in the centre of gravity (see for example Ref. [124]):
n o
m V̇b + Ωb × Vb − Tbv (Θ)Gv = FAb + Fother (3.1)
Ib Ω̇b + Ωb × Ib Ωb = MAb + Mother (3.2)

where m and Ib are the aircraft mass and inertia tensor respectively, Vb and Ωb are
translational and rotational velocities along the body axes. The components of
the gravity acceleration vector Gv are transformed from a vehicle-carried vertical
(Fv ) into body axes (Fb ) using the cosine matrix Tbv . This matrix is a function of
T
the Euler attitude angles Θ = [φ , θ , ψ] . The equations are driven by external
aerodynamic (FAb , MAb ) and other (Fother , Mother , like thrust, gear) forces and
moments respectively. For notational simplicity it is here assumed that an earth-
fixed axis system Fe may be considered as an inertial reference. The vehicle
carried frame Fv is parallel to Fe , but its origin moves with the aircraft centre of
gravity (CoG).
Kinematic relations between Euler angular rates and body rates are given by:
h iT
Θ̇T = φ˙ , θ˙, ψ̇ = Tφ b (φ , θ ) Ωb (3.3)

where the matrix Tφ b depends on the momentary attitude. Alternatively, quater-

nion equations may be used [124]. The velocity vector in Fb and Fv are related
by:
T
Ṙe = Tbv (φ , θ , ψ) Vb (3.4)

where Tbv is the rotation matrix from Fv into Fb and Re is the position vector of
the aircraft CoG in Fe .
58 Integration of rigid and aeroelastic aircraft models

3.1.2 External forces and moments

In (3.1) the external forces and moments have been grouped into aerodynamic
and other ones. P art of the latter are thrust forces. These are computed from
engine models, which complexity may vary from a constant scaling on throttle
commands to accurate thermodynamic and mechanics equations. The moment
contribution of thrust mainly arises due to offsets of the engines from the CoG.
The aerodynamic forces and moments are of most interest here. Although each
flight dynamics group tends to have its own standard for implementation, most
aerodynamic models have a form like:
   
CX Cl
FAb = q̄S Tba (α, β )  CY  MAb = q̄Sc̄ Tba (α, β )  Cm  +rar p ×FAb (3.5)
CZ a Cn a

where q̄ is the dynamic pressure, S is the wing reference area, c̄ is a reference length
(e.g. mean aerodynamic chord, or half wing span), CX , CY , CZ are dimensionless
total force coefficients in the direction of the aerodynamic reference system Fa
(e.g. wind or stability axes), and likewise, Cl , Cm , Cn are the moment coefficients.
The origin of the aerodynamic reference system Fa is the Aerodynamic Reference
P oint (ARP ). The vector rar p is the position vector of the ARP with respect to
the CoG and Tba transforms the forces and moments from Fa into Fb .
The aerodynamic coefficients are usually computed from polynomials with the
aerodynamic flight state (Vtas , α, β , ...), Mach number M , body angular rates,
control surface deflection, etc. as variable parameters. The polynomial coefficients
are obtained from look-up tables, as a function of e.g. the angle of attack and
Mach number. The application rule for CZ may look something like:
qc̄ α̇c̄
CZ = CZ0 (α, M ) + CZq (α, M ) + CZU U + CZU̇ U̇ + CZα̇ (α, M ) + ... (3 .6 )
Vt a s Vt a s

where q and U are pitch rate and control deflections respectively. Wind and
turbulence influences (VW ) are taken into account via the aerodynamic flight state
variables, which are airflow referenced. The coefficients either implicitly include
the influence of quasi-steady deformation of the airframe (e.g. when tuned to
match flight test data), or coefficients like CZ0 and CZU are explicitly corrected
using so-called flex factors. These factors in turn may have been formulated as a
function of vertical load factor (nz ), dynamic pressure, etc [36].
The dependency of (3.6) on rates of angle of attack (α̇) and control deflections
(U̇ ) represents unsteady flow effects. The most important is that changes in the
down wash angle from the wing and wind disturbances are felt with a delay at
the horiz ontal tail plane, see for example Ref. [36].
Finally, in this chapter the state vector of the flight dynamics model will be called
xR :

xTR = xTRb , xTRe xTRb = VbT , ΩTb xTRe = ReT , ΘT (3.7)

     
with: and
3.2 Review of aeroelastic aircraft models 59

3.2 Review of aeroelastic aircraft models

This section is intended to give a brief overview of aeroelastic aircraft models.
Aspects that are relevant for model integration in the following section will be
highlighted. A more elaborate version can be found in Appendix B.

3.2.1 Equations of motion

zs Fs
w Gv
xb

 A R P
C oG
ra rp
z
Vta s Fb
xs
zb

Figure 3.1: Orientation of body and structural x- and z-axes in AE model

A structural airframe model is assumed to be available, consisting of elastically

interconnected grid points with condensed lumped masses / inertias attached to
them. The degrees of freedom of all grid points (g-set) are assumed to be w.r.t.
the structural reference system Fs , see Figure 3.1, and are collected in the vector
xg (dimension ng ). The linear equations of motion are initially written in the
frequency domain as follows:
 2
−ω Mgg + Kgg xg = FgA + Fgother (3.8)
where Mgg and Kgg are mass and stiffness matrices for the system of intercon-
nected grid points, and FgA and Fgother are aerodynamic and other external forces
applied to these points. Based on this equation modal analysis is performed in
vacuo (FgA = Fgother = 0) and without constraints (i.e. “free-free”), resulting
in nh eigenfrequencies and associated mode shape eigenvectors. Nearly always
nh < ng , since the computation is halted as soon as eigenfrequencies reach values
well beyond the frequency range of interest. The eigenvectors are collected in the
columns of the modal matrix Φgh . Six of the eigenfrequencies are zero, corre-
sponding with the so-called “rigid-body” modes. The vector xg may be written
in modal co-ordinates ηh (h-set) as follows:
 
  ηR
xg ≈ Φgh ηh = ΦgR , ΦgE (3.9)
ηE
where the subscripts R and E refer to rigid and elastic modes respectively. The
≈-sign is used while mostly nh < ng , but will be considered as an equal sign in
60 Integration of rigid and aeroelastic aircraft models

the remainder of this chapter. If necessary, the rigid modes are modified as follows:

(1) Translational modes are corrected to involve unit translations (1 m), and,
in case the corresponding generalised co-ordinates ηx , ηy , ηz are one, the air-
frame moves forward, downward, and to the right respectively;

(2) Rotational modes are corrected to involve unit rotations (1 rad) around the
CoG, and, in case the corresponding generalised co-ordinates ηφ , ηθ , ηψ are one,
the airframe rolls right-wing down, pitches nose-up, and yaws nose to the right
respectively.

In this way, positive entries of ηR make the aircraft move in the directions of
corresponding axes of Fb (Figure 3.1).
Substitution of (3.9) into the linear structural equations of motion (3.8) results
in the following right-generalised form:
 
ηR
{ −ω 2 [MgR , MgE ] +j ω [BgR , BgE ] + [KgR , KgE ]} = FgA + Fgother
| {z } | {z } | {z } ηE
Mgh Bgh Kgh

(3.10)

where Mgh , Bgh , Kgh are the half-generalised mass, damping and stiffness ma-
trix respectively, and have been partitioned into columns that apply to rigid and
flexible mode shape co-ordinates. Damping is usually assigned per mode, based
on estimated or experimental values. It is common practice to transform the
equations from structural into body axes, giving rise to linearised Euler and grav-
ity terms in the otherwise zero-valued partitions BgR and KgR respectively. The
right-generalised form is important for loads analysis, since it describes the dis-
tribution of the various forces over the airframe. The generalised co-ordinates
are solved from the modal differential equation as obtained by left-multiplication
with ΦTgh (partitioned as in (3.9)):

 
 




      
 
MRR 0 BRR 0 KRR 0 ηR

−ω 2 +j ω + =
 0 MEE 0 BEE 0 KEE 
 ηE
} (3 .1 1 )



 | {z } | {z } | {z 

" # Mhh Bhh Khh
ΦT
gR
(FgA + Fgother )
ΦT
gE

The matrices MEE , BEE an d KEE are d iag o n al d u e to o rtho g o n ality o f the mo d es
w ith resp ect to the mass an d stiff n ess matrices Mg g , Kg g . F o r the same reaso n ,
the o ff -d iag o n al b lo ck s in Mh h an d Kh h are z ero . D u e to the ad ap ted rig id mo d e
shap es the p artitio n MR R has the to tal aircraft mass an d in ertia ten so r o n its
d iag o n al: MR R = d iag (m I 3 , Ib ).
3.2 Review of aeroelastic aircraft models 61

3.2.2 External forces

As for the FD model, the external forces in (3.10) have been divided into aerody-
namic and other ones, like local gear and thrust loads. The aerodynamic forces
are assumed to be in the following form:
 
ηR
FgA = q̄ [QgR (k, M ), QgE (k, M )] + q̄QgX (k, M )ηX (3.12)
| {z } ηE
Qg h (k,M )

The matrices Qgh (k, M ) and QgX (k, M ) are unsteady aerodynamic loads on the
grid points, induced by airframe motion and deformation, and control defl ections
ηX 1 respectively. For notational brevity, gust inputs are considered to be in-
cluded in ηX . These loads have been computed for a limited number of reduced
freq uencies k = ω¯ c / V ta s , and at a given M ach number M using the Doublet L at-
tice method. For later use in the model integration process it is important that
ηR is body referenced (see remark below (3.10)). This has some implications on
QgR (k, M ), as explained in S ection 3.A.
In order to allow for time simulations, the aerodynamic loads are fi rst approxi-
mated in the L aplace domain using a rational function approximation (R FA). This
involves least-sq uares fi tting of a transfer function form as proposed in e.g. R efs.
[5 7 , 109 , 133] to available matrices Qgh (ki ) and QgX (ki ) (with i = 1, 2, · · · , n k )2 .
For later use it will be most helpful to perform the approximation for QgR and
QgE either separately, or to partition the R FA result afterwards. This is explained
in S ection 3.B . The aerodynamic loads eventually end up in the form3 :
2
QgR (s) ≈ A1g R Vtc̄a s s + A2g R Vc̄2 s2
ta s
+ DgR (sI − RR Vtc̄a s )−1 ER s
2
QgE (s) ≈ A0g E + A1g E Vtc̄a s s + A2g E Vc̄2 s2 (3.13)
ta s
+ DgE (sI − RE Vtc̄a s )−1 EE s
QgX (s) ≈ A0g X + A1g X c̄
Vt a s s + DgX (sI − RX Vtc̄a s )−1 EX s

N ote that A0g R should be zero, since attitude angles and position physically do
not induce aerodynamic forces (see S ection 3.A). Also, A2g X has been left out from
the approximation here, since second derivatives of control and wind inputs are
not always available from the actuator or wind models respectively. Depending
on the applied method, the diagonal of R.. may contain a single set of so-called
lag-poles and a full E -matrix [5 7 ], or the same set of poles repeated as many times
as the column dimension of Qg... [109 , 133].
1 The apparently strange notation η
X originates from the aeroelastic ity d om ain: here it
is c om m on prac tic e to c onsid er c ontrol su rfac e d efl ec tions ju st as a spec ial m od e of airfram e
d eform ation.
2 R ec ently, a far m ore effi c ient approach has b een d ev eloped , inv olv ing a single R F A only, see

R ef. [5 9 ].
3 The approx im ation is v alid for the M ach nu m b er M at w hich Q
gh / gX (k , M ) w as c om pu ted .
This d epend enc y is left ou t for notational sim plic ity.
62 Integration of rigid and aeroelastic aircraft models

The expressions in (3.13) may be generalised by left-multiplication with ΦgR and

ΦgE , resulting in RR, RE, ER, RX and EX partitions of generalised aerody-
namic forces Qhh (s) and QhX (s) respectively. For example:
 
c̄ c̄2 2 Vtas
QEE (s) = A0EE + A1EE s + A2EE 2 s + DEE (sI − RE ) EE s
−1
Vtas Vtas c̄
(3.14 )

Note that since A0gR = 0 (eq. (3.13)) A0RR and A0ER will be zero as well.
Finally, for use in the following section the right most terms in (3.13) are realised
in state space form as follows:

ẋLE = RE Vtas
c̄ xLE + EE η̇E so that: QgElag = DgE xLE (3.15)

where xLE are so-called lag states. The realisations of QgR and QgX are similar.

3.3 Integration of fl ight dynamics and aeroelastic

models
In the previous sections rigid aircraft flight dynamics (FD) and aeroelastic (AE)
airframe models, as developed and applied in the respective engineering disci-
plines, have been reviewed. The objective of this chapter is to develop an in-
tegrated model of the flexible aircraft, by combining data and components from
these models4 . The advantage of this integration approach is that agreed-on com-
ponents from both disciplines are used. A problem is that, as discussed in the
introduction, a number of overlaps has to be taken care of. In the previous sections
equations of motion, and external forces and moments have been discussed indi-
vidually. Accordingly, in this section the integrated equations of motion will be
discussed first. Then the integration of external (especially aerodynamic) forces
is described, using the so-called residualised model (RM) method.

3.3.1 Equations of motion

In Appendix B and Refs. [137, 21] it is shown that the nonlinear equations of
motion of a flexible aircraft may be obtained by simply combining (3.1) and the
lower partition of (3.11):
n o
m V̇b + Ωb × Vb − Tbv (φ , θ , ψ )Gv = FAb + Q̃REt + Fo th e r
Ib Ω̇b + Ωb × Ib Ωb = M Ab + Q̃REr + Mo th e r
MEE η̈E + BEE η̇E + KEE ηE = Q̃ER + Q̃EX + Q̃EE + QEother
4 It is assumed that, at least at initial conditions, the AE and FD models are valid for the

same flight condition, aircraft confi guration, weight and balance, etc.
3.3 Integration of fl ight dynamics and aeroelastic models 63

(3.16)

where Q̃ER , Q̃EX and Q̃EE are time-domain versions of generalised aerodynamic
forces as in (3.14). The terms Q̃REt and Q̃REr are deformation-induced forces
and moments affecting translational (subscript t) and rotational (subscript r)
dynamics of the aircraft. These will be discussed in the following sub-section.
Finally, QEother = ΦTgE Fgother .
Note that the equations only couple via external forces and moments. This is
achieved by the choice of mean body axes, which attitude and translation describe
the mean motion of the airframe, and by making the additional assumptions that
the inertia tensor Ib is constant and that deformation and deformation rates are
collinear [137]. In case these assumptions are not valid, inertial coupling terms
must be included as a.o. derived by Buttrill et al. [21] and Reschke [106].
Mean body axes are located such that relative momentum due to deformation of
the airframe is zero at all times. This nonlinear constraint is diffi cult to satisfy.
H owever, in case free-free modal analysis has been performed, a body reference
system with its origin attached to the momentary C oG and with its axes in the
directions of the translational rigid mode shapes, automatically fulfils so-called
“ practical” or linearised mean axis constraints [22]. The reason is that these
practical constraints are basically equivalent to orthogonality of flexible w.r.t.
rigid modes. This is the case in the models as described in Section 3.2, causing
the off-diagonal partitions of Mhh and Khh in Eq. (3.11) to be zero. The rigid
modes were re-oriented in the directions of the body axes Fb , without affecting
orthogonality with respect to flexible modes. As a result, the body axes Fb as
used in the FD model may simply be regarded as mean axes, and the state vector
xR of (3.1) describes the mean over-all motion of the aircraft. Furthermore, xRb
and ηR may be related as follows:
   
δVb δ V̇b
η̇R = δxRb = η̈R = δ ẋRb = (3.17)
δΩb δ Ω̇b

where δ means a deviation from the initial condition. Similarly, control and wind
inputs and external forces in both models are related as:
 
˙ T δFother
ηX = δU η̇X = δ U QRother = ΦgR Fgother = (3.18 )
δMother

W ind inputs are not included explicitly here, but these are handled exactly the
same way as ηX . AE models may have many more wind inputs than FD models,
allowing wind disturbances to hit (groups of) DLM panels at different delayed
time instances [56].
64 Integration of rigid and aeroelastic aircraft models

3.3.2 External forces and moments: the residualised model

method
In the previous sub-section the overlap of rigid degrees of freedom between FD
and AE models has been removed by combining the FD equations of motion
and the elastic degrees of freedom of the AE generalised equations of motion.
Compared with (3.1) in (3.16) the elastic-rigid coupling terms Q̃REt and Q̃REr
have been added. At this point a more subtle overlap between the AE and FD
models arises, since FAb and MAb already take quasi-steady deformation of the
airframe into account. For reasons given in the introduction, the intention is to
leave the FD model unchanged as far as possible. The key in thus removing the
overlap from the AE model is in the following assumption:

The quasi-steady effects in FAb and MAb are equiv alent to

statically residualised aeroelastic dynamics.

This implies that the quasi-steady contributions of Q̃REt, r should be computed

and subtracted. This idea was first published by Winter et al. in Ref [140]. In
this chapter an extension is made to AE models that contain aerodynamic lag
states resulting from an RFA.
As a first step, the quasi-static deformation of the airframe as a function of rigid
motion, control deflections, and non-aerodynamic external generalised forces is
computed from (3.11) and (3.14 – including remarks), with sηE0 = s2 ηE0 = 0:

KEE ηE0 = QEother + q̄{A0EE ηE0

2
c̄
+ [ A1ER Vtas s + A2ER Vc̄2 s2
tas

Vtas (3.19)
+ DER (sI − c̄ RR )
−1
ER s ]ηR

c̄ Vtas
+ [A0EX + A1EX Vtas s + DEX (sI − c̄ RX )
−1
EX s ]ηX }

Note that O NLY the quasi-steady value of ηE is sought. Consequently, the

unsteady term driven by elastic deformation disappears (sηE0 = 0), but those
driven by rigid motion and control deflections (including wind disturbances) hav e
to be retained. Solving for η0 , substituting (3.17) and (3.18), and rewriting in the
time domain with the help of (3.15) then gives:

ηE0 = (KEE − q̄A0EE )−1 · (QEother (3.20)

c̄ c̄2
+ q̄{A1ER δxRb + A2ER 2 δ ẋRb + DER xLR } (3.21)
Vtas Vtas
c̄
+ q̄{A0EX δU + A1EX δ U̇ + DEX xLX })
Vtas
where xLR and xLX are lag states driven by rigid dynamics, and control surface
and wind inputs respectively. In (3.11) the flexible to rigid coupling is then given
3.4 Application example 65

by:
c̄ c̄2 2
QRE (s)ηE = A0RE ηE + A1RE sηE + A2RE 2 s ηE (3.22)
Vtas Vtas
Vtas
+ DRE (sI − RE )−1 EE sηE
c̄
Subtracting the effect of ηE0 the coupling terms in (3.16) are now formulated as
follows:
 
Q̃REt
Q̃RE =
Q̃REr
 
c̄ c̄2
= q̄ A0RE (ηE − ηE0 ) + A1RE η̇E + A2RE 2 η̈E + DRE xLE
Vtas Vtas
Here xLE are lag states resulting from state-space realisation of the unsteady term
in (3.22) using (3.15).
At this point it may have become clear why it is helpful to have elastic dynamics to
drive a separate set of lag states xLE . The coupling term DRE xLE now involves
unsteady flow effects as caused by structural dynamics only. U nsteady effects
induced by rigid motion and control deflections are namely already accounted for
in MAb and FAb in the FD model, for example using the α̇ and β̇ derivatives in
(3.6). Furthermore, the computation of ηE0 in (3.20) may use the very same lag
states as applied for Q̃ER and Q̃EX respectively.
The dependency of the unsteady aerodynamics forces on the Mach number has
been ignored in this section. In nonlinear simulation however, this effect should
be accounted for. As already indicated in Equation (3.12), the aerodynamic
forces are computed over a grid of Mach numbers and reduced frequencies. The
dependence on the latter is accounted for by the Rational Function Approximation
at a given Mach number (Eqn. (3.13)). The recommended approach is to develop
interpolation schemes between Rational Function Approximations of Qgh (k, M )
and QgX (k, M ) at various values of M .
A summary of the integrated model equations is presented in Table 3.1. The
very same principle as sketched above may be applied to augment flight loads
models with aeroelastic dynamics. To this end the (elastic part of) the AE model
in right-generalised form as in (3.10) and (3.13) is required. The aerodynamic
contribution Q̃gE is similar to (3.23).

3.4 Application example

The Residualised Model method has been applied to various large transport air-
craft to develop fully flexible simulation models for loads analysis and real-time
flight simulation. The results however are confidential. For this reason, in this
section the method will be applied to an example aircraft for which model data
is publicly available, see Ref. [137]. The model has been implemented in the
object-oriented modelling language Modelica, using the Flight Dynamics Library
66 Integration of rigid and aeroelastic aircraft models

Equations of motion:
n o
m V̇b + Ωb × Vb − Tbv (φ , θ , ψ)Gv = F Ab +Q̃REt +Fother
Ib Ω̇b + Ωb × Ib Ωb = MAb +Q̃REr +Mother

MEE η̈E + BEE η̇E + KEE ηE = Q̃ER + Q̃EX +Q̃EE +QEother

G e ne ralise d ae rod y namic forc e s:

 
c̄ c̄2
Q̃RE = q̄ A0RE (ηE − ηE0 ) + A1RE η̇E + A2RE η̈E + DRE xLE
Vt a s Vt2a s
 
c̄ c̄2
Q̃EE = q̄ A0EE ηE + A1EE η̇E + A2EE 2 η̈E + DEE xLE
Vt a s Vt a s
 
c̄ c̄2
Q̃ER = q̄ A1ER η̇R + A1ER η̈ R + D ER x L
Vt a s Vt2a s R

 
c̄
Q̃EX = q̄ A0EX ηX + A1EX η̇X + DEX xLX
Vt a s
n o
ηE 0 = (KEE − q̄A0EE )−1 Q̃ER + Q̃EX + QEother

FAb , MAb computed from (3.5)

Fother , Mother and QEother computed from engine, gear models, etc.

L ag state s:

Vt a s
ẋLR = RR xLR + ER η̇R
c̄
Vt a s
ẋLE = RE xLE + EE η̇E
c̄
Vt a s
ẋLX = RX xLX + EX η̇X
c̄
N ote: R.. and E.. are usually sparsely occupied, which should be exploited in the imple-
mentation.

K ine matic re lations:

h iT    
δVb δ V̇b
φ˙ , θ˙, ψ̇ = Tφ b (φ , θ ) Ωb T
Ṙe = Tbv (φ , θ , ψ) Vb η̇R = η̈R =
δΩb δ Ω̇b

O th e r re lations:
 
δFother
ηX = δU η̇X = δ U˙ QRother = ΦT
gR Fgother = δMother

Table 3.1: Combined equations of the integrated flexible aircraft model

3.5 Coupling using aeroelastic state space models 67

described in Chapter 2. For the flight dynamics model an aerodynamic model

including static aeroelastic eff ects (i.e. flight shape) is av ailable, based on look -up
tables for coeffi cients and according application rules5 . A lso for the engines and
actuation systems detailed models hav e been implemented, see Figure 2.5 . H ow -
ev er, in order to see the eff ect of step control inputs, the actuators are by-passed
in the follow ing analyses. For the airframe aeroelastic data are av ailable in the
form of modal data (4 symmetrical modes), as w ell as an unsteady aerodynamic
model (w ithout lag states, though) 6 . T he integrated model has been implemented
according to T able 3 .1 .
For v alidation of the R M method, the follow ing trim condition is chosen:

• T rim: straight and lev el flight;

• A ltitude: 1 5 0 0 m abov e M S L ;

• M ach number: 0 .5 0 .

In the follow ing analysis, only longitudinal dynamics w ill be considered. T he

aircraft has elev ators for pitch control, as w ell as v anes near the cock pit, w hich
are used for structural control (especially to reduce fuselage bending), see for
example [1 4 1 ].
T he aircraft responses due to elev ator excitation (step input) are depicted in
Figure 3 .2. Clearly, the flight dynamical behav iour of the aircraft w ith respect
to its centre of grav ity is hardly changed by addition of the aeroelastic dynamics.
T he short period mode is relativ ely w ell damped at this flight condition. O f
course, it is more interesting to look at airframe-referenced v ariables. Figure 3 .3
depicts the v ertical load factor and pitch rate responses of an airframe structural
point near the cock pit. Fuselage bending is clearly excited. T he low er plot in
this fi gure show s one of the excited modes w ith its mean v alue, w hich eff ect is
remov ed from the flex-to-rigid coupling, see E qn. (3 .23 ).
T he same responses for control v ane inputs are show n in Figures 3 .4 and 3 .5 . T he
v ertical load factor response in the cock pit prov ides a qualitativ e check of the
model. S ince the control v ane produces a small upw ard force, the front fuselage
should accelerate upw ard as w ell, after w hich the response due to pitch accelera-
tion and ov er-all v ertical acceleration follow . T his is clearly the case.

3.5 Coupling using aeroelastic state space models

In this section the R M method w ill be applied to state space A E models, in line
w ith R ef. [1 4 0 ]. T his is useful in case the A E model is at hand in this form only.
A lso a simple procedure can be deriv ed to match the rigid body dynamics w ith a
linearised FD model.
5 These tables can be found in [138]. Static aeroelastic effects are incorporated by enforcing

η̇ = η̈ = 0 in the aeroelastic m odel eq uations

6 This aeroelastic com ponent is based on slightly m odifi ed data from [137 ].
68 Integration of rigid and aeroelastic aircraft models

Elevator input
−5
δE (deg)
−10

−15
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20
Pitch rate
10
qb (deg/s)

Flexible AC
0 Rigid AC

−10
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20
Angle of attack
20
α (deg)

10

0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20
Load factor at CoG
2
n (−)

1
z

0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20
time (s)

Figure 3.2: Aircraft responses due to elevator input: flight mechanical parameters

Vertical acceleration near cockpit

3
Flexible AC
2 Rigid AC
nz (−)

0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20

Pitch rate near cockpit

0.3

0.2
q (−)

0.1

−0.1
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20

Generalised co−ordinate 1
0.3
η1
0.2
η10
η1 (−)

0.1

−0.1
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20
time (s)

Figure 3.3: Aircraft responses due to elevator input: structural dynamics

3.5 Coupling using aeroelastic state space models 69

Control vane input

5
δCV (deg)

0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20
Pitch rate
5
q (deg/s)

Flexible AC
0 Rigid AC
b

−5
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20
Angle of attack
10
α (deg)

0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20
Load factor at CoG
1.5
n (−)

1
z

0.5
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20
time (s)

Figure 3.4: Aircraft responses due to control vane input: flight mechanical pa-
rameters

Vertical acceleration near cockpit

3
Flexible AC
2 Rigid AC
nz (−)

0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20

Pitch rate near cockpit

0.15

0.1
q (−)

0.05

−0.05
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20

Generalised co−ordinate 1
0.2
η1
0.15
η10
η1 (−)

0.1

0.05

0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20
time (s)

Figure 3.5 : Aircraft responses due to control vane input: structural dynamics
70 Integration of rigid and aeroelastic aircraft models

3.5.1 Aeroelastic state space model

Starting from (3.11) the AE model is first written in descriptor state space form
as follows.
 
M̂RR 0 −Â2RE 0 0 0 0 η̈R QRother
  

 0 I 0 0 0 0 0   η̇R
   0 
0 0 0 0 0   η̈E QEother
  

 −Â2ER M̂EE    
0 0 0 0 0 0   η̇E = 0 + (3.2 3)
  

 I 
0 0 0 0 I 0 0   ẋL 0
   
  R   
 0 0 0 0 0 I 0  ẋLE   0 
0 0 0 0 0 0 I ẋLX 0
−B̂RR −K̂RR Â1RE Â0RE D̂RR D̂RE D̂RX
 
η̇R

 I 0 0 0 0 0 0   ηR 
 
 ÂER 0 −B̂EE −K̂EE D̂ER D̂EE D̂EX   η̇E 
 1  
0 0 I 0 0 0 0   ηE +
 
 
 ER 0 0 0 R̂R 0 0   xL 
  R 
 0 0 EE 0 0 R̂E 0  x LE 
0 0 0 0 0 0 R̂X x Lx
 
Â1RX Â0RX

 0 0 

 Â Â0EX  
 1EX  η̇X

 0 0 
 ηX

 0 0 

 0 0 
0 EX

with augmented mass, damping and stiffness matrices:

M̂EE = MEE − Â2EE M̂RR = MRR − Â2RR
B̂EE = BEE − Â1EE B̂RR = BRR − Â1RR
K̂EE = KEE − Â0EE K̂RR = KRR − Â0RR (3.2 4 )
R̂.. = R.. Vtc̄a s D̂.. = q̄ D..
c̄ c̄2
Â0. . = q̄ A0. . Â1. . = q̄ A1. . Vt a s
Â2. . = q̄ A2. . Vt2a s

Again, it has to be made sure that elastic modes use a separate set of lag states. If
necessary the matrices are easily adapted to achieve this. The state space system
is completed by bringing all matrices to the right hand side. Having explained
the structure of the system, in the following a simplified notation will be used:

ARR1 ARR0 ARE1 ARE0 ARLR ARLE ARLX

 
η̈R η̇R
  
 η̇R   I 0 0 0 0 0 0   ηR 
0
 

 η̈E

  AER1 AEE1 AEE0 AELR AELE AELX   η̇E 

0 0 0 0 0 0
 

 η̇E

 =  I   ηE 

 

 ẋLR

 
 ER 0 0 0 R̂R 0 0   xL
 R


 ẋLE   0 0 EE 0 0 R̂E 0  x LE 
ẋLX 0 0 0 0 0 0 R̂X xLX
B R1 B R0 BRQ 0
   
 0 0   0 0 
 BE1 BE0   0 BEQ
     
η̇X  QRother
 
+  0 0  + 0 0 (3.2 5 )
  
ηX  QEother

 0 0  0 0
  
 
 0 0   0 0 
EX 0 0 0
3.5 Coupling using aeroelastic state space models 71

The RM method can now be applied the same way as in Section 3.3. First ηE0 is
computed from the third row by setting η̈E = η̇E = 0:

ηE0 = −A−1
EE0 {AER1 η̇R + AELR xLR + AELX xLX + (3.26 )
BEX0 ηX + BEX1 η̇X + BEQ QEother }
The aeroelastic dynamics are described by the lower part of (3.25):
AEE1 AEE0 AELR AELE AELX
 
η̈E η̇E
  
 η̇E   I 0 0 0 0   ηE 
 

 ẋLR

 = 
 0 0 R̂R 0 0   xL 
 R 
(3.27)
 ẋLE   EE 0 0 R̂E 0  xLE 
ẋLX 0 0 0 0 R̂X xLX
BE 1 BE0 BEQ AER1
     
0 0    0 0
 η̇X
   
+ 0 0  + 0  QEother +  ER  δ xRb
    
η

X
 0 0   0   0 
EX 0 0 0

where δ xRb from the FD model, instead of η̇R is now used. The flexible to rigid
coupling then becomes a simple output equation of the state space system (3.27 ):
η̇E
 

  ηE 
yRE = ARE1 ARE0 ARE0 A−1
EE0 AELR AELE ARE0 A−1
EE0 AELX  x LR
 

 x 
LE
xLX
 
  η̇X
+ ARE0 A−1
EE0 BEX1 BEX0
ηX

+ EE0 BEQ QEother + ARE0 AEE0 AER1 δ xRb

ARE0 A−1 −1
(3.28)

where yRE is related to Q̃RE in Eqn. (3.23) as follows:

yRE = MRR
−1
Q̃RE

N ote that there is no need to compute ηE0 explicitly. In fact, provided that the
rigid degrees of freedom, as determined by ηR match the flight mechanical ones,
as described by δ xRb (see Section 3.2), the AE model only needs to be partitioned
as in (3.25). Obtaining the equations (3.27 ) and (3.28 ) is then straight forward.

3.5.2 The RM method in state space form

W ith the state space model (3.25) at hand, it is fairly easy to bring about a
coupling with an existing FD model, requiring only minor modifications to the
latter. The interaction thus takes place at a higher level, between available FD and
AE models, as sketched in Figure 3.6 . In Ref. [108 ] this coupling is compared with
an alternative method as described in [114]. In case the addition of an aeroelastic
72 Integration of rigid and aeroelastic aircraft models

increment to the FD model is not desirable or possible, one approach is to include

a linearised FD model in AE state space model (the procedure is described in the
following), and to use this to approximately compute the increments to the FD
state vector. This will not be further discussed in detail.

. U
Nonlinear Flight
.
C om p u tation of:
xR , x R U
- L oad s M ec hanic s M od el
- A c c elerations (inc l. s tatic -flex ib ility )
- S ens or s ignals xRb

yRE eq. (3.27,3.28)

- xRb 0
xRb
L inear
A eroelas tic U0
E la s tic a n d M od el
.
la g s ta tes U - U0
.
U

Figure 3.6: High-level interconnection of AE and FD models

3.5.3 Correction of aeroelastic state space models

It is interesting to residualise (3.25) using (3.26), only leaving the rigid flight
dynamics (including involved lag states) in the AE model:

   
η̈R BR1 − ARE 0 A−1E E 0 BE X0 BR0 − ARE 0 A−1 E E 0 BE X0  
 η̇R  
 = 0 0 
 η̇X
 ẋLR   0 0  ηX
ẋLX EX 0
  
BRg ARR1 − ARE 0 A−1 E E 0 AE R1 ARR0
 0   I 0
+ 0  Fgo th e r + 
  (3 .2 9 )
ER 0
0 0 0
 
ARLR − ARE 0 A−1E E 0 AE LR ARLX − ARE 0 A−1 E E 0 AE LX η̇R
0 0   ηR



R̂R 0   xLR 
0 R̂X xLX

In c a se a lin e a rise d fl ig h t d y n a m ic s m o d e l is a t h a n d , (3 .2 9 ) m a y b e u se d to c o rre c t

th e A E m o d e l (3 .2 5 ) to m a tch th e rig id d y n a m ic s to th e F D m o d e l. S u p p o se th e
lin e a rise d F D m o d e l is g iv e n b y :
          
δ ẋRb AF D 1 AF D 0 δxRb B BF δ U̇ BF D o th e r δFo th e r
= + FD 1 D 0
+
δ ẋRe Ak in 1 Ak in 0 δxRe 0 0 δU 0 δM o th e r
3.6 Application example (Continued) 73

(3.30)

w here the sparsely populated matrices Akin1 and Akin0 describe linearised k ine-
matic relations. P rovided that (3.1 8 ) holds, comparison betw een (3.29) and (3.30)
then leads to the follow ing corrections in (3.25):

A∗RR1 = AF D1 + ARE0 A−1

EE0 AER1
A∗RR0 = AF D0
A∗RLR = ARE0 A−1
EE0 AELR
A∗RLX = ARE0 A−1
EE0 AELX
BR1
∗
= BF M 1 + ARE0 A−1
EE0 BE1
BR0
∗
= BF M 0 + ARE0 A−1
EE0 BE0
BR0
∗
= BF M 0 + ARE0 A−1
EE0 BE0
BRQ
∗
= BF Dother
BREQ
∗
= ARE0 A−1
EE0 BEQ

So that eventually, the corrected aeroelastic state space system look s lik e:
A∗RR1 AF D ARE1 ARE0 A∗RLR ARLE A∗RLX
 δ ẋ  
Rg
 0 δxRg 
 δ ẋRe   Ak i n 1 Ak i n 0 0 0 0 0 0   δxR
e 
0
 
 η̈E
 
  AER1 AEE1 AEE0 AELR AELE AELX   η̇E 

0 0 0 0 0 0
 
 η̇E
 
 =  I   ηE 

 
 ẋLR
 
 
 ER 0 0 0 R̂R 0 0   xL
 R


ẋLE 0 0 EE 0 0 R̂E 0 xL E
    
ẋLX 0 0 0 0 0 0 R̂X xL X
   
BR
∗
1
BR
∗
0
BF D other BREQ
∗

 0 0 


 0 0 

 BE1 BE 0 
 η̇X
  0 BQ E   
   QRother
+  0 0 
 ηX +
 0 0  (3 .3 1 )
  QEother

 0 0 


 0 0 

 0 0   0 0 
EX 0 0 0

T his model is w ell suited for aeroservoelastic analysis, since the rigid states di-
rectly match the flight dynamics ones.

3.6 Application example (Continued)

T he procedure for correcting the flight dynamics modes w ithin an aeroelastic
state space model is illustrated on the same aircraft ex ample as presented in
Section 3.4 . Figure 3.7 show s the eigenvalues of three models: (1 ) the original
AE model (mark er ’x ’, Eq n. (3.25)), (2) the corrected AE model (mark er ’o’,
Eq n. (3.31 )), and (3) the original FD model that w as used for correction of the
fi rst (mark er ’∆ ’, Eq n. (3.30)). It is immediately clear that the correction of
the AE model has no eff ect on the location of the eigenvalues associated w ith
structural dynamics (’x ’ and ’o’ mark ers match for poles w ith imaginary parts
larger than 5). Figure 3.8 show s close ups around the origin. From this plot it is
74 Integration of rigid and aeroelastic aircraft models

clear that the eigenvalues of the AE model, associated with the flight dynamics
modes, have moved to those of the linearised FD model (’o’ and ’∆’ markers
match), as expected. As a consequence, the phugoid mode (right) is now correctly
represented by the integrated model, whereas in the AE model it was only present
in the form of two real poles very close to the origin. The main reason is that
drag is not accounted for in the AE model.

The correction of the AE model becomes even more apparent from the example
frequency response from elevator to pitch rate at a structural point near the
cockpit (Figure 3.9). The left most peaks of the AE and FD models clearly do
not match. From Figure 3.8 it can be seen that the underlying modes are the
short period and phugoid. As noted before, an important reason is the absence of
drag in the AE model. The integrated model (Eqn. (3.31)) matches both peaks
of the FD model (Eqn. (3.30)) and the structural dynamic peaks of the original
AE model (Eqn. (3.25)). It will be clear that the corrected AE model will be
more reliable for use in for example the design of structural or flight control law
functions.

Eigenvalues of original and corrected AE model

25
original
corrected
lin. FM
20

15
Imag

10

−25 −20 −15 −10 −5 0

Real

Figure 3.7: Eigenvalues of the (longitudinal) linear models

3.6 Application example (Continued) 75

Eigenvalues of original and corrected AE model

2 Eigenvalues of original and corrected AE model
original 0.1
corrected original
corrected
lin. FM
1.5 0.08 lin. FM

0.06
1
Imag

Imag
0.04
0.5
0.02

0
0

−0.5 −0.02
−1 −0.5 0 0.5 −0.02 −0.01 0 0.01 0.02
Real Real

Figure 3.8: Eigenvalues of longitudinal FD modes of the linear models

Frequency response: elevator to pitch rate in cockpit

2
10
Aeroelastic model
Flight mechanics model
1
Integrated model
10

0
10
mag(q)

−1
10

−2
10

−3
10 −2 −1 0 1 2 3
10 10 10 10 10 10
Frequency (rad/s)

Figure 3.9 : Frequency responses of the linear models: elevator to pitch rate in
cockpit
76 Integration of rigid and aeroelastic aircraft models

3.7 Conclusions

In this chapter a method for integration of available flight dynamics and aeroe-
lastic aircraft models has been proposed. The most important contribution has
been in the combination of the aerodynamics models, whereby only dynamic incre-
ments are added to the otherwise unchanged flight dynamics equations of motion.
Since the underlying assumption is that flight dynamics models include statically
residualised aeroelastic effects, the approach is called R esidualised M odel method.
O riginally proposed in R ef. [140], the main contribution of this chapter is in the
handling of unsteady aerodynamic lag states. It is hereby important to make
sure that no rigid dynamics unintentionally couple into the FD model via these
states. As a secondary contribution, the integration of models has been discussed
for equations of motion and aerodynamics separately, allowing more detailed (e.g.
inertial) coupling effects to be included later on. The approach is directly appli-
cable to modelling for loads analysis.

A practical application and validation of the described modelling approach is

presented in the companion R eference [108], where also a detailed comparison
with the so-called K önig-Schuler method [114] is made. The modelling approach
has been applied to several industrial aircraft models for flight loads analysis and
forms a basis for model construction in DL R ’s M odelica Flight Dynamics L ibrary
(C hapter 2).

It is important to remind that the validity of the integrated model is limited to the
scope of its components. For example, the AE aerodynamic model is more or less
only valid around the (subsonic) M ach number it has been computed at. Dynamic
pressure variation is taken into account in the AE model, so that some form of
interpolation between R FA matrices derived for a grid of M ach numbers will do.
O ther limitations are that the DL M assumes that the angle of attack remains
small. Since modal analysis is performed for a specific aircraft configuration and
loading, the aircraft mass and C oG location should stay approximately constant
during simulation.

From the chapter it may have become clear that aeroelastic models may involve
tremendous amounts of data. For this reason, a lot of effort has been and will be
invested in more effi ciently and transparently handling of this data, as well as the
pre-processing for model use. This has resulted in the Dynamic Aircraft M odel
Integration Process (DAM IP), described in R ef. [59].

For now, the idea behind the model has been to leave the FM model unchanged as
far as possible, assuming that the FD model has been matched with experimental
data and that the quasi-flexible influences in the FD model are equivalent to
residualised aeroelastic dynamics. A next step is to use aeroelastic methods and
models to improve FD models in other aspects. This requires model integration
earlier on in the development process, before validation work has started.
3.7 Conclusions 77

Appendix 3.A: Rigid motion-induced unsteady aero-

dynamic loads
Aerodynamic models in aeroelasticity are often provided in a geodetic reference
system. For use in integrated flexible aircraft models, a transformation into
body axes is then necessary. This transformation involves some inelegant “ re-
engineering” and is derived in this appendix. In case the user has the possibility
to influence the modelling process at an earlier stage, it is strongly recommended
to directly generate body-referenced aerodynamics models from the start [59],
making the approach described below obsolete.
From Doublet Lattice computation a set of so-called Aerodynamic Influence Co-
efficient matrices (AICs) at a number of reduced frequencies k is obtained. V ia
so-called spline matrices the degrees of freedom of the grid points (g) are trans-
ferred to control points on the panels, and the resulting aerodynamic forces on
these panels are applied to the grid points again. In the following, it is assumed
that these spline matrices have been included in the AIC, therefore writing AIC gg .
Right multiplication with the modal matrix results in the half-generalised un-
steady aerodynamic force matrix as a function of unit deflections of each mode:

Qgh (k, M ) = [QgR (k, M ), QgE (k, M )] = AIC gg (k, M ) [ΦgR , ΦgE ] (3.32)

H owever, both the pitch (φy ) and yaw (φz ) mode shapes have to be corrected,
such that only pitch and yaw effects, but no angle of attack respectively side
slip arise. These are namely already accounted for by the heave (φz ) and lateral
displacement (φy ) mode shapes. In the following it is important to remember the
adopted forms of the rigid mode shapes as described in Section 3.2.
The pitch mode shape should be combined with the heave one, such that the heave
velocity in the CoG (ARP), and thus the angle of attack, equals z ero. In case of
oscillatory pitching with magnification of the mode shape vector with ηθ (ω), the
local angle at the CoG equals αp itc h (ω) = φy0 ηθ (ω) = ηθ (ω), with φy0 = 1 rad
the corresponding angle in the mode shape vector. For notational brevity, it is
here assumed that the static angle of attack equals z ero (if this is not the case,
the derivation is very similar). The angle of attack due to heaving equals:

w(ω) j ωz(ω) j ωz0 ηz (ω) jω

αh e a v e (ω) = − =− =− = ηz (ω) (3.33)
Vta s Vta s Vta s Vta s

where z0 = −1 is the z -displacement in the heave mode shape vector (positive

upwards, see Section 3.2), ηz is the mode shape multiplier, and w = ż (in frequency
domain: w(ω) = j ωz(ω)) the vertical velocity of the CoG in the reference frame
Fs , as depicted in Figure 3.1. The combined angle of attack at the CoG due to
pitching and heaving then must be z ero:
jω
αc o m b ine d (ω) = αh e a v e (ω)+αp itc h (ω) = 0 ⇐ ⇒ ηz (ω)+ηθ (ω) = 0 (3.34)
Vta s
78 Integration of rigid and aeroelastic aircraft models

so that the required amount of heave compensation as a function of the reduced

frequency equals:
Vtas c̄
ηz (ω) = − ηθ (ω) = − ηθ (ω) (3.35)
jω jk
c̄
The same may be derived for the yawing motion, resulting in ηy = jk. The rigid
mode shape matrix AICgg is to be right-multiplied with, becomes:
 
c̄ c̄
Φ̂R = Φ x , Φy , Φz , Φ φ , Φθ − Φz , Φ ψ + Φy
jk jk
1 0 0 0 0 0
 
0 1 0 0 c̄ 
0 jk
c̄

0 0 1 0 − 0
= ΦR  jk 
0 0 0 1 0 0
 
0 0 0 0 1 0
0 0 0 0 0 1
The matrix to the right may also be applied in case Qgh is already at hand. In
this chapter with QgR (k, M ) always the transformed version is meant. N ote that
the derivation above may just as well be done with respect to the ARP instead,
requiring additional heave and lateral components in the pitch and yaw mode
vectors to be compensated for, due to the offset rar p from the CoG.

Appendix 3.B: Separation of lag states

For integration of flight dynamics and aeroelastic models it is necessary to make
sure that structural dynamics drive a separate set of lag states xLE . This can
be ensured by performing a separate RFA for QgE (k), or by partitioning the
RFA result of Qgh (k) afterwards. In case of e.g. Roger’s approximation this is
easy, since each mode contributes its own lag states anyway. However, Karpel’s
minimum state method uses a single set of lag states xLh for all modes. In that
case a separate set of lag states for the elastic modes can be added as follows.
In the Laplace domain the unsteady contribution to the aerodynamic loads on
the grid points g is:
 
Vtas ηR
Qghlag = Dgh (sI − Rh )−1 [ER , EE ] s
c̄ ηE
This equation is rewritten as follows:
 
Qghlag = DgR DgE (3.36 )
(sI − Vtc̄a s RR )−1
    
0 ER 0 ηR
s
0 (sI − Vtc̄a s RE )−1 0 EE ηE
with RR = RE = Rh and DgR = DgE = Dgh . N ote that nothing has changed,
except that in the state space realisation the elastic and rigid modes now use
3.7 Conclusions 79

independent lag states:

Vtas
       
ẋLR c̄ RR 0 xLR ER 0 η̇R
= Vtas +
ẋLE 0 c̄ RE
xLE 0 EE η̇E
QgRlag = DgR xLR
QgElag = DgE xLE
80 Integration of rigid and aeroelastic aircraft models
Chapter 4

Rapid prototyping using

inversion-based control and
object-oriented modelling
82 Rapid prototyping using inversion-based control

Abstract
Object-oriented modelling allows for efficient construction of multi-
discip linary sy stem models in a p h y sically -oriented way . A s a uniq ue
feature, th e modelling ap p roach allows for automatic generation of regu-
lar, static, as well as inv erse simulation models. Inv erse models form th e
basis of v arious commonly used nonlinear controller sy nth esis meth ods,
such as N onlinear D y namic Inv ersion. T h e resulting multi-v ariable con-
trol laws are easily tuned to meet p erformance sp ecifi cations and av oid th e
need for gain sch eduling. In combination with automatic inv ersion, th ese
sy nth esis meth ods are ideally suited for control law rap id-p rototy p ing, al-
lowing ex p erimentation with command v ariables, control selection and al-
location, etc. in v ery sh ort automated design cy cles. A fter selection of th e
fi nal arch itecture, th e control laws may be dev elop ed furth er in a detailed
design stage. T h is is demonstrated on a nonlinear control p roblem for an
aircraft manoeuv ring on th e ground.

C o n tributio n s
• A general p rocedure for automatic generation of N onlinear D y namic
Inv ersion fl igh t control laws from a sy mbolic aircraft model;
• A N onlinear D y namic Inv ersion-based design p rocedure for rap id
p rototy p ing of fl igh t control laws in early design stages of a new
aircraft, or for rap id-p rototy p ing of new ty p es of fl igh t control law
functions.

P ublicatio n
G ertjan L ooy e: Rapid prototyping using inversion-based control and
object-oriented modelling. In: N onlinear A naly sis and S y nth esis T ech -
niq ues for A ircraft C ontrol, series L ecture N otes in C ontrol and Informa-
tion S ciences, V ol. 3 6 5 , S p ringer V erlag, B erlin, A ugust 2 0 0 7 .
Rapid prototyping using inversion-based control 83

ANY nonlinear control law synthesis methods, like Nonlinear Dynamic

M Inversion (NDI), Feedback Linearisation (FL), Model Following Control
(MFC) and Inverse Feedforward Compensation (IFFC) are based on inverse model
equations. These equations directly compensate for nonlinear dynamic behaviour
of the system, whereas desired command response behaviour is imposed using a
linear outer loop feedback controller and command filters. The main advantage of
these methods, disregarding any modelling errors, is that the control laws auto-
matically achieve full decoupling of command variables (CVs) and automatically
adapt as a function of all known parameters (e.g. flight condition), avoiding the
need for gain scheduling. This implies that, besides the effort of model inver-
sion and coding, functional control laws are obtained for the complete operating
envelope in one shot.
During the last decade, the methodology of object-oriented modelling for im-
plementation of multi-disciplinary models has matured and found application in
many fields of engineering, such as mechatronics, electronics, automotive and
aerospace engineering. The main point in object-oriented modelling is that phys-
ical objects and phenomena, and their interactions, may be implemented one-to-
one into model components, and components interconnections respectively. Model
implementation takes place at a physical level, rather than in the form of sorted
and solved differential (algebraic) equations, see Figure 2.1. The step from user-
implemented model equations to differential equations for simulation is performed
automatically by a model compiler. To this end, reliable algorithms and tools are
readily available. The way differential equations are generated depends on the
inputs and outputs selected by the user. This implies that the model implemen-
tation is independent of its causality in simulation. In the frame of this work,
the most interesting aspect is that this automation step allows for generation of
regular just as well as inverse simulation models.
The straight-forward approach of inversion-based control design and the capability
of automatic model inversion allow for a highly interesting approach in early stages
of flight control law design: rapid prototyping. This is of great interest in various
aspects:

• early availability of an initial set of control laws, as soon as a first model is

available;

• quick comparison of different command variables, up to the stage of pilot-

in-the-loop flight simulations;

• quick re-design in case of model data updates (as is frequently the case in
the aircraft pre-design phase);

• early release of initial control laws to other engineering departments (e.g.

loads);

• possibility of simulation-based formulation of requirements for control sizing

in preliminary aircraft design;
84 Rapid prototyping using inversion-based control

• testing of individual control law functions in the detailed design phase within
or around a preliminary, but fully functional control system.

Since synthesis techniques like Feedback Linearisation already have proved their
value in many applications, these control laws may be naturally developed further
in the detailed design phase, once key decisions like control variable selection
and control allocation have been made, and the aircraft configuration has been
finalised.
In this chapter the above approach is described and demonstrated on an aircraft-
on-ground (i.e., taxiing, roll-out, and take-off run) nonlinear control problem. In
Section 4.1 object-oriented modelling of flight dynamics is discussed. Sections 4.2
and 4.3 describe the generation of simulation and inverse models, as well as how
the latter may be applied within various control law structures. Section 4.4 de-
scribes the proposed rapid-prototyping design steps. Section 4.5 describes their
application to lateral-directional ground control laws. Conclusions are drawn in
Section 4.6.

4.1 Object-oriented modelling of aircraft fl ight dy-

namics
In this section a brief overview of object-oriented modelling and its application to
model development for the aircraft-on-ground is given.

4.1.1 Object-oriented modelling

Implementation of models and model components is usually performed in the form
of ordinary differential equations (ODEs). This is done in software code (e.g. C,
FORTRAN), but also more and more in the form of block-diagrams. The latter
allows for easy organisation of generic components in libraries from which models
may be constructed graphically. The ODEs originate from physical equations
from which derivatives of the selected state variables and output variables have
been solved. System components are interconnected using input-output-based
signal flows.
The basic principle of object-oriented modelling is that model implementation
already takes place at the level of the original physical equations behind system
components, rather than at the level of sorted and solved differential equations,
see Figure 2.1. This approach has the following advantages:

• system components may be interconnected according to physical interac-

tions (energy flows, constraints), and are not limited to input-output rela-
tions. This allows for true one-to-one implementation of physical objects
and phenomena into model software objects;

• the above advantage allows for development of engineering discipline-specific

component libraries, but still based on a common language base;
4.1 Object-oriented modelling of aircraft fl ight dynamics 85

• model code in executable form for simulation (i.e. differential equations) is

generated automatically, based on user-specified inputs and outputs at the
highest hierarchical level of the model.

The second advantage provides an ideal basis for multi-disciplinary modelling,

since each component of a model may be constructed using methods that are
common place within the involved engineering area (i.e. an electronic circuit can
be implemented as a circuit diagram, a mechanical systems can be constructed
using multi-body formalisms, a control law may be implemented as a block dia-
gram, etc.). This greatly improves model visibility, especially to engineers from
other disciplines. The third advantage implies that model implementation does
not yet freeze model causality. This feature will be exploited in this chapter.

Example 4.1: The bicycle model

Throughout this chapter the concepts behind object-oriented modelling and automatic
eq uation solv ing w ill be illustrated on a highly simplifi ed bicy cle approx imation of an
aircraft tax iing on the ground [4 7 ]. This approx imation neglects the roll and pitch
degrees-of freedom and aerody namic loads. F urthermore, the main gear of the aircraft
is concentrated below the centre line of the fuselage and ty re forces are linear functions
of the ty re slip angles.
The bicy cle model may be div ided into three components: the frame, the rear w heel,
and the steerable front w heel. In order to k eep the ex ample simple, also the acceler-
ation in body x -direction is neglected (i.e. ub is constant) and mass is assumed to be
concentrated in the frame, resulting in the follow ing set of eq uations:

m (v̇b + ub rb ) − Fyext = 0 (4.1)

Izz ṙb − Mzext = 0 (4.2)

w here Fyext and Mzext are the ex ternal force and moment along the body yb and
zb ax es respectiv ely. F or both w heels the eq uation for the lateral ty re force has the
follow ing structure:

Mzty r e = Fyty r e xw heel (4.3)

Fyty r e = Gtyre βtyre , w ith: (4.4)
vb + xw heel rb
βtyre = − θsteer (4.5)
ub
w here Gtyre is the (linearised) cornering gain for a giv en ty re ty pe, v ertical load
and tax i w ay surface condition, βtyre is the ty re slip angle and xw heel is the body
x -coordinate of the w heel ax le. In case of object-oriented modelling, these
eq uations are suffi cient to start implementing the bicy cle model. F igure 4 .1 show s
the basic model structure. The frame eq uations of motion (4 .1 ), (4 .2 ) are coded
literally into the object Frame. The equations (4.4) and (4.5) can first be coded in a
86 Rapid prototyping using inversion-based control

class Wheel. This class is then instantiated as a rear and front w heel in the m odel by
setting ap p rop riate v alues for Gtyre , xw h eel , and θs teer (for the rear w heel θs teer = 0,
for the front w heel, θs teer = θN W ).
The connectors contain tw o so-called fl ow v ariables (Mz and Fy ) and tw o across
v ariables: rb and vb (in p ractice, inertial p osition and the direction cosine m atrix of
the local body ax es are used instead, S ection 2 .2 ). W hen connecting com p onents, fl ow
v ariables are sum m ed to z ero and across v ariables are set equal betw een connectors
inv olv ed. This is autom atically done by the m odel com p iler, as w ill be discussed
further on. A s show n in F ig ure 4.1 , this ap p roach allow s for v ery easy addition of
other com p onents. E v en if the m ass is no long er concentrated in the fram e (i.e.
distributed ov er the w heels as w ell), the m odel structure rem ains the sam e and only
ap p rop riate equations of m otion hav e to be added to the Wheel m odel class.

                 
                                   
         
         
        

         
             

     
             

    
     

Figure 4.1: B ic y c le m o d e l in o b je c t-o rie n te d fo rm .

A s c a n b e se e n fro m th e e x a m p le , o b je c t-o rie n te d a llo w s fo r m o d e l im p le m e n ta -

tio n a t a n e a rlie r sta g e in th e m o d e llin g p ro c e ss in th e fo rm o f p h y sic a l e q u a tio n s,
b e fo re th e se a re tra n sfo rm e d in to d iff e re n tia l e q u a tio n s. In c a se o f im p le m e n ta -
tio n in O D E o r b lo ck d ia g ra m fo rm , th e u se r h a s to d o c o n sid e ra b ly m o re w o rk
b e fo re im p le m e n ta tio n c a n sta rt, lik e d e riv in g d iff e re n tia l e q u a tio n s, tra n sla tin g
e q u a tio n s in to d e c la ra tiv e fo rm to m a k e su re a ll u n k n o w n s a p p e a r o n th e le ft h a n d
sid e , a n d so rtin g th e m in th e rig h t o rd e r.
O b je c t-o rie n te d m o d e llin g is fre e ly a v a ila b le in th e fo rm o f th e m o d e llin g la n g u a g e
M o d e lic a . In itia te d in 1 9 9 6 , a n d sp e c ifi e d a n d m a in ta in e d b y th e in te rn a tio n a l
M o d e lic a a sso c ia tio n [8 9 ], M o d e lic a is e sp e c ia lly su ita b le fo r im p le m e n ta tio n o f
la rg e -sc a le m u lti-e n g in e e rin g m o d e ls. C o m p o n e n t lib ra rie s fo r m u lti-b o d y sy s-
te m s, b lo ck d ia g ra m s, e le c tro n ic s, h y d ra u lic s, p o w e r-tra in s, v e h ic le d y n a m ic s, e tc .
a re a v a ila b le 1 , a s w e ll a s c o m m e rc ia l e n v iro n m e n ts fo r g ra p h ic a l c o n stru c tio n a n d
1 For a more complete list, see [89]
4.1 Object-oriented modelling of aircraft fl ight dynamics 87

compilation of models. In the frame of this work, Dymola (Dynamic modelling

laboratory [4 ]) has been used.
In aircraft dynamics modelling there is a strongly growing need for multi-disciplinary
model integration, since interactions between various disciplines, like fl ight me-
chanics, structural dynamics and systems, tend to grow with each new aircraft
design. F or this reason, DL R has developed the F light Dynamics L ibrary (F light-
DynL ib). T his library, described in Chapter 2 , is fully compatible with Model-
ica libraries for other engineering disciplines, thus allowing the multi-disciplinary
ideas behind object-oriented modelling to be fully exploited. In constructing
this library, a new physically-oriented generic aircraft model structure has been
adopted.

4.1.2 Object-oriented modelling of the aircraft-on-ground

As already indicated in the introduction, the main example application of the
methodology developed in this chapter will the development of preliminary control
laws for a transport aircraft manoeuvring on the ground (taxiing, landing roll-
out, take-off run). Model details and control law specifications can be found in
R efs. [4 8, 2 8]. T he model for the specific aircraft has been implemented using
components from the F light Dynamics L ibrary. T he main tree of the library
is depicted to the left in F igure 4 .2 . G eneric components, like environment or
sensor models, are readily at hand. F or aircraft-specific components base classes
are available that provide standard interfaces and variables. T hese base classes
may be inherited by components describing aircraft-specific model equations, like
application rules in the aerodynamic model.
T he basic model structure is depicted to the right in F igure 4 .2 . As discussed in
S ection 2 .2 , the environment objects (lower right) include a world (in this case,
Earth), a tm osp h e re , and te rra in model. T he world model provides the Earth-
Centred Inertial (ECI) [12 5 ] as an inertial reference frame for all model compo-
nents, as well as a geodetic reference in the form of the W orld G eodetic S ystem
1984 (W G S 84 ), based on the Earth-Centred Earth-F ixed (ECEF ) frame. As de-
scribed in S ection 2 .2 , the world model contains functions to compute the gravity
acceleration, the EG M-96 Mean S ea L evel (MS L ) surface, and W MM-2 005 mag-
netic field as a function of W G S 84 co-ordinates. Double-clicking on the object
allows a number of parameters to be set, like whether the Earth is rotating or
assumed to be at rest, the type of gravity model to be used, etc.
T he a tm osp h e re model in F igure 4 .2 in this case represents the MS L -referenced
International S tandard Atmosphere (IS A). Again, functions are provided that
compute atmospheric conditions and geodetic wind fields with respect to the
Earth surface.
T he depicted te rra in model contains a parametrised model of the Earth’s surface,
based on EAS A CS -AW O specifications [3 7 ]. T his model is normally used for au-
tomatic landing certification. More detailed models may be linked from simulator
terrain databases in the future. Earth-fixed navigational equipment (e.g. V OR ,
DME, IL S systems at specified locations) are incorporated in separate objects
88 Rapid prototyping using inversion-based control

Figure 4.2: Structure of the aircraft-on-ground model, along side the Flight Dy-
namics Library top level structure (left).

(not shown), which are naturally attached to the terrain model.

N ote that the environment models have no connection with the aircraft model,
which physically makes sense. This allows multiple aircraft to be implemented,
all using the same environment objects. Components of the aircraft model may
individually call to the environment models. For example, each landing gear may
obtain its own height above terrain, or its compression, by a simple function call
to the terrain model. The environment models also make sure that all compo-
nents use the same field functions and parameters. For example, clicking on the
atmosphere model, the ISA standard atmosphere may be selected with a higher
than nominal sea level temperature T0 . All model components that request their
local atmospheric conditions are then provided with ISA conditions based on this
T0 .
The core of the model structure is of course the component that represents the
actual aircraft, see Figure 4.2. The backbone of the aircraft model are the k ine-
matic s and airframe blocks. The first defines a “ N orth-East-Down” (N ED) local
vertical frame with its origin moving with a fixed position in the aircraft, prefer-
ably the centre of gravity (CoG). The object further defines a body-fixed reference
frame (x-axis towards the nose, z -axis down, origin in CoG) to which the airframe
is attached. The attitudes and inertial positions of both reference systems are
4.1 Object-oriented modelling of aircraft fl ight dynamics 89

available in the two connectors (top: body reference frame, below: NED refer-
ence frame). Attitude descriptions may be based on quaternions or Euler angles,
and position integration may be based on a flat, round, or elliptic Earth.
The airframe object basically describes the mechanical equations of motion. In
case of the on-ground model, the airframe is assumed to be a rigid-body. H owever,
the airframe may be flexible as well (Chapter 2), or may be constructed from the
Modelica multi-body systems (MBS) library. Connection between the airframe
and kinematics objects (see Figure 4.2) cause the reference systems in both con-
nectors merge, i.e. from then on the airframe is moving freely with respect to the
inertial reference, with its kinematics described in the corresponding object. The
airframe object has a second connector on top, intended for interconnection of for
example external force model components, sensor models, etc. Besides kinematic
variables, each connector also describes (generalised) forces and moments along
the local reference systems axes, declared as flow variables, see Section 2.2.
The airframe equations of motion are primarily driven by aerodynamic, propul-
sion, and gear forces and moments. These are computed in corresponding model
components in Figure 4.2. These components are aircraft-specific, in this case
containing the neural-network based model described in Ref. [48]. Computation
of key variables like the angle of attack, side slip, true airspeed, etc. is inherited
from an aerodynamics base class. Local mean wind and turbulence are obtained
from the localW ind object.
Besides the airframe, each component is described in its own local reference frame.
An attachment object, as for example between an engine and the airframe models,
transforms kinematics and forces and moments between its connectors. In this
case of a rigid attachment, relative positions and attitudes may be entered as
parameters. In case of a flexible airframe it is suffi cient to enter the grid point
number on the structural model. The attached components then automatically
move and rotate with the local structure point.
The actu ation sy stem component in Figure 4.2 describes actuators and hydraulic
/ electric systems. These may be constructed from hydraulics and electronics
libraries (see for example [11]), but for the aircraft-on-ground model, only the
co-ordination of control surface movements is described.
Finally, the thin bar at the top of Figure 4.2 represents a so-called data bus.
This bus includes signals that one would typically find on avionics buses in the
aircraft, like the readings of all sensors, command signals to engine and control
surface actuators, gear status, etc. For this reason, the sensor, actuator, and
engine models have been attached to the bus object. The bus is also accessible
from outside and allows direct connection to elements from the Modelica block
diagram library. This enables a control system composed using this library to
easily communicate with the aircraft components.
L anding g ears
Of course, the most interesting aspect of the aircraft-on-ground model is the land-
ing gear. The physical equations are provided in Refs. [48, 28]. Figure 4.3 shows
the gear constructed as a simple multi-body system. Most important is the gear
90 Rapid prototyping using inversion-based control

compression, which determines internal gear load, which in turn heavily influences
tyre forces. The gear model uses the terrain model to the right in Figure 4.2, so
that the compression of each gear results from location and orientation of the
airframe, and the local terrain elevation above the Earth ellipsoid as defined in
the World Geodetic System 1984 (WGS84 [7]). The principle of computation is
illustrated in Figure 4.4. The centre line of the gear in its uncompressed position
is extended to the ground:
T
Rterrain = Rg ear + T0,g ear [0, 0, lg ear ] (4.6)
h = fW G S 8 4 (Rterrain ) (4.7)
hterrain = fterrain (Rterrain ) (4.8)
0 = h − hterrain (constraint) (4.9)
whereby Rg ear is the inertial position of a fixed reference point on the gear (in
this case, the bottom of the unloaded gear), Rterrain is the inertial position of the
crossing between the gear extension and the ground, lg ear is the length from the
gear reference point to the ground. In case lg ear < 0 this variable is the amount
of compression (tyre compression is neglected, see Ref. [48]). The transformation
matrix from gear body into inertial axes is T0,g ear . The geodetic height h (in
WGS84 co-ordinates) at Rterrain is computed from the function fW G S 8 4 , which
is available in the world model. The terrain elevation at Rterrain is hterrain ,
computed from the terrain model function fterrain (in the terrain model). By
applying the constraint (4.9), lg ear can be computed. The equations have been
implemented as such in the G round R eference object in Figure 4.3. The model
compiler will automatically build in a numerical nonlinear equation solver to solve
for lg ear .

4.2 Translation of object-oriented models

In object-oriented modelling, model objects are defined with the help of physical
equations. Since the equations are not declarative, as in programming languages,
the final model comprises one large system of (nonlinear) equations that may be
collected from all components and interconnections into the following form:

0 = F (X(t), Ẋ(t), w(t), p, t) (4.10)

Here X(t) ∈ IR nX are variables of which time derivatives Ẋ(t) occur in the
model, and w(t) ∈ IR nw contains any other variables, like local ones, inputs, and
outputs. The vector p ∈ IR np contains any parameters that may be set prior to,
but remain constant during, simulation. In the sequel of this chapter, the time
(t) argument will be omitted if time dependency is obvious.
Numerical integration algorithms as used in simulation tools require the model
equations to be translated into an algorithm that computes state derivatives ẋ(t)
and the unknown part of w(t) (these are outputs and intermediate variables)
from the state vector x(t) and the known part of w(t) (these are inputs). The
4.2 Translation of object-oriented models 91

Figure 4.3: Landing gear model, constructed from multi-body system components

rn e)
e (a ir b o
a ir fr a m

n g ro u n d )
a ir fr a m e (o

lg e a r

Rg e a r lg e a r
hte rra in hte rra in
Rte rra in
W G S -8 4 e llip s o id

Figure 4.4: Computation of landing gear compression

92 Rapid prototyping using inversion-based control

state variables are automatically selected or may be imposed by the user (usually
from X(t)). The algorithm must be provided in the form of computer code, like
C or FORTRAN. After compilation this code may be called by the numerical
integration algorithm.
The way how the equations are solved depends on which variables in w(t) are
known or unknown. This is fixed at the moment the user has specified the model
inputs (u ∈ IR nu ) and outputs (y ∈ IR ny ). Mathematically, the system of equa-
tions (4.10) is then to be translated into the form of an ordinary differential
equation (ODE) in state space form:

ẋ(t) = f (x(t), u(t), p, t)

(4.11)
y(t) = h(x(t), u(t), p, t)

For simplicity of notation it is here assumed that intermediate variables in w(t)

have been eliminated. Although the second equation is an algebraic one, it only
computes output variables y(t), on which the first equation does not depend.
Sometimes it is not possible to explicitly solve for outputs and state derivatives.
The equations are then translated into the form:

0 = F1 (x(t), ẋ(t), y(t), u(t), p, t) (4.12)

If ẋ(t) and y(t) can be solved for given u(t) and p, this equation is a so-called
differential algebraic equation (DAE) of differential algebraic index 1 [97], which
may be time integrated using a dedicated DAE solver. Nowadays powerful sym-
bolic algorithms are available that allow the translation of a physical model into
the form of (4.11) or (4.12) to be performed automatically [31, 32, 99].

Example 4.2: The bicycle model (cntd.)

In order to simulate the bicycle model, the inputs and outputs need to be selected
first. The input obviously is the nose wheel steering angle, as output the yaw rate is
chosen:

θN W = u (4.13)
y = rb (4.14)

The model compiler will first collect all equations and identify unk nown variables.
4.3 Inverse model generation 93

The collected equations are as follows:

0 = m (v̇b + ub rb ) − Fyext (from frame)
0 = Izz ṙb − Mzext (from frame)
0 = FyN W − GN W βN W (from nose gear)
0 = FyM L G − GM L G βM L G (from main gear)
0 = Mz N W − Fy N W x N W (from nose gear)
0 = MzM L G − FyM L G xM L G (from main gear)
(4.15)
0 = βN W − (vb + xN W rb ) / ub − θN W (from nose gear)
0 = βM L G − (vb + xM L G rb ) / ub (from main gear)
0 = (−Fyext ) + FyN W + FyM L G (connector equation)
0 = (−Mzext ) + MzN W + MzM L G (connector equation)
0 = y − rb (output equation)
0 = θN W − u (output equation)
C omparing this system of equations with (4.10 ), the vector arguments are:
T
X=x = [vb , rb ] (4.16)
T
ẋ = [v̇b , ṙb ] (4.17)
w = [y, u, θN W , Fyext , FyN W
, FyM L G
, Mzext , MzN W
, MzM L G
,
T
β N W , βM L G] (4.18)
T
p = [ub , m, Izz , GN W , GM L G, xN W , x M L G] (4.19)
Since u and x are known from input and integration of ẋ respectively, 12 variables
(2 in ẋ, the remaining 10 in w) need to be solved from the 12 equations above. In
this case, this is very easily done by the model compiler using graph-based methods,
resulting in equations of the form (4.11).

4.3 Inverse model generation

As already remarked in Section 4.1, in object-oriented models causality is not yet
fixed in the implementation. This allows for automatic generation of inverse sim-
ulation models, where physical inputs and outputs have been reversed. Starting
with the bicycle model, this section sketches the underlying procedures for model
inversion. More details and examples can be found in [75, 127].

Example 4.3: The bicycle model (cntd.)

For inversion of the bicycle model, the input and outputs are now selected as follows:
rb = u (4.20)
y = θN W (4.21)
94 Rapid prototyping using inversion-based control

The collected model equations (4.15) remain the same, only the last two are replaced
with (4.20) and (4.21). The number of unknowns and equations does not change.
H owever, equation (4.20) no longer contains unknowns, since rb is a state variable.
The model compiler will therefore diff erentiate the equation:
ṙb = u̇ (4.22)
Since this requires availability of the derivative of the new input u, the user is requested
to facilitate this. O ne option is to declare u̇ as input, rather than u, or to generate a
diff erentiable u from e.g. a filter with relative degree 1. In this example, the following
filter is added:
ṙc = −1/τu rc + 1/τu ucm d (4.23)
u = rc so that: (4.24)
u̇ = ṙc (4.25)
where τu is the filter time constant, rc is the commanded yaw rate, and ucm d is
the commanded input. The diff erentiated equation (4.22) and the filter add three
equations, but just two unknowns: u̇ and ṙc . O ne solution now is to introduce a
so-called dummy-derivative for u [8 2]: instead of u̇, u0 is used, making u and u0
independent variables:
ṙb = u0 (4.26)
u0 = ṙc (4.27)
The total number of equations now amounts 15, from which 15 unknown variables
can be solved, resulting in the following set of diff erential equations:
ẋ = f (x, ucm d , p) (4.28)
θN W = h(x, ucm d , p) (4.29)
T
where x = [vb , rb , rc ] . The obtained inverse model may be connected with the
original model, as depicted in Figure 4.5. B ecause of (4.26 ), the depicted relation be-
1
us+ 1

1
s
.
ucmd rc u' in v ers e N W rb
co m m a n d bicycle bicycle
filter m o d el (d yn .) m o d el
rc

Figure 4.5: Controlled bicycle model

tween u0 a nd th e o u tp u t rb is a n integ ra tio n. In c o m b ina tio n with th e c o m m a nd fi lter

(with d iff erentia b le o u tp u t rc ), th e tra nsfer fu nc tio n b etween ucm d a nd rb b ec o m es:
1
rb = ucm d (4 .3 0 )
τu s + 1
4.3 Inverse model generation 95

The selection of τu thus determines the command response behav iour, which is inde-
pendent of the parameters p. In F igure 4 .6 an ex ample response of the configuration
in F igure 4 .5 is shown. To the left the command response of rb perfectly matches
the response of the command filter rc to the step input on ucmd . To the right the
lateral acceleration (ny = − (v̇b + ub rb ) / g, g = 9 .8 1 m/ s2 ) response in the C oG and
the defl ections of θN W are shown for future reference.

Yaw rate Lateral acceleration, NWS input

0.01 0.025

0.008 u 0.02
c

(rad)
rb
rc, rb (rad/s)

0.006 r 0.015 −n
y
c

NW
θNW

−ny (−), θ
0.004 0.01

0.002 0.005

0 0
0 2 4 6 8 10 0 2 4 6 8 10
time (s) time (s)

Figure 4.6: E x a mp le time resp onse of th e stru ctu re in F ig u re 4.5

In order to ma k e a comp a rison w ith inv ersion-ba sed controller synth esis meth ods,
th e tra nsla tion for inv erse models is sk etch ed sta rting from (4.11), ra th er th a n
(4.10):
ẋ = f (x, uc , uo , p) (4.31)
ycmd = hcmd (x, p) (4.32 )
T h e inp u ts u h a v e been div ided into uc (a v a ila ble to th e control la w s) a nd uo
(a ny oth er inp u ts, lik e distu rba nces, fl a p setting s, etc.). T h e ou tp u ts y h a v e been
g rou p ed into ycmd (comma nd v a ria bles, to be tra ck ed by th e controller), a nd oth er
ou tp u ts yo (sensor ou tp u ts, oth er v a ria bles for a ssessment, etc.). T h e ou tp u ts yo
a re comp u ted from:
yo = ho (x, u, p) (4.33)
M odel inv ersion inv olv es a ssig ning ycmd a s inp u ts a nd uc a s ou tp u ts. F or now it
is a ssu med th a t th e dimensions of both v a ria bles a re th e sa me a nd, a s a lrea dy
a p p a rent from (4.32 ), do not a lg ebra ica lly dep end on ea ch oth er. A s in th e bicy-
cle ex a mp le a bov e, immedia tely th e p roblem a rises th a t (4.32 ) no long er conta ins
u nk now ns. M a nu a l nonlinea r controller synth esis meth ods lik e F B L , a nd a model
comp iler both a ddress th is p roblem in th e sa me w a y a s in ex a mp le 4.3: by dif-
ferentia ting ea ch of th e indiv idu a l ou tp u t eq u a tions. T h is ca n be described u sing
L ie deriv a tiv es [12 1, 46 ] for th e ith entry a s follow s:
∂ hcmdi (x, p)
ẏcmdi = · f (x, uc , uo , p) = Lf hcmdi (x, p) (4.34)
∂ xT
96 Rapid prototyping using inversion-based control

In case Lf hcmdi (x, p) does not explicitly depend on one or more control inputs,
diff erentiation proceeds:
(r )
i
ycmd i
= Lrfi hcmdi (x, p) (4.35)

where (ri ) is the rith derivative. This procedure is repeated for each of the entries
in ycmd until each of the entries of uc can be solved. If done manually, this
procedure may be quite tedious, especially if relative orders of ycmd are high. In
case of object-oriented modelling, the procedure is performed automatically. The
algorithms by P antelides [99] are used to determine the minimum number of times
each of the equations (4.32) has to be diff erentiated until uc can be solved for.
Eventually, the model diff erential equations can be written in the following form:

ẋ = finv (x, ν, uo , p) (4.36)

uc = hinv (x, ν, uo , p) (4.37 )

where finv arises from f by substitution of uc (in the case that uc cannot be solved
explicitly, a solution is found numerically). The vector ν contains diff erentiated
entries of ycmd :

(rny c ) T
h i
(r1 ) (r2 )
ν = ycmd 1
, ycmd 2
, · · · , ycmd n
(4.38)
y c

The model translator will make the user aware that derivatives of ycmd are ex-
pected as inputs, rather than ycmd directly. These derivatives may then for ex-
ample be generated using command fi lters with relative degrees of r1 , ..., rny c
respectively.
The inversion procedure described above is very similar to the one for synthesis of
Feedback Linearisation control laws [121, 46]. The principal diff erence is that in
these references the diff erential equations depend on the controls uc in an affi ne
way.
In equations (4.36) and (4.37 ) the diff erential equations for x(t) have been re-
tained. In order to make sure the inverse model is stable, finv must be investi-
gated. For this, methods as described in [121, 46] may be used.
S o far, the inverse and forward systems connected in series are still two indepen-
dent entities, each including diff erential equations for nearly the same selection
of state variables. Modelling errors, disturbances, integration errors, etc. will
eventually cause the internal states x in (4.37 ) to deviate from the actual state
variables of the system and worse, the rith derivative of the system output ycmdi
to deviate from the commanded νi . For this reason, the inverse control laws
are usually combined with a feedback controller and inverse model states are ob-
tained from measurement or a reference model. The diff erences between various
inversion-based synthesis methods, like FBL, MFC and IFFC, is mainly in these
aspects. This will be shown for the bicycle model.
4.4 A rapid prototyping design process 97

Example 4.4: The bicycle model (cntd.)

Figure 4.7 shows various control structures around the core of reference filter/model,
inverse model, and system (Figure 4.5). The first variant adds a feedback control
law, regulating the error between the actual yaw rate rb and rc , commanded by the
reference filter. The inverse model includes its own state eq uations. In fact, this
structure is comparable with inverting a (proper) transfer function of the linearised
system and to add this as a dynamic compensator. The integrated states in the
inverse model eq uations will easily drift away from the actual values in the controlled
system. For this reason, the next variant generates reference values for states in the
command model, extending the command filter with desired dynamics for the lateral
velocity vb , using a state eq uation for vbc . In order to mak e sure vbc ≈ vb , the error
in between is also regulated by the feedback controller. The advantage is that the
internal or z ero dynamics of the system (in this case, vb ) are not left on their own.
B oth controller structures have the disadvantage that the feedback controller still may
req uire scheduling as a function of parameters p (4.1 9 ) or, in case of an aircraft, the
flight condition. The third variant therefore uses feedback around both the system
and the inverse model. Furthermore, the internal states are directly obtained from
measurement. The latter provides the most accurate inversion, but req uires the full
state vector to be measured, or estimated. The latter structure is the one behind
Feedback L inearisation (FB L ) or N onlinear D ynamic Inversion (N D I).

As can be seen from the example, states are preferably not integrated within the
inverse model itself, but rather obtained from the reference model (MFC) [42], or
from measurement (FBL, N D I). In order to facilitate this, a model compiler can
easily declare states as inputs instead. The model differential equations are then
automatically removed.

4.4 A rapid prototyping design process

As discussed in the previous section, once the system model is available in an
object-oriented form the generation of an inversion-based controller requires little
effort, since algebraic and coding work is automated. O f course, the generated
control laws are not ready for hardware implementation, but they are fully func-
tional over the operating envelope and can (apart from the selection of a few
feedback gains) readily be used as a prototype design in a manned or off-line
simulation environment. In the introductory section several examples of practical
use in flight control law design have been discussed.
Figure 4.8 shows the basic steps for inversion-based design up to detailed design.
Although the model is assumed to be available, model construction has been
added as a first step. The reason is that not necessarily all dynamics in the
model are to be inverted. For example, actuator models are often represented
by low order transfer functions. The internal states are usually not available as
98 Rapid prototyping using inversion-based control

.
rc u' in v ers e N W rb
ucm d bicycle bicycle
co m m a n d
rc m o d el (d yn .) + m o d el
filter
K (s )

+ -
In v e rs e fe e d -fo rw a rd

.
rc u' in v ers e N W rb
ucm d bicycle bicycle
referen ce
xc m o d el (s ta t.) + m o d el
m o d el
xc K (s )
x
M o d e l fo llo w in g + -

.
rc u' in v ers e N W rb
ucm d bicycle bicycle
co m m a n d
rc + m o d el (s ta t.) m o d el
filter
K (s ) x

N D I, F B L
+ -

Figure 4.7: Controlled bicycle model: various inverse controller structures

measurements from the real actuator, or sometimes not even of physical origin.
It is common practice to residualise the transfer function to a static gain, since
the bandwidth is usually considerably higher than that of the aircraft dynamics.
Also, it should be kept in mind that model complexity directly influences inverse
control law complexity. For this reason, if complex features can be reasonably
replaced with simplified versions, this should be taken into consideration.
The next step in Figure 4.8 is command variable selection. In most cases this
selection is not based on free choice, since commonality with other aircraft series
is required. In new applications, like manual on-ground control, this section may
not be obvious from the start. The same holds for selection of control effectors
to be used. In case of redundancy, equations or algorithms have to be added
in order to allow the model compiler to appropriately allocate and co-ordinate
control deflections.
The type of nonlinear control law that is generated depends on the way the linear
feedback control law and command filters are implemented (see for example Fig-
ure 4.7). In this chapter, always NDI is used, avoiding the need for gain scheduling
of the linear control law as a function of flight condition and other known param-
4.4 A rapid prototyping design process 99

eters (e.g. landing gear position). In the Flight Dynamics Library some control
structures are available that may be copied to the model and interconnected prior
to inverse model generation. After the inverse model code has been generated,
it may be implemented in the preferred simulation environment with the aircraft
simulation model. The preliminary design may be evaluated in batch or pilot-
in-the-loop simulations. Once the basic configuration has been froz en, detailed
design may start, involving feedback signal synthesis (estimation of all states used
in the inverse model equations), tuning of free controller parameters, robustness
assessment, etc. In this phase also the coding must be reviewed. For example,
variables computed from environment models are to be replaced with measured
ones, iterative equation solving should be prevented, etc. An application example
of the rapid-prototyping process up to manned simulations is described in [123].
Chapter 5 of this thesis describes a detailed design for a (flight tested) automatic
landing system, with emphasis on robustness aspects.
.
C onstru ct aircraft m od e l

SSelection
e le ction of com
command
m and vvariables
ariab le s (ycmc m d )

Allocation of controls (uc)

B asic d e cisions

Ad d line ar controlle r /
com m and filte rs (from lib rary )

Inv e rsion of A/C m od e l Au tom atic

Working design

P re lim inary analy sis B atch / re al-tim e

(v alid ate /com p are b asic d e cisions) sim u lation

no
ok
W ork ing p rototy p e for yes
oth e r d e p artm e nts

D e taile d d e sig n
.

Figure 4.8: Flight control law design process from rapid-prototyping to detailed
design

T he b asic decisions in Figu re 4 .8 req u ire physical insight b y the designer. In the
fi rst place, selected control eff ectors shou ld actu ally b e su itab le to perform the
track ing of command v ariab les. For ex ample, for roll rate track ing control eff ectors
shou ld b e u sed that primarily generate moments arou nd the aircraft longitu dinal
ax is. A lso, when selecting the lateral load factor as a command v ariab le, the
100 Rapid prototyping using inversion-based control

designer should be aware that the rudder generates a yawing moment, as well as
a small side force, reducing the relative degree (to be introduced in C hapter 5 ) of
the input-output relation to z ero. The model compiler will exploit the small side
force when generating inverse model equations. Although tracking performance
may look good at first sight, internal dynamics will be unstable, since (at least
in the C oG ) the lateral acceleration response to rudder input is non-minimum
phase2 . In that case, the designer has to adapt the aerodynamic model to make
sure the rudder no longer infl uences side force, or the command variable selection
must be reviewed. S imilar practical issues are discussed in R ef. [1 2 3 ].

Example 4.5: The bicycle model (cntd.)

Making an improper selection of command variable can once more be nicely illustrated
on th e bicycle model. S uppose th e lateral load factor in th e C oG is ch osen:

θN W = u
y = −ny = ( v̇b + ub rb ) / g (4.3 9 )

w h ere g is th e gravity acceleration. T h e – sign h as been added in order to obtain

command responses in th e same direction as for yaw rate control. T h e model compiler
w ill q uickly sh ow th at from th e connector eq uation for lateral force it follow s th at:

( v̇b + ub rb ) / g = (GN W βN W + GM L G βM L G )/m g (4.40 )

S ince βN W depends on th e control eff ector θN W , inversion may be done w ith out dif-
ferentiation of th e eq uation. F igure 4 .9 sh ow s th e time responses to a step command
on nyc . T o th e left it appears th at ny is perfectly follow ing its command. T o th e
righ t, th e response of rb and θN W are sh ow n. It immediately becomes clear th at th e
internal dynamics of th e combined system are badly damped. T h e reason is q uite
obvious and could h ave been th ough t of in advance. B eing positioned at th e front of
th e aircraft, th e nose w h eel steering is primarily intended to generate yaw ing moments
around th e vertical ax is to initiate and to maintain a turn. T h e lateral force is neces-
sary to ach ieve th is, but at th e same time infl uences th e total lateral force balance.
T h e inverse controller is just using th is eff ect to ach ieve its tracking task, th ereby
generating large yaw ing moments th at make th e yaw response go w ild. O ne solution
in th is case is to ch ange th e command variable (e.g. ny ≈ −ub rb / g ), as is depicted in
F igure 4 .1 0 . N ote th at a fi rst order command fi lter is req uired and th at th e response
of course closely resembles F igure 4 .6 . T h e direct feed th rough of th e lateral force
generated by θN W can be seen in th e ny response to th e left. In th e mean time, th e
yaw rate increases, taking over th e main eff ect on ny due to centrifugal acceleration.

2A nice example is given in [85].

4.5 Aircraft-on-ground control design application 101

Lateral acceleration Yaw rate, NWS input

0.012 0.02
rb
0.01 0.015 θNW

(rad)
0.008 0.01
−n , −n (−)

−ny

NW
c
y

c
0.006 0.005

r (rad/s), θ
−ny
y

0.004 0

b
0.002 −0.005

0 −0.01
0 2 4 6 8 10 0 2 4 6 8 10
time (s) time (s)

Figure 4.9: Example time response of the IFFC bicycle model with ny as com-
mand variable

Lateral acceleration −3
x 10 Yaw rate, NWS input
0.01 5

rb
0.008 −n 4
rb (rad/s), θNW (rad)

y θNW
c

0.006 −ny (appr.) 3

−ny (−)

−ny
0.004 2

0.002 1

0 0
0 2 4 6 8 10 0 2 4 6 8 10
time (s) time (s)

Figure 4.1 0 : Example time response of the IFFC bicycle model with approximate
ny as command variable

4.5 Aircraft-on-ground control design application

In this section the rapid-prototyping design process is applied to develop basic
control laws for an aircraft manoeuvring on the ground. D esign specifications
and model data have been provided in the frame of GARTEU R Flight M echanics
Action Group 17 on nonlinear flight control and are provided in Ref.[48].
First step in development of on-ground control laws of course is to prepare the
aircraft simulation model. To this end, inputs and outputs identical to those of
the Aircraft block on the right in Figure 4.11 are added to the object-oriented
implementation in Figure 4.2. This is done by extracting and inserting signals
from and into the data bus. The model compiler then produces simulation code,
which replaces the aforementioned Aircraft block in the original implementation.
In order to properly initialise the simulation model, trim computation is needed.
As described in Appendix A, this can be done in two ways: by generating static
simulation code from the object model after specifying trimming conditions as
inputs and unknown control deflections as outputs, or by automatically generating
a script based on the differential equations generated for simulation. This script
102 Rapid prototyping using inversion-based control

Figure 4.11: Generation of simulation code for the aircraft on ground model.
N ote that inputs and outputs match those in the Simulink environment and are
inserted into and taken from the bus via the avionics object.

specifies which entries of x, ẋ, y and u are known or unknown (making sure the
numbers of equations and unknowns fit) and calls a nonlinear equation solver to
find the trim settings [72]. For the aircraft-on-ground model the latter version was
used, allowing for accurate computation of equilibrium conditions on the ground
as well as in the air.
The preliminary design of on-ground control laws will be discussed along the lines
of Figure 4.8. The first step involves composition of an appropriate model for
inversion. The following changes as compared with the original model are made:
1. Removal of actuator dynamics on the nose wheel steering system. It is
assumed that
θ N Wc = θ N W
i.e. the nose wheel steering angle θN W directly follows its commanded value
θN Wc . In the simulation model, from which the actuator dynamics of course
are not removed, the command input is the servo valve control current
(ISV N W ). For computing the appropriate input from θN Wc the nose wheel
steering control law provided within the B SCU is used (see Ref. [48]);
2. The computation of the lateral tyre force of (only) the nose wheel is simpli-
fied as follows:
Fy N W
≈ Gy N W
(t)βN W
where GyN W (t) is the current cornering gain of the combined nose wheels
(depends on momentary vertical loading, see Ref. [48]). The reason is that
the actual nonlinear function has a maximum at βN Wo p t , causing inversion
problems if the demanded side force FyN W is larger than FyN W m a x (Ref.
[48]);
4.5 Aircraft-on-ground control design application 103

3. L imits on control inputs that are to be computed must be removed from the
model to be inverted. O therwise, no solution exists once control deflections
beyond these limits are required;

4. W ind and other disturbance models are removed.

The next step in Figure 4.8 is to make a selection of command variables. Based
on the objective to control lateral dynamics only, a number of options may be
considered: (1) yaw rate, (2) lateral acceleration in the CoG, and (3) lateral
acceleration in the cockpit. In this section, the yaw rate design will be elaborated.
The other options have been evaluated in Ref. [95].
For turning the aircraft, the two most obvious controls are rudder δR and nose
wheel steering θN W . The first is most effective at higher dynamic pressure, the
second most at lower speeds. O ther means, like differential braking are not con-
sidered for the moment. In order to invert the model, some rule must be provided
how to distribute the available control power between both effectors. As a first
step, the distribution is based on calibrated airspeed, as shown in Figure 4.12. If
Vca s < Vlo w = 30 m/ s only nose wheel steering is used, if Vca s > Vh ig h = 80 m/ s
only rudder is used for yaw control, in between a linear blend based on generated
yawing moments is applied. O f course, the values of Vlo w and Vh ig h can be op-
timised or a more advanced allocation structure may be selected in the detailed
design phase.

  




 





  



   


 








  

   

Figure 4.12: Initial allocation of nose wheel steering and rudder as a function of
airspeed

In order to implement the control architecture, a structure as depicted in Fig-

ure 4.13 has been constructed. To the left, the control allocation can be recog-
nised. The outputs are δR and θN W . The allocation block obtains its required
variables from the aircraft data bus. To the right the linear P I control law as well
as the command filter can be recognised. As in the case of the bicycle model ex-
ample, the yaw rate has relative order one after removal of actuator and hydraulic
system dynamics. Initially, the yaw rate rb = rc is set as input and inserted into
the data bus. After connection with the aircraft model, the compiler will notify
104 Rapid prototyping using inversion-based control

the designer that rb needs to be differentiated once in order to solve the inversion
p roblem . A s in case of ex am p le 4 .3 , the com m and shap ing fi lter:
1
rc = ucm d (4 .4 1)
τr s + 1
is added, w here ucm d is the new com m and inp u t. T he m odel com p iler m ay then
differentiate rc . T he feedback controller is added as is done in N D I or F eedback
L inearisation, see F ig u re 4 .7 . T he error betw een com m anded and actu al y aw rate
is m inim ised u sing a P I controller. S ince this sy stem is to p rodu ce references for
the differentiated com m and variable, a sm all trick is ap p lied in F ig u re 4 .13 : the
derivative of the y aw rate com m and is tak en from the com m and fi lter and fed to
the data bu s via an integ rator. T he P I controller ou tp u t m ay then be added to ṙc
before the integ rator inp u t. D u ring com p ilation, this integ rator is au tom atically
rem oved w hen differentiating rb , since the latter variable is an enforced state in
the im p lem ented airfram e eq u ations of m otion.

u u'
.

C ontrol allocation: N W S / ru dder

N W 1 rc
.
N W R S +
1

R linear PI command filter ucm d

controller
+ 1 +
Vca s - rc S 1/r
u= rb -

rs e n s
A ircraft b u s acces s

C onnect w ith A /C b u s

Figure 4.13: Im p lem entation of inverse control law in M odelica

T he com p lete block in F ig u re 4 .13 is added to the p rep ared aircraft-on-g rou nd
m odel and connected to the aircraft data bu s (F ig u re 4 .2 ). N ote that the stru c-
tu re itself is aircraft indep endent. F or this reason it has been added to the F lig ht
D y nam ics L ibrary , along side a sim ilar block for inversion-based pb , qb and β con-
trol in fl ig ht. O f cou rse, p aram eters m u st be set dep ending on the sp ecifi c aircraft
ty p e and control sp ecifi cations. A s show n in the F B L variant in F ig u re 4 .7 , m odel
states are obtained from m easu rem ent. T o this end, the m odel com p iler sim p ly
rep laces aircraft states w ith inp u ts, w hile rem oving u nnecessary state eq u ations.
T he integ rator in the P I controller as w ell as in the com m and in F ig u re 4 .13 have
to be retained. S ince the control law is to be em bedded in the discrete overall
control sy stem (R ef. [4 8 ]), the integ rator state fu rther needs to be discretised.
T his is done by the m odel com p iler by adding an in-line integ ration alg orithm [3 3 ].
In this case, a sim p le ex p licit E u ler integ ration m ethod w ith a 4 0 m s sam p ling
p eriod has been inclu ded.
4.5 Aircraft-on-ground control design application 105

After automatic model inversion and coding, first simulation runs can already
be performed. To this end, step inputs on the yaw rate command (ucmd ) are
given starting at four different trimmed airspeeds: well below Vlo w (10 m/ s), well
over Vh ig h (85 m/ s), and two in between (40 m/ s and 6 0 m/ s), see Figure 4.12.
The yaw rate responses are the most interesting. As depicted in Figure 4.14, they
match the expected first order behaviour as in Figure 4.6 quite well. At this point,
only hand-picked values have been set for the linear control law and command
filter parameters. In following design steps, these values may be tuned to optimise
robustness and performance, for example using multi objective optimisation, see
C hapter 5 and Ref. [9 5 ].
Next, it is interesting to look at the distributions between aerodynamic and nose
wheel steering moments (Figs. 4.15 – 4.18). At 10 m/ s the aerodynamic moment
is z ero, the turn is initiated and maintained using the nose wheel steering only.
At 40 m/ s some moment is generated aerodynamically, at 6 0 m/ s the distribution
is relatively balanced, whereas starting from 85 m/ s steering is only performed
aerodynamically. Since no caster has been included in the original model (Ref.
[48]), the control law is actively turning the nose wheel to follow its local track.
Note that at low speeds the rudder slightly deflects, see Figure 4.19 . This is
caused by the fact that the rudder is compensating for a small aerodynamic yawing
moment caused by slipping and yaw rate, so that the total aerodynamic moment
is z ero. Alternatively, the moment distribution may be applied to the yawing
moment delivered by the rudder only. H owever, in the case of the aircraft-on-
ground model the aerodynamics have been provided as a “ black box” from which
the explicit rudder contribution can only be derived indirectly, which has not been
done for this first design. In Figs. 4.20 – 4.23 the actual and commanded nose
wheel steering deflections are shown. Note that the curves match well, justifying
the removal of NW S actuator dynamics from the inverse model. H owever, in case
of high command inputs measures have to be taken in order to prevent saturation
of the nose wheel steering system. In Figs. 4.20 – 4.23 an interesting effect in the
model can be observed. Starting from 10 m/ s, the nose wheel steering angle is
initially positive and remains so in order to maintain the turn. The corresponding
slip angle of the nose wheel has opposite sign. At higher speeds the nose wheel
steering angle becomes strongly negative in the longer term. This is explained by
the over all side slip angle of the aircraft, required to generate the centripetal force
that is necessary to turn. In order to generate the required yawing moment, this
slip angle is partly compensated for, so that the nose wheel is moving outward
with respect to the turn. Above 80 m/ s the nose wheel should rotate with the
local velocity vector at the nose of the aircraft. In Figure 4.23 it can be observed
that the NW S angle starts with a small offset. This offset was obtained from trim
computation and compensates a slight asymmetry in the aerodynamics.
As advertised in the process picture in Figure 4.8, the control law obtained from
automatic inversion is working properly. This has been proved at a range of
taxi speeds and is further confirmed by interactive real-time simulations using a
desktop simulator [70]. This simulator allows the aircraft to be taxied around on
an airport. The control laws in their present form for example allow for take-off
106 Rapid prototyping using inversion-based control

Yaw rate step response

1.2

0.8
yaw rate (deg/s)

0.6

0.4

0.2
10 m/s
40 m/s
0 60 m/s
85 m/s

−0.2
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20
Time (s)

Figure 4.14: Yaw rate responses for different velocities

Aero and NWS moments: Vground = 10 m/s

NWS
Moment (Nm)

Aero

0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20
Time (s)

Figure 4.15 : Moment distribution at 10 m/s

4.5 Aircraft-on-ground control design application 107

Aero and NWS moments: Vground = 40 m/s

NWS
Aero
Moment (Nm)

0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20
Time (s)

Figure 4.16: Moment distribution at 40 m/s

Aero and NWS moments: Vground = 60 m/s

Moment (Nm)

NWS
Aero
0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20
Time (s)

Figure 4.17 : Moment distribution at 60 m/s

108 Rapid prototyping using inversion-based control

Aero and NWS moments: Vground = 85 m/s

Moment (Nm)

NWS
Aero

0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20
Time (s)

Figure 4.18: Moment distribution at 85 m/s

Rudder deflection

0
rudder (deg)

10 m/s
40 m/s
60 m/s
85 m/s

0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20
Time (s)

Figure 4.19 : Rudder deflections at various airspeeds

4.5 Aircraft-on-ground control design application 109

Nose wheel steering: Vground = 10 m/s

Angle (deg)

NWS angle
NWS angle command
NW slip angle
Sideslip angle CoG

0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20
Time (s)

Figure 4.20: Nose wheel steering and slip angles at 10 m/s

Nose wheel steering: Vground = 40 m/s

NWS angle
NWS angle command
NW slip angle
Sideslip angle CoG
Angle (deg)

0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20
Time (s)

Figure 4.21: Nose wheel steering and slip angles at 40 m/s

110 Rapid prototyping using inversion-based control

Nose wheel steering: Vground = 60 m/s

NWS angle
NWS angle command
NW slip angle
Sideslip angle CoG

0
Angle (deg)

0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20
Time (s)

Figure 4.22: Nose wheel steering and slip angles at 60 m/s

Nose wheel steering: Vground = 85 m/s

0
Angle (deg)

NWS angle
NWS angle command
NW slip angle
Sideslip angle CoG

0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20
Time (s)

Figure 4.23: Nose wheel steering and slip angles at 85 m/s

4.6 Conclusions 111

simulations from brake release until the aircraft is airborne, even under strong
and turbulent cross-wind conditions. This provides a good basis to start detailed
design (Figure 4.8) from.

4.6 Conclusions
In this chapter it has been shown that inversion-based control methods, in com-
bination with an object-oriented model implementation allow for automatic syn-
thesis of fully functional preliminary control laws. The resulting fast design cycle
can be exploited to make quick simulation-based comparisons between for example
various control configurations. The preliminary control laws are easily adapted
as more model data becomes available and can be used as a platform for detailed
design of individual functions. The methodology has been demonstrated on an
aircraft-on-ground problem, showing functionality of the preliminary control laws
in manoeuvring over the full speed range from brake release at stand-still to take-
off.
Once key decisions have been made and the aircraft configuration is frozen, de-
tailed design may proceed based on the same methodology. In this phase issues
like robustness, feedback signal processing, system failures, coding, etc. are ad-
dressed. This is subject of Chapter 5.
It is important to note that key decisions, especially in the first steps in Fig-
ure 4.8, are made by the designer. As demonstrated on a simple example, not the
successful inversion by the model compiler, but the designer’s physical insight is
the key to a successful control law design.
112 Rapid prototyping using inversion-based control
Chapter 5

Design of robust autopilot

control laws with Nonlinear
Dynamic Inversion
114 Design of control laws with NDI

Abstract
The application of Nonlinear Dynamic Inversion for the design of a robust
attitude controller for a civil aircraft is discussed. The main function of
the controller is to improve the fl ying q ualities, including stability, of the
aircraft dynamics. F or parameter synthesis multi-objective optimisation
is used. The req uired robustness is achieved via a multi-model approach
and local robustness criteria. In addition to the feedback gains, physi-
cal parameters in the inverse model that are considered uncertain in the
design model, are used as synthesis parameters. The control law s are au-
tomatically generated from a symbolic aircraft model in the object-oriented
modelling language M odelica. The design w as used as a stability and com-
mand augmentation function in an automatic F ly-by-W ire landing system
and w as successfully fl ight tested.

C o n tributio n s
• A structured approach for incorporating local and global robustness
concepts in multi-objective control law design;
• A n optimisation procedure for searching a best-compromise location
for model inversion in the uncertain parameter space.

P ublicatio n
G ertjan L ooye: Design of Robust Autopilot Control Laws with Nonlinear
Dynamic Inversion, at – A utomatisierungstechnik V ol. 4 9 (1 2 ), O lden-
bourg V erlag, M unich, 2 0 0 1 , pp. 5 2 3 – 5 3 1 .
Design of control laws with NDI 115

HE design of flight control laws is a demanding task due to the fact that
T many aircraft configurations and a considerable operating envelope have to
be taken into account. In order to achieve satisfactory performance in all flight
conditions, gain-scheduling is usually required.

Nonlinear Dynamic Inversion (NDI) is an attractive alternative to the gain-sche-

duling approach. In NDI the nonlinear dynamics are compensated via inverse
model equations in the control laws. The methodology has found many applica-
tions, especially for the design of flight control laws for post-stall flight of high
performance fighter aircraft [5, 122, 123].

In this chapter the application of NDI to design attitude control laws for a civil
aircraft is described. These are used for stability and command augmentation in
an automatic landing system.

NDI is a special case of Feedback Linearisation [121], where the model output
equations of the controlled variables need to be differentiated only once to arrive
at an analytical relation with the control inputs that can be inverted. The closed-
loop system is reduced to a set of integrators and the desired dynamics can be
imposed using a linear outer loop controller.

An important drawback of Nonlinear Dynamic Inversion is that the resulting

control laws may show poor robustness to uncertainties in the design model [34,
10]. Furthermore, the derivation, coding, and verification of the control laws can
be tedious and error-prone, especially when the model is complex.

U sually, robustness is addressed in the design of the linear part of the controller
[34, 5, 10]. In this contribution, it is shown that physical parameters in the inverse
control laws that are considered uncertain in the design model, can be effectively
used as additional synthesis parameters to achieve a robust design.

Furthermore, the automatic generation of NDI control laws from the symbolic air-
craft model in Modelica as described in the previous chapter is used, considerably
relieving the derivation, coding and verification tasks.

This chapter is structured as follows. In Section 5.1 Nonlinear Dynamic Inversion

is reviewed. In Section 5.2 the aircraft model is described and in Section 5.3 the
automatic generation of control laws from the symbolic model implementation
in Modelica is reviewed. In Section 5.4 the tuning of the synthesis parameters
for the lateral-directional dynamics is described. The results of three design can-
didates will be discussed and compared in Section 5.5. Flight test results with
the controller are discussed in Section 5.6. Finally, in Section 5.7 conclusions are
drawn.
116 Design of control laws with NDI

5.1 Nonlinear Dynamic Inversion

It is assumed that the nonlinear system model can be brought into the following
form (assumption 1):
ẋ = f (x, pk , pu ) + g(x, pk , pu )uc (5.1)
ycmd = hcmd (x, pk , pu ) (5.2)
yo = ho (x, pk , pu ) (5.3)
where x ∈ IR nx is the state vector, uc ∈ IR nu c is the input vector1 , ycmd ∈ IR ny c m d
is the vector of outputs that are to be controlled, and yo ∈ IR ny o contains any
other outputs. In this chapter it is assumed that the number of controlled inputs
and outputs is equal: ny cmd = nuc (assumption 2). In case this assumption
does not hold the method is still applicable, see for example Section 4.5. Two
types of model parameters are distinguished: parameters that are known on-line
(pk ∈ IR np k ) and parameters that are uncertain (pu ∈ IR np u ). The vector uc only
contains inputs that may be used by the controller. Any other system inputs are
considered as known parameters (∈ pk ). Note that (5.1) is affi ne in uc , but it
suffi ces if uc can be explicitly solved from this equation.
As a first step, the output equation hcmd is differentiated:
∂ hcmd (x, pk , pu ) d x
ẏcmd =
∂ xT dt
= Lf hcmd (x, pk , pu ) + Lg hcmd (x, pk , pu )uc (5.4)
where Lf hcmd and Lg hcmd are first order Lie-derivatives of hcmd along f and g
respectively:
d hcmd d hcmd
Lf hcmd = · f, Lg hcmd = ·g (5.5)
d xT d xT
It is assumed that, in addition to assumption 2, all outputs have relative order 1
with respect to at least one of the inputs and that Lg hcmd (x, pk , pu ) is non-singular
(assumption 3). In that case Nonlinear Dynamic Inversion can be applied2 . The
derivative Lg hcmd (x, pk , pu ) may be singular for the following reasons:
1. one or more of the differentiated outputs do not analytically depend on at
least one of the control inputs. In that case, higher order Lie derivatives of
these outputs need to be derived;
2. two or more output derivatives analytically depend on the same control
input. In that case, the choice of control variables should be reviewed,
since the current combination of control variables can not be controlled
independently;
1 The input vector appears in an affine way. This is not necessary for the application of NDI,

b ut it m ak es the sub seq uent sym b olic d erivation easier and m ore illum inating .
2 NDI is thus a special case of feed b ack linearisation, where only one d iff erentiation of each

controlled variab le is req uired to enab le inversion [1 2 1 ].

5.1 Nonlinear Dynamic Inversion 117

3. in case assumption 2 does not hold (i.e. l 6= k). This may be overcome by
computing a pseudo-inverse, or by implementing control allocation logic (if
k > l) (see Chapter 4 and Refs. [5, 118]).
Even if Lg hcmd (x, pk , pu ) is non-singular one has to be careful that the physical
relations are suitable for inversion. An example is given in Section 4.4 for load
factor control.
With assumption 3, inversion of eq. (5.4) results in the following control law:
−1
uc = (Lg hcmd (x̂, pk , p∗u )) (y0cmd − Lf hcmd (x̂, pk , p∗u )) (5.6)

The vector y0cmd ∈ IR nycmd contains the demanded rates of ycmd and serves as
the new control input. Note that the dot-notation (˙) has been replaced with a
prime (0), since y0cmd has become an independent control variable. The vector
x̂ contains the states as computed or estimated from available outputs ycmd and
yo . It is assumed that all states are observable from ycmd and yo (assumption 4).
The vector p∗u contains assumed values for the uncertain parameters in the inverse
model equations. Usually, nominal parameter values are chosen. Substitution of
the control law (eq. (5.6)) into (5.4) results in:
ẏcmd = Lf hcmd (x, pk , pu ) (5.7)
−1
+ Lg hcmd (x, pk , pu ) · (Lg hcmd (x̂, pk , p∗u )) (y0cmd − Lf hcmd (x̂, pk , p∗u ))
In the ideal case, when pu and x are known exactly (i.e. p∗u = pu and x̂ = x),
equation (5.7) reduces to:
Z t
ẏcmd = y0cmd ⇐ ⇒ ycmd (t) = y0cmd (τ )dτ (5.8)
0

The nonlinear system dynamics have been cancelled by the NDI control law, and
the output response to each corresponding input is reduced to an integrator. It is
necessary to carefully check the internal (zero) dynamics of the closed-loop system.
For stability it is required that the relation between uc and ycmd is minimum phase
(assumption 5) [121]. Sometimes, instability of a slow mode is acceptable. In case
of fighter aircraft it often occurs that the phugoid mode becomes slowly divergent.
This however can usually be handled by the (auto-) pilot without problems [123].
Using a linear feedback law it is now possible to impose the desired closed-loop
dynamics:

y0cmd = K(s)(yre f − ycmd ) (5.9)

where yre f is the commanded output vector. Substitution in (5.8) gives:

−1
ycmd (s) = (Im s + K(s)) K(s)yre f (s) (5.10)

The resulting closed-loop system is depicted in Figure 5.1. Alternatively, a so-

called two degrees-of-freedom linear design may be applied:

y0cmd = K2 (s)(yre f − ycmd ) + sycmd (5.11)

118 Design of control laws with NDI

yr e f ycm d
A irc raft
L in ear
c o n tro ller
'
ycm d In v ers e
c o n tro ller
uc d y n am ic s
yo
K (s ) (p k , p u *) (p k , p u )

^x State
I es tim atio n
~ s & filterin g

Figure 5.1: Closed-loop system with Dynamic Inversion control laws

where yref is generated from a command filter. The control law K2 (s) then has a
purely regulatory function, whereas for K(s) this is to be combined with shaping
of the command signal. The latter structure has been used in the ground control
application in Chapter 4.
From the derivation above, it will be clear that Nonlinear Dynamic Inversion has
a number of advantageous features:
1. the method is straight-forward and easy to understand (equation (5.6));
2. the closed-loop system shows excellent nominal performance, since it is fully
decoupled and desired dynamics can be easily imposed (equations (5.8),
(5.10));
3. gain-scheduling is avoided, since the control law cancels the nonlinear system
dynamics over its operating envelope (equation (5.10)).
Applicability of NDI is restricted by the assumptions made, but for rigid body
aircraft these are in most cases fulfilled. Advantage 2 additionally requires that all
states are known accurately (x̂ = x). For aircraft this is a reasonable assumption,
since the states can be analytically computed from the available air data and
inertial reference sensors.
Dynamic inversion also has apparent disadvantages:
1. no direct way to address robustness to modelling errors. From equation (5.7)
it can be seen that in case x̂ 6= x and p∗u 6= pu the dynamics are not
fully cancelled, still resulting in nonlinear closed-loop behaviour between
the commanded and actual command variables;
2. the control laws inherit the complexity of the synthesis model.
The main contribution of this chapter lies in addressing the first disadvantage.
Regarding the second disadvantage, it must be noted that for complex models,
manual derivation, coding and validation of the control laws may be tedious and
error-prone. However, in Chapter 4 it has been shown that these tasks can be
automated to a large extent.
5.2 The Aircraft Model 119

5.2 The Aircraft Model

The control laws are designed for DLR’s Advanced Technologies Testing Aircraft
System (ATTAS) [12]. The aircraft model was implemented using the modelling
language Modelica and the Flight Dynamics Library. Implementation details can
be found in the application example in Chapter 2. In this section the equations
of motion are briefly reviewed, based on the inputs, outputs, and parameters as
grouped in the previous section.

5.2.1 Nonlinear model equations

The Newton-Euler equations of motion describe force and moment equations with
respect to body-fixed axes with their origin in the centre of gravity:

Ω̇b = I(pk , pu )−1 [MAx (xa , pk , pu ) + MAu (xa , pk , pu )uc + MT (xa , uo , pk , pu )

− Ωb × I(pk , pu )Ωb ] (5.12)
m−1 FA (xa , uc , pu ) + FT (xa , pu ) − Ωb × Vb + Tbe (Θ) [0, 0, g]T
 
V̇b =
(5 .1 3 )

w h e re Ω b = [pb , q b , r b ]T a re th e b o d y a n g u la r ra te s, Vb = [ub , v b , w b ]T is th e
in e rtia l v e lo c ity v e c to r a lo n g th e b o d y a x e s. MT a n d FT a re m o m e n ts a n d fo rc e s
in d u c e d b y th ru st, MA a n d FA a re a e ro d y n a m ic m o m e n ts a n d fo rc e s. T h e v e c to r
xa d e sc rib e s th e a ir m a ss-re fe re n c e d sta te o f th e a irc ra ft, uc a re a e ro d y n a m ic
c o n tro ls, c o n sistin g o f a ile ro n s (δA ), e le v a to r (δE ) a n d ru d d e r (δR ), uo c o n ta in s
th e th ro ttle se ttin g s fo r b o th e n g in e s. T h e g ra v ity c o n sta n t is g. T h e in e rtia
te n so r I(pk , pu ) h a s u n c e rta in ty a n d is p ro p o rtio n a l to th e m a ss m ∈ pk . T h e
m a trix Tbe (Θ) re p re se n ts th e d ire c tio n c o sin e m a trix fro m th e E a rth -re fe re n c e d
h o riz o n ta l re fe re n c e fra m e Fe in to b o d y a x e s Fb :
T
Ṙe = Tbe (Θ) Vb (5 .1 4 )

w h e re Ṙe is th e p o sitio n ra te w ith re sp e c t to th e in e rtia l re fe re n c e fra m e . In

th e A T T A S m o d e l th e E a rth -fi x e d fra m e is a ssu m e d to b e a n in e rtia l re fe re n c e .
F in a lly , th e re la tio n b e tw e e n th e a ttitu d e ra te s a n d th e b o d y a n g u la r ra te s is
g iv e n b y [1 5 ]:

Θ̇ = TΦb (Θ) Ω b (5 .1 5 )

w h e re Θ = [φ , θ , ψ ]T d e sc rib e s th e a ttitu d e o f th e a irc ra ft w ith re sp e c t to th e

h o riz o n ta l N E D fra m e a n d TΦb (Θ) (∈ IR 3×3 ) d e p e n d s o n th e c u rre n t a ttitu d e .
T h e u n c e rta in p a ra m e te rs pu in e q s. (5 .1 2 ) a n d (5 .1 3 ) a re in d u c e d b y to le ra n c e s o n
so -c a lle d a e ro d y n a m ic c o e ffi c ie n ts a n d m o m e n ts o f in e rtia , se e T a b le s 2 .5 a n d 2 .4 .
F o r e x a m p le , th e d e riv a tiv e o f th e a e ro d y n a m ic ro llin g m o m e n t c o e ffi c ie n t Cl w ith
re sp e c t to th e ro ll ra te p is w ritte n a s:

C̄lp = Clp (1 + ∆ Clp )

120 Design of control laws with NDI

where Clp is the nominal coefficient value, ∆Clp is the tolerance parameter, and
C̄lp is the perturbed coefficient. B ased on experience, the tolerances are up to
10% for longitudinal coefficients and up to 30% for lateral and ground eff ect-
related coefficients, see Table 2.5. In the frame of this chapter, lateral uncertain
parameters are of prime interest, since the control laws for lateral dynamics will
be focused on. Therefore:

pu = ∆CY , ∆Clβ , ∆Cnβ , ∆Clp , ∆Cnp , ∆Clr , ∆Cnr , (5.16 )
iT
∆ClδA , ∆CnδA , ∆ClδR , ∆CnδR , ∆Ix x , ∆Ix z , ∆Iz z

The parameters ∆CY . . . ∆CnδR are the aforementioned tolerances on aerody-

namic model coefficients. The parameters ∆Ix x , ∆Ix z , ∆Iz z represent tolerances
on elements of the inertia tensor.
From the model implemented in M odelica, simulation code for the design model is
generated according to user-specified inputs and outputs. The model outputs con-
sist of 23 measurements available to the control system, see Table 2.2. The model
inputs consist of aircraft controls uc , uo and white noise signals for turbulence
and IL S signal disturbance models, see Table 2.4.

5.2.2 Linearised model equations

The control laws developed in this chapter will undergo worst-case stability analy-
sis, requiring the model to be available in linear form. To this end, the simulation
model may be linearised numerically as described in Section A.4. H owever, for
uncertainty analysis it is more useful to perform symbolic linearisation, since this
allows the resulting linear state space matrices to be expressed as a function of
the uncertain parameters. In case this dependency is rational, the symbolic ma-
trices may be further transformed into a L inear Fractional Transformation (L FT)
[132, 44]. From its implementation in object-oriented form, symbolic linearisation
can be done automatically, resulting in the following set of equations:

δ ẋ = A(pk , pu , x0 (pk , pu ), u0 (pk , pu ))δx

+ B(pk , pu , x0 (pk , pu ), u0 (pk , pu ))δuc (5.17 )
δy = C(pk , pu , x0 (pk , pu ), u0 (pk , pu ))δx
+ D(pk , pu , x0 (pk , pu ), u0 (pk , pu ))δuc

with:
T
δx = [δVb , δΩb , δE , δRe ]
T (5.18 )
δuc = [δuc , δuo ]

where δ.. indicates small perturbations from the values around the linearisation
point. Finally, δy represents perturbations from measurement signals available
to the control laws. O nly for simplicity of notation, disturbance models (e.g.
turbulence, sensor noise) and actuator models have been left out from (5.17 ).
5.2 The Aircraft Model 121

The aerodynamic state vector xa may therefore be replaced with x. Of course, in

the actual model for design these effects are fully accounted for.
Especially for aircraft, the linear model may strongly depend on the point of
linearisation, which is characterised by the type of equilibrium, the location in
the operating envelope, and the model parameters pk and pu . For this reason
the state space matrices in (5.17) explicitly depend on the equilibrium state and
input vectors in the linearisation point: x0 (pk , pu ) and uc0 (pk , pu ). Exact symbolic
linearisation requires literal expressions for these variables, which are not always
easy to be found. A practical, but approximate approach has therefore been
proposed by the author in Reference [132]. From object oriented models x0 (pk , pu )
and uc0 (pk , pu ) can actually be solved for. However, for aircraft the expressions
may involve long polynomials, mak ing further transformation into for example
LFT form very challenging.
In the frame of this chapter only lateral control laws and parameters related
to lateral dynamics of the aircraft will be considered. Assuming the aircraft is
symmetric, lateral states and controls in straight and level fl ight are zero:

pb = 0 trim constraint: straight and level fl ight

rb = 0 trim constraint: straight and level fl ight
φ = 0 trim constraint: wings level (5.19 )
ψ = 0 trim constraint: direction of fl ight
vb = 0 trim constraint: zero side slip angle (symmetrical aircraft)

Since the ATTAS model assumes a symmetric aircraft, yawing and rolling mo-
ments as well as lateral side force are zero in the trim condition, resulting in zero
defl ection of rudder and ailerons [105]. As an example, the aerodynamic rolling
and yawing moments are:

Cn = (1 + ∆Cnβ )Cnβ β + (1 + ∆CnδR )CnδR δR + (1 + ∆CnδA )CnδA δA

pb b rb b β̇b
+ (1 + ∆Cnp )Cnp + (1 + ∆Cnr )Cnr + (1 + ∆Cnr )Cnβ̇
2Vtas 2Vtas 2Vtas
Cl = (1 + ∆Clβ )Clβ β + (1 + ∆ClδR )ClδR δR + (1 + ∆ClδA )ClδA δA
pb b rb b
+ (1 + ∆Clp )Clp + (1 + ∆Clr )Clr (5.20)
2Vtas 2Vtas
C oefficients lik e Cnβ may in turn depend on landing gear status, ground effect,
angle of attack etc. Due to (5.19 ), the control defl ections δA and δR must be zero
to ensure zero aerodynamic moments.
Since lateral uncertain parameters have no direct effect on the longitudinal dy-
namics, the equilibrium may be characterised by x0 (pk ) and uc0 (pk ). For a given
fl ight condition and set of k nown parameters pk = pk0 , the symbolic linear model
may then be written as follows:

δ ẋ = A(pu )δx + B(pu )δu

(5.21)
δy = C(pu )δx + D(pu )δu
122 Design of control laws with NDI

For example, linearising the moment equation (5.12) results in:

δ Ω̇b = I(pu )−1 (5.22)
"
∂ (MAx (x, pu ) + MAu (x, pu )uc + MAT (x, uo , pu ))
δx
∂xT x=x0 ,uc =uc0 ,uo =uo0
#
∂MAT (x, uo , pu )
+ MAu (x0 , pu )δuc + δuo
∂uTo x=x0 ,uo =uo0

Note that the second term could be written in its differentiated form straight
away, since the dependency on uc is simply affine. The inertial term Ωb × I(pu )Ωb
disappears after linearisation around straight and level flight, since Ωb0 is zero.
In case of equilibrium in turning flight (i.e. Ωb0 6= 0) the linearised term must be
retained.
From (5.20) it can be seen that the uncertain parameters appear in simple poly-
nomial form (this also holds for the tolerances on the inertia matrix I). For this
reason, the elements of the state space matrices in (5.21) depend on uncertain pa-
rameters in a rational way, allowing for symbolic transformation into LFT form
[132, 44].

5.3 Dynamic inversion attitude control laws

Objective of the design is to develop attitude control laws that will be part of
of and autoland system, providing command augmentation and stabilisation. To
this end, the controller structure as depicted in Figure 5.2 is used. This structure
basically consists of two control loops: control of attitude angles (Θ) and control
of body angular rates (Ωb ). Alternatively, one may apply the procedure for NDI
to the attitude angles. Time differentiation immediately results in eqn. (5.15):
Θ̇ = TΦb (Θ) Ωb (5.23)
Differentiating one more time:
Θ̈ = TΦb (Θ) Ω̇b + ṪΦb (Θ) Ωb (5.24)
The term Ω̇b involves the moment equations (5.12), so that an analytic relation-
ship with aerodynamic control surface deflections arises. However, in this design
a slightly different procedure is followed. Instead of (5.24), the following equation
is inverted:
Θ̇ = TΦb (Θ) Ωbcm d
(5.25)
so that:
−1
Ωbcm d
= TΦb (Θ) Θ0cm d (5.26)
where Ωbcm d
are desired body angular rates and:

Θ0cm d = KE (Θr ef − Θ) (5.27)

5.3 Dynamic inversion attitude control laws 123

here KE is a diagonal gain matrix and Θref is the vector with commanded attitude
angles. This basically implies that the derivative of the matrix TΦb (Θ) is neglected,
which is possible provided that attitude accelerations are small. The reason for
this simplification is that this allows for opening the attitude loop, commanding
Ωbcmd or Θ0cmd may be combined directly. This allows the use of the same set of
attitude control laws with different autopilot functions or for manual control. An
example will be given in the course of this chapter. In addition, neglecting the
derivative of TΦb (Θ) reduces computational effort in the Flight Control Computer
(FCC).

ref '
cm d
ref 
-1 A irc raft
KE T b(E)
c o n tro ller
'
L in ear cm d In v ers e
c o n tro ller
uc d y n am ic s 
K (s )
*
(p k , p u ) (p k , p u )

yo
^xa State
I es tim atio n
~ s & filterin g

Figure 5.2: Attitude control system

The tracking control laws for Ωbre f will be designed using the Dynamic Inversion
procedure as discussed in Section 5.1 for y = Ωb . Differentiating Ωb directly
results in the moment equation (5.12):

Ω̇b = Lf h + Lg huc = I(pk , pu )−1 [MAx (xa , pk , pu ) + MT (xa , uo , pk , pu )

− Ωb × I(pk , pu )Ωb ] + I(pk , pu )−1 MAu (xa , pk , pu )uc (5.28)

where Lg h = I(pk , pu )−1 MAu (xa , pk , pu ). Since the three control inputs in uc
are primarily moment generating devices around the three aircraft body axes,
I(pk , pu )−1 MAu (xa , pk , pu ) is (in the normal flight regime) non-singular, fulfilling
assumption 3 in Section 5.1. Inversion of (5.28) gives:

uc = MAu (x̂a , pk , p∗u )−1 [I(pk , p∗u )Ω0bcmd − MAx (x̂a , pk , p∗u )
i
− MT (x̂a , uo , pk , p∗u ) + Ω̂b × I(pk , p∗u )Ω̂b (5.29)

Note that xa has been replaced with x̂a and pu with p∗u . In the ideal case the
form of (5.8) results:

Ω̇b = Ω0bcmd
124 Design of control laws with NDI

Usually, nominal values for the parameters in p∗u are substituted, which corre-
sponds to inverting the nominal aircraft model. In this design elements of p∗u are
used as additional synthesis parameters, as will be discussed in Section 5.4.
For the linear control law K (s) a P I structure is used (Figure 5.2):
Z t
Ω0bcmd = Ki (Ωbref − Ωb )d τ + Kp Ωb (5.30)
0

The closed-loop system is depicted in Figure 5.2. The integrator on (Ωbref −Ωb ) is
required to compensate for steady errors in the moment equations. In equilibrium
flight Ωbref = Ωb = 0 holds. The integral part then allows a moment error
(for example, due to unmodelled aircraft asymmetry) to be compensated for via
nonzero Ω0bcmd . W ithout integrator, Ωbref would have to be nonzero, resulting in
a steady state error in Θ (eqn. (5.27)). The optimisation of the linear gains will
be discussed in Section 5.4.

5.3.1 Automatic control law generation

The inverse control law of eq. (5.29) is automatically generated from the aircraft
model in Dymola using the procedure described in Chapter 4, see Figure 4.8.
First step in this procedure is to adapt the model for inversion:

1. wind and terrain models are removed;

2. dynamic motivator and engine models are replaced with static versions.

The motivator dynamics are modelled as first order low-pass filters and are con-
siderably faster than the aircraft flight dynamics. For this reason, these dynamics
are neglected in the inversion. In addition, the filter approximation is only in-
tended to represent a certain amount of actuator bandwidth and to implement
rate and position limits. The internal filter state would have to be replaced with
measurement of the actual control surface deflection. This measurement however
is not reliably available on most aircraft types.
In the simulation model the radio altitude Hra is computed using the terrain
model. This object is removed and the radio altitude is defined as input instead.
Similarly, all variables computed in the atmospheric model are obtained from air
data measurements instead. However, the component has to be retained in order
to compute the Mach number, since this variable is not available from sensors.
The resulting aircraft model is left with the twelve flight dynamics states [Vb , Ωb ,
Θ, Re ]T . A body angular rate controller is selected from the Flight Dynamics
Library, see Figure 5.3. The inputs of this controller are commanded body an-
gular rates (pqrC, right) and outputs are the required control surface deflections
(Co n trS u rf ,left). The body angular rates are obtained from the data bus. The in-
tegrator left to the gain block integrates desired angular rate commands (Ω0bcmd ).
The result is connected to the body angular rates in the data bus as well. W hen
translating the model, this integrator is automatically removed by differentiation,
5.3 Dynamic inversion attitude control laws 125

Figure 5.3: Body angular rate controller from Flight Dynamics Library. The
bus connector below is connected to the aircraft data bus. Input are commanded
body rates, output are required control deflections.

so that in the model Ω̇b = Ω0bcmd . More details on this process can be found in
Chapter 4.
The object is added to the ATTAS model as depicted in Figure 5.4.
The modified model, including the linear controller, is depicted in Figure 5.4.
The inputs and outputs of the latter have been propagated as model inputs and
outputs respectively. Note that, compared with Figure 2.12, the control surfaces
ContrSurf have become outputs. Other inputs like thrust and stabiliser settings
are commanded by the pilot or autopilot and have therefore been retained, since
these effects are necessary for computation of e.g. the pitching moment.
The model may now be translated into executable form. In order to make sure
the model states are obtained from measurement instead of integration within
the inverse model, they are automatically turned into inputs by setting a cor-
responding option for translation. The Dymola formula manipulator and code
generator automatically generates the Nonlinear Dynamic Inversion control laws
of eq. (5.29) in c-code, ready for execution in Simulink and in the Flight Control
Computer (FCC)3 .

5.3.2 Implementation aspects

Dynamic Inversion control laws provide “ full” control deflections, i.e. a quasi-
steady component for trimming the aircraft, and a varying component for ma-
noeuvring. Due to model deviations, the static part may be slightly wrong. As a
consequence, the closed loop system may show considerable transient behaviour
3 After very carefully checking the code, of course.
126 Design of control laws with NDI

Figure 5.4: ATTAS model for automatic generation of NDI control laws. Note
that the terrain and runway models have been removed. The FCS component
(Figure 5.3) has been connected to the aircraft. Control deflections (ContrSurf)
have become outputs, commanded angular rates (pqrC) have been defined as
inputs (compare with Figures 2.12 and 5.2).

when the controller is initialised. For this reason, the following algorithm is used:
if init
Ω0bcmd = 0 // override input
compute uc from DI // static uc
uc0 = uc // store static uc
δuc = 0 // zero control defl.
else
Ω0bcmd = Ω0bcmd // normal use
compute uc from DI
δuc = uc − uc0 // output control defl.
end
5.3 Dynamic inversion attitude control laws 127

By setting Ω̇bcmd = 0 at the initial computation, only the static control deflections
are obtained. These are subtracted from the control inputs from then onwards,
so that the controller only provides control deflection “delta’s” with respect to
the momentary control deflections at initialisation. The above code is added after
the NDI control laws.
The success of any flight control law design stands or falls with the quality of
the sensor signals. These signals are processed in the State estimation & filtering
block in Figure 5.2. The ATTAS aircraft has a sophisticated sensor system pro-
viding inertial and air data measurements, allowing for easy computation of all
states. However, it is very important to be aware that the air data signals pick
up atmospheric disturbances that, without further processing, would propagate
through the control laws and result in high control activity. In addition, the angle
of attack (AoA) sensor of ATTAS is on a long nose boom, which due to its flexi-
bility adds a 6 Hz disturbance to the signal. For this reason, the signal has to be
combined with inertial measurements using complementary filtering techniques:
1 τs
α̂ = α+ αi (5.31)
τs + 1 τs + 1
where αi is the inertial angle of attack computed from:

αi = (θ − γa ) (5.32)

with γa ≈ −VVt a s . The time constant is set to 1 s, causing the air data content to
Z

be cut off well below the 6 HZ disturbance signal. An example result is shown in
Figure 5.5
The side slip angle is available as a measurement on ATTAS, but this is not
the case on most airliners. For this reason, use of the signal was to be avoided.
The signal can be estimated as follows. Writing the side force equation in the
aerodynamic model in the form:

CY = CYβ (M, α, . . . )β + CYres t (δR , M, α, . . . )

the side slip angle can be approximated from:

 
1 ny mg
βest = 2 S
− C Y res t (5.33)
CYβ 1/2ρ Vcas

The right hand term can be computed using the coefficients from the model and
the available measurements. To reduce the propagation of noise due to turbulence,
the signal is complementarily filtered with:
−ny g + g sin φ cos θ
β̇i = − rb cos α + pb sin α (5.34)
Vtas
which is less affected by turbulence at higher frequencies. The filter, depicted in
Fig. 5.6, is second order, preventing a bias in β̂ in case of longer term cross wind
shear. The gains K1 and K2 are set to 0.2 and 1 respectively.
128 Design of control laws with NDI

8
measured α
compl. α
7

6
α (deg)

2
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
time (s)

Figure 5.5: Comparison between measured and complementarily filtered angle of

attack signal

For larger aircraft also inertial measurements require careful attention. Being at-
tached to the airframe, the sensors not only pick up flight path-related, but also
structural dynamics. This is taken into consideration in placement and attach-
ment of sensors, but usually their signals still need to be filtered using low-pass
or notch filters.

5.4 Robust parameter synthesis

The tuning of the control laws for the lateral and longitudinal aircraft dynamics
is performed separately. In this chapter only the lateral part will be discussed.

5.4.1 Robustness
Robustness is major issue in the design of Dynamic Inversion control laws, and
is usually addressed in the synthesis of the linear part of the controller. This can
for example be done using a robust synthesis method such as H∞ or µ-synthesis
[5], if a classical PID controller structure is not sufficient.
In this contribution, free synthesis parameters are tuned for robustness using
multi-objective optimisation in combination with a multi-model approach [61].
These synthesis parameters are the gains of the control law in equation (5.30), as
well as the parameters p∗u in the inverse model equations (5.29), which are consid-
ered uncertain in the synthesis model. In the synthesis, robustness is addressed
5.4 Robust parameter synthesis 129

K2

1 + 1 ^
est K1 s + s 
+ - + +

. ^.
i 

Figure 5.6: Complementary side slip filter

in th ree w ays:

1 . P arameters pk in th e inv erse c ontrol law s th at c an b e determined on-line,

are ob tained as additional measu rement inpu ts. In th is c ase, th ese are th e
airc raft mass and c entre of g rav ity loc ation.

2 . R ob u stness to parametric u nc ertainties is ach iev ed v ia a mu lti-model ap-

proach . A set of models w ith w orst-c ase parameter c omb inations w ith re-
spec t to one or more desig n c riteria is addressed simu ltaneou sly in th e opti-
misation, allow ing for trade-off ov er c riteria u nder nominal and w orst-c ase
c onditions. In th is w ay, g lob al rob u stness, i.e. ov er larg e parameter rang es,
c an b e addressed.

3 . R ob u stness to u nspec ified u nc ertainties (eg . c ompu tational time delays,

u nmodelled dynamic s) is addressed v ia loc al u nspec ific rob u stness marg ins
as optimisation c riteria. T h ese are listed in T ab le 5 .1 (gmada ... pmasr).

M u lti-model optimisation implic itly assu mes th at th e c ontrol law w ill also b e
rob u st for model c ases in b etw een th ose addressed du ring parameter synth esis.
H ow ev er, no g u arantee c an b e g iv en. A n additional intention of th e loc al ro-
b u stness c riteria is to c ov er su ch model c ases. T h e g eneral idea is sk etch ed in
F ig u re 5 .7 for tw o parameters pu = [a, b]T . T h ree model c ases are u sed in opti-
misation (p0u , p1u , p2u ). In each c ase, loc al rob u stness marg ins are c onsidered as
c riteria. T h e siz es of th e areas b ou nded b y th e dotted lines refl ec t th e ach iev ab le
performanc e rob u stness arou nd th e th ree model c ases for a c ontroller desig ned
w ith p∗u = p0u . O b v iou sly, th e area arou nd th e nominal c ase is larg e, th e areas
arou nd th e w orst c ases are smaller. T h e loc al areas tog eth er do not c ov er th e
c omplete parameter spac e b ou nded b y [am in , am a x , b m in , b m a x ]. O ptimisation
of model parameters in th e inv erse c ontroller w ill resu lt in th e point p̂∗u in th e
parameter spac e, w h ich c an b e interpreted as th e b est loc ation for model inv er-
sion. A s a resu lt, th e siz e of th e area (b ou nded b y solid line) arou nd th e nominal
point dec reases, th ose arou nd th e w orst c ases b ec ome larg er, so th at th e c omplete
parameter spac e is c ov ered.
130 Design of control laws with NDI

The approach sketched above is used for synthesis of the N D I controller param-
eters. The assumptions can be validated by performing a µ-analysis on the
closed loop system afterwards. This req uires interconnection of the linearised
controller with the aircraft L FT representation, obtained from symbolic lineari-
sation sketched in S ection 5.2.2. B esides stability robustness, µ-analysis allows
for finding worst-case damping and stability margins in the uncertain parameter
space, valid for the linearised model.

L in e ar ro bus tn e s s c rite ria (lo c al ro bus tn e s s )

b
bm ax c as e p u
1

N D I pu
bn o m
n o m in al
c as e p u0 P aram e te r
bm in 2
s p ac e
c as e p u

a
p u=
b
am in an o m am ax a
O p tim iz atio n fo r 3 m o d e l c as e s
(g lo bal ro bus tn e s s )

Figure 5.7: G eneral idea of addressing global and local robustness (dashed
bounds: achievable robustness areas with p∗u = p0u , solid bounds: achievable areas
with optimised p̂∗u )

5.4.2 Stability
As mentioned in S ection 5.1, one always has to carefully check the internal dy-
namics of the closed-loop system. B ut also, sensors, FCS delays, actuators and
signal processing add dynamics to the over-all system. For this reason, during
each optimisation step the closed-loop system is linearised and all eigenvalues
of the lateral modes are determined. The minimum damping is computed and
addressed as an optimisation criterion (damp in Table 5.1, to be discussed in
the following section). After parameter synthesis, minimum damping is further
assessed in ex tensive robustness analysis.

5.4.3 Design criteria

For tuning the controller parameters, design req uirements need to be formulated
in the form of computational criteria, suitable for optimisation. For the lateral
synthesis parameters of the N D I controller, these criteria are computed from three
nonlinear simulations and the linearised closed-loop system, see Table 5.1. The
5.4 Robust parameter synthesis 131

Linear analysis:
nam e d esc rip tio n c o m p u tatio n
g m ad a g ain m arg in at δA ac t. see R em ark s
p m ad a p h ase m arg in at δA ac t.
g m ad r g ain m arg in at δR ac t.
p m ad r p h ase m arg in at δR ac t.
g m asp g ain m arg in at p sens.
p m asp p h ase m arg in at p sens.
g m asr g ain m arg in at r sens.
p m asr p h ase m arg in at r sens.
d am p m inim u m d am p ing m ini {ζi }
S im u latio n 1 : S tep : φr e f = 1 0 d eg , ψ̇r e f = V g tan φr e f
tas
p h rt rise tim e φ see R em ark s
p h os o v er sh o o t φ
p h st ’settling tim e’ φ m ax t > 15s {|φ − φr e f |}
p sd d rise tim e ψ̇
phds ’settling tim e’ ψ̇ m ax t > 15s {|ψ̇ − ψ̇r e f |}
dda m ax δ̇A m ax t > t s + 0.2s {|δ̇A |}
S im u latio n 2 : S tep : ψr e f = 5 d eg , φr e f = 0
p srt rise tim e ψ see R em ark s
p so s o v er sh o o t ψ
p sst ’settling tim e’ ψ m ax {|ψ − ψr e f |}
R 15 t > 15s
p h er erro r φ 0 φd t/ 1 5 s
ddr m ax δ̇R m ax t > t s + 0.2s {|δ̇R |}
S im u latio n 3 : C ro ss w ind step : wy = 1 6 m / s at t = 0 s
phw e m ax . φ m ax |φ|
d rp eak p eak δR m ax t < 5s |δR |

Table 5.1: Design criteria for multi-objective optimisation. Remarks: All com-
putations: symmetrical horizontal flight; altitude=10 0 0 ft; nominal aircraft load-
ing. Step times: ts = 1 s. Rise time: ∆ t between 10 % and 9 0 % of command.
Gain/ phase margins: as in Matlab Control Toolbox [79 ]

controller is designed as a stability and command augmentation system of an

autoland system (Chapter 6 ). The intention is to use the same NDI-controller as
inner loop for the localiser mode (approach path tracking), and the align mode
(aircraft alignment with the runway, shortly before touchdown). During localiser
tracking, the NDI controller has to track co-ordinated roll angle and heading rate
commands. For this reason, simulation 1 is performed, from which criteria such as
rise time and overshoot of a combined roll angle and heading rate step command
are computed. During the align phase, roll and heading angles are controlled
independently. The roll angle is used to track the localiser, the heading angle is
used for de-crab in case of cross-wind. Therefore, simulation 2 is performed, from
which criteria are computed based on a step command on ψr e f .
The criteria phst, phds, psst address settling times, although a different measure
is used to actually compute these criteria. Disturbance rejection is assessed in
simulation 3 through a heavy cross wind step.
132 Design of control laws with NDI

5.4.4 Scaling of criteria

In multi-objective optimisation, relative importance of criteria is expressed via
scaling. E specially in case of conflicting requirements, this gives the designer an
effective means to make trade-offs and to set priorities. Scaled criteria have to
be formulated such, that the objective is to minimise them, and a value less than
one is considered satisfactory.
The scalings as applied to the criteria in Table 5.1 are given in Table 5.2. Scaling

crit, bad good demand type

unit low low value
phrt (s) – – 2.5 c
phos (-) – – 0.05 c
phst (°) – – 0.1 m
psdd (s) – – 10 m
phds (°/ s) – – 0.1 m
dda (°/ s) – – 20 m
psrt (s) – – 5 c
psos (-) – – 0.05 c
psst (°) – – 0.2 m
pher (°) – – 0.1 m
ddr (°/ s) – – 10 m
phwe (°) – – 6.7 m
drpeak (°) – – 25 m
gmada (dB ) 4 6 – m
pmada (°) 30 60 – c
gmadr (dB ) 4 6 – m
pmadr (°) 30 60 – c
gmsp (dB ) 4 6 – m
pmsp (°) 30 60 – c
gmsr (dB ) 4 6 – m
pmsr (°) 30 60 – c
damp (-) 0.6 0.7 – c
Legend:
m=minimise, c=ineq uality constraint, °=deg

Table 5.2: Scaling of criteria

can be performed by division of the criterion by its demand value:

ĉi (T ) = ci (T )/ di
where ci (T ) and di are the computed value and demanded value of criterion i
respectively, and T denotes the current set of tuning parameters. Scaling can also
be done using so-called ’good-bad’ values [50]. Here, a special type of ’good-bad’
scaling is used, as will be explained for gmada in Figure 5.8 . The demand is that
the gain margin is at least 4 dB (’bad-low’). Any value larger than 6 (’good-low’)
is considered equally good and therefore scaled to 0. Below 6 dB, the scaled value
increases linearly, such that a value of 1 is reached for the bad-low value of 4
dB. Any value between 4 and 6 dB is acceptable, any value lower than 4 dB is
considered unacceptable (bad). As an example, if the gain margin is 3 dB, its
scaled value equals 1.5.
5.4 Robust parameter synthesis 133

b a d -lo w g o o d -lo w

s c a le d c rite rio n
bad acceptable good
1.5
1

3 4 6
g a in m a rg in (d B )

Figure 5.8: Scaling of gmada w ith good -b ad v alu e s

Som e of th e crite ria in T ab le 5 .2 are tre ate d as ine q u ality constraints (i.e . ĉi (T ) ≤
1 ). F or e x am p le , a rise tim e of 2 .5 s is d e m and e d . If th is is satisfi e d , th e re is no
p oint to fu rth e r m inim ise th is crite rion, since th is w ill u nne ce ssarily go at th e cost
of stab ility and control e ff ort.

5.4.5 Parameter synthesis

F or p aram e te r sy nth e sis th e m u lti-ob je ctiv e op tim isation tool M O P S (M u lti-
O b je ctiv e P aram e te r Sy nth e sis [5 0 ]) w as u se d . A th e ore tical b ack grou nd of th is
m e th od ology is p rov id e d in Se ction 6 .6 , b u t it is not ne ce ssary for u nd e rstand -
ing th is se ction. A s a fi rst ste p , only th e gains of th e late ral p art of th e line ar
controlle r (e q . (5 .3 0 )) w e re tu ne d . T h e re su lting v alu e s can b e fou nd in th e fi rst
colu m n of T ab le 5 .3 .
U sing th is gain se t, a w orst-case analy sis w as p e rform e d . It w as assu m e d th at
w orst-case s occu r in th e corne rs of th e p aram e te r sp ace . F or th is re ason, u nce rtain
p aram e te rs w e re se t to th e ir m inim u m or m ax im u m v alu e s and for all p aram e te r
com b inations th e crite ria in T ab le 5 .1 w e re e v alu ate d . In ord e r to lim it th e nu m -
b e r of sim u lations, tole rance s on m om e nts of ine rtia, as w e ll as th e le ss re le v ant
coe ffi cie nts CnδA and ClδR , w e re le ft ou t, re d u cing th e nu m b e r of com b inations
from 2 14 = 1 6 3 8 4 to 2 9 = 5 1 2 . T h re e m od e l case s w e re se le cte d : th e one w ith
m ax im u m (scale d ) v alu e for damp (w orst d am p ing), th e one w ith m ax im u m gmsr
(low e st gain m argin at y aw rate se nsor, u nstab le ), and th e one w ith m ax im u m
p madr (m inim u m p h ase m argin at ru d d e r actu ator). T h e se crite ria w e re m ost
se nsitiv e to th e p aram e te r v ariations and consid e re d m ost critical.
T h e th re e w orst m od e l case s w e re ad d e d to th e nom inal m od e l in a m u lti-m od e l
se t. Som e crite ria scalings for th e se w orst-case s w e re sligh tly re lie v e d com p are d
w ith th e v alu e s in T ab le 5 .2 . F or th e m u lti-m od e l se t a ne w p aram e te r sy nth e sis
w as p e rform e d . F irst, only th e line ar gains w e re op tim ise d . T h e v alu e s are giv e n
in th e se cond colu m n of T ab le 5 .2 . T h e re su lts w e re not satisfactory , as w ill b e
d iscu sse d in Se ction 5 .5 .
D u ring th e th ird p aram e te r sy nth e sis, not only th e line ar gains, b u t also e igh t of
fou rte e n ae rod y nam ic tole rance s in th e p aram e te r v e ctor p∗u in th e N D I control
law s (se e (5 .2 9 )) w e re av ailab le for tu ning b y th e op tim ise r. T h is can b e inte r-
p re te d as se arch ing for th e b e st location for m od e l inv e rsion ov e r all p aram e te r
134 Design of control laws with NDI

tuning (1) nom. (2) m.mod. (3) m.mod. unit

par. design design 1 design 2
linear controller gains:
K ip 2.9 2.28 2.52 –
Kp p 3.47 2.86 2.92 s−1
K ir 2.0 2.56 2.17 –
Kp r 1.6 1.95 1.96 s−1
Kφ 0.41 0.41 0.41 s−1
Kψ 0.7 0 0.7 0 0.7 0 s−1
aerodynamic coefficients in pu (eq. (5.29))
∗

∆CY 0 0 -0.3 –
∆Clβ 0 0 -0.3 –
∆Cnβ 0 0 -0.23 –
∆Clp 0 0 -0.07 –
∆Clr 0 0 -0.3 –
∆Cnp 0 0 -0.3 –
∆Cnr 0 0 -0.15 –
∆CnδR 0 0 0.3 –
In Figure 5.2:
KE = d ia g ([KΦ , Kθ , Kψ ])
Ki = d ia g ([Kip , Kiq , Kir ])
Kp = d ia g ([Kpp , Kpq , Kpr ])

Table 5.3: C ontroller synthesis parameters

configurations. For this reason, the aerodynamic parameters were limited to the
same bounds as the assumed maximum tolerances in the simulation model, i.e.
30% . The optimisation run involved 14 synthesis parameters and 4 × 22 = 88
criteria (4 model cases). The result can be found in the third column of Table 5.3.
Note that the optimiser tends to push most of the parameters to their maximum
or minimum values. R elieving the bounds on the model parameters could improve
the results further, but this would imply that the inverse model corresponds to a
design model configuration outside its assumed parameter envelope.

5.5 Assessment
5.5.1 Analysis w.r.t. synthesis criteria
The three designs (Table 5.3) will be compared now using so-called parallel co-
ordinates [51] (Figure 5.9) and two simulations (simulation 1 and 3 from Table 5.1)
for two model cases (Figure 5.10: nominal and Figure 5.11: worst damping).
In parallel co-ordinates, all scaled criterion values are plotted on an individual axis
and connected through a line; one graph corresponds to one controller parameter
5.5 Assessment 135

GMADR

GMADR
GMADA

GMADA
PMADR

PMADR
PMADA

PMADA
drpeak

drpeak
GMSR

GMSR
GMSP

GMSP
PMSR
DAMP

PMSR
DAMP
PMSP

PMSP
phwe

phwe
phos

phds
psdd

phos

phds
psdd
psos

psos
pher

pher
phst

phst
psst

psst
phrt

phrt
dda
psrt

dda
psrt
ddr

ddr
Model 1 (nominal) Model 2 (worst damping)

Figure 5.9: Criteria in parallel co-ordinates (solid arrow = ineq. constraint,

dashed arrow = minimise). In Figs. 5.9, 5.10, 5.11 – controller 1: solid, controller
2: dashed, controller 3: fat-solid

set. The horiz ontal line indicates a value of one. Criteria values below this line
are considered satisfactory. Parallel co-ordinates are normally visualised on-line
during optimisation with MOPS. They give quick insight in the optimisation
progress, which criteria are hard to satisfy, and criteria that confl ict and thus
have to be compromised.
The labelled axes correspond with the criteria in Table 5.1. To the left the criteria
for the nominal model are shown, to the right those of one of the worst-case models
are depicted. Due to space restrictions, the other model cases are not shown. The
thin solid lines (in all subsequent figures) show the results for controller 1 (i.e.
optimised with the nominal model only). The bad damping of model 2 (scaled
2.5, actual ζ = 0.25) was reason to include this model case in the multi-model
set. The results from optimisation of the linear controller parameters only, with
the selected multi-model set, are represented by the dashed line. The damping
is increased to a satisfactory level (criterion below 1-line), this goes clearly at
the cost of rudder activity (ddr,drpeak ), the roll response due to a side wind step
ph w e (see also Figure 5.11), the phase margin at the rudder actuator pmadr,
and the damping of the nominal model. The even worse damping in Figure 5.11
seems in contradiction with the better damping criterion level, but inspection
136 Design of control laws with NDI

Phi PsiDot
12 2.5
10 2
8
1.5

Deg/s
Deg

6
1
4
φref= 10 deg φ = 10 deg
2 0.5 ref
(dψ/dt) = 1.5 deg/s (dψ/dt)ref= 1.5 deg/s
ref
0 0
0 5 10 15 20 0 5 10 15 20
t [s] t [s]
Phi (cross wind step) PsiDot (cross wind step)
10 10

5 5

Deg/s
Deg

0 0

−5 −5

−10 −10
0 5 10 15 20 0 5 10 15 20
t [s] t [s]

Figure 5.10: Roll and wind step responses for model case 1 (for legend, see caption
of Figure 5.9)

of the results revealed that the rudder actuator rate saturates due to its higher
activity. In one of the model cases (not shown) even instability occurs. The fat
solid line shows the results for controller 3, for which linear gains, as well as model
parameters in the NDI controller were optimised. From the parallel co-ordinates it
is immediately clear that all criteria are satisfied (this also holds for the two model
cases not shown). E specially Figure 5.11 shows considerable improvement. Since
the third controller no longer inverts the nominal model, it can be expected that
decoupling in the nominal case deteriorates. This can be verified in Figure 5.9
for the criterion pher 1-1 (roll angle error due to a heading angle command).
For controllers 1 and 2 (for which p∗u = pu ) decoupling is excellent, whereas for
controller 3 it is considerably worse, but still acceptable.

Of course, with the gain set of controller 3, a new parameter study was performed.
All stability related criteria are satisfied for the investigated parameter combina-
tions (no figure). In a number of cases the roll angle error 15 s after the roll
command step (phst) and the roll angle response due to the wind step (phwe)
degrade considerably. In no case instability due to rate saturation occurred. One
more optimisation with an additional model case, (worst phst) was performed,
but the results did not improve much.
5.5 Assessment 137

Phi Psidot
12 2.5
10 2
8
1.5

Deg/s
Deg

6
1
4 φref= 10 deg φref= 10 deg
2 (dψ/dt)ref= 1.5 deg/s 0.5
(dψ/dt)ref= 1.5 deg/s
0 0
0 5 10 15 20 0 5 10 15 20
t [s] t [s]
Phi (cross wind step) PsiDot (cross wind step)
10 10

5 5

Deg/s
Deg

0 0

−5 −5

−10 −10
0 5 10 15 20 0 5 10 15 20
t [s] t [s]

Figure 5.11: Roll and wind step responses for model case 2 (for legend, see caption
of Figure 5.9)

5.5.2 Robust stability analysis with µ

During parameters synthesis robustness has been addressed by combining a multi-
model approach with local robustness measures in the form of criteria. A reliable
way to verify the assumptions behind this approach is to perform a µ-analysis
[9]. The structured singular value µ is an indicator for the smallest magnitude of
parameter tolerances for which a specific design criterion is violated or the sys-
tem becomes unstable. W hat makes µ-analysis particularly useful is that on the
one hand the indicated smallest magnitude is guaranteed, and on the other hand
that critical parameter combinations are returned, which may be verified and
further analysed in for example nonlinear simulation. The number of uncertain
parameters that can be addressed simultaneously may be considerably larger as
compared with testing parameter combinations in batch computations (gridding).
Only testing minimum and maximum parameter values, the number of evalua-
tions doubles with each additional parameter. Finally, µ-analysis not only covers
boundaries of the parameter space, but will also detect worst-case combinations
within.
µ-Analysis has two main drawbacks:

• the method requires the system model in the form of a L inear Fractional
Transformation (L FT). Obviously, the analysis result stands or falls with
validity of this model;
138 Design of control laws with NDI

• most criteria cannot be translated directly into a form that can be handled
by µ-analysis. For example, rise time can only be addressed indirectly,
whereas an H∞ norm-based criterion is handled directly.

For the ATTAS model an LFT is very easily generated, since the object-oriented
implementation allows for symbolic linearisation as a function of the uncertain
(lateral) parameters, see Section 5.2.2. The transformation from the symbolic
state space model into an LFT is performed using algorithms described in Refs. [63,
132, 44]. In Ref. [54] J uliana presents an approach for combined LFT modelling
of the system to be controlled and the NDI control law. H owever, in the frame
of this work the aircraft LFT model and linearised controller model are obtained
individually. One reason is that, as will be described subsequently, actuation
system dynamics and delays in the Flight Control Computer (FCC) are present
between the aircraft model and NDI controller.
In order to verify the robust synthesis approach, gain and phase margins are
of most interest. These margins are, although indirectly, very well addressed in
µ-analysis [120].

L egend:
Ac t = a c tu a to rs
E Q M = e q u a tio n s o f mo tio n
E s t = s ta te e s tima tio n a n d filte rin g
F C C = flig h t c o n tro l c o mp u te r
K (s ) = lin e a r c o n tro l la w
N D I = N D I c o n tro l la w
Se n s = s e n s o rs m

Se n s ATTAS Ac t FC C N D I K (s )  ref

EQ M
zla t wla t
la t
y x
E st 

Figure 5.12: Interconnection structure of the closed-loop ATTAS model for µ-

analysis

Figure 5.12 depicts a so-called interconnection structure of the ATTAS model

with the NDI control laws. This structure is a linearised representation of Fig-
ure 5.2, with explicit dependence on uncertain parameters. Most blocks are
self-explanatory. For example, the block A T T A S E Q M contains the linearised
equations of motion, the F C C block represents computational time delays in the
flight control computer, approximated via first-order Padé filters. The signal
names start with “ δ” to indicate that these are perturbations with respect to the
trimmed flight condition. The block ∆m will be discussed shortly.
The block A T T A S E Q M has a lower feedback loop via ∆la t . This block has all
lateral uncertain parameters as listed in (5.16) on its diagonal, normalised with
respect to their bounds. This implies that, compared with the gridding-based
worst-case search during parameter synthesis, this time all parameters, including
5.5 Assessment 139

inertia-related ones, CnδA and ClδR are taken into account4 . The structure of
∆lat is given by:
n h
∆lat = diag ∆I ˆ x I4 , ∆I
ˆ z I3 , ∆I
ˆ xz I6 , ∆C
ˆ Y I4 , ∆C
ˆ l , ∆C
ˆ n , ∆Cˆ l , ∆Cˆ n ,
β β p p
i o
ˆ l , ∆C
∆C ˆ l , ∆C
ˆ n I3 , ∆C ˆ n , ∆Cl , ∆C ˆ n : ˆ .. , ∆I
∆C ˆ .. ∈ IR (5.35)
r r δA δA δR δR

Note that for example the coefficient ∆Cˆ Y is repeated four times on the diagonal.
This arises during transformation of the symbolic state space model into LFT form
[44]. The .ˆ.-sign indicates that the tolerance has been normalised with respect to
its bounds. For example, since −0.3 ≤ ∆ClδA ≤ 0.3, ∆ClδA = 0.3∆C ˆ l , so that
δA
ˆ
−1 ≤ ∆ClδA ≤ 1.
The interconnection structure is first used to perform robust stability analysis of
the three controller versions discussed in the previous sections. To this end the
structure is transformed into the form depicted in Figure 5.13. The block ∆lat
has been removed and its original input zlat and output wlat have been promoted
to system outputs and inputs respectively. The command reference δΘr e f is set
to zero. The block ∆m is not required for now and therefore omitted.

Se n s ATTAS Ac t FC C N D I K (s )
EQ M

y x
E st 

zla t wla t

Figure 5.13: Input and outputs of the interconnection structure for µ stab ility
analy sis

T he transfer function from wlat to zlat is called Mattas (s). T he structured sing ular
v alue µ of Mattas (j ω ) w ith respect to ∆ lat ∈ ∆lat is defi ned as [2 7 , 9 ]:
1
µ∆lat (Mattas (s)) =
m in {σ̄(∆ lat ) : ∆ lat ∈ ∆lat , det (I − Mattas (s)∆ lat )= 0}
(5 .3 6 )
If no ∆ lat ∈ ∆lat m ak es (I −Mattas (s)∆ lat ) sing ular, µ∆lat (Mattas (s)) = 0 . E x act
com putation of µ is hardly ev er possib le. H ow ev er, suffi ciently tig ht upper and
low er b ounds can usually b e com puted.
4 It must be noted that this LFT model was not available during the design of the controllers.

R eason is that at that time no tools were available that allowed an LFT of suffi ciently low order
to be obtained from the p arametric state sp ace model (5 .2 1 ) for the full p arameter vector: only
an LFT with the reduced p arameter set of S ection 5 .4 was of p ractical use. In the mean time,
H eck er [4 4 ] develop ed highly imp roved algorithms for generation of low-order LFTs, allowing
the p resented LFT w.r.t. to the full p arameter set to be generated and used for the p resent
analy sis.
140 Design of control laws with NDI

In case s = jω singularity of (I −Mattas (jω)∆lat ) implies that the feedback system

of Mattas and ∆lat has a pole jω crossing the imaginary axis. A practical robust
stability check is therefore performed by computing µ∆lat (Mattas (s)) for s = jω
over a dense grid along the imaginary axis. The maximum value of µ over this
grid indicates that at this point the worst ∆lat that causes an eigenvalue to cross
the imaginary axis is smallest. In case the smallest norm σ̄(∆lat ) is smaller than
1 and Mattas (s) is stable, no parameter combination will destabilise the closed
loop system in F igure 5.12.
P lots of µ∆lat (Mattas (jω)) for the three controller parameter sets (Table 5.3) are
shown in F igure 5.14. S ince the peak values of the three curves are well be-
low one, the three controllers achieve robust stability against the real parametric
uncertainties in (5.16). Interestingly, controller 2 req uires a slightly smaller per-
turbation (1 / 0.77 = 1.30) for instability, which indicates that the margin to this
point is somewhat less.

µ Upper bound for controller parameter sets

0.7
K1
K2
0.6 K3

0.5
µ upper bound

0.4

0.3

0.2

0.1

0 −2 −1 0 1 2
10 10 10 10 10
Frequency [rad/s]

Figure 5.14: C omparison of µ∆lat (Mattas (jω)) for three controller parameter sets
of Table 5.3: the lower the maximum value, the better

D uring design work, achieving a worst-case damping of ζ = 0.4 was considered

acceptable. W hether this has been achieved or not can be eff ectively verified
by a µ computation. To this end, a µ analysis is performed along the ζ = 0.4
damping line in the complex plane, instead of the imaginary axis. The results are
shown in F igure 5.15. C learly, controller 1 req uires a magnitude of ∆lat of only
1 / 2.50 = 0.4 in order to make a pole cross the 0.4-damping line in a pole map.
5.5 Assessment 141

Controller 3 is considerably better, but still requires only σ̄(∆lat ) ≈ 1/1.9 = 0.53:
within the uncertain parameter envelope, lower closed-loop damping will occur.
The curve for controller 2 is quite interesting: compared with controller 1 the
peak has moved to the right and increased. Since the damping value in Figure 5.9
has achieved an acceptable level for model case 2, the problem has shifted to a
parameter case that was not included in the multi-model parameter synthesis. In
gridding-based parameter studies with controller 2, a new badly damped case was
actually found and included in the model set for optimisation of controller 3.

µ Upper bound for controller parameter sets: 0.4 damping

2.5
K1
K2
K3
2
µ upper bound

1.5

0.5

0 −2 −1 0 1 2
10 10 10 10 10
Frequency [rad/s]

Figure 5.15: Comparison of µ∆lat (Mattas (s)) for three controller parameter sets
of Table 5.3 along 0.4 damping line

It is very easy to figure out the worst-damping level over all parameter combi-
nations by iterating the damping line along which the µ-analysis is performed
until a peak value of 1 is found. This indicates that the norm σ̄(∆)lat = 1, so
that the worst case is on the border of the parameter envelope. The interest-
ing result is that each controller has a worst damping level of ∼0.16. Figure 5.16
nicely illustrates this for controller 3. From the µ-analysis along the 0.16 damping
line the worst-case combination was retrieved from the lower bound computation.
Scaling the corresponding matrix ∆lat = ∆c r it with a factor 0.95, 1.0 and 1.05,
a pole can be observed crossing the 0.16 damping line. Apparently, regarding
worst damping the three controllers are surprisingly similar. It is also interesting
to note that the worst damping for controller 1 is worse (0.16 instead of 0.25)
than the one found from gridding over minimum and maximum parameter values
142 Design of control laws with NDI

(giving rise to Model 2 in Figure 5.9). This is not surprising, since in the latter
analysis the number of parameters had to be reduced from 14 to 9, in order to
make computation times acceptable.

Pole crossing the worst−case damping line

2
0.95 ∆
crit
1.0 ∆
1.5 crit
1.05 ∆
crit

1
Imag

0.5

−0.5

−1
−0.5 −0.4 −0.3 −0.2 −0.1 0 0.1
Real

Figure 5.16: Worst case damping line for controller 3: 0.16 for σ̄ (∆crit ) = 1

Finally, it is interesting to find out worst gain and phase margins for the three
controllers in order to evaluate robustness to unspecified uncertainties on top of
the parametric ones (Section 5.4.1). To this end, the interconnection structure in
Figure 5.12 is used, this time with the block ∆m involved, see Figure 5.17. In R ef.
[120] Shin and B alas show that, for the ith actuator command, the infinity norm
of the transfer function between wmarg in i and zmarg in i equals the inverse of the
smallest distance a N yquist plot of the corresponding actuator input gets to the
(-1,0) point: the larger this distance, the larger the gain and phase margin at the
specific actuator input. This is very useful, since µ-analysis can be used to assess
worst-case performance for infinity norm-based measures [9]. The technicalities
are beyond the scope of this chapter and not required for interpretation of the
following analyses.
Figures 5.18 and 5.19 show nominal and worst-case N yquist plots for the closed-
loop system, with the actuator loop cut open at the aileron input. The circle radii
represent the shortest distances of the curves to the (-1,0) point. These radii have
been computed from the interconnection structure in Figure 5.17 with ∆lat = 0
and:

∆m = diag [∆A , 0, 0, 0, · · · ]
5.5 Assessment 143

zm a rg in wm a rg in

Se n s ATTAS Ac t FC C N D I K (s )
EQ M

y x
E st 

zla t wla t

Figure 5.17: Input and outputs of the interconnection structure for µ worst-
margin analysis

where ∆A is a scalar that acts on the first actuator input (this is the aileron
com m and , see F ig ure 2 .3 ). F ig ure 5 .1 8 v alid ates that the circle just touches the
N y q uist plot at its closest prox im ity to the (-1 ,0 ) point. A lthoug h this m easure
d oes not ex actly m atch the d efinitions of g ain and phase m arg ins, the und erly ing
id ea is id entical. A pparently , at the aileron input the m arg ins for the three con-
trollers are sim ilar in case param eter tolerances are z ero. T his is confirm ed b y the
parallel co-ord inates in F ig ure 5 .9 : controller 1 has a slig htly b etter phase m arg in
(i.e. has a low er scaled criterion v alue for PMADA). F ig ure 5 .1 9 show s the results
for the ind iv id ual w orst cases of the three controllers. C learly , controller 2 has a
sm aller w orst-phase m arg in w ith respect to the uncertain param eters in (5 .1 6 ).
N ote that a fourth curv e has b een includ ed in the w orst-case N y q uist d iag ram
(m ark er “ + ” ). T his is a m eans of v alid ation of the result. T he w orst-case m arg in is
com puted using the A T T A S L F T m od el. T he correspond ing uncertain param eter
v alues can of course also b e set in the nonlinear A T T A S sim ulation m od el. N u-
m erically linearising this m od el and com puting the N y q uist curv e should g iv e the
sam e result. T his v alid ation is perform ed for controller 3 in each of the sub seq uent
w orst-case N y q uist plots. R eferring to C hapter 2 , this illustrates an im portant
b enefit of the ob ject-oriented m od elling approach: since the nonlinear sim ula-
tion m od el and L F T hav e b een autom atically g enerated from the sam e A T T A S
m od el im plem entation (F ig ure 2 .1 0 ), the tw o runtim e m od els are autom atically
consistent.
F ig ures 5 .2 0 and 5 .2 1 show the sam e N y q uist result for the rud d er input. N ote
that the m arg ins for controller 2 are sm aller, w hich ag ain correlates w ith F ig ure 5 .9
(PMADR ). T he w orst case m arg in of controller 3 is slig htly b etter than the one
of controller 1 . A lso note that the circles d o not touch the N y q uist curv e b y
a sm all m arg in. T his is the result of a g ap b etw een com puted b ound s on µ:
the upper b ound results in the sm aller (w orst) circle, the low er b ound s returns
w orst-case param eters: either the upper b ound is too conserv ativ e, or the low er
b ound com putation d id not fully conv erg e to the actual w orst-case (w hich is q uite
com m on).
144 Design of control laws with NDI

Nyquist plot @ aileron, nominal case

1
K1
K2
K3

imag 0.5

−0.5

−1
−1.5 −1 −0.5 0 0.5
real

Figure 5.18: Nominal case Nyquist plots (at aileron) for three controller param-
eter sets of Table 5.3

Figures 5.22 and 5.23 show the results for the margins at the roll rate sensor (to
this end, the ∆ m -feedback in Figure 5.12 has been moved from the actuator input
to the sensor output). Note that for controller 3 the worst case margin is slightly
better, at the cost of the nominal case margin.
In case of the yaw rate sensor (Figures 5.24 and 5.25) a clear improvement is
visible for controller 3. Finally, results for the roll angle sensor are shown in
Figures 5.26 and 5.27 .
From the above analyses it can be concluded that controller 3 has slightly better
margins than controller 1. Apparently controller 2, although optimised with worst
case damping and margins model cases, shifted robustness problems to other
corners of the uncertain parameter space. H owever, performance of controller 3
with respect to step response measures (especially, roll angle rise time, control
activity) is better as compared with controller 1. U nfortunately, this can only
be verified by gridding the parameter space, instead of an elegant µ-analysis,
since most performance criteria used in optimisation do not directly translate
into infinity norm bounds as the gain and phase margins do.
5.5 Assessment 145

Nyquist plot @ aileron, worst case

1
K1
K2
K3
K3−ref
0.5
imag

−0.5

−1
−1.5 −1 −0.5 0 0.5
real

Figure 5.19: Worst case Nyquist plots (at aileron) for three controller parameter
sets of Table 5.3

Nyquist plot @ rudder, nominal case

1
K1
K2
K3

0.5
imag

−0.5

−1
−1.5 −1 −0.5 0 0.5
real

Figure 5.2 0 : Nominal case Nyquist plots (at rudder) for three controller param-
eter sets of Table 5.3
146 Design of control laws with NDI

Nyquist plot @ rudder, worst case

1
K1
K2
K3
K3−ref
0.5
imag

−0.5

−1
−1.5 −1 −0.5 0 0.5
real

Figure 5.21: Worst case Nyquist plots (at rudder) for three controller parameter
sets of Table 5.3

Nyquist plot @ roll rate sensor, nominal case

1
K1
K2
K3

0.5
imag

−0.5

−1
−1.5 −1 −0.5 0 0.5
real

Figure 5.22: Nominal case Nyquist plots (at roll rate sensor) for three controller
parameter sets of Table 5.3
5.5 Assessment 147

Nyquist plot @ roll rate sensor, worst case

1
K1
K2
K3
K3−ref
0.5
imag

−0.5

−1
−1.5 −1 −0.5 0 0.5
real

Figure 5.23: Worst case Nyquist plots (at roll rate sensor) for three controller
parameter sets of Table 5.3

Nyquist plot @ yaw rate sensor, nominal case

1
K1
K2
K3

0.5
imag

−0.5

−1
−1.5 −1 −0.5 0 0.5
real

Figure 5.24 : Nominal case Nyquist plots (at yaw rate sensor) for three controller
parameter sets of Table 5.3
148 Design of control laws with NDI

Nyquist plot @ yaw rate sensor, worst case

1
K1
K2
K3
K3−ref
0.5
imag

−0.5

−1
−1.5 −1 −0.5 0 0.5
real

Figure 5.25: Worst case Nyquist plots (at yaw rate sensor) for three controller
parameter sets of Table 5.3

Nyquist plot @ roll angle sensor, nominal case

1
K1
K2
K3

0.5
imag

−0.5

−1
−1.5 −1 −0.5 0 0.5
real

Figure 5.26 : Nominal case Nyquist plots (at roll angle sensor) for three controller
parameter sets of Table 5.3
5.5 Assessment 149

Nyquist plot @ roll angle sensor, worst case

1
K1
K2
K3
K3−ref
0.5
imag

−0.5

−1
−1.5 −1 −0.5 0 0.5
real

Figure 5.27: Worst case Nyquist plots (at roll angle sensor) for three controller
parameter sets of Table 5.3
150 Design of control laws with NDI

5.6 Flight test results

The control laws presented in this chapter have been flight tested as part of an
automatic landing system, described in the following chapter. Although flight
performance evaluation concentrated on disturbance rejection during glide slope
and localiser tracking and on flare and alignment performance, a number of tests
was initiated with lateral flight path, vertical flight path, and approach speed
off sets respectively.
In the following the results of a localiser capture manoeuvre during the second
approach of the second test flight at Hanover airport will be discussed briefly.
Figure 5.28 shows deviations from the glide slope, localiser, and selected approach
speed respectively. The initial geometric localiser deviation is approximately 275
m. The autopilot reduces this deviation to zero by commanding roll and heading
rates to the ND I inner loop controller, see Figure 5.29. The plots shows excellent
tracking of these commands, initially banking to the right and then to the left
when capturing the localiser track. Lateral acceleration is shown in Figure 5.29:
its low mean level implies good turn co-ordination behaviour. Commanded and
measured body angular rates are shown in Figure 5.31. In spite of the noise
level, good tracking performance can be recognised. Finally, corresponding con-
trol deflections can be found in Figure 5.32. Since commanded and measured
values match closely, the assumption that actuator dynamics can be neglected
(Section 5.3.1) is proved to be valid. Although less of interest here, deviation
between commanded and actual deflections for the elevator (δE ) are caused by
the auto-trim system, which was active in parallel to the autoland control laws.
It is also interesting to have a look at the air data signals. The measured and com-
plementary filtered values (Section 5.3.2) are compared in Figure 5.33. Clearly,
noise content is reduced tremendously without any bias.
Finally, it is interesting to note that the ND I control laws performed very well
from the first flight test: not a single change was required, demonstrating good
robustness and performance of the system and, within the scope of the design
project, first-time right capability of the applied design approach.

5.7 Conclusions
Nonlinear D ynamic Inversion is a very attractive methodology for flight control
law design, since nonlinearities of the flight dynamics are compensated, avoiding
the need for gain-scheduling.
In this contribution it was shown how two drawbacks of ND I can be successfully
coped with:
In the first place, global robustness to parametric uncertainties in the synthesis
model was addressed via a multi-model approach, and local robustness to unspe-
cific uncertainties was addressed via linear robustness criteria in multi-objective
optimisation. It was shown that, in addition to linear controller parameters, phys-
ical parameters in the inverse model equations, that are considered uncertain in
5.7 Conclusions 151

epsGLD (mA) 100

−100 flare init

0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200
100
allign init
epsLOC (mA)

−100
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200
5
retard init
Verror (m/s)

−5
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200
time (s)

Figure 5.28: Tracking of glide slope, localiser and selected approach speed (error
signals) (approach 2-2)

the design model, are very effective as additional tuning parameters to achieve a
robust design.
In the second place, it was shown that manual formula manipulation, coding and
verification work can be avoided by automatic generation of the inverse control
laws from the same symbolic aircraft model in M odelica as from which the simu-
lation model was obtained.
Three controller variants were compared regarding performance and robustness.
For this µ-analysis was used, based on an LFT model automatically generated
from the aircraft model in M odelica. For parameter synthesis, worst model cases
were sought using a grid-based search with a reduced parameter set. µ-Analysis
based on the full parameter set revealed that worst cases had not always been
found. Unfortunately, the required low-order LFT model was available only well
after the design work had been finished. The methodology is now actually used
to search for stability-related adverse model cases for inclusion in multi-model
design optimisation. E ven µ-analysis as an optimisation criterion by itself can be
included.
The designed control laws were used as inner loops in an autoland system that
was successfully implemented and flight tested in the DLR Advanced Technologies
Testing Aircraft System (ATTAS) [12].
152 Design of control laws with NDI

DI command following: solid = command, dashed= measured

15
Align
φ (deg) 10

−5
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200
10
Flare
θ (deg)

−10
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200
5
Align
dψ/dt (deg/s)

−5
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200
time (s)

Figure 5.29: Attitude command tracking (approach 2-2)

0.1
ny (−)

−0.1
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200
time (s)

Figure 5.30: Lateral acceleration response (approach 2-2)

5.7 Conclusions 153

DI command following (2): solid = command, dashed= measured

10
pb (deg/s) align

−10
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200
5
flare
qb (deg/s)

−5
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200
10
rb (deg/s)

align

−10
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200
time (s)

Figure 5.31: Body angular rate tracking (approach 2-2)

Control deflections: solid=command, dotted=measured

5
δA (deg)

align
−5
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200
10
flare
δE (deg)

5
0
−5
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200
2
0
δR (deg)

−2
−4 align
−6
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200
100
N1 (%)

50
retard
0
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200
time (s)

Figure 5.32: Control deflections (approach 2-2)

154 Design of control laws with NDI

Compl. filtering: solid=filt., dotted=measured

80
Vcas (m/s)

70

60
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200
10

5
α (deg)

−5
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200
5
β (deg)

−5
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200
time (s)

Figure 5.33: Complementary filtering of speed, angle of attack and side slip angle
estimation (approach 2-2)
Chapter 6

Design of autoland controller

functions with multi-objective
optimisation
156 Design of autoland controller functions

Abstract
The application of multi-objective optimisation to the design of longitudi-
nal automatic landing control law s for a civil aircraft is discussed. The
control law s consist of a stability and command augmentation, a speed /
fl ight path track ing, a glide slope guidance, and a fl are function. Multi-
objective optimisation is used to sy nthesise the free parameters in these
controller functions. Performance criteria are thereby computed from lin-
ear as w ell as nonlinear analy sis. Robustness to uncertain and vary ing
parameters is addressed via linear robustness criteria, and via statisti-
cal criteria computed from on-line Monte C arlo analy sis. F or each con-
troller function an optimisation problem set-up is defi ned. S tarting w ith
the inner loops, the sy nthesis is seq uentially ex panded w ith each of these
set-ups, eventually leading to simultaneous optimisation of all controller
functions. In this w ay , dy namic interactions betw een controller compo-
nents are accounted for, and inner loops can be compromised, such that
these can be used in combination w ith diff erent outer loop functions. This
reduces controller complex ity w hile providing good over-all control sy stem
performance.

C o n tributio n s
• Proof-of-concept of the fl ight control law design and modelling
methodologies presented in C hapters 2 and 5 , describing the design
of an autoland sy stem from modelling up to fl ight test;
• A strategy for tuning of large control sy stems, comprising multiple
interacting loops and functions;
• Direct use of Monte C arlo-based statistical certifi cation criteria in
optimisation of automatic landing control law parameters.

P ublicatio n
G ertjan L ooy e and H ans-Dieter J oos: Design of Autoland Controller
Functions with Multi-O bjective optimisation, J ournal of G uidance, C on-
trol, and Dy namics V ol. 2 9 (2 ), American Institute of Aeronautics and
Astronautics, 2 0 0 6 , pp. 4 7 5 – 4 8 4 .
Design of autoland controller functions 157

HE development of automatic landing (autoland) control laws for civil air-

T craft is a demanding task, since high safety standards have to be met before
operational use under most adverse weather and visibility conditions (i.e. Cate-
gory III [37]) is allowed. The landing mission, consisting of glide slope tracking
and flare/ runway alignment shortly before touch down, is relatively straight for-
ward. However, the autoland design task is complicated by the large amount of
varying and uncertain parameters involved. In the first place, aircraft loading and
configuration parameters may vary for each landing case. Secondly, environment
parameters, such as runway, approach terrain, ILS system, atmosphere, and wind
characteristics are different for each landing. A number of these parameters is
illustrated in Figure 6.1. For certification, autoland performance under varying
aircraft and environment parameters has to be demonstrated via extensive Monte
Carlo (MC) analysis, augmented with flight test validation [37]. The control de-
signer also has to account for uncertain parameters in the aircraft design model
to cover differences with the actual aircraft, or even with the high-fidelity and
flight test-validated model used for final Monte Carlo assessment [74].
Autoland control laws consist of functions for glide slope and localiser hold, flare
and runway alignment (in case of cross wind), and inner loops for stability and
command augmentation. The design of these functions heavily relies on engineer-
ing skills and experience of the designer(s) and may involve considerable trial-
and-error in order to tune the controller parameters to meet design specifications.
Important problems hereby are the large number of design criteria that have to
be addressed in face of the aforementioned varying and uncertain model parame-
ters, as well as the criteria themselves. Typical autoland design requirements, for
example regarding touch down performance, do not always translate easily into
computational criteria that can be handled by commonly used controller synthe-
sis methods. As a consequence, the designer has to manually iterate between
assessing autoland performance and adjusting controller (synthesis) parameters.
In this chapter, the problems sketched above are addressed by the application of
a flight control law design process that is based on multi-objective optimisation
[50, 73]. This approach involves optimisation of free design parameters in a pre-
defined controller structure (eg. gains, filter time constants), or in a controller
synthesis set-up (eg. Q and R weighting matrices in LQ -synthesis), with respect
to a possibly large set of computational criteria and constraints. An important
advantage is that these criteria and constraints may be directly derived from engi-
neering design specifications and computed from linear and/ or nonlinear analysis
of the closed loop system. For example, touch down velocity and distance, com-
puted from a nonlinear automatic landing simulation, are valid synthesis criteria.
Relative importance of criteria is expressed via scaling.
Features of multi-objective optimisation will be exploited to address robustness
to varying landing and aircraft parameters and uncertainty. Stability robustness
to aircraft model uncertainty is addressed via gain and phase margins as design
criteria. As part of the certification effort, performing Monte Carlo analysis is
required to prove that the probability of exceeding bounds on specific landing
parameters (e.g. maximum sink rate at touch down) under varying environment
 158

atm osp here (sea lev el tem p T 0 , airp ort elev ation Hrwy)

G lid e path
" IL S c one"
A irc raft (c onf., m , C oG , ...) )
head, c ross wind ( W X3 3 ,W Y33

IL S sig nal turb ulenc e, wind shear

disturb anc es L O C antenna
 g ld (offset:   lo c )
hg g ld G S antenna R u nw ay
flare
Radio altitude Hra
Xtr runway slop e rwy
Runway Threshold
(heading :rwy)
Lrwy
tr S ea wall Htr
op e
i n sl
terra
Approach terrain

Figure 6.1: Typical parameters and disturbances during a landing

Design of autoland controller functions
Design of autoland controller functions 159

and aircraft parameters and disturbances is below a certain level. It will be shown
that these stochastic measures can be directly incorporated as optimisation cri-
teria, providing an effective means to address robustness to varying aircraft and
environment parameters. A similar principle for robust multi-objective tuning of
control laws was proposed by Schy and G iesy [117], using a linear approach to com-
pute stochastic properties of performance measures. Wang and Stengel [134] use
weighted-sum optimisation to minimise the risks of violating design criteria with
respect to stochastic parameters. The risks are computed using on-line Monte
Carlo analysis. In this work, on-line Monte Carlo analysis will be performed to
compute risk-based criteria with respect to varying landing parameters, providing
a direct link with certification requirements, and allowing additional criteria to
be computed from individual MC simulations.
The actual optimisation problem is formulated to minimise the maximum over
all scaled criteria, under the specified inequality or equality constraints [61]. This
so-called min-max approach allows the designer to steer compromise solutions
between conflicting criteria by adjusting their scalings. The applied methodology
was developed by K reisselmeier and Steinhauser and has been implemented in the
computer-aided control system design tool MOP S (Multi-Objective P arameter
Synthesis) [52], developed at the DLR Institute of Robotics and Mechatronics. A
similar min-max optimisation approach was proposed by Schy et al. [117], and is
also applied in the Control Designer’s Unified Interface (CONDUITR ) by Tischler
et al. [129].
The optimisation approach makes it possible to simultaneously tune all design pa-
rameters in all control law functions. This saves manual iterations to harmonise
performance of individual functions and allows controller complexity to be re-
duced, since one set of inner loop functions may be tuned to work in combination
with different outer loop functions. However, performing this optimisation in one
shot is impractical. For the designer it becomes diffi cult to keep track of the large
amount of criteria and design parameters, making it hard to decide if and where
the controller structure needs to be enhanced, to recognise and adjust conflicting
criteria, etc. For this reason, a stepwise tuning strategy is proposed. Inner loops
functions are tuned first, then the optimisation task is expanded step-by-step with
the outer loop functions, eventually leading to simultaneous optimisation of all
tuning parameters in all functions. The designer can thus concentrate on one func-
tion at a time, but eventually the optimisation addresses the integrated system.
Since tuning parameter values resulting from one optimisation provide starting
values for the next, highly effi cient local optimisation algorithms in general work
well.
In this chapter the design of the longitudinal part of an autoland system for a
small passenger aircraft is discussed. More details on the lateral modes can be
found in Ref. [73]. An in-depth discussion on robust tuning of the lateral inner
loops is presented in Chapter 5 of this thesis.
This chapter is structured as follows. In Section 6.1 the aircraft model is briefly
described. In Section 6.2 the applied design process is discussed: the individual
steps in this process are described in Section 6.3 (controller architecture), in Sec-
160 Design of autoland controller functions

tion 6.4 (optimisation set-ups for the controller functions), in Sections 6.5 and 6.6
(the optimisation strategy and optimisation problem formulation), and in Sec-
tion 6.7 (analysis of design results). Some flight test results are briefly discussed
in Section 6.8. Finally, conclusions are drawn in Section 6.9.

6.1 The aircraft model

As in Chapter 5, the aircraft is DLR’s V FW-614 (∼ 30 passengers) ATTAS (Ad-
vanced Technologies Testing Aircraft System), which has been configured as a
fly-by-wire test bed [12].
The basic structure, inputs, outputs and parameters of the model are described
in Section 2.5. The aerodynamics are valid for the landing configuration and
include unsteady effects, ground effect, and interaction with the engine exhaust.
Aerodynamic coefficients as well as the moments of inertia have tolerances between
10% and 30% , see Table 2.5. Ground effect coefficients and dynamic stability
derivatives have the highest level of uncertainty. For example, the tolerance on
the derivative of the aerodynamic pitching moment coefficient Cm with respect
to the pitch rate q is written as:

C̄mq = Cmq (1 + ∆Cmq ) (6.1)

where C̄mq and Cmq are the perturbed and nominal values respectively, and ∆Cmq
is the tolerance: −0.3 ≤ ∆Cmq ≤ 0.3. The vector containing all uncertain pa-
rameter tolerances in the aircraft model is pu .
The available controls are ailerons δA , elevator δE , rudder δR , and engine throttle
settings δT H 1,2 , see Table 2.3. The tail plane angle of incidence δT is used for
trimming. The control surface actuators are linear, but rate and position limited.
The turbofan engine dynamics and thrust computation are nonlinear. The fuel
control unit shows backlash behaviour, equivalent to several degrees of throttle
input.
The wind model includes wind shear as present in the earth’s boundary layer, Dry-
den turbulence filters (as specified in Ref. [37]), as well as additional parametrised
wind shear models. For the atmosphere, approach terrain, runway and ILS equip-
ment characteristics, parametrised models are included. The environment-related
parameters are contained in the vector pe (see Figure 6.1).
The model outputs are the measurements available to the control system, see
Table 2.2: calibrated airspeed Vc a s , true airspeed Vta s , ground speed Vg , body
angular rates p, q, r , attitude angles φ , θ , ψ , load factors nx , ny , nz , track and
flight path angles χ , γ , angle of attack α, vertical speed VZ , deviations from the
ILS beam εL O C (localiser), εG S (glide slope, both in mA), radio and barometric
altitude Hr a , Hb a r o , and the mean fan shaft speed of both engines N1 . The
sensor models are linear, but the output signals are quantised. The signals N1 ,
εL O C , εG S , and α are corrupted with noise. Finally, parameters related to the
aircraft configuration (e.g. the mass m, and the centre of gravity location xC G )
may be assumed known to the controller and are collected in the vector pk .
6.2 The applied design process 161

6.2 The applied design process

The design process as applied for the automatic landing control laws is depicted in
Figure 6.2. As a first step (A), the global architecture is defined. Detailed design

C u rren t M ode l de -
m o d el d ata v e lop m e nt
3
Autoland control law A
F u n c tio n al arch ite cture de v e lop m e nt
D esig n R eq ./ & functional b re ak down 2
C ertific atio n
sp ec s
B Controlle r
Controlle r function inte g ration
de taile d de v e lop m e nt:
- arch ite cture (T )
- com p utational crite ria
1b
1a
O p tim iz ation of C
inte g rate d controlle r

Latest
(flig h t test)
m o d el d ata Autoland controlle r D
nonline ar as s e s s m e nt

Autoland control laws

re ady for h ardware te s ting

Figure 6.2: optimisation-based autoland control laws design process

of functions within this architecture is addressed in step B, involving detailed

specification of the control law structure, and the formulation of function-specific
computational criteria. The controller structures are integrated into the autoland
system, which, in combination with the aircraft model, can then be used for closed
loop analysis required for criteria computation.
The actual optimisation of the controller functions is performed in step C. Here
the tuning strategy as sketched in the introduction is applied, eventually allowing
all controller components to be optimised simultaneously.
Performance and robustness of the resulting autoland system is assessed in step
D of Figure 6.2. The iteration loops 1a and 1b involve adjustments to compu-
tational criteria or component architectures, in case optimisation or assessment
results are not satisfactory, or in order to further improve them. In case of se-
vere shortcomings, the overall controller structure may have to be reconsidered
(loop 2). Loop 3 may be required in case of major model updates. However, by
explicitly addressing model uncertainty in the process, this loop may possibly be
avoided.
162 Design of autoland controller functions

6.3 The controller architecture

This section addresses step A (global architecture) and partially step B (detailed
function architectures) in the design process in Figure 6.2. The selected global
structure for the autoland controller is depicted in Figure 6.3. It has previously
been applied to a large transport aircraft [73]. Three main loops can be identi-

g u id a nce sp eed /p a th sta b . & com m a nd

tra ck ing a u g m enta tion
(inner loop s)
A lig n
rw y
pk
.
a lig n ref , ref
ye L a tera l P a th
M ea su red LO C T ra c k ing (P D )
Dynamic
 A   R
sig na ls ref Inversion

fla re
e
G S T 
TEC S Tc inverse
reta rd
B L-
th ru st m a p com p

Va p p
F la re
(va r. Ta u ) R eta rd

F eed b a ck sig -
na l synth esis

Figure 6.3: Autoland controller architecture (Remark: for block inputs, only
command and error sig nals show n)

fi ed, separated by dashed lines: S tability and C ommand Aug mentation (S C A),
S peed/ P ath T racking (S P T ), and g uidance. C omplex ity of autopilot control law s
may be considerably reduced by implementing one component for each function
only. T his is an important feature of the T otal E nerg y C ontrol S ystem (T E C S )
w hich is used as a S P T function: a sing le speed/ path tracking control law can
be used as the core of a complete set of long itudinal autopilot modes [6 6 , 6 5 ].
In this autoland architecture, the same principle is applied to the S tability and
C ommand Aug mentation (S C A) function, w hich is used by all S P T functions.
In this chapter, only the desig n of the long itudinal controller functions w ill be
discussed. A brief description of each of the functions is g iv en in the follow ing .
Inner loops
T he task of the inner loops is to improv e stability and to achiev e robust tracking of
command v ariables (φref , θref , ψ 0c m d ). T he use of θref as inner loop command
v ariable allow s for direct control ov er the pitch attitude dynamics. E specially
during fl are, these play an important role in pilot acceptance.
T he inner loops w ere desig ned w ith N onlinear D ynamic Inv ersion (N D I) [3 4 ].
Inv erse model eq uations compensate the nonlinear aircraft dynamics, resulting in
6.3 The controller architecture 163

uniform and decoupled command responses, so that (manual) gain scheduling of

the control laws is avoided. Note that in this way also known aircraft loading
and configuration parameters (pk ), provided to the controller, are automatically
compensated for. A more detailed discussion on the inner loops can be found in
Chapter 5.
The closed loop dynamics are shaped using a linear outer loop control law:

q0cmd = Kθ (θref − θ) − Kq q (6.2 )

where q0cmd is the pitch acceleration command to the NDI controller, θref is the
commanded pitch attitude angle, and Kθ and Kq are constant gains.

Longitudinal tracking and glide slope mode

F or longitudinal speed and flight path tracking during the approach, the Total En-
ergy Control System (TECS) is used [66], see F igure 6.4. The TECS-architecture

p e KTI
+ +
a e
+ S - Tc
+ p W
a KTP
+
2 -KF

. +
V KF KE P
g s peed lo o p -
C
(path prio rity )
+ - + KE I - ref
KV . +
. + +
Vcas g -
c - Vc Ve S +
g g 0
Vcas

Figure 6.4: TECS controller structure (subscript e denotes an error from a com-
manded value)

off ers pilot-like decoupled tracking of speed and flight path angle commands. The
input signals are air mass referenced flight path angle γa ≈ −VZ / Vcas and filtered
acceleration V̇ˆ / g and the errors from the commanded values. H ere, TECS con-
trols pitch attitude θref and thrust (per unit weight, δ T c / W ). An inverse thrust
map and an engine backlash compensation scheme (B L comp) are used to gener-
ate appropriate throttle commands (F igure 6.3). The gain KF allows for shifting
control priority to flight path tracking. The speed loop is opened in case thrust
saturates.
The feedback signal V̇ˆ / g is obtained from complementarily filtering of the mea-
sured calibrated airspeed Vcas and the time derivative of the inertial speed V̇ , with
time constant τV , see F igure 6.5 and Ref. [66]. The acceleration V̇ is computed
164 Design of autoland controller functions

.
V
^.
V
1 + 1
Vc a s ^
- v s V
Vc a s0

Figure 6.5: Block diagram of the complementary speed filter

from:
q
V = VvT Vv
dV 1  T 
= Vv V̇v
dt V     
nx 0
dV 1 T
= V −Tvb  ny  g −  0  (6.3)
dt V v
nz g

where Vv is the velocity vector in the vehicle-carried vertical frame Fv . Compu-

tation of the acceleration thus requires load factors, Euler attitude angles (for the
direction cosine matrix Tvb ), and the inertial speed components in Fv . Note that
the load factors have negative sign with respect to the aircraft body axes. The
components of Vv are obtained from:

T
Vv = V cos γ cos χ , cos γ sin χ , − sin γ (6.4)

The acceleration error V̇¯e /g is computed from proportional feedback of the cali-
brated airspeed:

V̇¯e = KV (Vap p − Vcas ) − V̇ˆ (6.5)

where Vap p is the selected approach speed. Note that Vcas instead of the comple-
mentary filtered V̂ is used for feedback. The reason is that during wind shear the
aircraft has to accelerate or decelerate in order to maintain airspeed, i.e. V̇ 6= 0.
Consequently, the integrator output in Figure 6.5 will have a steady state error
[23].
The structure of the glide slope mode is depicted in Figure 6.6. The flight path
angle error is input to the TECS controller and is computed as follows: [66]:
 
1 1 ˆ
γe = Kh ∆h̃ − ḣ (6.6)
V̂ τh s + 1
6.3 The controller architecture 165

^
V
~ 1 .
hG S Kh x e
hs+1 +
in it .
h

c o m p lem en ta ry filter

V S in (-3 /5 7 .3 )
+
+ + 1
h.-1
.
Z - s
in it

Figure 6.6: Block diagram of the glide slope mode

where V̂ is the complementarily filtered calibrated airspeed signal, and ∆h̃GS is

the height error estimated from the glide slope signal εGS , which is filtered with
time constant τh in order to remove high frequency signal noise (see Figure 6.6).
ˆ
The estimated vertical speed with respect to the glide slope ḣ is obtained from
complementarily filtering of ∆h̃GS and the vertical velocity with respect to the
glide slope: V sin(γg ldnom )+VZ . In th e la tte r e x p re ssio n VZ is th e v e rtic a l v e lo c ity
in Fv a n d γgld nom = −3/1 8 0 ∗ π ra d is th e n o m in a l g lid e slo p e a n g le . T h e e x a c t
a n g le m a y b e h a lf a d e g re e m o re o r le ss a n d is n o t k n o w n , b u t n o te th a t in ste a d y
ˆ
sta te th e c o n trib u tio n to ḣ is z e ro . T h e tim e c o n sta n t o f th e c o m p le m e n ta ry fi lte r
is τḣ .
Flare law
F o r th e fl a re la w , th e so -c a lle d v a ria b le T a u p rin c ip le [6 4 ] w a s ch o se n (F ig u re 6 .7 ).
It fe a tu re s c o n sta n t in itia tio n h e ig h t (Hf la r e ) a n d lo w to u ch d o w n d isp e rsio n
u n d e r v a ry in g w in d c o n d itio n s, sin c e th e tim e c o n sta n t o f th e fl a re m a n o e u v re
is p o sitio n , ra th e r th a n tim e -re fe re n c e d a n d c o m p u te d o n -lin e (h e n c e th e n a m e
“ v a ria b le ta u ” ). In th e fi g u re Vg is th e g ro u n d sp e e d a n d Hb ia s is a re fe re n c e
a ltitu d e so m e w h a t b e lo w th e ru n w a y su rfa c e , m a k in g su re so m e sin k ra te is le ft
w h e n th e a irc ra ft m a in w h e e ls to u ch th e g ro u n d . A fe e d fo rw a rd p a rt is a d d e d
c o n sistin g o f a ra m p c o m m a n d to in c re a se p itch (θR a m p ) a s w e ll a s th e m e a n T E C S
a ttitu d e c o m m a n d θ̂0 , m u ltip lie d b y KF W (o b v io u sly , th e sta rtin g v a lu e fo r tu n in g
is 1 ). T h e a n g le θ̂0 is o b ta in e d b y lo w -p a ss fi lte rin g θr e f c o m m a n d e d b y T E C S
d u rin g th e a p p ro a ch , a n d h o ld in g th e v a lu e fro m fl a re in itia tio n (F ig u re 6 .7 ).
ˆ
T h e v e rtic a l sp e e d ḣ is o b ta in e d b y c o m p le m e n ta ry fi lte rin g th e ra d io a ltitu d e
Hr a a n d VZ , re su ltin g in a ru n w a y re fe re n c e d sig n a l w ith lo w n o ise c o n te n t, se e
ˆ
F ig u re 6 .8 . T h e d iff e re n c e ∆ ḣr w y = ḣ − (−VZ ) is c a u se d b y a p o ssib le ru n w a y
slo p e , fro m w h ich a n a d d itio n a l fe e d fo rw a rd c o m m a n d is g e n e ra te d v ia KR W .
D u rin g fl a re th e th ro ttle s a re re ta rd e d a t a c o n sta n t ra te δ̇T H c (p ro p o rtio n a l to
th e g ro u n d sp e e d a t fl a re in it), su ch th a t th e se re a ch id le p o sitio n a t th e p ro je c te d
166 Design of autoland controller functions

 ,     ,           

  

   


    

 

% %
 


  

%

 

 
 
   
         

# $      
 

   
     ! 
 %
 
              

& # ' ( ) *


+          
   

   "    !  "

Figure 6.7: Variable Tau-based flare law architecture

. .
Hrw y -H
.
dead zone
Z .
lim ite r Hrw y
fla re -
+ h.-1 1
Hra fl
0
- + s
Hra re se t a t
fla re in it

Figure 6.8 : Structure of complementary vertical speed filter

6.3 The controller architecture 167

touchdown point.

nom i
nal g
lid e s
l ope
cros s ing : flare init

aircraft flig ht path Hfla re

(m ain w heels ) Hr a
R u nw ay T hres hold
Hfla re Htr S ea w all
(ex ag g erated )
approach terain

Hra fro m s e n s o r
Hra (e x a g g e ra te d )
Htr
Hfla re

a c tu a l Hra

0.1 s tim e
e rro r in in itia l Hra d u e to s te p -tra n s ie n t
Hra ,s e n s - Hra a t u n d e la y e d fla re in it

n o e rro r in in itia l Hra w h e n fla re in it d e la y e d

Htr
0 fla re
fla re in it (d e la y e d )

0.1 s tim e

Figure 6.9: Flare initiation due to sea wall

A somewhat tricky situation is sketched in Figure 6.9 (top). At some airports,

like Funchal, M adeira, the approach path is over water, resulting in a step-wise
terrain elevation shortly before the runway threshold (also known as “sea wall”).
In case the aircraft arrives low from the glide slope, this sea wall may trigger
the flare mode due to the step-wise change in Hra . Due to the (in this case)
100 ms time constant of the radio altimeter, its reading may still decrease further
(Figure 6.9 , middle). H owever, from flare initiation Hra becomes a feedback signal
and is used to initialise the vertical speed filter, see Figure 6.7 and 6.8. Due to
the sensor transient, the flare law will unnecessarily react to the small altitude
error (Figure 6.9 , below), and the filter will be initialised wrongly. The solution
to this problem is simple: after reaching the flare initiation, activation of the flare
mode is delayed with 100 ms.
168 Design of autoland controller functions

6.4 Optimisation problem set-ups

This section addresses step B in the design process in Figure 6.2. For each individ-
ual controller function, an optimisation problem set-up is defined. Such a set-up
includes properties of the free parameters in the controller structure, computa-
tional design criteria (including properties such as scaling, minimise or ineq uality
constraint, etc.) that apply to the specific function, as well as macros and models
to compute these criteria. Visualisation of analysis results is configured as well,
allowing the designer to q ualitatively monitor design progress.
Stability and Command Augmentation (SCA)
The gains Kθ and Kq are tuning parameters for command shaping. If necessary,
uncertain model parameters that also appear in the inverse model eq uations (p∗u ),
can be effectively used as additional tuning parameters to improve robustness, see
Chapter 5 . The criteria for the longitudinal part of the N DI inner loop are listed
in Table 6.1. Those based on simulation 1 are intended for command shaping,
those on simulation 2 for disturbance rejection, and those based on linear analysis
are intended to guarantee closed-loop stability (over all eigenvalues, including
zero dynamics) and stability robustness to model uncertainty (eg. time delays,
unmodelled dynamics).

name description computation

Simulation 1, step: θref = 5 deg, no turb ulenc e
THrt rise time see remarks
THos over shoot ,,
THcontr δE control activity maxt> 1.3s {|δ̇E |}
Simulation 2 , h eav y turb ulenc e
1
R t= 6 0 2
THturb disturbance rejection 6 0 t= 0 (θref − θ) d t
L inear analy sis
gmAD gain margin at δE -act. see remarks
pmAD phase margin at δE -act. ,,
gmST gain margin at θ-sens. ,,
pmST phase margin at θ-sens. ,,
DAMP di min. damping (lon) min{ζi } (longitudinal)

Table 6.1: Criteria for the SCA function. R emarks: All computations: sym-
metrical horizontal flight; altitude=1000 ft; nominal aircraft loading. Step times:
ts = 1 s. R ise time: ∆t between 10% and 90% of command. G ain/ phase margins:
computed using margin-command [79].

In multi-objective optimisation, relative importance of criteria is expressed via

scaling. Especially in case of conflicting req uirements, this gives the designer an
effective means to make trade-offs and to set priorities. Scaled criteria have to
be formulated such, that the objective is to minimise them, and that a value less
than one is considered satisfactory.
6.4 Optimisation problem set-ups 169

Criteria scaling can be performed by division of each criterion by its demanded

value:
ĉk (T ) = ck (T )/dk (6.7)
where ck (T ) and dk are the computed value and demanded value of criterion k
respectively, and T denotes the current set of tuning parameters. Scaling can also
be done using so-called ’good-bad’ values [50], as will be illustrated for gmAD in
Figure 6.10. The demand is that the gain margin is at least 4 dB (’bad-low’). Any

   

 
   

           
   
 







  

            

Figure 6.10: Scaling of gmAD w ith good -b ad v alu e s

v alu e large r th an 6 (’good -low ’) is consid e re d e q u ally good and th e re fore scale d to
0 . B e low 6 d B , th e scale d v alu e incre ase s line arly , su ch th at a v alu e of 1 is re ach e d
for th e b ad -low v alu e of 4 d B . A ny v alu e b e tw e e n 4 and 6 d B is acce p tab le , any
v alu e low e r th an 4 d B is consid e re d u nacce p tab le (b ad ). A s an e x am p le , if th e
gain m argin is 3 d B , its scale d v alu e e q u als 1 .5 . In th e sam e fash ion, ’good -h igh ’
and ’b ad -h igh ’ v alu e s can b e sp e cifi e d . It m u st b e note d th at th e corne r b e tw e e n
th e slop ing line (< 6 d B ) and th e h oriz ontal line p roje cting crite ria v alu e s to z e ro
is (sh arp ly ) rou nd e d u sing an e x p one ntial fu nction, in ord e r to m ak e su re th e
scale d crite rion v alu e re m ains sm ooth .
T h e scalings ap p lie d to th e SC A crite ria are giv e n in th e fi rst p art of T ab le 6 .4
(T H rt ... DAM P d i). Som e of th e crite ria are tre ate d as ine q u ality constraints
(i.e . ĉk (T ) ≤ 1 ). F or e x am p le , an ov e rsh oot of le ss th an 5 % is d e m and e d . If
th is is satisfi e d , th e re is no p oint to fu rth e r m inim ise th is crite rion, since th is m ay
u nne ce ssarily go at th e cost of rise tim e . T h e crite rion T H tu rb is p assiv e : its v alu e
is com p u te d at e ach ite ration ste p for m onitoring, b u t ignore d b y th e op tim ise r.
O f cou rse , p assiv e crite ria m ay b e activ ate d any tim e .
S p eed / P a th T ra c k in g (S P T ) co n tro l la w s
T h e task of th e T E C S controlle r is d e cou p le d sp e e d and fl igh t p ath angle track ing,
w h ile p rov id ing ad e q u ate stab ility m argin. T h e se task s are re fl e cte d b y crite ria
th at are com p u te d from th re e nonline ar sim u lations and line ar analy sis, se e T a-
b le 6 .3 . Sim u lations 1 and 2 are inte nd e d for fl igh t p ath angle and sp e e d ste p
re sp onse sh ap ing. Sim u lation 3 is inte nd e d to asse ss tu rb u le nce re je ction. T h e
corre sp ond ing scalings are giv e n in T ab le 6 .4 . T h ose for d am p ing and stab ility
m argins are as in T ab le 6 .4 .
170 Design of autoland controller functions

Criterion Bad Good Good Bad De- Type

(u nit) low low h ig h h ig h / m and
Longitudinal SCA criteria
TH rt (s) – – – – 2 .5 c
TH os (-) – – – – 0 .0 5 c
TH c ontr (deg / s) – – – – 1 2 .0 m
TH tu rb (deg 2 ) – – – – 0 .0 8 p
g m A D (-) – – 4 .0 6 .0 1 m
pm A D (deg ) – – 40 60 1 c
g m S T (-) – – 4 .0 6 .0 1 m
pm S T (deg ) – – 40 60 1 c
DA M P di (-) – – 0 .5 0 .7 1 c
Longitudinal SP T criteria
GA rt (s) – – – – 1 6 .0 c
GA os (-) – – – – 0 .1 c
GA st (deg ) – – – – 0 .2 m
TH c m d (deg / s) – – – – 2 .0 m
GA V A (m / s) – – – – 0 .5 m
V A rt (s) – – – – 2 0 .0 c
V A os (-) – – – – 0 .1 0 c
V A st (m / s) – – – – 0 .5 m
dTH R (deg / s) – – – – 0 .1 5 m
V A GA (deg ) – – – – 1 .0 m
N Z tu rb (s −2 ) – – – – 0 .0 0 7 p
TH Ctu rb (deg 2 ) – – – – 0 .1 6 7 p
TH R tu rb (deg 2 ) – – – – 5 p
G lide slop e criteria
GS rt (s) – – – – 20 c
GS os (-) – – – – 0 .1 2 m
GS st (m ) – – – – 2 c
m ax GS dev (m A ) – – – – 200 m
m ax GS dev 5 0 (m A ) – – – – 200 m
m eanGS dev (m A ) – – – – 1 m
m ax TH E dev (deg ) – – – – 3 m
m ax V Cdev (m / s) – – – – 8 .0 m
F lare criteria
X TDnom (m ) 360 380 400 420 1 m
V Z TDnom (m / s) -3 .0 -2 .8 -2 .4 -2 .2 1 m
TH g rad (rad/ s) – – – – 1 c
dH g rad (m / s) – – – – 1 c
dDE m ax (deg / s) – – – – 10 c
m eanH TP 6 0 (m ) 8 10 12 15 1 m
stdev H TP 6 0 (m ) – – – – 1 .3 m
lim H TP 6 0 (m ) 0 5 – – 1 c
m eanX TD (m ) 300 350 400 450 1 m
stdev X TD (m ) – – – – 75 m
lim X TD (m ) – – – – 680 c
m eanV Z TD (m / s) -6 -4 -2 -1 .5 1 m
stdev V Z TD (m / s) – – – – 1 .4 m
lim V Z TD (m / s) – – – – 3 .1 c

Table 6.2: Scalings of all optimisation criteria. Remark: c=inequality constraint,

m=minimise, p=passive
6.4 Optimisation problem set-ups 171

name description computation

Simulation 1, step: γc = 3 deg, no turb .
G Art rise time γ see remarks Table 6.1
G Aos over shoot γ ,,
G Ast ’settling time’ γ maxt> 25s {|γc − γ|}
TH cmd θ cmd eff ort max{|θ̇r e f |}
G AV A max. speed deviation max{|∆Vca s |}
Simulation 2 , step: ∆Vc = 10m / s , γ = −3 d eg , no turb .
V Art rise time Vca s see remarks Table 6.1
V Aos over shoot Vca s ,,
V Ast ’settling time’ Vca s maxt> 25s {|Vc − ∆Vca s |}
dTH R throttle activity max{|δ̇T H 1c |}
V AG A max. γ deviation max{|∆γ|}
Simulation 3 , h eav y turb ulenc e:
trimmed on g lid e slope, Vw in d = 15.4m / s
1
R t= 6 0 2
N Z turb load factor variation 6 0 Rt= 0 ∆nz d t
1 t= 6 0 2
TH Cturb θ cmd eff ort 6 0 Rt= 0 ∆θr e f d t
1 t= 6 0 2
TH Rturb throttle activity 6 0 t= 0 ∆δT H c d t
L inear analy sis
gmAD G M δE -act. see remarks Table 6.1
pmAD P M δE -act. ,,
gmSG G M at γ-sens. ,,
pmSG P M at γ-sens. ,,
gmSV G M at Vca s -sens. ,,
pmSV P M at Vca s -sens. ,,
D AM P min. damping mini {ζi }

Table 6.3: Criteria for the SP T function. Remarks: ∆ denotes deviation from
trimmed value

Of course, the SP T control laws always work via the SCA system. Thus, ex-
cept for the TECS gains, also tuning parameters in the N D I controller aff ect the
performance criteria in Table 6.3.
Glide slope mode
For the glide slope mode again command shaping criteria are applied, see Table 6.4
(simulation 1). A more important aspect during glide slope and approach speed
tracking is disturbance rejection, whereas pitch attitude dynamics and throttle
activity have to be limited for passenger comfort and pilot acceptance reasons.
D esign requirements were based on indicators listed in the second column of Ta-
ble 6.4. One possibility is to derive computational criteria from analytical covari-
ance analysis. For this work, a diff erent approach was tried, based on nonlinear
approach and landing simulations performed in on-line M onte Carlo analysis that
is used to compute statistical flare law criteria (to be discussed in the next sub-
172 Design of autoland controller functions

section), see Table 6.4. Since each landing is performed with different parameter
vectors pe , pk , their variation is implicitly addressed in optimising for disturbance
rejection. Due to the large number of simulations involved, the risk that the op-
timiser may anticipate a specific noise signal, is reduced. However, the random
generators used in the Monte Carlo analysis are re-set before each run, so that the
ith individual simulation in different Monte Carlo runs always uses the same set
of parameters values and noise signals. This is required in order to prevent noisy
criteria due to variations in simulated disturbances. The scalings on the criteria
are given in Table 6.4.

name description computation

Nonlinear simulation, offset of 50 m above glide slope, aircraft
trimmed parallel to the G S, no turbulence.
GSrt rise time see remarks Table 6.1
GSos over shoot ,,
GSst ’settling time’ maxt>30s {|Ho f f set |}
M onte C arlo simulations, all effects (eg. turbulence,
nonlinearities) included
maxGL Ddev max. abs. vertical maximc {max10s< t< tf l {|εG S (t)|}}
deviation from GS
maxGL Ddev50 abs. vert. dev. from maximc {|εG S (tf li M C )|}}
GS, at flare init
Pnmc R tf l i M C
meanGL Ddev mean deviation Pi=1 εG S (t)dt/...
nmc t=10
from GS (t
i=1 f li M C − 10)
maxTHEdev max pitch angle dev.
from mean value maximc {max10s< t< tf l {|θ(t) − θ̄|}}
maxVCdev max. speed maximc {max10s< t< tf l {|Vap p i M C −
deviation Vcasf i l t − 0.5m/s|}}

Table 6.4: Criteria for the Glide Slope mode. Remarks: nmc = to tal n u mb er o f
M o n te C arlo simu latio n s, imc = in d ex o f in d iv id u al M C simu latio n , tf l i M C = fl are
in itiatio n time fo r simu latio n imc , .̄. in d ic ates mean v alu e fo r 1 0 s < t < tf l i M C , Vca s f i l t
is Vca s fi ltered w ith 5 s time c o n stan t.

Flare mode
For the flare mode deterministic and stochastic criteria are considered. The de-
terministic criteria (Table 6.5, 6.4) are computed from a nonlinear landing simu-
lation. The stochastic criteria are computed from on-line Monte Carlo analysis.
To this end, nM C = 400 nonlinear landing simulations are performed in which
all disturbances are applied. Before each landing simulation iM C , 16 operational
parameters (∈ pk , ∈ pe , see Figure 6.1) are selected randomly, according to pre-
scribed statistical properties. After completing the simulations, the mean values
and standard deviations of so-called risk-parameters are determined. The longi-
tudinal risk parameters are: the height of the main gear over the runway at 60
6.4 Optimisation problem set-ups 173

Name Specification Computation

description
Nonlinear simulation, no disturbances,
nominal conditions
X TDnom touchdown xtd (ttd )
point
VZTDnom vert. touch- Ḣra (ttd )
down speed
THgrad θ̇ may not 1 − mint1 ≤t≤ttd {θ̇(t)}
ch a n g e sig n
d H g ra d V̇Z m a y n o t 1 + m a x t1 ≤t≤ttd {V̇Z }
ch a n g e sig n
d D E m ax e le v . ra te m a x f l≤t≤ttd {| δ̇E | }
ttd = to u ch d o w n tim e , t1 = fl a re in it tim e + 2 s

Table 6.5: D e te rm in istic fl a re c rite ria

m fro m th e th re sh o ld (H T P 6 0 ), to a sse ss th e risk o f sh o rt la n d in g s, th e ru n w a y

to u ch d o w n d ista n c e fro m th re sh o ld (X T D ), to a sse ss th e risk o f lo n g la n d in g s,
a n d th e v e rtic a l sp e e d w ith re sp e c t to th e ru n w a y su rfa c e (V Z T D ), to a sse ss
h a rd la n d in g s. F ro m th e m e a n v a lu e s a n d sta n d a rd d e v ia tio n s, th e d istrib u tio n
a n d c u m u la tiv e d istrib u tio n fu n c tio n s c a n b e c o m p u te d , a ssu m in g th a t th e se a re
G a u ssia n . B a se d o n E A S A C S -A W O sp e c ifi c a tio n s, e a ch risk p a ra m e te r h a s a
lim it v a lu e fo r w h ich th e p ro b a b ility o f e x c e e d a n c e m u st b e p ro v e d to b e le ss th a n
1 0 −6 (a v e ra g e risk a n a ly sis).
F o r e a ch o f th e risk p a ra m e te rs, th e m e a n v a lu e , sta n d a rd d e v ia tio n , a n d p ro b -
a b ility o f e x c e e d in g th e lim it v a lu e a re a d d re sse d v ia o p tim isa tio n c rite ria , se e
T a b le 6 .4 (b e lo w ). T h e p ro b a b ility c rite ria a re a d d re sse d a s illu stra te d v ia a n
e x a m p le . T h e lim it v a lu e fo r XT D is 9 1 5 m . A s o p tim isa tio n c rite rio n , th e a c tu a l
v a lu e o f XT D fo r w h ich th e p ro b a b ility o f e x c e e d in g e q u a ls 1 0 −6 is ta k e n :

XT D li m ,6
: P (XT D ≥ XT D li m ,6
) = 1 0 −6 (6 .8 )

XT D l i m , 6 (fo u n d b y in te rp o la tio n ) is d iv id e d b y its d e m a n d e d v a lu e o f 9 1 5 m

a n d h a n d le d a s a n in e q u a lity c o n stra in t (XT D l i m , 6 /9 1 5 < 1 ). T h is is e q u iv a le n t to
d e m a n d in g P (XT D > 9 1 5 ) < 1 0 −6 . H o w e v e r, in o rd e r to a ch ie v e m o re m a rg in (o r,
lo w e r p ro b a b ility o f e x c e e d a n c e ), th e d e m a n d e d v a lu e h a s b e e n se t to 6 8 0 m , o r:
XT D l i m , 6 /6 8 0 m < 1 , so th a t P (XT D > 9 1 5 ) << 1 0 −6 . F o r c e rtifi c a tio n n a m e ly ,
a lso lim it risk s m u st b e c o m p u te d . T h is in v o lv e s re p e a te d M o n te C a rlo a n a ly se s
w h e re e a ch tim e o n e m o d e l p a ra m e te r is h e ld fi x e d a t o n e o f its e x tre m e v a lu e s
w h ile o th e r p a ra m e te rs v a ry a s b e fo re . C o m p a re d w ith th e sta n d a rd a n a ly sis, th e
re q u ire m e n ts o n X T D a re h a rd ly re lie v e d (a p ro b a b ility o f e x c e e d in g th e 9 1 5 m
m a rk o f < 1 0 −5 m u st b e p ro v e d ). F o r th is re a so n in th e o p tim isa tio n a n a d d itio n a l
m a rg in is a im e d fo r b y d e m a n d in g a sm a lle r lim it v a lu e .
174 Design of autoland controller functions

6.5 Controller optimisation strategy

This section addresses step C in the design process in Figure 6.2. For tuning the
autopilot functions, the multi-objective optimisation environment MOPS (Multi-
Objective Parameter Synthesis [50]) is used. MOPS allows multiple optimisation
sub-tasks (set-ups), as defined in the previous section, to be comfortably combined
into a single one. This feature allows for tuning controller functions simultane-
ously, as will be described shortly.
In Section 6.4, for each controller function an optimisation set-up has been defined.
Optimising each function independently does not guarantee suffi cient performance
of the complete system, since in spite of time scale separation between sequential
loops, considerable dynamic interaction may be left. This especially holds for
the SCA in combination with the flare and SPT functions. For this reason, the
intention is to tune all controller functions simultaneously. However, in order to
steer the optimisation process in a structured way, and to keep an overview over
the large amount of criteria, simultaneous optimisation is not performed in one
shot. Instead, tuning is started with the SCA inner loop, and then sequentially
expanded with the problem set-ups for SPT and guidance functions. The tuning
process is depicted in Figure 6.11.
O ptim iz ation prob lem set-ups
for con troller fun ction s

A ug m en t con tr. fun ction 1

optim iz ation set-ups
C
aug m en t n ex t con tr. fun ction

Functional
D e s ig n R e q ./ For each set-up: 2
C e rtification * selection of m od el cases 2
s p e cs * set criteria properties
1

T un in g & C om prom isin g 3

C on troller fun ction 4

assessm en t

In teg rated con troller

Figure 6.11: optimisation-based autoland control laws design process (step C in

Figure 6.2)

For a combined optimisation task (step 1), criteria properties (scaling, type) are
adjusted and, if desired, multiple model cases are selected (step 2). The latter
allows for compromising performance between nominal and worst-case model pa-
rameter combinations (pe , pu , pk ) and is therefore an eff ective means to address
6.5 Controller optimisation strategy 175

performance robustness [50]. After tuning and compromising via multi-objective

optimisation in step 3 , performance and robustness of the resulting controller
functions are assessed (step 4). After optimisation or assessment, the designer
may decide to adjust criteria scaling (loop 1,2) in order to influence compromise
solutions. In case of robustness problems, worst model cases may be added to the
optimisation (loop 2). In case the result is satisfactory, the next controller func-
tion set-up is added (step 1). Eventually, all controller functions are optimised
simultaneously.
As already mentioned, the SCA inner loop function is tuned first. The linear
controller parameters (Kθ , Kq ) are used for command shaping. Since dynamic
inversion is sensitive to modelling errors, special attention has to be paid to this
issue (Chapter 5). For this reason, performance of the optimisation result is
evaluated for all combinations of extreme values of the longitudinal parameters
in pu . If necessary, selected worst cases may be included in the optimisation1 .
N ext, the optimisation set-up for the TECS-based flight path and speed tracking
loop is added. The SCA set-up is retained, but the critical criteria are changed
into inequality constraints (step 2 in Figure 6.11). During optimisation the inner
loop gains Kθ , Kq may thus be adjusted to improve TECS performance, but the
optimiser is prevented from distorting the achieved SCA performance by choos-
ing gains Kθ , Kq that are only valid with TECS connected. Again, the newly
optimised parameters are used as a start for the following step.
N ext, the glide slope mode is added to the optimisation. Criteria of the TECS
set-up are also set as inequality constraints. At this point, the Monte Carlo
based criteria are left out, since their computation is too time consuming for an
intermediate optimisation step. During tuning of the glide slope mode it became
clear that tight path tracking could not be sufficiently achieved. Fortunately,
in the TECS structure the gain KF (normally 1) can be used to (temporarily)
shift priority to flight path tracking. Opening the speed loop (see Figure 6.4) is
also helpful. The parameter KF may be adapted when the glide slope mode is
connected. Evaluation of the criteria for TECS alone (as in previous optimisation)
is performed for KF = 1 and the speed loop closed. R egarding tracking, the glide
slope mode is most demanding. It is expected that other autopilot modes can be
added later on, without, or with only minor adjustment to TECS gains.
Finally, the flare mode is added, including Monte Carlo based criteria. Those
related to the glide slope criteria are activated as well now (Table 6.4). The
optimisation task now includes all longitudinal autoland functions. All gains may
be adjusted, and criteria from all sub-tasks (see Section 6.4) are active. Those in
the SCA and TECS set-ups are set as inequality constraints. This on one hand
allows these functions to be adjusted to improve outer loop performance, but on
the other hand prevents distortion of performance of the functions without the
flare or GS mode connected.
1 Contrary to roll and yaw control, for pitch attitude control it turned out that the use of

uncertain m odel param eters in the inv erse m odel eq uations in the control law was not neces-
sary. M ain reason is that the m ax im um uncertainty lev els of m ost long itudinal aerodynam ic
coeffi cients are lower than those of the lateral coeffi cients, see T ab le 2 .5 .
176 Design of autoland controller functions

Augmented design set-up:

(set-up to the left is retained)
Active tuner: SCA TECS GS flare unit
s−2
SCA
Kθ 1.6 2.0 2.0 2.1
Kq 2.5 3.2 3.2 3.3 s−1
KEI 0.2 0.3 0.2 s−1
KT I 0.4 0.3 0.43 s−1 r a d−1
SPT (TECS)

KEP 0.56 0.4 0.33 –

KT P 0.6 1.0 1.2 r a d−1
KV 0.12 0.12 0.12 s−1
KF * 1.0 1.0 0.28 –
τV * 10 * 10 8.8 s
Kh 0.06 0.06 s−1
τh 2.5 2.6 s
GS

τḣ 15 3.9 s
KF L -0.04 r a d(m/s)−1
Hb ia s 1.4 m
θ̇R a mp 0.18 r a d/s
KF W 1 –
KR W 0.12 r a d(m/s)−1
Flare

Hr eta r d 6.0 m
Hf la r e 12.1 m

Table 6.6: Development of tuner parameter values. ’* ’ = inactive

6.6 Formulation of the basic optimisation problem

For each design step, the problem of tuning and compromising (step 2 in Fig-
ure 6.11) is formulated as a weighted min-max optimisation problem, comprising
all active criteria, over all sub-tasks (set-ups as defined in section 6.4), over all
selected model parameter cases per sub-task:
min max {cij k (T, pij )/dij k }
T ij k∈Sm
cij k (T, pij ) ≤ dij k , ijk ∈ Si (6.9)
cij k (T, pij ) = dij k , ijk ∈ Se
Tmin ,l ≤ Tl ≤ Tma x ,l (6.10)
where: Sm is the set of criteria to be minimised, Si is the set of inequality con-
straints, and Se is the set of equality constraints; T is a vector containing the
tuning parameters Tl to be optimised, lying between the upper and lower bounds
Tmin ,l and Tma x ,l , respectively; cij k ∈ Sm is the k th normalised criterion of the j th
model parameter case in the ith optimisation sub-task (e.g. flare, SCA) and dij k is
the corresponding demand value, which serves as a criterion weight (Section 6.4);
pij denotes a parameter vector of the ith sub-task, defining the j th model case.
6.7 Controller optimisation results 177

The criteria cijk ∈ Si , Se are used as inequality and equality constraints respec-
tively. The affiliation of criteria to one of the groups Sm , Si or Se respectively,
can be changed at any time depending on the design progress. This feature is for
example used when adding the TECS set-up to the SCA one: the SCA criteria are
changed from minimisation to inequality constraints, allowing TECS performance
to be improved while the demanded level of performance of the SCA function is
allowed to deteriorate to the level of demanded criteria values (dijk ). The opti-
misation problem (6.9) is formulated automatically by the MOPS environment.
Adding optimisation sub-tasks or model cases, and setting properties of criteria
is done with the help of a graphical user interface, or via scripts [52].
The min-max optimisation problem is solved by reformulating it as a standard
Nonlinear Programming (NL P) problem with equality, inequality and simple
bound constraints. This reformulation is done fully automatically, after which
the NL P problem is solved by using one of several available powerful solvers im-
plementing local and global search strategies. Besides efficient gradient-based
solvers, also gradient-free direct search-based solvers (usually more robust, but
somewhat less efficient) are available to address problems with noisy or non-
smooth criteria. Solvers based on statistical methods or genetic algorithms are
available as well. For this work, for the SCA and TECS functions Sequential
Q uadratic Programming (SQ P) was used, after augmenting the glide slope and
flare set-ups a pattern search method was applied, which turned out to cope better
with the criteria derived from on-line Monte Carlo analysis.

6.7 Controller optimisation results

In this section the performance of the final controller (step D in Figure 6.2), as
well as intermediate results, will be assessed. Figure 6.12 shows the result of the
optimisation in so-called parallel co-ordinates. All scaled criterion values have
been plotted on an individual axis and connected through a line (i.e. one graph
corresponds to one tuning parameter set T ). The fat horiz ontal line indicates a
value of one. Criteria values below this line are considered satisfactory. Parallel
co-ordinates are standard graphical output during optimisation with MOPS, giv-
ing quick insight in the optimisation progress, in criteria that are hard to satisfy,
and in criteria that conflict and thus have to be compromised [50]. The represen-
tation will be used here to compare the intermediate optimisation steps. Criteria
vectors belonging to the different optimisation set-ups have been separated by
thick vertical lines.
The dash-dotted line (marker ’×’) in Figure 6.12 represents the result after opti-
misation of the SCA function. The other set-ups have not been involved yet, so
that the line can only be drawn for the SCA criteria. The resulting tuner param-
eter values can be found in the first column of Table 6.6. Since all scaled criterion
values are below 1, the result is regarded satisfactory. The corresponding pitch
attitude command response and the Nyquist curve for the loop opened at the ele-
vator actuator have been plotted in Figure 6.13 (dash-dotted curves). The phase
178 Design of autoland controller functions

maxGLDdev50
meanGLDdev
meanHTP60

maxGLDdev
stdevHTP60

maxTHEdev
meanVZTD
stdevVZTD

maxVCdev
VZTDnom

meanXTD
limHTP60

stdevXTD
XTDnom

limVZTD
THCturb
THRturb
DAMPdi
THcontr

THgrad
dHgrad

limXTD
THcmd
THturb

NZturb

DAMP
gmSQ
pmSQ

gmSG
pmSG
gmAD
pmAD

GAVA

VAGA

gmAD
pmAD

DEdot
gmSV
pmSV
dTHR
GAos

GSos
THos

VAos
GAst

GSst
VAst
GArt

GSrt
THrt

VArt
SCA TECS GS FLARE MONTE CARLO

Figure 6.12: Scaled criteria in parallel co-ordinates: ’-.’ = SCA optim., ’- -’ =

SCA+ SP T optim., ’– ’=c omple te optimisa tion . Scaled criteria values below the fat
horizontal line satisfy demanded values.

Step response θ Nyquist @ act.

12 2

10 1
θ (deg)

imag

8 0

6 −1

4 −2
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 −2 −1 0 1 2
time (s) real

Figure 6.13 : SCA results (for legend, see caption of Figure 6.12)
6.7 Controller optimisation results 179

margin is 85 deg, which is larger than the good-low value of 60 deg (Table 6.4)
demanded for pmAD. As depicted in Figure 6.12 on the pmAD axis, the scaled
criterion value is thus 0 (note that this is the case for all linear criteria).
The result of the combined optimisation of the SCA and SPT function is rep-
resented by the dashed line. This time, the curve can be drawn for the parallel
co-ordinates up to DAM P (dashed line, marker ’o’). The resulting tuning param-
eter values can be found in the second column of Table 6.6. All scaled criteria
values are below one, except for T H c md and T H R tu rb (set passive). However,
exceedance with 20 and 40% was considered acceptable, since these criteria were
not considered critical. Corresponding step responses on γa and Vc as can be found
in Figure 6.14 (dashed lines). Due to further adjusting Kθ and Kq , SCA criteria
values have changed in Figure 6.12. T H rt increased somewhat, but not beyond 1
(i.e. rise time < 2.5s), since the criterion was set as an inequality constraint in
the optimisation. Damping (DAM P d i) and control effort (T H co n tr) have deteri-
orated, but are still acceptable (< 1). Intermediate parameter studies with the
SCA and TECS functions for longitudinal aerodynamic coefficients in pu revealed
that criteria values did not degrade to unacceptable levels. For this reason it was
decided to proceed with the gains as found from optimisation with the nominal
aircraft model.
step response γ step response Vcas
5 12
Vcas
4 10
γ (deg), Vcas (m/s)
θ, γ (deg), Vcas (m/s)

γ 8
3
θ 6
2
4
1
2
V
cas γ
0 0

−1 −2
0 20 40 60 0 20 40 60
time (s) time (s)

Figure 6.14: TECS results (for legend, see caption of Figure 6.12)

Results of the combined optimisation of SCA, SPT, and GS set-ups will not be
discussed (third column of Table 6.6). The final optimisation step involves all
set-ups augmented into a single optimisation task. The result is represented by a
solid line in Figure 6.12 (marker ’*’). The corresponding tuner parameter values
can be found in the fourth column of Table 6.6.
Regarding the nominal flare manoeuvre (Figure 6.15), all criteria (X T Dn o m ...
DE d o t) are satisfactory, except for T H g ra d (Table 6.5). It turned out that a
slight nose drop during the flare (0.3 deg) had to be tolerated, unless considerable
emphasis was put on feedforward. This however made it hard to meet Monte
Carlo assessment criteria that will be discussed shortly. At this point, it became
clear that architectural enhancements will be necessary to further improve the
180 Design of autoland controller functions

R a dio a ltitu de (m) Pitch attitude response

15 6

5
10

θ (deg)
(m)

4
ra
H

5
3

0
2
0 1 00 2 00 3 00 4 00 500 0 100 200 300 400 500
D is t. from thre s hold (m) Dist. from threshold (m)

Figure 6.15: Flare results

Throttle activity
Glide slope offset
10
25
backlash compensated
backlash not compensated
5
Throttle (deg)
(mA)

0 20
GLD
ε

−5

−10 15
−5000 −4000 −3000 −2000 −1000 0 −5000 −4000 −3000 −2000 −1000 0
Dist. to threshold (m) Dist. to threshold (m)

Figure 6.16: G lid e S lo p e results

d esig n .
A m ajo r c o n c ern fo r g lid e slo p e track in g w as en g in e th ro ttle b ack lash . S in c e T E C S
uses th ro ttle fo r fl ig h t p ath track in g , un ac c ep tab le o sc illatio n s aro se. T h ese c o uld
b e red uc ed v ia a c o m p en satio n sch em e usin g m easurem en t o f th e m ean fan sh aft
sp eed N1 o f b o th en g in es. Fig ure 6 .1 6 sh o w s n o m in al g lid e slo p e track in g p er-
fo rm an c e an d th ro ttle ac tiv ity w ith o ut (d o tted ) an d w ith b ack lash c o m p en satio n
(so lid ). B o th th ro ttle ac tiv ity an d o sc illatio n s h av e red uc ed c o n sid erab ly . T h e
m ax im um o v er-all d ev iatio n (maxGLDdev) an d m ax im um d ev iatio n 5 0 m b efo re
th resh o ld (maxGLDdev5 0 ) un d er turb ulen t c o n d itio n s w ere d iffi c ult to im p ro v e
b ey o n d th e c riteria v alues sh o w n in Fig ure 6 .1 2 (sc alin g s h ad to b e reliev ed as w ell,
see T ab le 6 .4 ). In sp ec tio n o f in d iv id ual lan d in g s fro m th e M o n te C arlo an aly sis
rev ealed th at th ese m ax im um v alues o c c urred d urin g ex trem e w in d sh ears (>9
ft/ s), c aused b y a c o m b in atio n o f h eav y turb ulen c e an d th e stan d ard w in d p ro fi le
as a fun c tio n o f h eig h t [3 7 ]. In furth er tun in g , such c ases sh o uld b e elim in ated .
T h e T E C S related p aram eters h av e b een c o n sid erab ly m o d ifi ed d urin g th e fi n al
o p tim isatio n step . C learly , p itch attitud e c o m m an d s (T H c md) h av e d ec reased ,
6.7 Controller optimisation results 181

at the cost of throttle activity (dTHR). This is related to minimising pitch at-
titude excursions during glide slope tracking (maxTHE dev). H owever, the latter
criterion was most difficult to improve. Again, it turned out that the maximum
deviations occurred during heavy wind shears. Figure 6.17 shows an example
simulation from Monte Carlo analysis with a θ deviation of ∼5 deg due to a 3
sec. wind shear of ∼9 ft/s. R egarding the SCA related criteria, these slightly,
but acceptably, deteriorate due to further adjustments of Kθ and Kq . The step
response and N yq uist curve (solid) in Figure 6.13 confirm this.

Theta (°) N1 (%)

10 90

80
8
70
6
60
4
50
2
40

0 30
−6000 −4000 −2000 0 2000 −6000 −4000 −2000 0 2000

Wx (m/s) Vc (m/s)
−5 72

70
−10
68
−15 66

−20 64

62
−25
60

−30 58
−6000 −4000 −2000 0 2000 −6000 −4000 −2000 0 2000
Dist. to threshold (m) Dist. to threshold (m)

Figure 6.17: W orst case simulation from Monte Carlo analysis

The most important criteria for certification are based on risk analysis from Monte
Carlo assessment. The optimised result can be found in Figure 6.18 . The left half
of the figure shows distribution of the risk parameters H TP 60, X TD , and V Z TD
computed from the mean and standard deviations over 2000 landings (during
optimisation, only 400 were used). To the right the resulting cumulative distribu-
tions can be found. As an example for interpretation, the probability of landing
at a sink rate (V Z TD ) higher than 2 m/s is 10−2.4 , as indicated in Figure 6.18 .
The graph should stay outside the shaded area, so that the probability of landing
harder than 3 m/s (for ATTAS) is less than 10−6 (risk to be demonstrated). This
has clearly been achieved by the optimiser. Incorporating these statistical criteria
in the optimisation was found extremely useful, since EASA CS-AW O robustness
criteria could be addressed (and fulfilled) directly.
182 Design of autoland controller functions

HTP60 Log[p(HTP60 < x)] (m)

1 0

0.5
−5
0
5 10 15 20 0 5 10
XTD log[p(XTD > x)] (m)
1 0

0.5
−5
0
200 400 600 0 500 1000
VZTD log[p(VZTD > x)] (m/s)
1 0
−2.4
0.5
−5
0
−1 0 1 2 3 0 1 2 3 4

Figure 6.18: Monte Carlo simulation results

6.8 Flight test results

In this section some relevant flight test results will be briefly reviewed. More
details have been published in Ref. [12]. For the glide slope mode the same landing
as in Section 5.6 will be discussed. Figure 6.19 depicts commanded and measured
calibrated airspeed, air mass-referenced flight path angles, and accelerations. The
approach started parallel to, but somewhat below the glide path. The glide slope
mode therefore initially commands a flight path angle of z ero degrees in order
to capture it (see Figure 5.28). After capture, the flight path angle returns to
approximately -3 deg. Figure 6.20 shows throttle commands from TECS. Clearly,
a slight thrust increase is commanded in order to increase the flight path angle
for glide slope capture. Also note the eff ect of backlash compensation (dashed
line) on the commanded throttle setting.
Figure 6.21 shows the vertical and lateral speed errors with respect to the glide
slope and localiser respectively (solid lines). Although the latter is less of interest
here, both signals have been estimated in a similar way, using complementary fil-
ters. The lower frequency content is obtained from diff erentiating filtered vertical
and lateral path errors respectively. The higher frequency content is the speed
error computed with respect to the nominal flight path angle of γgld = −3 deg
and the rounded runway heading (set by the pilot) respectively (dashed lines).
For vertical speed, the filter is depicted in Figure 6.6. Comparing the solid and
dashed lines, the glide slope is apparently slightly less steep than -3 deg and the
actual runway heading is slightly rotated counter clock-wise with respect to the
6.8 Flight test results 183

reference value entered by the pilot (see also lower plot in Figure 6.23).

TECS cmd following: solid=command, dotted=measured

80
Vcas (m/s)

70

60
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200
5
flare
0
γa (deg)

−5

−10
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200
2
retard
dV/dt (m/s )
2

−2
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200
time (s)

Figure 6.19: Tracking of TECS-related variables (approach 2-2)

The flare manoeuvre for the third landing during the fourth flight test is depicted
in Figure 6.22 (top left). U nfortunately, the touch down point from the runway
threshold could only be estimated optically, but was about 400 m. The pitch
angle is depicted left below and clearly shows a slight (but unacceptable) nose
drop before touch down. The same holds for the sink rate (top right). The engine
response (N1 , mean value for both engines) is depicted bottom right and decreases
due to throttle retard.
The feedforward part of the flare law (Figure 6.7) is based on a moving average of
the pitch angle commanded by TECS during the approach: θ̂0 . The development
of this value is shown in Figure 6.23 (upper plot). Finally, it is interesting to look
at the complementary vertical speed filter within the flare mode (Figure 6.8).
After flare initialisation this filter estimates the vertical speed with respect to the
runway surface, as well as the component due to a possible runway slope. The
time responses are depicted in Figure 6.24. Apparently, the runway goes slightly
up-hill in flight direction, since the sink rate with respect to the runway surface
is slightly larger (more negative). During design it quickly turned out that even
a small runway slope (1 % ) can make the difference between a too soft landing
and an unacceptably hard one.
184 Design of autoland controller functions

Backlash comp: solid=before, dashed=after comp.

30
Retard
20
δTHR (deg)

10

−10

−20
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200
time (s)

Figure 6.20: Throttle inputs commanded by TECS (approach 2-2)

dotted=compl. filter solid=computed with γgld=−3

2

1
Hdoterror (m)

−1

−2

−3

−4
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200

solid=compl. filter dashed=computed with ψ

rwy
6

4
Ydoterror (m)

−2

−4
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200
time (s)

Figure 6.21: Estimated vertical and lateral speed errors (approach 2-2)
6.9 Conclusions 185

Radio altitude Sink rate

15 4

3 touch down
10
2

VZ [m/s]
Hra [m]

5
1
0
0

−5 −1
122 124 126 128 130 132 122 124 126 128 130 132

Pitch attitude Engine response

5 65

4 60

3 55
θ [deg]

N1 [−]

2 50

1 touch down 45

0 40

−1 35
122 124 126 128 130 132 122 124 126 128 130 132
Time [s] Time [s]

Figure 6.22: Flare manoeuvre during landing 4-3

6.9 Conclusions
The application of an optimisation-based design process for automatic landing
control laws has been discussed.
Multi-objective optimisation has proved to be very powerful to handle the large
number of design criteria. Design requirements regarding touch down performance
and glide slope tracking could be directly translated into numerical design crite-
ria. For the Stability and Control Augmentation (SCA) function and Speed and
Path Tracking (SPT) function standard step response criteria (computed from
nonlinear simulations), as well as stability-related criteria like damping and gain
and phase margins have been successfully used.
It has further been demonstrated that robustness to varying (aircraft and envi-
ronment) parameters can be successfully addressed with the help of stochastic
criteria computed from on-line Monte Carlo analysis. In the case of autoland,
this implies that part of the certification criteria have been directly addressed in
the optimisation.
Final optimisation of the system has been successfully performed for all func-
tions simultaneously. This has been used to tune a single SCA function to work
with the SPT and glide slope functions, with the flare law, as well as on its own.
optimisation of the integrated system may thus help to reduce control law com-
186 Design of autoland controller functions

4 filtered (τ=30s)
flare
θc from TECS
2
θc (deg)

−2

0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200

time (s)

100
filtered χ (τ=20s) = estimated rwy heading

95 χ (deg) align
ψrwy (deg)

90

85 selected runway heading

80
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200
time (s)

Figure 6.23: Computation of moving average pitch attitude and runway heading
angles (approach 2-2)

plexity. However, in order to keep complexity of the optimisation problem for the
numerical algorithms and for the designer in hand, a stepwise tuning strategy has
been proposed. After optimising the SCA function, the outer loop functions are
sequentially added, allowing the designer to concentrate on one function at time,
but eventually resulting in optimisation of all design parameters in the integrated
system.
The design process resulted in good performance of the autoland system and,
according to the Monte Carlo analysis results, is well able to cope with varying
aircraft and environment parameters. The flare law turned out to be close to its
performance limits (eg. a slight undesirable nose drop had to be accepted). For
further improvement of performance and robustness, the structure may have to
be enhanced.
The presented controller structure used in this design was successfully flight tested
in September 2000 on DL R’s ATTAS (Advanced Technologies Testing Aircraft
System). Some of the results have been briefly discussed.
6.9 Conclusions 187

Complementary altitude rate filter

1
Hdot
rwy
0.5 −VZ
0

−0.5
[m/s]

−1
rwy

−1.5
V , Hdot

−2 flare
Z

−2.5

−3

−3.5

−4
120 122 124 126 128 130
Time [s]

Figure 6.24: Complementary filtering of radio altitude and sink rate (approach
4-3)
188 Design of autoland controller functions

Acknowledgements
The presented design is based on the autoland system that was developed by DLR
within the project Robust and Efficient Autopilot control Laws design (REAL),
sponsored by the Commission of the European Community (contract nr. BRPR-
CT-98-0627). The DLR design team consisted of Hans-Dieter J oos and Gert-
jan Looye (from the Institute of Robotics and Mechatronics, Oberpfaffenhofen),
and Wulf Mönnich and Dehlia Willemsen (from the Institute of Flight Systems,
Braunschweig). The Matlab-based Monte Carlo assessment tool SIMPALE was
developed by project partner ONERA, France. Finally, the authors would like to
thank the reviewers for their valuable comments.
Chapter 7

Conclusions
190 Conclusions

Abstract
The main result of this thesis is a new, highly automated process structure
for design of complex fl ight control laws. P urpose of this chapter is to
describe this process, and how the other contrib utions of this thesis fi t
in. The result is validated against the ob jectives set in the introduction,
namely to accommodate multi-disciplinary control law design, as well as
preliminary control design methods for early design stages of the aircraft.
A ll contrib utions have been validated on industrial applications. B ased on
this, some lessons learnt will be reviewed. P art of these lessons give rise
to recommendations for future work .

C o n tributio n s
• A n integrated and automated process structure for design of complex
control laws.
7.1 An integrated fl ight control law design process 191

HE objective of this thesis is to propose a design process and design method-

T ologies that inherently facilitate a multi-disciplinary approach to the design
of flight control laws. The methodologies presented in the individual chapters of
this thesis provide the building blocks for such a newly structured process. The
basis for this process has been laid in Chapter 6, focusing on automatic landing
design. In this final chapter the generalised structure and its components will be
discussed.

7.1 An integrated fl ight control law design process

Figure 7.1 depicts the proposed design process structure. It covers the off-line
design phase as indicated in Figure 1.3. Since the structure is a generalised
version of the one proposed and applied in Chapter 6 (Figure 6.2), the principal
steps will be described only briefly.
The first step is the definition of the over-all control law architecture. As also indi-
cated in Figure 1.3, the resulting structure will heavily depend on the philosophy
and preferences of the aircraft manufacturer. Typical examples are the selection
of command variables for manual control, the integration of autopilot and man-
ual control functions, the implementation of protections against exceedance of
envelope parameters, etc. From developing the architecture a break-down into
sub-systems and controller functions usually arises naturally.
As a new element, a possibility for rapid-prototyping is accommodated in the
design process between architecture development and detailed design of the func-
tions: Preliminary FCL design. As discussed in Chapter 4, this is very useful in
case new types of functions are introduced for which key design choices like com-
mand variables, control allocation, etc. are not yet obvious to the design team.
Chapter 4 describes an example for control laws for drive-by-wire control of air-
craft on the ground. Compared with Figure 1.3, the rapid-prototyping process
adds a fast design loop, indicated by “ 0” in Figure 7.1.
Even more important from a multi-disciplinary point of view, rapid-prototyping
allows for early generation of standard control functions for analysis purposes in
the aircraft (preliminary) design process. This is depicted in Figure 7.2. Since
the aircraft geometry may change rapidly in the pre-design phase, the FCL design
loop has to be fast as well. This is enabled by the object-oriented modelling
methodology, allowing for fast model updates and for automatic generation of
nonlinear control laws, based on inverse control methods like Nonlinear Dynamic
Inversion. In Figure 7.2 the block Prel. design of functions represents the rapid-
prototyping process discussed in Chapter 4, see Figure 4.8.
Although the rapid prototyping process will only be applied to a number of key
functions of the eventual control system, the methodology gives the flight con-
trols team the possibility to already become a design (rather than specification)
contributor to the most preliminary aircraft configuration. The methodology for
example allows for accurate preliminary closed-loop flying quality analysis for
the current aircraft configuration, deriving “ just right” specifications for sizing of
192 Conclusions

m od e l d ata s ou rce s
De s ign - cu rre nt AC d e s ign s tatu s
P hilos op hy - late s t e x p e rim e ntal re s u lts

F unctio nal de sig n Multi-disciplinary

re q uire m e nts / aircraft m od e l Com p one nt
Inte gration lib rarie s
C e rtificatio n spe cs

Flight control law

archite ctu re d e v e lop m e nt
& fu nctional b re ak d own

P re lim inary 0
FCL d e s ign

L ib rarie s : FCL fu nction d e taile d d e s ign:

- archite ctu re (T ) FCL
- archite ctu re com p one nts (T ) inte gration
- as s ociate d op tim is ation s e t-u p s - com p u tational crite ria
- algorithm s for crite ria * p e rform ance , e tc.
- ... * m u lti-d is cip linary

M u lti-ob je ctiv e op tim is ation

of inte grate d FCL A

FCL m u lti-d is cip linary B C

as s e s s m e nt
D 1

R ob u s t FCL s re ad y for
- hard ware te s ting
- load s analy s is
- ae ros e rv oe las tic analy s is
- ...
b y s p e cialis t d e p artm e nts

Figure 7.1: New integrated FCL design process structure

control surfaces and actuators, and for flight loads analysis.

The functional breakdown in Figure 7.1 and rapid prototyping (if exercised) lead
to the following main step, namely FCL function detailed design. As explained in
Chapter 6, this involves detailed development of the control function structure,
as well as formulation of numerical design criteria for tuning of the free design pa-
rameters. The process structure in principle allows a control law structure based
on any synthesis method: it does not matter whether the design parameters are
controller variables or weighting function parameters. This means that struc-
tures from previous design programs can be incorporated, or, as demonstrated
in Chapters 5 and 6, promising architectures like Nonlinear Dynamic Inversion
and the Total Energy Control System (TECS) can be selected and exploited to
their full extent. This fulfils the constraint posed in Chapter 1 that it must be
7.1 An integrated fl ight control law design process 193

S p e cifica tio n s ,
A ir cr a ft-le v e l
a n a lys is r e s ults
Aircraft preliminary /
d etailed d es ig n

Fa
st
de
D esig n A irc raft m o d el

sig
P h ilosop h y integ ratio n

n
cy
cle
Baseline FCL
arc h itec tu re
.
C onstru ct aircraft model

Selection of command variables (ycm d )

A llocation of controls (uc)

B asic decisions

A dd linear controller /
command filters (from library )
0
Inversion of A /C model A u tomatic
P rel. d esig n
Working design o f fu nc tio ns
P reliminary analy sis B atch / real-time
(validate/comp are basic decisions) simu lation

no
ok
yes

no
A C
Rapid prototyping design
.

freez e
process Chapter 4
yes O p en-lo o p and c lo sed -lo o p
flig h t d y nam ic s analy sis

d e ta ile d
d e s ig n

Figure 7.2: Rapid-prototyping preliminary design process structure

possib le to incorporate ex isting k now -h ow , ex perience, and lessons learnt. F or

a giv en control law function most of th e w ork in th is design step needs to b e
done only once. A rch itectures, associated computational scripts for criteria com-
putation (“ optimisation set-ups” ), criteria, etc. may b e stored in and retriev ed
from a repository, sh ow n to th e left in F igure 7 .1 . E x amples of set-ups h av e b een
discussed in C h apters 5 and 6 .
A fter detailed design of F C L functions, tuning of free design parameters can b e
performed. T h is is done automatically w ith th e h elp of multi-ob jectiv e optimi-
sation, b ased on computed numerical criteria and th eir scalings as formulated in
th e prev ious design step. In case of multiple interacting functions, it is important
to apply an optimisation strategy in order to allow th e designer to steer and k eep
track of th e tuning process. S uch a strategy h as b een dev eloped in C h apter 6 , see
F igure 6 .1 1 . A s compared w ith manual tuning, multi-ob jectiv e optimisation h as
v ery attractiv e adv antages:
• T h e tuning process is repeatab le and easy to document. T h is allow s inter-
mediate design results to b e easily reproduced afterw ards;
• A much larger set of design criteria can b e h andled simultaneously. T h is
is th e k ey to multi-disciplinary control law design, since criteria related to
oth er disciplines can b e included in th e optimisation to search for trade-off s.
194 Conclusions

The second advantage allows design iterations along loop 2 (Figure 1.3) to be elim-
inated. Although not of multi-disciplinary nature, Chapter 6 has clearly validated
this: M onte Carlo analysis of autoland control laws usually results in iterations
along loop 2. B y directly addressing this analysis in the tuning process, control
laws resulted that automatically fulfi lled the underlying safety req uirements.
After tuning and compromising of the design parameters, the fl ight control laws
are extensively tested in order to validate if (multi-disciplinary) design req uire-
ments have been met in all fl ight conditions, for all aircraft confi gurations, etc.
(lower block in Figure 7.1). In Chapter 5 µ-analysis has been applied to assess sta-
bility robustness of three versions of N D I control laws. The use of object-oriented
modelling allowed for automatic generation of the req uired LFT representation
of the closed loop system. D ue to guaranteed bounds on the structured singular
value µ it could be demonstrated that, in face of the uncertain parameters, the
controllers are robustly stable, have a minimum damping number of ζ = 0 .2, and
have stability margin to spare against other unspecifi ed uncertainties in the form
of worst-case gain and phase margins.
B esides q uantitative assessment, q ualitative analysis of the control laws in the
form of interactive real-time desktop simulation is a valuable tool as well (Ap-
pendix A). It for example allows for easy testing of closed-loop responses to adverse
input signals. This q uickly reveals issues like singularities, undesired transient be-
haviour in case of switching, etc. that remained undetected in batch simulations.
In this way, interactive desktop simulation can be a strong help to improve ma-
turity of control laws released from the off-line design phase.
O nce the assessment step has been passed, control laws may be released for hard-
ware and fl ight testing, as well as for detailed aeroservoelastic and fl ight loads
analysis by specialists in those fi elds. The latter is req uired for certifi cation, but
should, compared with today’s process, no longer result in new control design
iterations along the aforementioned loop 2 (Figure 1.3).
To the right in Figure 7.1 various design iteration loops (A,B ,C,D ) have been
drawn. These loops have been described in Chapter 6 and belong to loop 1 in
Figure 1.3.
O ne of the most important elements of the new design process is multi-disciplinary
aircraft modelling. In Figure 7.1 this aspect is indicated by Multi-disciplinary
aircraft m o de l integ ratio n. The development of multi-disciplinary aircraft models
is discussed in Chapters 2 and 3. O bject-oriented modelling, available in the form
of the free language specifi cation M odelica, is highly suitable for this purpose:

• From a m o de l co nstructio n point of view, object-oriented modelling takes

place at the level of physical eq uations. This allows various components
to be implemented in their discipline-specifi c form (multi-body system, hy-
draulic scheme, electronic circuit). At the same time, the various compo-
nents can be combined in a single model. P hysical eq uation-based modelling
also allows for one-to-one implementation of physical objects and phenom-
ena. These features result in intuitive and understandable model structures,
even if the level of detail becomes high. In Chapter 2 a new structure for
7.1 An integrated fl ight control law design process 195

$  "             
     
    "         

               
                

     
             

                 

            

    

              

          

            

                

     

                                            

       

                                               

     !                                 

       &        

   %    %         

     

#     $     " #               
$ %       
     

                         *           +                               -  .           

                &                         ,  

                    '              !          (     )  "           "   

  !        "   #      &       %                  

              "    "    "  "   

         

Figure 7.3: Modelling process for control law design and simulation

aircraft flight dynamics models has been introduced, combined with a dedi-
cated flight dynamics library with reusable components. This library allows
for model implementation of rigid and flexible aircraft in slow-low up to
fast-high flight regimes;

• An object-oriented model does not require causality to be fixed before imple-

mentation. This offers great flexibility for the flight control design process,
since different types of runtime models as used for different control analy-
sis methods can be automatically obtained from one and the same aircraft
model implementation. This has been exploited to its full extent in this
thesis. For example, the rapid-prototyping process is based on automatic
generation of inverse model-based control laws. Since the inverse model
equations originate from the same source as the simulation model, a working
design (for nominal uncertain parameter settings) is obtained straight-away.
In Chapter 5 this feature was used to generate NDI control laws, but also to
obtain a Linear Fractional Transformation form of the model. W orst-case
analyses were performed, which could be validated on the nonlinear model
generated for simulation analysis.
196 Conclusions

Model construction and automatic code generation for runtime models has been
summarised in Figure 7.3: model construction (a.o. with the help of compo-
nent libraries) is performed above, various applications for control law design and
simulation are depicted below. Each runtime model form may be automatically
generated from the same model, depending on inputs, outputs, parameters and,
in some cases, states selected by the user.
One of the most notorious disciplinary interactions in flight control law design is
the influence on flight loads and aeroelasticity, and vice versa. In order to include
these aspects in the design model, overlaps in data between aeroelastic and flight
mechanics models need to be addressed before implementation. This has been
subject of Chapter 3. In this chapter the Residualised Model (RM) method has
been extended, allowing for correct integration of rigid and aeroelastic aircraft
model data. Although not exercised in this thesis, these models may be used for
multi-disciplinary flight control law optimisation, see Ref. [60] for an example. In
the mean time, for integration and computation of model data a dedicated process
has been developed, called DAMIP (Dynamic Aircraft Model Integration Process).
Details are provided in Ref. [59 ]. DAMIP largely automates the integration of
model data from various sources, as well as their implementation in the object-
oriented aircraft model.

7.2 Recent application examples

Each of the contributions in this thesis has found industrial application, has been
flown, or at least, has been validated on industry-relevant applications.
The process structure as depicted in Figure 7.1 has been applied in the EU -funded
project REAL (Robust and Effi cient Autopilot control Laws design). Within
REAL a first design was made for a generic transport aircraft. The application
to ATTAS (described in Chapters 5 and 6) was intended to prove effi ciency of the
proposed design process by posing a severe time limit and by requiring the design
to be flight ready. The ATTAS design took five weeks and resulted in six out of
six successful automatic landings, see Figure 7.4 and Ref. [12]. Within the scope
of the REAL project, a first shot design could be achieved: flight test results did
not require any re-tuning of the control laws.
With the help of the Flight Dynamics Library as presented in Chapter 2 an object-
oriented integrated aeroelastic aircraft model for real time simulation and loads
analysis was implemented. The model has 8 56 continuous and discrete states
(flight mechanics, structural dynamics, actuators, sensors, unsteady aerodynam-
ics, landing gears) and 118 9 2 scalar variables and model equations. The effi ciency
of the generated simulation code allows for real-time interactive simulation, in
combination with similar control laws as developed in Chapters 5 and 6. The
simulation has been combined with 3-D stereo visualisation, allowing for photo-
realistic visualisation of the deforming aircraft in flight and on the ground, see
Figure 7.5.
The Residualised Model method (Chapter 3) has found industrial application for
7.2 Recent application examples 197

R ob ust D y n amic c Autopilot modes:

In v . in n er loop - IL S track in g
con troller - flare / alig n

ua T h rust
sen sors

Figure 7.4: ATTAS during an automatic landing

Figure 7.5 : Interactive simulation and 3-D Stereo visualisation of the flexible
transport aircraft model at the ILA airshow in Berlin, 2006. Equipment set-up
(left) and large public interest (middle). The blue arrows on the aircraft represent
distributed aerodynamic loads, computed on-line in the simulation model (right)

flight loads computation for civil aircraft. Manoeuvre loads analyses are based on
rigid flight dynamics simulation models (including quasi-static aeroelastic effects
only). The Residualised Model method has allowed aeroelastic models from gust
response analysis to be integrated in the simulation of loads design manoeuvres,
in order to assess the effect of structural dynamics on peak and fatigue loads.
In the mean time, the RM method has been extended to rigid aerodynamic models
describing distributed air loads, instead of total aerodynamic forces and moments
that act on the aerodynamic reference point only [107].
The methodology of rapid-prototyping (Chapter 4) has been used in the project
V ECTOR (V ectoring, Extremely short take-off and landing, Control, Tailless Op-
erations Research) [40] to evaluate reduced vertical tail configurations on the
thrust-vectored X -31A experimental combat aircraft (see cover of this thesis).
This evaluation involved ground-based simulation of combat and post-stall ma-
noeuvres by test and fleet pilots (Figure 7.6) at the Patuxent River Naval Air
198 Conclusions

Station in the US. Changes to the vertical tail severely impact lateral-directional
dynamics of the aircraft, requiring adaptation of the control laws. The proposed
rapid-prototyping design process allowed for updating the X-31A model with new
aerodynamic databases and re-generation of nonlinear control laws on-site within
days. The design and evaluation of the control laws is discussed in more detail in
Ref. [123].
In the VECTOR application the results have been used to make recommendations
for controllability of the aircraft with smaller tail configurations. The rapid-
prototyping process herewith offers a methodology to more accurately assess the
airframe configuration in interaction with the control laws and achievable handling
performance. Supporting of such far reaching airframe design decisions, the rapid-
prototyping design methodology is a relevant contribution to the flight control as
well as the over-all aircraft design process.

Figure 7.6: Evaluation of control laws for the X-31A with reduced vertical tail in
the ground based simulator at the Naval air station at Patuxent River, MD. Test
and fleet pilots rated the control laws for standard flight and combat handling
and post-stall manoeuvres as level 1 on the Cooper-H arper scale.

7.3 Lessons learnt

Probably one of the most valuable recent documents on flight control law design
is the report that was produced by the RTO working group 23: Flight Control
D esign – B est P ractises [111]. As the title suggests, this report summarises best
practises resulting from lessons learnt in various military flight control projects.
During the development work and applications of the concepts described in this
thesis, a number of lessons was learnt as well, sometimes intuitively, sometimes
the hard way. These lessons will be briefly shared in the following. Although
some seem obvious, they are easily forgotten in practice. Some of the lessons give
7.3 Lessons learnt 199

rise to recommendations for future research.

• When provided with tolerances on model parameters to be taken into ac-

count during control law design, do not be comfortable in case analysis with
respect to these tolerances indicates robustness to spare (e.g. a µ value for
robust stability of 0.5). Modelling errors usually arise from other sources as
well, which may completely spoil achieved performance, or even stability.
Always check worst-case margins to unspecified uncertainties, for example
using (multi-variable) gain and phase margins.
• Tolerances on model data are very easily specified. However, the probability
that all parameters are at the extreme end of their tolerances is very low. For
this reason, just providing parameter tolerances is not sufficient: probability
of parameter combinations should be kept in mind. This gives rise to a
recommendation for future work in the next section.
• Robustness analysis by parameter gridding usually is the only practical ap-
proach to investigate most simulation-based design criteria. Critical cases
may be easily missed (see Chapter 5). Use more reliable methods, like µ-
analysis, in case the criterion can be translated into the method-specific
form (e.g. an H∞ -norm). This lesson also gives rise to a recommendation.
• Consider radical structural changes in control functions, if necessary. Some-
times a control law structure just is not sufficient to meet the spectrum
of performance and robustness requirements. The proposed design process
fully supports a structure change, since the optimisation set-ups can be
further used.
• Thoroughly understand the control law structure. For example, know what
is happening with controller states in steady flight conditions. In the ATTAS
design a lack of an integrator in the lateral inner loops (Chapter 5) allowed
a slight aircraft asymmetry to propagate into a static lateral flight path
deviation. This was detected during first ground simulator tests. Also,
methods like Nonlinear Dynamic Inversion are very straight forward, but
may result in surprises when applied without physical understanding (see
Chapter 4).
• Most aerodynamicists do not speak the language of coefficient tables and
application rules, as used most aircraft simulation models. In order to de-
velop reliable models from computational aerodynamic methods, make sure
mutual understanding of model data and their interpretation exists.
• Do not underestimate turbulence. Extensively test control law behaviour
at maximum turbulence levels, especially check control activity for rate and
position saturations.
• Use interactive desktop simulation and visualisation to validate control laws.
Especially in case of manual control, this allows for basic analysis of flying
200 Conclusions

qualities, for visual verification of command variable decoupling, for qualita-

tive analysis of behaviour of nonlinear functions, switches, protections, etc.
In this way, problem areas that otherwise tend not to show up until piloted
flight simulator evaluation can be addressed early-on at the engineer’s work
station, saving considerable simulator time and cost [123].
• Do not use desktop simulation and visualisation to interactively design flight
control laws. As also stated in [111], qualitative analysis provides important
feedback in the design process, but tuning should be based on relevant
quantitative design criteria.

7.4 Recommendations for future research

In Chapter 5 it was demonstrated that parametric linearisation of the aircraft
design model is extremely useful for robustness analysis. It allowed for automatic
generation of a Linear Fractional Transformation of the ATTAS model for robust-
ness analysis. Since the LFT stemmed from the same object-oriented model as the
one used for nonlinear simulation analysis, worst-cases found from the analysis
could be exactly verified. In the ATTAS case some luck was involved, since the
equilibrium point did not depend on the parameters of interest. This was a differ-
ent case for robustness analysis of autopilot designs for the Research Civil Aircraft
(RCAM), detailed in Refs. [71, 131]. In these references a pragmatic approach
was followed to include influence of parameters on the trim condition. Combining
symbolic trimming and symbolic linearisation is required to make methods like
µ-analysis a mature tool for use in the flight control design process. The effort to
derive low-order LFTs will be high, but a generally applicable successful outcome
will be invaluable.
An important aspect in control law design that has not been covered in this thesis
is fault tolerance. Currently, this aspect is manually addressed in the controller
architecture, in order to anticipate failure scenarios that may be expected to occur
(e.g. loss of air data). One approach to automatically address failures of actuators
or damage to the airframe is to combine on-line identification techniques with
Nonlinear Dynamic Inversion [130, 100]. It is recommended that methodologies
are integrated in the design process that allow fault tolerance to be addressed as
inherently as robustness in the synthesis of FCL parameters. This also implies
that detailed system models including failure scenarios need to be integrated in
the aircraft flight dynamics model.
An important (implicit) lesson from the design work in Chapters 5 and 6 is that
simple bounds on uncertain model parameters, even though these are handled well
by robust design methods, may result in overly conservative, even insufficiently
performing control laws. Worst-cases tend to be in corners of the parameter space
that usually are very unlikely to occur in practice. In the case the designer has
to handle multiple uncertain parameters, information on probability or combined
variations therefore should be an inherent part of the uncertainty specification.
In this thesis, Monte Carlo analysis was performed in the parameter optimisation
7.4 Recommendations for future research 201

in order to address autoland performance under stochastically varying landing

conditions. Uncertainty in the aircraft model was addressed in a deterministic
way. Synthesis of control laws in face of stochastic uncertainty has been addressed
by Schy and G iesy [117] and Wang and Stengel [134]. As a start, investigating
the integration of these approaches into the proposed design process is strongly
recommended.
202 Conclusions
Appendices
Appendix A

Model building for control law

design
206 Model building for control law design

Abstract
This appendix describes the preparation of (object-oriented) aircraft mod-
els for automatic generation of v arious types of analysis models for use
in the fl ight control law design process. A nalysis models for nonlinear
(real time) simulation, linear analysis, L FT-based robustness analysis,
and trimming are discussed.

C o n tributio n s
• A G U I-based procedure for defi ning trimming problems for nonlinear
aircraft models.
A.1 Simulation models for design analysis 207

HE design of flight control laws requires the availability of models that ac-
T curately describe the aircraft flight dynamics and allow for evaluation of all
design criteria of interest.
This appendix is concerned with the application of object-oriented aircraft models
in the flight control law design process. These models are needed in various forms.
For example, linear synthesis techniques require locally linearised state space mod-
els around flight conditions that have been selected as design points. Modern
robustness analysis methods, like µ-analysis, require models in the form of a lin-
ear fractional transformation (LFT), whereby uncertain parameters are explicitly
present and pulled out of the model into a feedback structure. Optimisation-
based design, as discussed in the introduction, can directly work on a nonlinear
model, but as for the examples above, this model should provide all necessary
output to compute design criteria of interest and should allow for external access
to model parameters. Some control design techniques, like Nonlinear Dynamic
Inversion (NDI), even directly incorporate model equations as an integral part of
the control laws.
In this appendix it will be shown how
• simulation models,
• inverse models for computation of equilibrium conditions, and
• linear (parametric) models
can be generated by appropriate specification of input, output, parameter, and
state vectors. Generation of inverse models for various control law structures is
described in Chapter 4 of this thesis.

A.1 Simulation models for design analysis

Most design work as described in this thesis has been performed using Mat-
lab/ Simulink [81]. In combination with the computational engine of Matlab this
block diagram-based environment provides a useful tool for experimentation with
and tuning of control laws. However, each block is limited to the form of a
causal input-output structure, as illustrated in the feedback interconnection in
Figure A.1. Consequently, for control design purposes the object-oriented aircraft
model needs to be made available with interfaces as depicted.
Throughout this appendix, the inputs to an aircraft model will be divided into
three groups:
1. Control inputs (uc (t) ∈ IR nuc ): These are any inputs that are available to
the c ontrol law s;
2 . Noises (n(t) ∈ IR nn ): These are inputs for (w hite) noise sig nals, e.g . for
g eneration of rand om turbulenc e, sensor d isturbanc es, etc .;
3 . O th er in p u ts (uo (t) ∈ IR nu o ): These are any other inputs that are not used
by the c ontrol law s, lik e the horiz ontal stabiliser setting , or fl ap setting s.
208 Model building for control law design

p (co nstant mo d e l p arame te rs)

n (no ise s)
yS im (o u tp u ts fo r simu latio n
uo (o the r inp u ts)
Flight Dynamics analysis)
M odel
yM e a s (me asu re me ns fo r
uc (co ntro l inp u ts) fe e d b ack )

Flight C o ntro l
L aw s
P ilo t co mmand s /
se ttings

Figure A.1: Feedback structure with aircraft model and flight control laws

N ote that the total number of inputs eq uals: nu = nuc + nuo + nn . Two types of
outputs are distinguished:
1 . Measurements for feedback (yM e a s (t) ∈ IR nym ): These are sensor signals
that are available to the control laws;
2. Outputs for analy sis (yS im (t) ∈ IR nys ): These are outputs that provide ad-
ditional signals useful for q ualitative and q uantitative analysis of the closed-
loop system.
The total number of outputs eq uals: ny = nyc + nys . Finally, the model parame-
ters p are set at initialisation and to not change during a simulation. C ommonly
used parameters are aircraft weight and balance (mass, C oG location), off sets on
uncertain aerodynamic coeffi cients, etc.
A fter model translation an algorithm results that computes state derivatives and
outputs in the form:

ẋ(t) = f (x(t), uc (t), uo (t), n, p, t)

yM e a s (t) = hm (x(t), uc (t), uo (t), n, p, t) (A .1 )
yS im (t) = hs (x(t), uc (t), uo (t), n, p, t)

In E x ample A .1 the translation process will be demonstrated for the A TTA S

ex ample from S ection 2.5 .

Example A.1: Generating a simulation model for ATTAS

Figure A.2 once more shows the top level of the object-oriented aircraft model example
of AT T AS . T he connector at the top of the actual aircraft object provides external
A.1 Simulation models for design analysis 209

access to the databus as shown in Figure 2.10. This databus basically represents an
avionics bus in a contemporary civil or military aircraft. In Figure A.2 two objects
called Avionics and C ontrols have been added. This block is intended to create an
input / output interface of the model for implementation in a simulation program. In
this example case, the external inputs U c (control inputs), U o (other inputs) and n
(noises) comply with the division as in Figure A.1. The same holds for the outputs
y M e a s and y S im . N ote that the noise connects directly to the aircraft object and is
distributed internally over turbulence, sensor noise models, etc. The reason is that
it was found physically inappropriate to have noise passed on via the databus. The
Avionics object extracts the desired outputs from the databus, whereas the C ontrols
object sends the inputs (besides noise) to the databus.

Figure A.2: Specification of inputs and outputs at the hierarchical top level of
the ATTAS model for implementation in the feedback structure in FigureA.1

After automatic translation an input-output model as depicted in Figure A.1 is ob-

tained. The specifi c inputs, outputs and parameters are listed in detail in Tables 2.3 ,
2.2, and 2.4 .
210 Model building for control law design

A.2 Interactive desktop simulation

For control law design simulation analysis is initially performed off-line in order
to quantitatively assess control law performance. H owever, interactive real time
simulation and visualisation can be a valuable tool in the off-line design phase as
well. W ith the help of instrument displays and visualisation of the aircraft and
environment the engineer can “ fly” the control laws at his desktop. Especially in
case of manual control, this allows for basic analysis of flying qualities, for visual
verification of command variable decoupling, for qualitative analysis of behaviour
of nonlinear functions, switches, protections, etc. In this way, problem areas that
otherwise tend not to show up until piloted flight simulator evaluation can be
addressed early-on at the engineer’s work station, saving considerable simulator
time and cost [123].
In 19 9 7 Rasmussen brought the Aviator V isual D esign Simulator (AV D S) to mar-
ket, providing open interfaces for integrating own (closed-loop) aircraft flight dy-
namics models [10 3]. A more recent example is V isEngine, developed by AeroL abs
AG [1]. This tool allows for addition of stylistic visualisation elements, like vec-
tors to indicate flight direction, loads, etc. As a special development for the D L R
Institute of Robotics and M echatronics, on-line visualisation of aircraft deforma-
tion was integrated. Cheap alternatives are FlightGear [2] and X -P lane [3]. These
packages are primarily games, but allow a limited number of flight variables to be
modified from an external simulation tool, e.g. via U D P .
The Flight D ynamics L ibrary provides a standard interface for interactive desktop
simulation tools like V isEngine, containing variables like W GS8 4 co-ordinates,
attitude angles, flap and gear settings, etc.

A.3 Computation of initial conditions

For numerical evaluation of control law performance the accurate determination of
initial conditions before simulation is crucial. Simulation-based evaluation criteria
are usually based on specific manoeuvres, starting from a strictly specified initial
flight state (e.g. straight and level flight, co-ordinated turn, 1.6 6 7 g pull-up).
This allows performance at various controller or model parameter settings to
be compared consistently, which obviously is particularly important when using
optimisation-based parameter tuning. Also in case the model is to be linearised
around a flight condition it is important to make sure this is done around an
accurately defined equilibrium condition.
Starting from equation A.1 the most trivial initial condition is specified by setting
the state derivatives to zero:
ẋ0 = 0 = f(x0 , uc0 , uo0 , n0 , p, t0 )
yM eas0 = hm (x0 , uc0 , uo0 , n0 , p, t0 ) (A.2)
ySim0 = hs (x0 , uc0 , uo0 , n0 , p, t0 )
where t0 is the initialisation time, x0 = x(t = t0 ), etc. In this particular case
the unknowns are x0 , yM eas0 and ySim0 , instead of ẋ(t), yM eas (t) and ySim (t)
A.3 Computation of initial conditions 211

as in (A.1). Solving the above equations is also called trimming and may for
example be done using a Newton-Raphson-based algorithm (as for example in
the MINPACK library [87]). In practice, not all elements of ẋ0 will be fixed
at zero and some of the elements of x0 will be set. More importantly, specific
output values in ySim0 and yM eas0 are fixed at values that characterise the flight
condition, requiring appropriate entries in uc0 and uo0 to be determined. A simple
procedure to specify such equilibrium conditions will be discussed by means of
Example A.2 below.
From equation A.2 it can be seen that model initialisation may be done in two
ways:

1. solve x0 , yM eas0 and ySim0 from (A.2) using a nonlinear equation solver or
optimisation algorithm;

2. specify x, yM eas and ySim in the object model as unknowns, set ẋ = 0 and
translate the model. This results in the equations:

x0 = f inv (ẋ0 , uc0 , uo0 , n0 , p, t0 )

yM eas0 = hm (x0 , uc0 , uo0 , n0 , p, t0 ) (A.3)
ySim0 = hs (x0 , uc0 , uo0 , n0 , p, t0 )

where in this case the inverse of f with respect to x0 results. Note that x
is no longer a state vector, but computed from x = x0 instead.

The first variant is more flexible, since the type of initial condition can be set
by the user without having to newly translate the model. The second variant
results in model equations for a specific type of initial condition, but may be
considerably more efficient since the unknowns are algebraically solved for. The
result may even be exact when no internal variables are solved iteratively in the
translated model.

A.3.1 Trim computation using the model ODE

In the case of flight dynamics, solving (A.2) usually does not make sense. For
example, forcing time derivatives of the aircraft CoG position with respect to the
inertial frame (Ṙe = [ẋe , ẏe , że ]T to be zero does not allow the aircraft to have
any velocity. Furthermore, equilibrium for given (sub-sets of) state values rather
than given inputs uc , uo , n are of interest. Equation (A.2) however is a good
starting point for a simple procedure to formulate a physically sensible trimming
problem:

1. Make sure that all constraint variables that define the trim condition sought
as well as free variables that may be used to maintain this condition, are
visible and accessible through ySim,c , uo,c . n, and/ or p in (A.1). In case
of redundant controls, add co-ordination rules to the model as far as these
cannot be specified as constraints on uo,c ;
212 Model building for control law design

2. After generation of a simulation model in the form of (A.1), configure the

trimming problem as in (A.2). In this situation the number of equations
and unknowns are namely balanced and equal nx + ny ;

3. Identify and set constraints that apply to the equilibrium condition that
is sought. Some flight mechanical insight is required in order to select the
minimum set of variables that characterises the equilibrium condition;

4. For each single additional constraint defined in step 2, release one variable
that was originally assumed fixed (i.e. in ẋ0 , u0 , p0 ). Again, some model
insight and experience may be required to release variables that make sense
for eventually solving the system of equations.

Starting from (A.2), the procedure aims to maintain the amount of nx + ny

variables to be solved from the fixed set of nx + ny equations. In the following
example it will be shown how this procedure can be implemented in the form of
a graphical user interface.

Example A.2: Definition of a trimming problem for ATTAS

As an example, a trimming problem for the ATTAS model is defined. Objective is to
find an eq uilibrium in a level turn at given altitude, roll angle, and velocity.
The model has the following fl ight dynamics states:
T
x = (ub , v b , w b , xe , ye , ze , pb , q b , r b , φ, θ , ψ )

The outputs and inputs are listed in Tables 2.2 and 2.3 respectively. Actuator and
engine models are left out for this example: the commanded control surface defl ections
eq ual the actual defl ection angles and the engine commands eq ual the actual relative
fan shaft speed (relative to the maximum value). The trimming problem is formulated
in the four steps proposed in the main text:
Step 1:
The trim condition for a co-ordinated level turn can be defined by:

• a constant velocity, e.g. Vcas = V0 = 80 m / s (obviously, only one out of

velocities like Vtas , Vcas , Vg should be specified);

• a level fl ight path: γ = γ0 = 0 r a d ;

• a roll angle of, say φ = φ0 = 60 d e g = π / 3 r a d ;

• ... in a co-ordinated turn, i.e. ny = 0.

Additionally, the turn is to start:

A.3 Computation of initial conditions 213

• at zero heading: χ = χ0 = 0 rad;

• in an altitude of: h = h0 = 304 m;

The model inputs and outputs can be found in Tables 2.2 and 2.3: all variables needed
are readily at hand. The aircraft further has two engines and it is desired that these
are set at the same thrust values. This can be achieved by using a single throttle
command in the model that applies to both engines, or the thrust diff erence between
both engines, made available as an additional output, may be required to be zero.
Since the thrust diff erence is available (output ySim (4)), the latter variant is used.

Step 2:
E quation A.2 is represented in the following table, containing the states and only a
selection of the inputs and outputs that are relevant for the trimming problem and
for evaluating the final result (the remaining inputs are assumed to be fixed at zero):

value c x value c ẋ value c y value c u

– ub 0 x u̇b – Vcas 0 x δA
– vb 0 x v̇b – γ 0 x δE
– wb 0 x ẇb – χ 0 x δR
– xe 0 x ẋe – nx 0 x δT
– ye 0 x ẏe – ny 0 x N 11
– ze 0 x że – nz 0 x N 12
– pb 0 x ṗb – β
– qb 0 x q̇b – dF
– rb 0 x ṙb
– φ 0 x φ̇
– θ 0 x θ̇
– ψ 0 x ψ̇
# unknowns - # equations: 0

For each variable that is known, an “ x” -marker is set in the constraint column (C ).
D efault values for the state derivatives are zero, as in (A.2).

Step 3 :
In the first place, the rates of the position co-ordinates are allowed to vary freely,
whereas the initial position is fixed at the desired location. In this case this is at an
altitude h0 .
214 Model building for control law design

value c x value c ẋ value c y value c u

– ub 0 x u̇b – Vcas 0 x δA
– vb 0 x v̇b – γ 0 x δE
– wb 0 x ẇb – χ 0 x δR
0 x xe 0 - ẋe – nx 0 x δT
0 x ye 0 - ẏe – ny 0 x N 11
-304 x ze 0 - że – nz 0 x N 12
– pb 0 x ṗb – β
– qb 0 x q̇b – dF
– rb 0 x ṙb
– φ 0 x φ̇
– θ 0 x θ̇
– ψ 0 x ψ̇
# unknowns - # equations: 0

Now the constraints as formulated in step 1 may be applied:

value c x value c ẋ value c y value c u

80 ub 0 x u̇b 80 x Vcas 0 x δA
– vb 0 x v̇b 0 x γ 0 x δE
– wb 0 x ẇb 0 x χ 0 x δR
0 x xe 0 ẋe – nx 0 x δT
0 x ye 0 ẏe 0 x ny 0 x N 11
-304 x ze 0 że – nz 0 x N 12
– pb 0 x ṗb – β
– qb 0 x q̇b 0 x dF
– rb 0 x ṙb
π/3 x φ 0 x φ̇
– θ 0 x θ̇
– ψ 0 x ψ̇
# unknowns - # equations: -6

Note that the initial value of ub has been set to V0 as well: this provides a good
starting value and prevents the first model evaluation during trimming to start at
zero velocity, causing singularity problems in most aerodynamic models.

Step 4 :
Note that in the previous table six additional constraint variables have been specified.
Six other variables now have to be released. In order to maintain speed and flight
path angle, thrust settings (via N 11 and N 12 ) and tail plane incidence angle (δT ) are
most obviously used. L ateral load factor ny and roll angle φ are primarily maintained
with the help of ailerons δA and rudder δR . Of course, yaw rate ψ̇ can not be zero in
turning flight, which is released for the initial track angle χ. The following settings
now result:
A.3 Computation of initial conditions 215

value c x value c ẋ value c y value c u

80 ub 0 x u̇b 80 x Vcas 0 - δA
– vb 0 x v̇b 0 x γ 0 x δE
– wb 0 x ẇb 0 x χ 0 - δR
0 x xe 0 ẋe – nx 0 - δT
0 x ye 0 ẏe 0 x ny 40 - N 11
-304 x ze 0 że – nz 40 - N 12
– pb 0 x ṗb – β
– qb 0 x q̇b 0 x dF
– rb 0 x ṙb
π/3 x φ 0 x φ̇
– θ 0 x θ̇
– ψ 0 - ψ̇
# unknowns - # equations: 0

U sually, appropriate starting values for inputs and states may have to be found. This
again requires some experience. In this case for example, N1 is set to 40 % , since
thrust may be a considerably nonlinear function of the fan shaft speed around idle.
Furthermore, the trimmed solution is very unlikely to be found at zero thrust.
The described procedure is very easily realised in a G raphical U ser Interface (G U I),
as for example depicted in Figure A.3. Finally, after solving the nonlinear system of
equations, the following values result:

value c x value c ẋ value c y value c u

8 0.3 8 ub 0 x u̇b 80 x Vc a s 1 .9 1 e-2 δA
-0.1 8 vb 0 x v̇b 8 1 .1 7 x γ 0 x δE
1 1 .1 3 wb 0 x ẇb 0 x χ -4 .5 0e-2 δR
0 x xe 8 1 .1 7 ẋe -2 .7 7 e-1 nx -5 .8 2 e-2 δT
0 x ye 0 ẏe 0 x ny 8 9 .0 N 11
-3 04 .0 x ze 0 że 1 .9 7 nz 8 9 .0 N 12
-1 .4 1 e-2 pb 0 x ṗb -2 .2 2 e-3 β
1 .7 9 e-1 qb 0 x q̇b 0 x dF
1 .03 e-1 rb 0 x ṙb
π /3 x φ 0 x φ̇
6 .8 3 e-2 θ 0 x θ̇
1 .2 2 e-2 ψ 2 .07 e-1 ψ̇
# un k n o w ns - # eq uatio n s: 0

p
Note the the total load factor (n2x + n2z ) = 1 .9 9 , i.e. dou b le the n orm al g rav ity for
w hich 6 0 deg co-ordin ated tu rn s are w ell k n ow n . A lso n ote that the side slip an g le is
n on z ero: althou g h the aircraft m odel is sy m m etric, the n on z ero b ody an g u lar rate rb
cau ses a sm all side force that is com p en sated v ia side slip an g le an d ru dder defl ection .
A ll z ero v ariab les are z ero u p to m achin e accu racy.
216 Model building for control law design

Figure A.3: Example GUI for defining trim conditions for ATTAS. Activating/deactivating
th e ch eck b ox b etw een th e variab le name and valu e (C -colu mn) sets/releases a constraint vari-
ab le. Th e in-b alance b etw een u nk now ns and th e nu mb er of eq u ations is indicated b y th e nu mb er
in th e top-left corner (z ero, in th is case). Th e “ Trim” b u tton on top actu ally ru ns th e trim al-
gorith m (nonlinear eq u ation solver). Th e “ L in.” performs a linearisation arou nd th e trimmed
fl igh t condition. Th e “ Script” b u tton au tomatically generates a script for trimming and lin-
earising th e aircraft model. H ereb y th e settings in th e GUI are applied in a w ay th at is easily
adapted b y th e u ser. F inally , in case of a constrained variab le in th e GUI, an additional rou nd
ch eck -b ox appears in th e “ M -colu mn” . Activating th is b ox cau ses th e generated script to per-
form trim compu tations in a loop for valu es of th e selected variab les. Th is graph ical interface is
au tomatically set u p u sing M atlab fu nctions b ased on data provided w ith a translated M odelica
model.
A.3 Computation of initial conditions 217

A.3.2 Trim computation by model inversion

The same symbolic algorithms that are used for generating the model ODE can
of course just as w ell be ap p lied to directly solv e the set of model eq uations for
the free v ariables from the trimming p roblem. A gain, this may be done in fi v e
simp le step s, starting from an object-oriented model imp lementation as discussed
in C hap ter 2 :

1. M ak e sure that the v ariables (ex cep t for states and state deriv ativ es) that
characterise the eq uilibrium condition are av ailable as model outp uts, and
that controls av ailable to maintain this condition are av ailable as inp uts. A t
this stage, the model w ould still translate into an ODE;

2 . “ Decoup le” state deriv ativ es from the corresp onding states and set them to
z ero. A s in case of S ection A .3 .1, the confi guration as in eq uation A .2 has
been achiev ed;

3 . N ow fi x v ariables that characterise the eq uilibrium condition to their ap -

p rop riate v alues. This is best done by defi ning those as model inp uts or
p arameters, allow ing them to be set for diff erent fl ight conditions after-
w ards;

4 . F or each new ly fi x ed v ariable release one that w as p rev iously fi x ed. This is
best done by defi ning it as an outp ut, so that after translation the v alue is
k now n outside the model.

5 . Translate the model.

N ote that this p rocedure is similar to the one p rop osed in S ection A .3 .1.
S ince the model does not contain states anymore, only algebraic eq uations in the
form of an comp uter algorithm result, w ith desired trim state v alues as inp uts and
req uired eq uilibrium v ariables for states and control inp uts as outp ut arguments.
S ince the symbolic translation algorithm w ill try to reduce the dimensions of
systems of eq uations to be solv ed internally to a minimum (e.g. using the tearing
algorithm as sk etched in Ex amp le A .1), the trim comp utation w ill be considerably
faster as comp ared w ith solv ing the ODE as one big system of eq uations. In the
case of A TTA S the diff erence is in the order of magnitude 5 to 10 (during multip le
calls the time lap sed for the inv erse model v ersion w as mostly too small to be
measured w ith the C P U clock ).

Example A.3: Model inversion for trim computation for ATTAS

Figure A.4 once more shows the top level hierarchy of the ATTAS model. As in
E x ample A.1 the inputs and outputs are inserted into and ex tracted from the aircraft
object with the help of an Avionics block. This version is confi gured to have the
218 Model building for control law design

inputs and outputs as in Example A.2. The known outputs are collected in Ytrim, the
unknown ones in Ya . The unknown inputs are in U trim, the known ones in U o . The
O I and IO objects now revert the Ytrim outputs into inputs and U trim inputs into
outputs respectively. The re-declaration of states and state derivatives is done via
modifier statements added to the A irc ra ft object. This is done at the depicted level,
so that this object is not changed by itself. The known states and state derivatives
may be adjusted from outside with the help of model parameters.

Figure A.4: Specification of inputs and outputs at the hierarchical top level of
the ATTAS model for trim computation

A.4 Linearisation of the aircraft model

Most controller synthesis methods are linear by nature and require the aircraft
model to be available in linear form. L inearisation may be performed by deriving
the J acobians of f (...) and h(...) in (A.1) at given initial conditions, resulting in
the well-known state space A, B, C, and D matrices:

δ ẋ = Aδx + Bδu (A.4)

δy = Cδx + Dδu (A.5)
(A.6 )
A.5 Parametric models for robustness analysis 219

where δ implies a small deviation from initial values, e.g. δx = x − x0 . And:

∂f (x,u,p,t) ∂f (x,u,p,t)
A = ∂xT
B = ∂uT
x=x0 ,u=u0 ,p=p0 ,t=t0 x=x0 ,u=u0 ,p=p0 ,t=t0

∂h (x,u,p,t) ∂h (x,u,p,t)
C = ∂xT
D = ∂uT
x=x0 ,u=u0 ,p=p0 ,t=t0 x=x0 ,u=u0 ,p=p0 ,t=t0
(A.7 )

Most simulation platforms perform linearisation of (A.1) instead. For example,

the A-matrix is approximated by [15]:

f (x0 + ∆xj , u0 , p0 , t0 ) − f (x0 − ∆xj , u0 , p0 , t0 )

Aj = (A.8 )
2δxj

where j is the column index and ∆xj = [0, · · · , 0, δxj , 0, · · · , 0]T .

W ith the help of the algorithms as used for translation of object-oriented models,
linearisation of the latter may, under some circumstances, be performed symboli-
cally. To this end, it is required that (A.1) can be symbolically solved from full set
of model equations. An interesting application is briefly presented in the following
section.

A.5 Parametric models for robustness analysis

Over the last decades control law design and analysis methods have been devel-
oped that are able to explicitly take into account uncertainty in model parameters.
Most of these methods require the model to be cast in the form of a so-called Lin-
ear Fractional Transformation (LFT). An LFT can best be interpreted pictorially.
In Figure A.5 the uncertain parameters have been separated from the model M
and placed on the diagonal of the matrix ∆. This matrix interacts with M in a
feedback way, allowing the application of dedicated analysis algorithms. A model
in the form of an LFT is obtained in two steps:

1. Obtain a symbolic linear state space model in the form:

δ ẋ = A(p)δx + B(p)δu
δy = C(p)δx + D(p)δu (A.9)
(A.10)

where p is the vector with model parameters;

2. Transform (A.10) into an LFT, either manually, or with the help of dedicated
symbolic tools [44, 63]. This transformation is possible, provided that the
elements of the state space model depend on the elements of p in a rational
and polynomial way [27 ].
220 Model building for control law design


z w
y M u

Figure A.5: An (upper) linear fractional transformation (LFT)

Since for the second step sophisticated algorithms are available that allow for
generation of LFTs of low order, the first step is usually considerably more com-
plicated, especially when the model is only available in the form (A.1). It is then
usually required to go back to the model equations and derive the elements of the
state space matrices by hand, see for example R ef. [39]. As already mentioned
in the previous section, object-oriented modelling allows the nonlinear ordinary
differential equations to be derived symbolically. As a result, linearisation may
be performed symbolically as well, see eq. (A.7). B y skipping the substitution
of p0 for p, the resulting state space model explicitly depends on this vector as
in (A.10) [132]. An important problem is that p may influence the equilibrium
condition of the system. For example, if the aircraft mass is a model parameter,
in order to trim the aircraft in straight and level flight at a given airspeed VT AS0 ,
the required angle of attack to maintain vertical force equilibrium will increase
as a higher mass is selected. As a consequence, the vectors x0 and u0 need to
be determined as a function of p as well. Unfortunately, even for aircraft this
may result in too a complicated model for transformation into an LFT. For this
reason, two alternatives are at hand:
1. Substitution of nominally values p0 in computation of x0 and u0 (see Sec-
tion A.3) and substituting these when symbolically linearising the model.
The resulting LFT is only valid for small parameter offsets from p0 . There-
fore, “local” LFTs may be derived at a grid of operating points [132];

2. Identify the elements of (A.10) that depend on the equilibrium condition,

isolate the dependent terms with the help of text-book approximations as for
example provided in appendix A of [15]. Then find a polynomial dependency
on p by performing multiple linearisations over a grid of flight conditions.
This procedure is followed in [132] and described in more detail in [131] and
[71].
Appendix B

Equations of motion of a
fl exible aircraft
222 Equations of motion of a fl exible aircraft

Abstract
In this appendix the equations of motion of a flexible aircraft are derived.
It is assumed that the airframe may be represented by a collection of elas-
tically interconnected g rid points w ith lumped masses rig idly attached to
them. A s a fi rst step, basics of dy namic analy sis of such a sy stem are
review ed. T he derivation of the equations of motion w ill be based on L a-
g rang ian mechanics. Inertial coupling betw een over-all motion and elas-
tic deformation is minimised by the choice of mean axes as body reference
frame. R emaining coupling terms may be neg lected after mak ing a number
of explicit assumptions. C onsequently , interaction betw een deformation
and over-all motion are only induced by external (aerody namic) loads.
B.1 Review of structural dynamics 223

URPOSE of this appendix is the derivation of the nonlinear equations of

P motion of a deformable aircraft . Linear structural dynamics models as used
for flutter and loads analysis assume that the airframe may be considered as a
collection of lumped masses and inertias attached to grid points that are inter-
connected elastically. After determining eigenfrequencies, the linear equations of
motion of these models are obtained in modal form. A number of properties of
these modal equations of motion leads to significant simplifications in the over-all
nonlinear equations of motion of the flexible aircraft. Therefore, basic principles
of structural dynamics will be reviewed first. Then the equations of motion will
be derived using Lagrangian dynamics.

B.1 Review of structural dynamics

The structural equations of motion of a lumped-mass system in physical co-
ordinates of condensed grid points are given by (see for example [101]):

Mgg ẍg + Kgg xg = Fg (B.1)

The subscript g refers to a collection of structural grid of points with one or more
lumped masses attached to them. For now, it is assumed that each grid point has
six degrees of freedom, with respect to some local reference system. The degrees
of freedom of all grid points are contained in the (quite large) vector xg :

xg = [. . . , δxj−1 , δyj−1 , δz j−1 , δϕ j−1 , δθ j−1 , δψ j−1 ,

T
δxj , δyj , δz j , δϕ j , δθ j , δψ j , . . .]

where δx, δy, δz indicate translational degrees of freedom, δϕ , δθ , δψ are rota-

tional degrees of freedom, and j is an index: j = 2, 3, · · · , ng . The total number
of grid points is thus ng , the total length of xg is nd o f = 6ng .
The matrices Mgg and Kgg are (symmetric, band-diagonal) mass and stiffness
matrices respectively. The vector Fg describes external forces and moments acting
on the grid points in the directions of the degrees of freedom as described by xg .
The mass matrix not only includes mass and mass distribution of the airframe
structure, but also of payload, fuel and other consumables. Mass distribution is
further affected by the aircraft configuration, like gear and flap positions. As a
consequence, it is important to keep in mind that the matrix Mgg , all equations it
occurs in and results it affects, are only valid for the specific aircraft configuration
and loading.

B.1.1 Structural eigenvalue problem

Substitution of xg = xg0 ejω t into (B.1) and setting Fg = 0 gives rise to the
following eigenvalue problem (modal analysis):

K g x g 0 = ω 2 Mg x g 0 (B.2)
224 Equations of motion of a fl exible aircraft

where ω is an eigenfrequency. Solution of this eigenvalue problem results in the

(squared) eigenfrequencies ω1 , ω2 , · · · , ωndof and eigenvectors Φgh1 , Φgh2 , · · · ,
Φghndof . These eigenvectors represent physical translation and rotation of the grid
points associated with each eigenfrequency and are referred to as the mode shapes
of the structure. Usually, a considerably lower number of eigenvalues / modes is
actually computed than the total number of degrees of freedom: nh < < ndof .
In case none of the grid points has been constrained (as it is assumed here),
the first six eigenvalues are zero and the associated eigenvectors involve rigid
translation and rotation (i.e. without deformation) with respect to the reference
axes. These eigenvectors will be referred to as ΦgR1 , ΦgR2 , · · · , ΦgR6 and are the
so-called rigid-body modes of the structure. The elastic modes will be referred
to as ΦgE1 , ΦgE2 , · · · , ΦgEnh −6 . Besides a fixed rotation (or directional signs)
and origin of axes, the rigid body modes correspond to the degrees of freedom in
direction of, or around aircraft body axes in flight mechanics models.
It is noted once more that the results of the modal analysis must always be ac-
companied with the aircraft weight and loading configuration. Each new loading,
in principle, requires a new modal analysis.

B.1.2 The half-generalised equations of motion

As a next step, the degrees of freedom in xg are written as a linear combination
of the obtained mode shapes. For now it is assumed that all modes are available
(i.e. nh = ndof ):

xg = Φgh η (B.3)
h i
= ΦgR1 , ΦgR2 , · · · , ΦgR6 , ΦgE1 , ΦgE2 , · · · , ΦgE(nh −6) η
 
ηR
= [ΦgR , ΦgE ]
ηE

where η is a vector of mode shape multipliers, referred to as generalised co-

ordinates, and Φgh is the modal matrix. Note that the mode shapes and gen-
eralised co-ordinates have been divided into rigid (subscript R) and flexible (sub-
script E) ones. Substitution into equation (B.1) gives:

Mgg Φgh η̈ + Kgg Φgh η = Mgh η̈ + Kgh η = Fg (B.4)

At this point structural damping may be introduced artificially, e.g. by assigning

a damping ratio to each mode:

Mgh η̈ + Bgh η̇ + Kgh η = Fg (B.5)

The matrices with subscript gh are also called “half-generalised”, since the rows
represent physical degrees of freedom, the columns apply to generalised co-ordinates.
B.1 Review of structural dynamics 225

The half-generalised mass, damping and stiffness matrices can be partitioned

according to the mode shapes (B.3):
     
η̈R η̇R ηR
[MgR , MgE ] + [BgR , BgE ] + [KgR , KgE ] = Fg (B.6)
η̈E η̇E ηE
where R and E refer to rigid and elastic modal degrees of freedom respectively.
The matrices KgR and BgR will be zero zero, since rigid motion of the structure
does not induce internal stresses.

B.1.3 The generalised equations of motion

Finally, equation (B.5) is left-multiplied with ΦTgh :

ΦTgh (Mgh η̈ + Bgh η̇ + Kgh η) = ΦTgh Fg ⇐⇒

Mhh η̈ + Bhh η̇ + Khh η = ΦTgh Fg
This is the generalised equation of motion, providing a second order differential
equation that may be used to solve for η. As in the half-generalised case the
matrices may be partitioned into rigid, flexible and coupled sub-matrices. Left
multiplication of (B.6) with ΦTgh = [ΦgR , ΦgE ]T gives:
        
MRR 0 η̈R 0 0 η̇R 0 0 ηR
+ +
0 MEE η̈E 0 BEE η̇E 0 KEE ηE

= [ΦgR , ΦgE ]T Fg (B.7)

H ereby use has been made of the fact that KgR = BgR = 0 as well as the fact
that mode shape eigenvectors are orthogonal with respect to the mass matrix:

Mhhi if j = i
ΦTghi Mgg Φghj = (B.8)
0 if j 6= i
see for example [101] for a proof.
The short-hand form of (B.7) and with aerodynamic loads applied to the right-
hand side is known as the flutter equation:

Mhh η̈ + Bhh η̇ + Khh η = q̄Qhha e r o η (B.9)

where q̄ is the dynamic pressure and Qhha e r o are generalised aerodynamic loads,
its ith column representing generalised forces induced by mode shape φi . The
flutter equation is the basic model representation in aeroelasticity, serving as a
starting point for loads and flutter analyses.
The generalised mass matrix Mhh , the stiffness matrix Khh (due to B.2), and the
generalised damping matrix Bhh (as a function of Khh and Mhh ) are diagonal, so
that the differential equations are decoupled. For the elastic degrees of freedom:
MEEi η̈i + BEEi η̇i + KEEi ηi =
MEEi (η̈i + 2ζi ωi η̇i + ωi2 ηi ) = ΦTgEi Fg
226 Equations of motion of a fl exible aircraft

where i < nh refers to the mode i. Here BEE is assumed to have been selected
such that in the second order differential equations the damping number of mode
i is ζi .
As already mentioned, in most engineering applications the number of modes that
is actually computed is considerably lower than the total number of degrees of
freedom: nh << ndof . Since ndof may be in the order of 104 , massive computation
time is saved by applying the modal transformation xg ≈ Φgh η in the equations of
motion, whereby in the case of aircraft nh is usually in the order of magnitude 102 .
Accuracy is suffi ciently preserved in case the nth
h eigenfrequency is well beyond
the frequency range of interest in analysis [96]. In case Fg does not depend on η,
truncation of modes beyond the frequency range of interest still results in exact
modal response of the retained modes of vibration, otherwise, the ≈-sign is to be
used in the modal equations.
Due to mutual orthogonality rigid body modes usually do not represent pure
translation along, or rotations about, the reference system that is used for modal
analysis, but linear combinations thereof. These mode shapes are therefore re-
placed with purely translational and rotational ones in the direction of respectively
about the mean body axes, which will be defined more precisely later on. As a
result, MRR will mostly no longer be diagonal [113]. Fortunately, orthogonality
between rigid and flexible modes is preserved, since the new rigid modes can be
written as a linear combination of the original ones. This will be of great impor-
tance in developing nonlinear equations of motion for the unrestrained aircraft.
The mode shapes Φghi may be scaled with a constant factor. This is frequently
used to normalise the generalised mass matrix. Here it is assumed that the cor-
rected rigid body modes represent unit translations and rotations, so that MRR
contains total mass and moments of inertia with respect to the mean body axes.

B.1.4 Recovery of physical degrees of freedom

Finally, after solving the structural equations of motion for η, the physical degrees
of freedom can be recovered using:

xg ≈ Φgh η (B.10)

the ≈-sign has been introduced due to truncation of higher-order modes (nh <<
ndof ) and since modal response is not exact in case Fg depends on xg . The first
and second time derivatives give deformation rate and acceleration respectively at
the structural grid points. For loads analysis the internal stresses in the structure
are of particular interest. Having solved (B.7) for η, equation (B.1) may be used
to determine resultant loads Lg acting on the lumped mass elements:

Lg = Kgg xg ≈ Kgh η (B.11)

Since Lg is computed directly from modal displacement, this method of computa-

tion is called “mode displacement” method [14]. The method requires relatively
little computational effort, but is notorious for slow convergence as a function of
B.1 Review of structural dynamics 227

the number of modes nh . As a consequence, a large number needs to be consid-

ered in order to obtain sufficiently accurate results. Alternatively, the so-called
force summation method may be used:
Lg ≈ Fg − Mgh η̈ − Bgh η̇ (B.12)
where loads are computed from summation of external, mass and damping forces.
In case η̈ = η̇ = 0 then Lg = Fg . This implies that neglected modes are at least
statically taken into account [14, 101]. In order to compute total loads at stations
of interest on the airframe (e.g. wing root, fin root, aft fuselage, etc.), the loads
acting on the involved grid points are summed and interpolated.
Combining the equations (B.11) and (B.12), a more accurate estimation of xg
may be obtained:
xg ≈ Kgg
−1
Lg
This is known as the mode acceleration method [14, 101].

B.1.5 Orthogonality of modes

An important characteristic of free vibration modes resulting from modal analysis
without constraints is that flexible modes are orthogonal to rigid modes and to
each other, with respect to the mass matrix Mgg (equation B.8). Now suppose
that a linear combination of rigid modes results in the following rigid motion at
the grid points i:
 
d 0 + φ 0 × r1

 φ0 

 d 0 + φ 0 × r2 
 
[d0 ]g = 
 φ0 
(B.13)
..

 

 . 

 d 0 + φ 0 × rng 
φ0
note that the only difference per grid point is ri , its undeformed location in the
airframe body axes. Also, ng is the number of grid points. Remember that each
grid point is assumed to have six degrees of freedom, so that: ndof = 6ng . Also
suppose that a linear combination of elastic modes results in the following flexible
deflections at all grid points (collected in a single vector):
 
d1
 δφ1 
 
 d2 
 
[δd]g =  δφ2  (B.14)
 
 .. 
 . 
 
 d ng 
δφng
228 Equations of motion of a fl exible aircraft

Orthogonality of all flexible modes with respect to rigid ones now requires that:

[d0 ]Tg Mgg [δd]g = 0 (B.15)

In case the centre of gravity of the lumped mass does not match the location of
the associated grid point, the total mass matrix Mgg (B.1) is block diagonal. By
deriving the equations of motion of lumped mass i with respect to grid point i,
the contribution of each grid point consists of the 6 × 6 block Mggi (see also [97],
page 91):
 
mi I3 −mi s k ew (li )
Mggi = (B.16)
mi s k ew (li ) Ii

where Ii is the inertia tensor, li the vector from the grid point to the centre of
gravity (body axes), and mi the mass of lumped mass i.
Equation B.15 may then be rewritten as follows:
X
[d0 ]Ti Mggi [δd]i = 0 (B.17)
i
X  d 0 + φ 0 × ri  T  mi I3 −mi s k ew (li )

di

⇐⇒ =0
φ0 mi s k ew (li ) Ii δφi
i
X
T
⇐⇒ d0 mi (di + δφi × li ) +
i
X
φT0 [mi ri × (di + δφi × li ) + mi li × di + Ii δφi ] = 0
i

Since φ0 (rigid rotation) and d0 (rigid translation) are independent, orthogonality

implies that the individual terms are zero:
X
mi (di + δφi × li ) = 0 (B.18)
i
X
[mi ri × (di + δφi × li ) + mi li × di + Ii δφi ] = 0 (B.19)
i

Note that di and δφi arise from a linear combination of mode shapes and are
not independent. The two equations above will be extremely useful in deriving
nonlinear equations of motion for the unrestrained aircraft.
Finally, the rigid body modes are considered:
 
I3 −s k ew (ri )
Φ gi R = (B.20)
O3 I3

where −s k ew (ri ) arises from (B.14). The first three modes are translational (in
mean axes x, y, z-direction), the latter three are rotational (around the mean x,
B.2 The equations of motion of a fl exible aircraft 229

y, z-axes). Left and right multiplication with the mass matrix gives:
 T   
P I3 −skew(ri ) mi I3 −mi skew(li ) I3 −s k e w (ri )
i O3 I3 mi skew(li ) Ii O3 I3
 P 
mI3 − i mi s k e w (ri + li )
= P P 2 2
i mi s k e w (ri + li ) i (Ii − mi [s k e w (ri + li ) − s k e w (li ) ])

B.2 The equations of motion of a fl exible aircraft

F ro m a p u re ly m e ch a n ic a l p o in t o f v ie w , th e e q u a tio n s o f m o tio n fo r a fl e x ib le
a irc ra ft in v o lv e d e sc rib in g th e d y n a m ic s o f a d e fo rm a b le b o d y th a t a rb itra rily
tra n sla te s a n d ro ta te s w ith re sp e c t to a n in e rtia l re fe re n c e fra m e . A c o n sid e ra b le
a m o u n t o f re fe re n c e s is a v a ila b le a d d re ssin g th e d e riv a tio n o f th e se e q u a tio n s. A l-
re a d y in o n e o f th e fi rst sta n d a rd b o o k s o n a e ro e la stic ity , B isp lin g h o ff a n d A sh le y
a d d re ss th e d y n a m ic s o f th e ’u n re stra in e d v e h ic le ’ [1 4 ]. M iln e [8 6 ] d e riv e d th e
e q u a tio n s fro m fi rst p rin c ip le s a n d u se d th e se to p e rfo rm in g e q u ilib riu m a n d sta -
b ility a n a ly sis fo r th e d e fo rm a b le a irc ra ft. A lso E tk in in [3 5 ] a d d re sse s fl e x ib le
a irc ra ft fl ig h t d y n a m ic s. W a sz a k a n d S ch m id t [1 3 6 , 1 3 7 ] d e riv e th e e q u a tio n s o f
m o tio n fo r th e fl ig h t d y n a m ic s o f ’a e ro e la stic v e h ic le s’ u sin g L a g ra n g e ’s e q u a tio n s.
T h e n ic e a sp e c t o f th is p a p e r is th a t a ll sim p lifi c a tio n s a n d a ssu m p tio n s a re e x -
p la in e d ste p b y ste p in a c le a r a n d c o n siste n t w a y . A lso a n u m e ric a l e x a m p le is
p ro v id e d , w h ich p ro b a b ly is th e o n ly in te g ra te d fl ig h t d y n a m ic s a n d a e ro e la stic
a irc ra ft m o d e l p u b lic ly a v a ila b le .
T h e re fe re n c e s liste d a b o v e h a v e a n im p o rta n t d ra w b a ck . T h e e q u a tio n s d e riv e d
a re v a lid fo r c o n tin u o u s e la stic b o d ie s. H o w e v e r, stru c tu ra l d y n a m ic s m o d e ls fo r
a irc ra ft a re u su a lly o b ta in e d fro m F in ite E le m e n t m o d e ls in th e fo rm o f rig id
lu m p e d m a sse s a n d in e rtia s a tta ch e d to g rid p o in ts th a t a re in te rc o n n e c te d b y
e la stic e le m e n ts (S e c tio n B .1 ). T h e e q u a tio n s o f m o tio n fo r u n re stra in e d lu m p e d
m a ss sy ste m s h a v e b e e n d e riv e d b y B u ttrill e t a l. [2 1 ]. U n lik e e a rlie r w o rk b y
a m o n g o th e rs C a v in [2 4 ] a n d C e rra [2 5 ], th is re fe re n c e a d d re sse s in e rtia l c o u p lin g
b e tw e e n fl e x ib le rig id m o tio n a n d in te n tio n a lly re ta in s sm a ll se c o n d -o rd e r e ff e c ts.
B u ttrill in tu rn re fe rs to w o rk b y M o rin o [9 4 ]. Z e ile r e t a l. [1 4 3 ] a lso a d d re ss
n o n lin e a r e la stic ity e ff e c ts. A n o th e r d e riv a tio n c a n b e fo u n d in th e (slig h tly in -
a c c e ssib le ) re fe re n c e b y Y o u sse f [1 4 2 ]. T h e w o rk o f B u ttrill w a s d e v e lo p e d w ith in
th e N A S A L a n g le y F IT te a m (F u n c tio n a l In te g ra tio n T e ch n o lo g y ). T h is te a m
h a d b e e n fo rm e d in 1 9 8 5 in re sp o n se to a g o a l se t b y N A S A L a n g le y R e se a rch
C e n te r (L a R C ) to “ D e v e lo p m u lti-d isc ip lin a ry In te g ra tio n M e th o d s to Im p ro v e
A e ro sp a c e S y ste m s” . T h is te a m g e n e ra te d a n im p re ssiv e a m o u n t o f k n o w le d g e o n
m u lti-d isc ip lin a ry a irc ra ft m o d e l in te g ra tio n [8 , 1 4 3 , 1 8 , 2 0 , 1 2 8 ]. A lso in sp a c e -
c ra ft lite ra tu re e q u a tio n s o f m o tio n o f u n re stra in e d lu m p e d -m a ss sy ste m s h a v e
b e e n d e riv e d , se e fo r e x a m p le [6 9 ]. B e y o n d a e ro sp a c e a p p lic a tio n s, S ch w e rta sse k
(a n d m a n y o th e rs) a d d re sse s fl e x ib le b o d ie s in m u lti-b o d y sy ste m s, se e fo r e x a m -
p le [1 1 6 , 1 1 5 ].
230 Equations of motion of a fl exible aircraft

A complete derivation of equations of motion of lumped mass systems, compatible

to Finite Element models is very lengthy, especially due to inertia tensors of mass
elements, and the fact that grid points of the FE model not necessarily match the
centres of gravity of lumped masses. Buttrill for this reason omits the rotational
degrees of freedom from his published derivation. He does not explicitly foresee
an offset between a grid point in the FE model and the corresponding lumped
mass centre of gravity. Hanel does address this offset as well as rotational inertia
of lumped mass elements [43]. However, the derivation is not pulled through
completely and simplifications and linearisation are performed early on in the
process.
For the development of integrated equations of motion for the airframe as to be
implemented in the object-oriented model structure in Figure 2.5, the following
is required:

1. differential equations for dynamics of the unrestrained flexible airframe of

appropriate complexity;

2. any simplification must be associated with one or more explicit assumptions;

3. aiming at integration of available model components, availability of modal

analysis results should be exploited.

The derivation is performed in the following subsections.

B.2.1 Approach for derivation

For derivation of the equations of motion for the unrestrained flexible airframe
Lagrange’s equations will be used. This in the first place requires formulation of
kinetic and potential energy terms.
As already indicated, the following basic assumption is made:

• Assumption 1: The aircraft airframe may be described as a collection of

lumped rigid mass elements with an associated mass mi and moment of
inertia Ii .

Such a lumped-mass model is manually and/ or automatically generated from

an FE-model: local masses are condensed in assigned grid points (nodes) with
specified degrees of freedom [144]. Figure B.1 shows the position and orientation
of the airframe reference system b with respect to an (assumed) inertial system e.
In addition, throughout the derivation the following assumptions are made:

• Assumption 2 : Translational and rotational deformations with respect to

the reference shape of the airframe are small;

• Assumption 3 : Linear elastic theory applies.

B.2 The equations of motion of a fl exible aircraft 231

 i

s i
dV
di
xb

ub pb
i C oG
i
p
vb
qb
Re
i wb
yb
0
Re rb
xe
zb

ye d i = lo c a l defo r m a tio n
inertial reference frame r i = u n defo r m ed lo c a tio n
ze p i= r i + d i

Figure B.1: Flexible aircraft in free flight

This reference shape may either be the jig shape or the flight shape in some trim
condition. Small rotational deformations imply that orientation of a lumped mass
element may be described using a vector product rather than a cosine matrix .
An infinitesimal mass element dm within the lumped mass i is considered, see
Figure B.1. The inertial position of this element with respect to the body axes
frame is given by:

Rδi = Rb + ri + di + (I + skew(δ φ i ))sδi (B.21)

where:

• Rb : the location of the origin of the body reference frame;

• ri : the location of a reference point on the mass element i with respect to

the body axes. This reference point corresponds with a node or grid point
in the condensed FE model. The position vector may represent the location
within the undeformed airframe (i.e. jig shape), or within the statically
deformed airframe in a given trim condition (i.e. flight shape);
232 Equations of motion of a fl exible aircraft

• di : is the (dynamic) translation of element i due to deformation of the

airframe;

• δφi is the (dynamic) rotation of element i due to deformation of the airframe;

• sδi is the position vector to the mass element, measured with respect to
the point ri , in a local reference frame that rotates with the lumped mass
element. For convenience, it is assumed that this reference system is parallel
to the body axes in jig or flight shape condition;

• (I + skew(δφi )) is a linearised version (assumption 2!) of the cosine matrix

rotation the vector sδi from the element reference frame into body axes.
The term skew(δφi ) is a matrix notation for the vector product of δφi with
another vector, in this case sδi .

The velocity of the mass element is given by:

Ṙδi = Vb + (d˙i + δ φ̇i × sδi ) +Ωb × (ri + sδi + (di + δφi × sδi )) (B.22)
| {z } | {z } | {z }
r̄i d¯i
d¯˙i

where:

• Vb : the inertial velocity of the origin of the body frame, resolved in body
axes;

• Ωb : the inertial rotational velocity of the body frame with respect to the
inertial frame, resolved in body axes;

• d¯˙i : the velocity of a mass element in lumped mass i, with respect to the
body reference system;

• r̄i : the undeformed position of a mass element in lumped mass i, with

respect to the body reference system;

• d¯i : the translation of position of a mass element in lumped mass i due to

deformation, with respect to the body reference system;

In the next sub-section the following very useful relations will be used frequently:
B.2 The equations of motion of a fl exible aircraft 233

a × b = skew(a)b a, b ∈ R3
 
0 −a3 a2
skew(a) =  a3 0 −a1 
−a2 a1 0

a × b = −b × a = skew(−b)a (B.23)

skew(a)T = −skew(a)

skew(a)skew(b) = abT − aT bI
P R R
i Vi = V

B.2.2 Kinetic energy

Based on the kinematics of all elementary mass elements the total kinetic energy
is computed as follows:

Z
1 T
Tk in = Ṙδi Ṙδi ρdV (B.24)
2 V

where ρ is the local material density, dV is an infinitesimal volume element, and

V is the over-all volume of the aircraft. The mass of the element is dm = ρdV .
Expanding the terms gives:

Z  T  
1
Tk in = Vb + d¯˙i + Ωb × (r̄i + d¯i ) Vb + d¯˙i + Ωb × (r̄i + d¯i ) ρdV
2 V
Z
1 T 1 T
= V V b m + Ωb (r̄i + d¯i )T (r̄i + d¯i )I − (r̄i + d¯i )(r̄i + d¯i )T ρdV Ωb
2 b 2 V
Z Z Z
1
+ d¯˙Ti d¯˙i ρdV + VbT d¯˙i ρdV + VbT (Ωb × (r̄i + d¯i )ρdV )
2
Z V V V

+ ¯ T ¯˙
(Ωb × (r̄i + di )) di ρdV (B.25)
V

Note that the first equation is exactly the form as used in [137], and, replacing
the integral by the summation symbol, also as in [21]. The second element in the
234 Equations of motion of a fl exible aircraft

second equation contains the momentary inertia tensor, as can be seen as follows:
Z
(Ωb × (r̄i + d¯i ))T (Ωb × (r̄i + d¯i ))ρdV
V
Z
= ((r̄i + d¯i ) × Ωb )T ((r̄i + d¯i ) × Ωb )ρdV
ZV
= (skew(r̄i + d¯i )Ωb )T (skew(r̄i + d¯i )Ωb )ρdV
V
Z
= Ωb T
skew(r̄i + d¯i )T skew(r̄i + d¯i )ρdV Ωb
V
Z
= ΩTb ((r̄i + d¯i )T (r̄i + d¯i )I − (r̄i + d¯i )(r̄i + d¯i )T )ρdV Ωb
V
= ΩTb IΩb
Now the following two assumptions are made:
• Assumption 4: V ariation of the inertia tensor as a function of airframe
deformation may be neglected, i.e. I = constant;
• Assumption 5 : Deformation and deformation rates are collinear (i.e. are in
the same direction), so that d¯˙i × d¯i = 0;
It must be stressed that none of these assumptions are necessary, but they are
considered reasonable and do considerably reduce length of the derivation and
complexity of the outcome [135, 19]. The last term of (B.25) then becomes:
Z Z Z
(Ωb × (r̄i + d¯i ))T d¯˙i ρdV = ΩTb (r̄i + d¯i ) × d¯˙i ρdV ≈ ΩT r̄i × d¯˙i ρdV
b
V V V

The origin of the body reference frame is positioned in the centre of gravity of
the airframe:
R
r̄i ρdV
rc g = RV =0 (B.26)
V
ρdV

The kinetic energy term reduces to:

Z
1 T 1 1
Tkin = Vb Vb m + ΩTb IΩb + d¯˙Ti d¯˙i ρdV
2 2 2 V
Z Z Z
+ VbT ˙
¯ T
di ρdV + Vb (Ωb × d¯i ρdV ) + ΩTb r̄i × d¯˙i ρdV
V V V

The third term of this expression is expanded as follows:

Z Z
1 1
d¯˙Ti d¯˙i ρdV = (d˙i + δ φ̇i × sδi )T (d˙i + δ φ̇i × sδi )ρdV (B.27)
2 V 2 V
Z
1
= d˙T d˙i + 2d˙Ti (δ φ̇i × sδi ) + (δ φ̇i × sδi )T (δ φ̇i × sδi )ρdV
2 V i
B.2 The equations of motion of a fl exible aircraft 235

Dealing with a lumped mass system, the mass and inertia tensor of an element i
are defined as follows:
Z
mi = ρdV (B.28)
ZVi Z
Ii = skew(sδi )T skew(sδi )ρdV = sTδi sδi I − sδi sTδi ρdV (B.29)
Vi Vi
Z R
sδi ρdV
li = sδi ρdV = VRi mi (B.30)
Vi Vi
ρdV

where Vi indicates integration over the volume of the lumped mass i. The vector
li is the location of its centre of gravity with respect to the local origin in ri .
Further note that Ii is the inertia tensor with respect to a local reference system
with its origin in ri and parallel to the body axes in undeformed state.
Integration now over the total airframe volume involves summation over all lumped
masses with volume Vi :
Z
1 1 X ˙T ˙ 1X T X
d¯˙Ti d¯˙i ρdV = di di mi + δ φ̇i Ii δ φ̇i + δ φ̇Ti li × d˙i mi
2 V 2 i 2 i i

B.2.3 Floating reference frames

The last three terms of (B.25) involve coupling between rigid and elastic motion.
The importance of these terms can be influenced by a suitable choice of body
reference system. This is most fundamental step in derivation of the equations
of motion of an unrestrained airframe. Already in 1891, Tisserand proposed a
floating reference system (i.e. not physically attached to some location of the
system, i.e. airframe), with respect to which the total relative momentum and
angular momentum equal zero. This provides six constraints locating the reference
frame. The total relative momentum equals:
Z Z
∂
Hre l = ¯
(r̄i + di )ρdV = d¯˙i ρdV = 0 (B.31)
∂t V V

where r̄˙i = 0 and the density has been assumed to be constant. This implies that:

Z
(r̄i + d¯i )ρdV = constant (B.32)
V

The location of the centre of gravity with respect to the reference system is thus
invariant. Starting from the undeformed position (compare with equation B.26):

Z
r̄i ρdV = constant = rcg m (B.33)
V
236 Equations of motion of a fl exible aircraft

where rcg is the location of the centre of gravity. Since rcg was set to zero in
(B.26):
Z Z
r̄i ρdV = (r̄i + d¯i )ρdV = rcg m = 0 (B.34)
V V

so that
Z
d¯i ρdV = 0 (B.35)
V

Further expansion finally gives:

Z Z X
d¯i ρdV = (di + δφi × sδi )ρdV = mi (di + δφi × li ) = 0 (B.36)
V V i

The angular momentum is slightly more complicated:

Z
∂
Hrelr o t = (r̄i + d¯i ) × ( (r̄i + d¯i ))ρdV = 0 (B.37)
V ∂t
This expression is nonlinear in the deformation and therefore diffi cult to satisfy in
practice. Therefore a ’practical’ or linearised version is used (again, with r̄˙i = 0):

Z
Hrelr o t = r̄i × d¯˙i ρdV = 0 (B.38)
V

A reference frame satisfying this linearised constraint, in combination with (B.31)

is also called ’Buckens’ frame. In [137] the constraints are called ’practical’ mean
axis conditions. See reference [22] for a more thorough treatment on different types
of floating reference systems. Finally, further expanding the terms of (B.38) gives:
Z Z
r̄i × d¯˙i ρdV = (ri + sδi ) × (d˙i + δ φ̇i × sδi )ρdV (B.39)
V V
X
= [mi ri × (d˙i + δ φ̇i × li ) + mi li × d˙i + Ii δ φ̇i ] = 0
i
∂ X
= [mi ri × (di + δφi × li ) + mi li × di + Ii δφi ] = 0
∂t i

Comparing with equation B.18, the conditions (B.36) and (B.39) are satisfied
right away in case di and δφi result from a linear combination of orthogonal mode
shapes from free-free vibration analysis. This implies that the orientation of the
mean axes simply complies with the direction of the rigid translational mode
shapes (along axes of reference system used for modal analysis), with its origin
in the momentary centre of gravity. It will be clear that mean axes are a very
sensible choice as body reference system in case mode shapes are available from
free-free vibration analysis:
B.2 The equations of motion of a fl exible aircraft 237

Vibration modes that result from modal analysis of the unrestrained system auto-
m atic ally fulfi l the linearised T isserand constraints due to orthog onality of these
modes w ith respec t to rig id (i.e. w ithout internal stresses) translational and rota-
tional motion of the airframe.
Note that at this point the following assumption has been implicitly made:
• Assumption 6 : A set of orthogonal modes for the airframe is available, re-
sulting from free-free modal vibration analysis. Deformation of the airframe
may be written as a linear combination of these mode shapes.
Thus, from now on di and δφi are no longer arbitrary, but related as follows:
   
di Φg i E t
= Φgi E ηE = ηE (B.40)
δφi Φ gi E r

where Φgi E are the rows of the modal matrix for three translational (Φgi Et ) and
three rotational (Φgi Er ) degrees of freedom of grid point i. The subscript E,
as in (B.3), indicates that only elastic modes have been included. The column
dimension of the matrices is the number of flexible modes nhE that is taken into
account.
The kinetic energy is now written as:
1 T 1
Tkin = V Vb m + ΩTb IΩb (B.41)
2 b 2
1 X ˙T ˙ 1X T X
+ di di mi + δ φ̇i Ii δ φ̇i + δ φ̇Ti li × d˙i mi
2 i 2 i i
1 T 1
= Vb Vb m + ΩTb IΩb
2 2
1 X ˙T ˙
+ (d di mi + δ φ̇Ti Ii δ φ̇i + δ φ̇Ti li × d˙i mi − d˙Ti li × δ φ̇i mi )
2 i i
1 T 1
= V Vb m + ΩTb IΩb
2 b 2
T 1
X
+ η̇E (ΦTgi Et mi I3 Φgi Et + ΦTgi Er Ii Φgi Er
2 i
+ ΦTgi Er mi skew(li )Φgi Et − ΦTgi Et mi skew(li )Φgi Er )η̇E
1 T 1
= Vb Vb m + ΩTb IΩb
2 2   
T 1 mi I 3 −mi skew(li ) Φg i E t
X 
+ η̇E T
Φgi Et ΦTgi Er η̇E
2 mi skew(li ) Ii Φ gi E r
i

And in its final short-hand form (see also (B.16)):

1 T 1 T 1 T T
Tkin = V Vb m + Ω IΩb + η̇ Φ Mgg ΦgE η̇E
2 b 2 b 2 E gE
1 T 1 T 1 T
= V Vb m + Ω IΩb + η̇ MEE η̇E (B.42)
2 b 2 b 2 E
238 Equations of motion of a fl exible aircraft

B.2.4 Potential energy

Potential energy of the airframe consists of a gravitational and a strain component.
At this point as an additional assumption is made:
• Assumption 7: G ravity is constant over the airframe.
The gravitational potential energy is:
Z
Ug = − (Teb Rδi )T Ge ρdV (B.43)
ZV
T
= − Rδi ρdV Tbe Ge
V
Z
= − (Rb + r̄i + d¯i )T ρdV Tb0 G0
V
= −mRbT Tbe Ge
where Ge is the direction of gravity acceleration in earth-fixed axes:

Ge = [0, 0, g ]T

if gravity is assumed to be perpendicular to the earth surface. Remember that

the origin of the body mean axes is always in the momentary centre of gravity,
so that the integral for all terms except for Rb becomes zero. The minus sign is
induced by the downward direction of ze .
The strain energy for undamped free vibration modes is [14]:
1 T 1 T
Us = ηE Khh ηE = ηE MEE Ω2 ηE (B.44)
2 2
where

Ω2 = diag(ω12 , ω22 , · · · , ωn2 h )

G eometric nonlinearities are not considered here: for transport aircraft these are
generally considered to be of secondary importance. Zeiler and Buttrill do address
these effects in Ref. [143].

B.2.5 Application of Lagrange’s equations

Lagrange’s equations are given by [78, 21]:
   
∂ ∂(T − U ) ∂(T − U ) ∂(T − U )
+ Ωb × − R = F (B.45)
∂t ∂Vb ∂Vb ∂ Vb dt
   
∂ ∂(T − U ) ∂(T − U ) ∂(T − U )
+ Ωb × − R = M (B.46)
∂t ∂Ωb ∂Ωb ∂ Ωb dt
 
d ∂(T − U ) ∂(T − U )
− = Q (B.47)
dt ∂ η̇E ∂ηE
B.2 The equations of motion of a fl exible aircraft 239

xB

xV
θ k1
ψ
yV
CoG
ψ
xV, yV φ k2

xE R xB , z v
yB
φ
yE
yB , z B
zB
θ
k3

zV
zE

Figure B.2: Transformation from vehicle-carried vertical into body axes

Note that since Vb and Ωb are resolved in mean body axes, differentiation with
respect to inertial axes is applied using:

d ∂
= + Ωb ×
dt ∂t

This does not apply to the latter equation,

R since ηE is not a position vector relying
on a specific reference system. With Vb dt = Rb , application of (B.45) is straight
forward and results in the following equations of motion:
h i
m V̇b + Ωb × Vb − Tbe G0 = F (B.48)
h i
IΩ̇b + Ωb × IΩb = M (B.49)
 
MEE η̈E + Ω2 ηE = QE (B.50)

B.2.6 Kinematic equations

In equations (B.48) the gravity acceleration is transformed into body axes via
the cosine matrix Tb0 . This matrix depends on the attitude of the mean axes
system with respect to earth-fixed axes, expressed as a function of the Euler
angles φ, θ, ψ. The attitude angles are indicated in Figure B.2. First the earth
axes are translated to the aircraft centre of mass, resulting in the vehicle-carried
vertical frame (subscript V ). Next this frame is rotated about the zv (ψ), the k2
(θ), and xb (φ) axis respectively into the body (mean axes) frame.
240 Equations of motion of a fl exible aircraft

The transformation from earth-fixed into body axes is described by [15]:

   
1 0 0 cos θ 0 − sin θ cos ψ sin ψ 0
Tbe =  0 cos φ sin φ   0 1 0   − sin ψ cos ψ 0 
0 − sin φ cos φ sin θ 0 cos θ 0 0 1
The position of the aircraft centre of gravity with respect to the earth-fixed axes
is given by:
 
ẋ
T
Vv =  ẏ  = Tbe Vb = Teb Vb (B.51)
ż v
The relation between the body angular rates and the Euler attitude angular rates
is described by [15]:
 
pb
Θ˙ = Tφ b Ωb = Tφ b  qb  (B.52)
rb
with the transformation matrix:
 
1 sin φ tan θ cos φ tan θ
Tφ b =  0 cos φ − sin φ  (B.53)
0 sin φ/ cos θ cos φ/ cos θ
Accelerations at locations of interest on the airframe are derived as follows (see
Figure B.1).
The position of location i on the airframe with respect to earth-fixed axes is:
Riie = R0e + Teb (ri + di ) (B.54)
Differentiation results in the local velocity:
Ṙei = Ṙe0 + Teb d˙i + Teb Ωb × (ri + di ) (B.55)
or:
 
Ṙei = Teb Vb + d˙i + Ωb × (ri + di ) (B.56)

Differentiating one more time gives:


R̈ei = Teb V̇b + Ωb × Vb + Ωb × d˙i + d¨i + Ωb × d˙i + Ω̇b × (ri + di )
+ Ωb × Ωb × (ri + di ))
Finally, the velocity and acceleration components in body co-ordinates are:
Ṙbi = Vb + d˙i + Ωb × (ri + di ) (B.57)
R̈bi = V̇b + Ωb × Vb + 2Ωb × d˙i + d¨i + Ω̇b × (ri + di )
| {z } | {z } |{z} | {z }
1 2 3 4
+ Ωb × Ωb × (ri + di )
| {z }
5
with the following individual terms:
B.2 The equations of motion of a fl exible aircraft 241

1. acceleration of origin of body axes (usually aircraft centre of gravity);

2. Coriolis acceleration;

3. local modal accelerations;

4. local acceleration due to offset from origin;

5. centrifugal acceleration.

The local deformation di and its rates are given by (mode displacement):

di = ΦgE ηE , d˙i = ΦgE η̇E , d¨i = ΦgE η̈E

This implies that velocities and accelerations at grid points (represented by rows in
ΦgE ) may be computed directly. For airframe locations in between, interpolation
is required.

B.2.7 Application of local forces and moments

In section as a first step an arbitrary force and moment at grid point i is applied:

 
Xi


 Yi 

Tbi 0  Zi 
Fg i =   (B.58)
0 Tbi 
 Li 

 Mi 
Ni

A local reference system i is considered attached to the grid point and undergoes
the same translation and rotation. In undeformed condition, the reference system
is parallel to the mean axes. In deformed condition, the rotation matrix from the
local into body axes is given by Tbi .
The contribution of a local force to the generalised force F in (B.48) is:
 
Xi
Fi = Tbi  Yi  (B.59)
Zi

the contribution to the generalised moment M in (B.49) is given by:

   
Li Xi
Mi = Tbi  Mi  + (ri + di ) × Tbi  Yi  (B.60)
Ni Zi

where (ri + di ) is the deformed location of grid point i with respect to the centre
of gravity.
242 Equations of motion of a fl exible aircraft

Finally, the contribution to QE in (B.50) is:

 
Xi
 Yi 
 
T
 Zi 
QE,i = Φgi E 
 Li

 (B.61)
 
 Mi 
Ni
where Φgi E are the rows of the modal matrix ΦgH that correspond to the six
degrees of freedom of grid point i.
In the frame of this work, local forces and moments are generated by the power
plants or attached inertias. Assuming engine attachment points are among the
grid points, the application to the equations of motion as in the equations above
may be done directly.

B.2.8 Summary of result

In this appendix the equations of motion for an unrestrained aircraft have been
derived. The equations and underlying assumptions are summarised in the fol-
lowing:

h i
m V̇b + Ωb × Vb − Tb0 G0 = F (B.48)
h i
IΩ̇b + Ωb × IΩb = M (B.49) (B.62)
 
Mhh η̈E + Ω2 ηE = Qh (B.50)

The underlying assumptions are:

1 The aircraft airframe may be described as a collection of lumped
rigid mass elements with an associated mass mi and moment of
inertia Ii .
2 Translational and rotational deformations with respect to the ref-
erence shape of the airframe are small.
3 Linear elastic theory applies (i.e. also geometric stiffening is ne-
glected).
4 A set of orthogonal modes for the airframe is available, result-
ing from free-free modal vibration analysis. Deformation of the
airframe may be written as a linear combination of these mode
shapes.
5 Gravity is constant over the airframe.
6 Variation of the inertia tensor as a function of airframe deforma-
tion may be neglected, i.e. I = constant.
7 Deformation and deformation rates are collinear (i.e. are in the
same direction), so that d¯˙i × d¯i = 0.

K inematic relations are given by:

B.3 Concluding remarks 243

Attitude of mean axes and position of its origin:

Θ̇ = Tφb Ωb (B.63)
Ṙ0 = Teb Vb (B.64)
Velocity and acceleration at grid point:
Ṙbi = Vb + d˙i + Ωb × (ri + di ) (B.65)
R̈bi = V̇b + Ωb × Vb + 2Ωb × d˙i + d¨i + Ω̇b × (ri + di )
+ Ωb × Ωb × (ri + di )
where:

di = ΦgE ηE , d˙i = ΦgE η̇E , d¨i = ΦgE η̈E (B.66)

B.3 Concluding remarks

The form of the equations (B.62) are the same as those in [21] after making the
listed assumptions. However, in the derivation in this section it has been shown
that for
1. lumped mass of which the centre of gravity does not match the location of
the corresponding grid point;
2. lumped masses with inertia tensor
the equations are still valid under the same assumptions. This has great practical
value, since this allows available modal data (i.e. the generalised mass matrix Mhh
and the in-vacuo free vibration eigenfrequencies in Ω, as obtained from modal
analysis using a finite element model of the airframe) to be directly integrated in
the airframe equations of motion. Correlating the last equation of (B.62) with
(B.7), it appears that linear equations of motion as resulting from FE-analysis
may be incorporated directly, only leaving out the already separated rigid body
modes (ηR ). The rigid body dynamics are covered by the first two equations in
(B.62), which are exactly the same as the commonly used Newton-Euler equations
in flight mechanics simulation.
The listed assumptions are in general valid for transport aircraft. Interestingly,
especially due to the assumptions 4, 6, and 7, no inertial coupling between flex-
ible and over-all (rigid) motion exists. Coupling does arise via the (generalised)
aerodynamic forces and motion, which depend on rigid as well as flexible dynam-
ics of the airframe. Note that this simplification only implies that no structural
modes are exited. However, when studying local effects, like loads at engine py-
lon attachments, the inertial effects may no longer be negligible, see for example
Ref. [107]. Also, for military aircraft with stores manoeuvring at high roll rates,
loading of elastic modes due to centrifugal forces, Coriolis forces, and body angu-
lar accelerations may be significant [21]. In [107, 21] the equations of motion are
244 Equations of motion of a fl exible aircraft

derived without making the assumptions 6 and 7. The resulting inertial coupling
terms are worked out and their influence is investigated.
Bibliography

[1] Aerolabs AG – Professional Solutions for the Engineering Industry:

http://www.aerolabs.de.

[2 ] F lig h t G e a r w e b site : http://www.flightgear.org.

[3 ] X -p la n e w e b site : http://www.x-plane.com/.

[4 ] D y n a sim A B . Dymola – User’s Manual. http://www.dynasim.se/, 1 9 9 4 –

2006.

[5 ] R ich a rd J . A d a m s a n d S iv a S . B a n d a . R o b u st F lig h t C o n tro l D e sig n U sin g

D y n a m ic In v e rsio n a n d S tru c tu re d S in g u la r V a lu e S y n th e sis. IE E E T rans-
ac tions on C ontrol S ystems T ec h nolog y, 1 (2 ):8 0 – 9 2 , J u n e 1 9 9 3 .

[6 ] E . A lb a n o a n d W .P . R o d d e n . A D o u b le t-L a ttic e M e th o d fo r C a lc u la tin g

L iftin g D istu rb a n c e s o f O sc illa tin g S u rfa c e s in S u b so n ic F lo w s. A IA A J our-
nal, 7 (2 ):2 7 9 – 2 8 5 , 1 9 6 9 . (E rra ta in A IA A J o u rn a l 7 (1 1 ), N o v e m b e r 1 9 6 9 ,
p .2 1 9 2 ).

[7 ] a n o n . D e p a rtm e n t o f D e fe n c e W o rld G e o d e tic S y ste m 1 9 8 4 – Its D e fi n itio n

a n d R e la tio n sh ip s w ith L o c a l G e o d e tic S y ste m s, T h ird E d itio n , A m a n d -
m e n t 1 . T e ch n ic a l R e p o rt N IM A T R 8 3 5 0 .2 , N a tio n a l Im a g e ry a n d M a p p in g
A g e n c y , B e th e sd a , M D , J a n u a ry 2 0 0 0 . T h ird E d itio n .

[8 ] P . D o u g la s A rb u ck le , C a re y S . B u ttrill, a n d T h o m a s A . Z e ile r. S im u la tio n

M o d e l B u ild in g P ro c e d u re fo r D y n a m ic S y ste m s In te g ra tio n . J ournal of
G uid ance C ontrol and Dynamic s, 1 2 :8 9 4 – 9 0 0 , 1 9 8 9 .

[9 ] G . J . B a la s, J . C . D o y le , K . G lo v e r, A . P a ck a rd , a n d R . S m ith . µ-A nalysis

and S ynth esis T O O L B O X , F or Use w ith MA T L A B . T h e M a th W o rk s In c .,
J u ly 1 9 9 8 .

[1 0 ] G a ry J . B a la s, W illia m L . G a rra rd , a n d J a k o b R e in e r. R o b u st D y n a m ic
In v e rsio n C o n tro l L a w s fo r A irc ra ft C o n tro l. p a g e s 1 9 2 – 2 0 5 . A IA A , 1 9 9 2 .
A IA A P a p e r 9 2 -4 3 2 9 -C P .
246 Bibliography

[11] J. Bals, G. H ofer, A. Pfeiff er, and C. Schallert. Virtual Iron Bird A Multidis-
ciplinary Modelling And Simulation Platform For New Aircraft System Ar-
chitectures. In DGLR Luft- und Raumfahrtkongress 2005, Friedrichshafen,
DGLR-Jahrb uch 2005, 2005.

[12] M. Bauschat, W. Mönnich, D. Willemsen, and G. Looye. Flight Testing

Robust Autoland Control Laws. In P roceedings of the AIAA Guidance,
N av igation and Control Conference 2001 , Montreal CA, 2001.

[13] G.E. Bendix en, R.F. O’Connell, and C.D. Siegert. Digital active control
system for load alleviation for the lockheed l-1011. Aeronautical Journal,
pages 430 – 436, November 1981.

[14] Raymond L. Bisplinghoff and H olt Ashley. P rincip les of Aeroelasticity.

Dover Publications Inc., New Y ork, 1962.

[15] Rudolf Brockhaus. Flugregelung. Springer-Verlag, Berlin H eidelberg, 1994.

[16] Jan F. Broenink. Introduction to physical systems modelling with bond

graphs. http://www.ce.utwente.nl/bnk/papers/BondGraphsV2.pdf.

[17] J.J. Buchholz , J.-M. Bauschat, K.-U. H ahn, and H .J. Pausder. ATTAS
& ATTH eS in-fl ight simulators. In AGARD CP -57 7 : Flight Simulation -
W here are the Challenges? Braunschweig, 1996.

[18] Carey S. Butrill. Results of Including Geometric Nonlinearities in an Aeroe-

lastic Model of an F/ A-18. In P roceedings of the Second N ASA/ Air Force
Symp osium on Recent Ex p eriences in Multidiscip linary Analysis and Op ti-
mization., Langley Research Center, H ampton, Virginia, September 1988.
NASA. NASA CP-3031.

[19] Carey S. Butrill. E-mail communication on multidisciplinary modeling, and

discussions at NASA Langley on fl ex ible aircraft modeling. April 1998.

[20] Carey S. Buttrill. Eq uations of Motion for a Maneuvering Flex ible Airplane.
In P roceedings of the SAE Aerosp ace Control and Guidance Systems Com-
mittee Meeting # 6 2, Subcommittee D., Langley Research Center, H ampton,
Virginia, September 1988. NASA. NASA CP-3031.

[21] C.S. Buttrill, T.A. Zeiler, and P.D. Arbuckle. Nonlinear Simulation of a
Flex ible Aircraft in Maneuvering Flight. In P roceedings of the AIAA Flight
Simulation Technologies Conference, Monterey, CA, August 1987. AIAA-
87-2501.

[22] J.R. Canavin and P.W. Likins. Floating Reference Frames for Flex ible
Spacecraft. Journal of Sp acecraft and Rockets, 14(12):724–732, December
1977.
Bibliography 247

[23] Michaela F. Carpino. RCAM Design Challenge – The TECS approach, Lon-
gitudinal Controller. Master’s thesis, Delft University, Faculty of Aerospace
Engineering, December 1995.
[24] R.K. Cavin and A.R. Dusto. Hamilton’s Principle: Finite Element Methods
and Flexible Body Dynamics. AIAA Journal of Aircraft, 15(12):1684–1690,
December 1977.
[25] John. J. Cerra II, Robert A. Calico, and Thomas E. Noll. Modelling of Rigid-
Body and Elastic Aircraft Dynamics for Flight Control Development. pages
386–395, Air Force Institute of Technology, Airforce Wright Aeronautical
Laboratories, Wright-Patterson AFB, Ohio, 1986. AIAA.
[26] Judith S. Dahmann, Richard M. Fujimoto, and Richard M. Weath-
erly. The department of defense high level architecture. In Proceed-
ings of the 19 9 7 Winter Simulation Conference, 1997. Obtained from:
http://www.informs-cs.org/wsc97papers/0142.PDF.
[27] John Doyle, Andy Packard, and Kemin Zhou. Review of LFTs, LMIs, and
µ. In Proceedings of the 3 0th Conference on Decision and Control, Brighton,
England, pages 1227–1232, December 1991.
[28] Jean Duprez. Automatisation du pilotage au sol pour la navigation
aéroportuaire. PhD thesis, Universite Toulouse iii Paul Sabatier, September
2004. In French.
[29] Unmanned Dynamics. AEROSIM aeronautical simulation blockset, Version
1.1 User’s Guide. Available from http://www.u-dynamics.com.
[30] H. Elmqvist. A Structured Model Language for Large Continuous Systems.
PhD thesis, Lund Institute of Technology, Lund, Sweden, 1978.
[31] H. Elmqvist. Object-Oriented Modeling and Automatic Formula Manipula-
tion in Dymola. In SIMS ’9 3 , Scandinavian Simulation Society, Kongberg,
Norway, June 1993.
[32] H. Elmqvist and M. Otter. Methods for Tearing Systems of Equations
in Object-Oriented Modeling. In Proceedings of the European Simulation
Multiconference (ESM’9 4 ), pages 326 – 332, Barcelona, Spain, 1994.
[33] H. Elmqvist, M. Otter, and F. Cellier. Inline integration: A new mixed sym-
bolic /numeric approach for solving differential– algebraic equation systems.
In K eynote Address, Proc. ESM’9 5, European Simulation Multiconference,
Prague, Czech Republic, June 5–8 , 19 9 5, pp. xxiii–xxxiv., 1995.
[34] Dale Enns, Dan Bugajski, Russ Hendrick, and Gunter Stein. Dynamic
Inversion: An Evolving Methodology for Flight Control Design. In AGARD
Conference Proceedings 560: Active Control Technology: Applications and
Lessons Learned, pages 7–1 – 7–12, Turin, Italy, May 1994. NATO-AGARD.
248 Bibliography

[35] Bernard Etkin. Dynamics of Atmospheric Flight. Wiley and Sons, New
York, 1972.
[36] Bernard Etkin and Lloyd Duff Reid. Dynamics of Flight – Stability and
Control. John Wiley and Sons, New York, 1996.
[37] European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA). Certification Specifica-
tions for All Weather Operations CS-AWO, 2003. Available from
http://www.easa.europa.eu/home/certspecs en.html.
[38] C. Fielding and R. Luckner. Industrial Considerations for Flight Control,
volume 184 of Progress in Astronautics and Aeronautics, chapter 1, pages
1 – 55. American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics, Reston VA,
2000.
[39] Christopher Fielding, Andras Varga, Samir Bennani, and Michiel Selier
(Eds.). Advanced Techniq ues for Clearance of Flight Control Laws. Lecture
Notes in Control and Information Sciences 283. Springer Verlag, London,
2002.
[40] H. Friehmelt and P. Huber. Vector- Die X31A fliegt zu neuen bahnbrechen-
den Technologiedemonstrationen. In DGLR Luft- und Raumfahrtkongress
2001, H amburg 17.-20. Sept. 2001.
[41] K.K. Gupta, M.J. Brenner, and L.S. Voelker. Development of an Integrated
Aeroservoelastic Analysis Program and Correlation with Test Data. Tech-
nical Report TP-3120, NASA, May 1991.
[42] Duda H., Bouwer G., Bauschat J.M., and Hahn K.-U. In: J.F. Magni,
S. Bennani, J. Terlouw, Eds. Robust Flight Control, a Design Challenge.,
chapter A Model Following Control Approach, pages 116 – 124, 360 –
378. Lecture Notes in Control and Information Sciences, Vol 224. Springer-
Verlag, 1997.
[43] Martin Hanel. Robust Integrated Flight and Aeroelastic Control System De-
sign for a Large Transport Aircraft. Number 866 in Fortschritt Berichte
VDI, Reihe 8. VDI Verlag, 2000.
[44] Simon Hecker. Generation of low order LFT Representations for Robust
Control Applications. PhD thesis, Technical University Munich, 2007.
Fortschrittberichte VDI, series 8, Nr. 1114, VDI-Verlag (Düsseldorf).
[45] J. Hofstee, T. Kier, C. Cerulli, and G. Looye. A Variable, Fully Flexible
Dynamic Response Tool for Special Investigations (VarLoads). In Proceed-
ings of the International Forum on Aeroelasticity and Structural Dynamics
(IFASD), Amsterdam, The Netherlands, June 2003.
[46] Alberto Isidori. Nonlinear Control Systems: An Introduction, volume 72 of
Lecture Notes in Control and Information Sciences. Springer-Verlag, Berlin,
1985.
Bibliography 249

[47] Matthieu Jeanneau. Description of aircraft ground dynamics. Technical

report, Airbus France, 2005. Confidential.

[48] Matthieu Jeanneau. Nonlinear Analysis and Synthesis Techniques for Air-
craft Control, volume 365 of Lecture Notes in Control and Information
Sciences, chapter The AIRBUS on-ground transport aircraft benchmark.
Springer Verlag, 2007.

[49] Joint Aviation Authorities. Joint Aviation Requirements for Large Aero-
planes JAR–25. Technical report, Hoofddorp, The Netherlands.

[50] H.-D. Joos. A methodology for multi-objective design assessment and flight
control synthesis tuning. Aerospace Science and Technology, 3(3):161–176,
April 1999.

[51] H.-D. Joos, A. Varga, R. Finsterwalder, and J. Bals. Eine integrierte op-
timierungsbasiert entwurfsumgebung für flugregelungsaufgaben. Automa-
tisierungstechnik – at, (6), June 1999.

[52] Hans-Dieter Joos, Johann Bals, Gertjan Looye, Klaus Schnepper, and An-
dras Varga. A multi-objective optimisation-based software environment for
control systems design. In Proceedings of the IEEE International Sympo-
sium on Computer Aided Control System Design, Glasgow, Scotland, U.K.,
pages 7–14, September 2002.

[53] J.P. Irving. Flight Control Law Process Model for Use in the GARTEUR
Action Group ” Robust Flight Control in a Computational Aircraft Control
Engineering Environment” . Technical Report TP-088-05, GARTEUR, May
1995.

[54] S. Juliana, Q .P. Chu, J.A. Mulder, and T. van Baten. The analytical deriva-
tion of nonlinear dynamic inversion control for parametric uncertain sys-
tems. In Proceedings CD-ROM of the AIAA Guidance, Navigation, and
Control Conference and Exhibit, San Fransisco, CA, number AIAA-2005-
5849, 2005.

[55] G.H. Kaplan. The IAU Resolutions on Astronomical Constants, Time

Scales, and the Fundamental Reference Frame. Circular No. 163; United
States Naval Observatory; Washington, DC. December 10, 1981.

[56] M. Karpel, B. Moulin, and P.C. Chen. Dynamic response of aeroservoelastic

systems to gust excitation. In Proceedings of the Internation Forum on
Aeroelasticity and Structural Dynamics (CD-ROM), Amsterdam, June 4 –
6 2003.

[57] Mordechay Karpel and Edward Strul. Minimum-State unsteady Aerody-

namic Approximations with Flexible Constraints. AIAA Journal of Aircraft,
33:1190 – 1196, November-December 1996.
250 Bibliography

[58] Thiemo Kier and Gertjan Looye. Development Of Aircraft Flight Loads
Analysis Models And Associated Uncertainties For Pre-Design Studies. In
Proceedings of the International Forum on Aeroelasticity and Structural Dy-
namics (IFASD), Munich, Germany, June 2005.
[59] Thiemo Kier, Gertjan Looye, Moriz Scharpenberg, and Marion Reijerkerk.
Process, methods and tools for flexible aircraft flight dynamics model in-
tegration. In Proceedings of the International Forum on Aeroelasticity and
Structural Dynamics (IFASD), 2007.
[60] Michael Kordt, Christian Ballauf, and Dieter Joos. Lastenreduktion an
Groß flugzeugen durch Aktive Bedämpfung der Koplanarbewegung Des
Höhenleitwerks. at – Automatisierungstechnik, (9):451 – 457, September
2002.
[61] G. Kreisselmeier and R. Steinhauser. Systematische Auslegung von Re-
glern durch Optimierung eines vektoriellen Gütekriteriums. Regelungstech-
nik, Heft 3, pages 76 –79, 1979.
[62] W.R. Krüger and M. Spieck. A multibody approach for modelling of the
manoeuvring aeroelastic aircraft during pre-design, 2006.
[63] Paul Lambrechts, Jan Terlouw, Samir Bennani, and Maarten Steinbuch.
Parametric Uncertainty Modeling using LFTs. In Proceedings of the Amer-
ican Control Conference, San Francisco, California, pages 267–272, June
1993.
[64] A A. Lambregts. Avoiding the pitfalls in automatic landing control system
design. AIAA Paper 82-1599, 1982.
[65] A A. Lambregts. Integrated system design for flight and propulsion control
using total energy principles. AIAA Paper 83-2561, 1983.
[66] A A. Lambregts. Vertical flight path and speed control autopilot design
using total energy principles. AIAA Paper 83-2239, 1983.
[67] E. Lavretsky. High Speed Civil Transport (HCST) Flight Simulation and
Analysis Software Development. In Proceedings of the 36th Aerospace Sci-
ences Meeting and Exhibit, Reno, Nevada, Jan 1998. AIAA-98-0173.
[68] F. G. Lemoine, S. C. Kenyon, J. K. Factor, R.G. Trimmer, N. K. Pavlis,
D. S. Chinn, C. M. Cox, S. M. Klosko, S. B. Luthcke, M. H. Torrence,
Y. M. Wang, R. G. Williamson, E. C. Pavlis, R. H. Rapp, and T. R. Olson.
The Development of the Joint NASA GSFC and NIMA Geopotential Model
EGM96. Technical Report NASA/TP-1998-206861, NASA Goddard Space
Flight Center, Greenbelt, Maryland, July 1998.
[69] P.W. Likins. Dynamics and Control of Flexible Space Vehicles. Technical
Report NASA-CR-108209, Jet Propulsion Laboratories, Calif. Institute of
Technology, Janunary 1970.
Bibliography 251

[70] G. Looye, S. Hecker, T. Kier, C. Reschke, and J. Bals. Multi-disciplinary

aircraft model development using object-oriented modelling techniques. In
DGLR Jahrbuch, number 242. Deutsche Gesellschaft für Luft- und Raum-
fahrt, 2005.

[71] G. Looye, A. Varga, D. Moormann, and S. Bennani. Post-design

stability robustness assessment of the rcam controller design entries.
Technical Report TP-088-35, GARTEUR, April 1997. available from
www.nlr.nl/hostedsites/ garteur.

[72] Gertjan Looye. Integrated Flight Mechanics and Aeroelastic Aircraft Mod-
eling using Object-Oriented Modeling Techniques. In Proceedings of the
AIAA Modeling and Simulation Technologies Conference, Portland, USA,
August 1999. AIAA-99-4192.

[73] Gertjan Looye, Hans-Dieter Joos, and Dehlia Willemsen. Application of

an Optimisation-based Design Process for Robust Autoland Control Laws.
In Proceedings of the AIAA Guidance, Navigation and Control Conference
2001, Montreal CA, 2001.

[74] Gertjan Looye, Carlos Sancho, and Amiel Makdoembaks. Design of Robust
Autoland Control Laws using µ-Synthesis. AIAA Paper 2002-4854, AIAA
Meeting Papers on disc [CD-ROM],Vol. 7, No. 4, AIAA, Reston, VA, 2002.

[75] Gertjan Looye, Michael Thümmel, Matthias Kurze, Martin Otter, and Jo-
hann Bals. Nonlinear Inverse Models for Control. In Proceedings of the third
international Modelica conference, Hamburg, March 2005.

[76] R. Luckner and H. Duda. Autopilot Design Process Study. Technical Report
BRPT-CT98-0627/TP-02v1, Robust and Effi cient Autopilot control Laws
design (REAL), October 1998. Confidential.

[77] Jean-François Magni, Samir Bennani, and Jan Terlouw (Eds). Robust Flight
Control – A Design Challenge. Lecture Notes in Control and Information
Sciences 224. Springer Verlag, London, 1997.

[78] Jerry B. Marion and Stephen T. Thornton. Classical Dynamics of Particles

& Systems (Third Edition). Harcourt Brace Jovanovich College Publishers,
Orlando, Florida, 1988.

[79] The Math Works Inc. Control System Toolbox, For Use with MATLAB –
User’s Guide, January 1998.

[80] The Math Works Inc. MATLAB – External Interfaces Reference – V ersion
7, March 2005.

[81] The Math Works Inc. Simulink Reference, 2005.

252 Bibliography

[82] S.E. Mattsson and G. Söderlind. Index Reduction in Differential-Algebraic

Equations using Dummy Derivatives. SIAM Journal on Scientific Comput-
ing, 14:677 – 692, 1993.

[83] Susan McLean, Susan Macmillan, Stefan Maus, Vincent Lesur, Alan Thom-
son, and David Dater. The US/UK World Magnetic Model for 2005-2010.
Technical Report NOAA Technical Report NESDIS/NGDC-1, NOAA Na-
tional Geophysical Data Center, British Geological Survey Geomagnetism
Group, December 2004.

[84] Duane McRuer and Dunstan Graham. Flight Control Century: Triumphs of
the Systems Approach. AIAA Journal of Guidance, Control, and Dynamics,
27(2):161 – 173, March – April 2004.

[85] G. Meyer et al. Nonlinear controller design for flight control systems. In
Proc. IFAC Symp., Nonlinear Control Systems Design, Capri, pages 136–
141, 1989.

[86] R.D. Milne. Dynamics of the Deformable Airplane (Part I and II). Technical
Report R & M Number 3345, and AD-A953155, Her Majesty’s Stationary
Office, London, England, 1964.

[87] MINPACK. See website http://www.netlib.org.

[88] The Modelica Association. Modelica – A Unified Object-Oriented

Language for Physical Systems Modeling, 2000. Available from
http://www.modelica.org.

[89] Modelica Design Group. Modelica: Language design for multi-domain mod-
eling. http://www.modelica.org.

[90] Modelica Design Group. Modelica - A Unified Object-Oriented Language for

Physical Systems Modeling – Language Specification Version 2.2, February
2005. Available from http://www.modelica.org.

[91] D. Moormann, P.J. Mosterman, and G. Looye. Object-oriented computa-

tional model building of aircraft flight dynamics and systems. Aerospace
Science and Technology, 3(3), April 1999.

[92] Dieter Moormann. Physical modeling of controlled aircraft. In Proceedings

of the CESA’96 IMACS Multiconference on Computational Engineering in
Systems Applications, pages 970–975, Lille-France, July 1996.

[93] Dieter Moormann. Automatisierte Modellbildung der Flugsystemdynamik.

VDI Verlag, Reihe 8, Dissertation RWTH Aachen, Institut für Flugdy-
namik, Düsseldorf, 2002.
Bibliography 253

[94] L. Morino and J. Baillieul. A Geometrically-Exact Non-Linear Lagrangian

Formulation for the Dynamic Analysis of a Flexible Maneuvering Airplane.
Technical Report CCAD-TR-87-02, Boston University, Boston, December
1987.

[95] Philipp Nagel. Design of on-ground control laws for a civil transport aircraft.
Technical report, Master’s Thesis University of Stuttgart, conducted at the
DLR German Aerospace Center Oberpfaffenhofen, Institute of Robotics and
Mechatronics, Oberpfaffenhofen, Germany, 2006. Confidential.

[96] NASTRAN Aeroelastic Analysis, User’s guide. Santa Ana, CA, 2002.

[97] Martin Otter. Objektorientierte Modellierung mechatronischer Systeme am

Beispiel Geregelter Roboter. PhD thesis, Fakultät für Maschinenbau der
Ruhr-Universität Bochum, November 1995. VDI Vortschrittsberichte, Rech-
nergestützte Verfahren, Reihe 20, Nr. 147.

[98] Martin Otter, Hilding Elmqvist, and Sven Erik Mattsson. The new mod-
elica multibody library. In Peter Fritzson, editor, Proceedings of the 3rd
International Modelica Conference, Linköping, Sweden, pages 311 – 330.
Modelica Association, 2003.

[99] C.C. Pantelides. The consistent initialization of differential-algebraic sys-

tems. SIAM Journal of Scientific and Statistical Computing, 9:213 –231,
1988.

[100] Remco Petra. Autoland Control – A Direct Lift Control Approach Based on
Nonlinear Dynamic Inversion and Model Predictive Control. Master’s the-
sis, Delft University of Technology, Department of Aerospace Engineering,
Delft, November 2002.

[101] Maurice Petyt. Introduction to finite element vibration analysis. Cambridge

University Press, Cambridge, UK, 1990.

[102] Jan Willem Polderman and J. Willems. Introduction to Mathematical Sys-

tems Theory: A Behavioral Approach, volume 26 of Texts in Applied Math-
ematics. Springer-Verlag Inc., New York, 1998.

[103] S.J. Rasmussen and S.G. Breslin. AVDS: a Flight Systems Design Tool for
Visualization and Engineer-in-the-Loop Simulation. AIAA 97-3467. 1997.

[104] Mark Rauw. FDC 1.3 – A SIMULINK Toolbox for Flight

Dynamics and Conrol Analysis. User’s Manual. Available from
http://www.dutch-roll.nl.

[105] REAL Consortium. RealATTAS Benchmark Definition. Technical Report

BRPR-CT98-0627/TP-04v1, 2000.
254 Bibliography

[106] Christian Reschke. Flight loads analysis with inertially coupled equations
of motion. In Proceedings of the AIAA Guidance, Navigation, and Control
Conference, 2005. AIAA 2005-6026.
[107] Christian Reschke. Integrated Flight Loads Modelling and Analysis for Flex-
ible Transport Aircraft. PhD thesis, Institut für Flugmechanik und Flu-
gregelung, Universität Stuttgart, 2006.
[108] Christian Reschke and Gertjan Looye. Comparison of Model Integration
Approaches for Flexible Aircraft Flight Dynamics Modelling. In Proceed-
ings of the International Forum on Aeroelasticity and Structural Dynamics
(IFASD), Munich, Germany, June 2005.
[109] K. Roger. Airplane Math Modeling Methods for Active Control Design.
AGARD, (CP-228), August 1977.
[110] W.F.J.A. Rouwhorst. Robust and Efficient Autopilots control Laws design,
demonstrating the use of modern robust control design methodologies in
the autoland system design process – the REAL Project. In Proceedings of
the Aeronautics Days 2001, Hamburg Germany, January 2001.
[111] RTO Task Group SCI-026. Flight Control Design – Best Practices. Tech-
nical Report RTO-TR-029, NATO Research and Technology Organization
(RTO), December 2000.
[112] Christian Schallert. Concept for the design of flight control actuation and
laws for future all-electric aircraft. In Submitted to the 17th IFAC Sympo-
sium on Automatic Control in Aerospace, June 2007.
[113] J. Schuler. Flugregelung und aktive Schwingungsdämpfung für fl exible Groβ-
raumfl ugzeuge – Modellbildung und Simulation. PhD thesis, Institut für
Flugmechanik und Flugregelung, Universität Stuttgart, 1997.
[114] J. Schuler and K. König. Integral Control of Large Flexible Aircraft. In
Proceedings of the RTO AVD Specialists Meeting on Structural Aspects of
Flexible Aircraft Control, Ottawa, Canada, 18-20 October 1999.
[115] Richard Schwertassek, Stefan v. Dombrowski, and Oskar Wallrapp. Modal
Representation of Stress in Flexible Multibody Simulation. Nonlinear Dy-
namics, (20):381–399, 1999.
[116] Richard Schwertassek, Oskar Wallrapp, and Ahmed A. shabana. Flexible
Multibody Simulation and Choice of Shape Functions. Nonlinear Dynamics,
(20):361–380, 1999.
[117] Albert A. Schy and Daniel P. Giesy. Tradeoff Studies in Multiobjective
Insensitive Design of Airplane Control Systems. In Proceedings of the AIAA
Guidance and Control Conference, pages 719–728, Gatlinburg, TN, August
1983.
Bibliography 255

[118] Several Authors. Application of Multivariable Control Theory to Aircraft

Control Laws, Final Report – Multivariable Control Design Guidelines.
Technical Report WL-TR-96-3099, Flight Dynamics Directorate, Wright
Laboratory, Air Force Materiel Command, Wright Patterson AFB OH, May
1996.
[119] K. Seyffarth and Others. Comfort in Turbulence for a Large Civil Aircraft.
In Proceedings of the International Forum on Aeroelasticity and Structural
Dynamics, pages 151–170, Strasbourg, 1993.
[120] Jong-Yeob Shin, Gary J. Balas, and Andrew K. Packard. Worst-Case Anal-
ysis of the X-38 Crew Return Vehicle Flight Control System. AIAA Journal
of Guidance, Control, and Dynamics, 24(2):261–269, 2001.
[121] Jean Jacques E Slotine and Weiping Li. Applied Nonlinear Control. Prentice
Hall, Englewood Cliffs, N.J., 1991.
[122] S. Anthony Snell, Dale F. Enns, and William L. Garrard. Nonlinear In-
version Flight Control for a Supermaneuverable Aircraft. AIAA Journal of
Guidance, Control, and Dynamics, 15(4):976–984, July-August 1992.
[123] R. Steinhauser, G. Looye, and O. Brieger. Design and Evaluation of Control
Laws for the X-31A with Reduced Vertical Tail. In Proceedings of the AIAA
Guidance and Control Conference, Providence, Rhode Island, USA, August
2004. AIAA-2004-5031.
[124] Brian L. Stevens and Frank L. Lewis. Aircraft Control and Simulation.
Wiley-Interscience Publication. John Wiley & Sons, Inc., New York, 1992.
[125] Brian L. Stevens and Frank L. Lewis. Aircraft Control and Simulation.
Wiley-Interscience Publication. John Wiley & Sons, Inc., New York, 2000.
[126] The Mathworks. Aerospace Blockset – For Use with Simulink, User’s Guide,
Version 2, 2006.
[127] Michael Thümmel. Modellbasierte Regelung mit nichtlinearen inversen Sys-
temen und Beobachtern zur Optimierung der Dynamik von Robotern mit
elastischen Gelenken. PhD thesis, Lehrstuhl für Elektrische Antriebssys-
teme, Technische Universität München, 2006.
[128] S.H. Tiffany and W.M. Adams Jr. Nonlinear Programming Extension
to Rational Approximation Methods of Unsteady Aerodynamic Forces.
Technical Report TP-2776, NASA, July 1988. Also presented at the
AIAA/ASME/ASCE/AHS 28th Structures, Structural Dynamics and Ma-
terial s Conference, Montery CA, April 1987 .
[129] Mark B. Tischler, Jason D. Colbourne, Mark R. Morel, Daniel J. Biezad,
Kenny K. Cheung, William S. Levine, and Veronica Moldoveanu. A Multi-
disciplinary Flight Control Development Environment and Its Application
256 Bibliography

to a Helicopter. IEEE Control Systems Magazine, 19(4):22 – 33, August

1999.

[130] W.R. van Soest, Q.P. Chu, and J.A. Mulder. Combined Feedback Lineariza-
tion and Constrained Model Predictive Control for Entry Flight. AIAA
Journal of Guidance, Control, and Dynamics, 29(2):427–434, 2006.

[131] A. Varga, G. Looye, D. Moormann, and G. Grübel. Automated Generation

of LFT-Based Parametric Uncertainty Descriptions from Generic Aircraft
Models. Technical Report TP-088-36, GARTEUR, April 1997.

[132] A. Varga, G. Looye, D. Moormann, and G. Grübel. Automated Genera-

tion of LFT-based Parametric Uncertainty Descriptions from Generic Air-
craft Models. Mathematical and Computer Modelling of Dynamical Systems,
4(4):249–274, 1998. See also GARTEUR report TP-088-36.

[133] R. Vepa. Finite State Modeling of Aeroelastic Systems. Technical Report

NASA CR-2779, NASA, February 1977.

[134] Qian Wang and Robert F. Stengel. Robust Nonlinear Flight Control of a
High-Performance Aircraft. IEEE Transactions on control systems technol-
ogy, 13(1):15–26, 2005.

[135] Martin R. Waszak, Carey S. Buttrill, and David K. Schmidt. Modeling and
Model Simplification of Aeroelastic Vehicles: An Overview. Technical Re-
port NASA TM-107691, NASA Langley, September 1992. Also presented at
the 17th Congress of the International Council of the Aeronautical Sciences
(ICAS), Stockholm Sweden, September 9–14, 1990.

[136] Martin R. Waszak and Dave K. Schmidt. On the Flight Dynamics of Aeroe-
lastic Vehicles. In Proceedings of the AIAA Atmospheric Flight Mechanics
Conference, pages 120 – 133, Williamsburg VA, 1986. Paper number AIAA
86-2077.

[137] Martin R. Waszak and Dave K. Schmidt. Flight Dynamics of Aeroelastic

Vehicles. AIAA Journal of Aircraft, 25(6):563–571, June 1988.

[138] M.R. Waszak and D.K. Schmidt. A Simulation Study of the Flight Dynamics
of Elastic Aircraft: Volume 1 – Experiment, Results and Analysis. Technical
Report NASA CP-4102, NASA, December 1987.

[139] J.C. Willems. Slides of first lecture in short course at CDC 2005 The Behav-
ioral Approach to Systems and Control: Introduction and Recent Advances.

[140] B.A. Winther, P.J. Goggin, and J.R. Dykman. Reduced Order Dynamic
Aeroelastic Model Development and Integration with Nonlinear Simulation.
AIAA Journal of Aircraft, 37(5):833 – 839, 2000.
Bibliography 257

[141] J. H. Wykes, T. R. Byar, C. J. Macmiller, and D. C. Greek. Analyses and

tests of the B-1 aircraft structural mode control system. Technical Report
H-1109; NA-79-405; NASA-CR-144887, NASA, January 1980.
[142] H.M. Youssef, A.P. Nayak, and K.G. Gousman. Integrated Total and Flex-
ible Body Dynamics of a Fixed Wing Aircraft. In Proceedings of the AIAA
Structures, Structural Dynamics and Materials Conference, 29th, Williams-
burg, VA, Apr. 18-20, 1988, Technical Papers. Part 3 (A88-32176 12-39).
Washington, DC, pages 1230 – 1236, Washington, DC, 1988. AIAA. AIAA-
88-2364.

[143] T.A. Zeiler and C.S. Buttrill. Dynamic Analysis of an Unrestrained ,

Rotating Structure through Nonlinear Simulation. In Proceedings of the
AIAA/ASME/ASCE/AHS 27th Structures, Structural Dynamics and Ma-
terials Conference, pages 167–174, Williamsburg, VA, April 1988. AIAA.
[144] R.J. Zwaan. Trillingen van vliegtuigen. TU-Delft, May 1990. Dictaat LR-31.
258 Bibliography
Nomenclature

Symbols (Roman)
c̄ M e a n a e ro d y n a m ic ch o rd le n g th
q̄ D y n a m ic p re ssu re
Ib T o ta l a irc ra ft in e rtia te n so r w .r.t. Fb
N1 M e a n o f fa n sh a ft sp e e d s o f a ll e n g in e s
A L in e a r sta te sp a c e m o d e l – sta te m a trix
Aj C o lu m n j o f sta te sp a c e A -m a trix
A.. P a rtitio n o f m a trix A
A0.. , A1.. , A2.. R F A a e ro d y n a m ic stiff n e ss, d a m p in g , a n d m a ss m a tric e s
B L in e a r sta te sp a c e m o d e l – sta te in p u t m a trix
Bj C o lu m n j o f sta te sp a c e B -m a trix
B.. P a rtitio n o f m a trix B
Bg h H a lf-g e n e ra lise d stru c tu ra l d a m p in g m a trix
Bh h G e n e ra lise d stru c tu ra l d a m p in g m a trix
b lp l B a ck la sh o f p o w e r le v e r
C L in e a r sta te sp a c e m o d e l – o u tp u t sta te m a trix
Cj C o lu m n j o f sta te sp a c e C -m a trix
Cl T o ta l a e ro d y n a m ic m o m e n t c o e ffi c ie n ts a ro u n d x -a x e s o f Fa
Cm T o ta l a e ro d y n a m ic m o m e n t c o e ffi c ie n ts a ro u n d y -a x e s o f Fa
Cn T o ta l a e ro d y n a m ic m o m e n t c o e ffi c ie n ts a ro u n d z -a x e s o f Fa
CX T o ta l a e ro d y n a m ic fo rc e c o e ffi c ie n ts a lo n g x -a x e s o f Fa
CY T o ta l a e ro d y n a m ic fo rc e c o e ffi c ie n ts a lo n g y -a x e s o f Fa
CZ T o ta l a e ro d y n a m ic fo rc e c o e ffi c ie n ts a lo n g z -a x e s o f Fa
D L in e a r sta te sp a c e m o d e l – o u tp u t in p u t
D O u tp u t m a trix o f R F A la g sta te sp a c e e q u a tio n s
Dj C o lu m n j o f sta te sp a c e D -m a trix
260 Nomenclature

Drwy x-Distance from A/C REF to runway threshold

dT Thrust difference b etween left and right engines
E Input matrix of RFA lag state space equations
F Force vector
F (..) S ystem of equations, depending on variab les ..
f (..) S tate space model – nonlinear state derivative function
f (..) (N onlinear) function of ...
Fg Force vector in directions of xg
Fx Force in x-direction of Fb
Fy Force in y-direction of Fb
Fz Force in z-direction of Fb
F Ab Aerodynamic force vector, w.r.t. Fb
g Gravity acceleration
Gb Gravity acceleration vector in Fb
Gv Gravity acceleration vector in Fv
Gt yre Cornering stiffness of tyre
h Altitude in W GS 8 4 co-ordinates
h(..) S tate space model – nonlinear output function
hm S tate space model – nonlinear output function for yM e as

ho (...) S tate space model – nonlinear output function for other outputs than command vari-
ab les
hs S tate space model – nonlinear output function for yS im

Hbaro Barometric altitude signal

hggld Glide slope reference height
Hlg Height of landing gears ab ove ground
Hra Radio altitude signal
Hrwy Height of runway threshold ab ove sea level
ht e rrai n Local terrain elevation over W GS 8 4 ellipsoid
Ht r Terrain height step b efore threshold
HW S S tarting height of wind shear ab ove runway
I< n> Identity matrix with dimension n
√
j Complex numb er j = −1
k Reduced frequency k = ωc̄/ V a
K.. Controller gain
K.. (s) Controller transfer function
Kgg S tructural stiffness matrix
Nomenclature 261

Kgh Half-generalised stiffness matrix

Khh Generalised stiffness matrix
Lf h(..) First-order Lie-derivative of function h(..) along vector fi eld f
lH Distance between. wing and stabiliser AC’s
Lrwy Length of runway
M Nominal matrix part in static LFT model
M Moment vector, Mach number
m Total aircraft mass
M (s) Nominal system part in dynamic LFT model
Mx Moment around x-direction of Fb
My Moment around y-direction of Fb
Mz Moment around z-direction of Fb
M Ab Aerodynamic moment vector, w.r.t. Fb
Mgg Structural mass matrix
Mgh Half-generalised mass matrix
Mhh Generalised mass matrix
n V ector with noise inputs
N 1i Fan shaft speed of engine i
N 1dist White noise for engine fan shaft speed
N1 Engine fan shaft speed (low pressure spool) [% ]
nE Number of elastic modes (sub-set of h-set)
ng Number of DOF of all structural grid points (g-set)
nh Number of structural modes (h-set)
nn Dimension of noise input vector
np Dimension of parameter vector p
nR Number of rigid modes (sub-set of h-set)
nu Dimension of input vector
nw Dimension of the vector w(t)
nw Dimension of vector w(t)
nX Dimension of vector X(t)
nx Dimension of state vector
nx Load factor in body negative x-direction
nX Number of control and gust inputs
ny Dimension of output vector
ny Load factor in body negative y-direction
nz Load factor in body negative z-direction
262 Nomenclature

nz Vertical load factor in dir. of body z-axis

nuc Dimension of uc
nuo Dimension of uo
nycmd Dimension of ycmd
nym Dimension of yM eas
nys Dimension of ySim
p Vector with model parameters
P (..) Probability of ..
pb Angular velocity of aircraft around body x-axis
pe Vector of (unknown) environment parameters
pk Vector containing parameters that may be considered to be known to the control laws
pu Vector containing parameters that are unknown
qb Angular velocity of aircraft around body y-axis
Q.. (Half-)generalised aerodynamic loads
R Diagonal matrix with RFA lag state poles
rb Angular velocity of aircraft around body z-axis
Re Aircraft CoG position vector in geodetic axes
Re Position vector of aircraft CoG in Fe
ri Relative degree of model output i
rarp Position aerodynamic reference point with respect to the CoG in Fb
Rgear Position of landing gear (bottom of tyre) in FEC I

Rterrain Projected position vector of gear-ground contact point in FEC I

s Laplace variable
S Wing reference area
s Laplace variable
T Vector with design parameters
t Time
T Total thrust
T0 Temperature at mean sea level (MSL)
Tφ b Cosine matrix relating body and Euler angular rates
Tbv Trafo matrix from Fv into Fb
T W Sx Time constant for specific wind shear
u Vector with model inputs
U Control inputs
ub Velocity of aircraft CoG in body x-direction
uc Vector with control inputs
Nomenclature 263

uo Vector with other model inputs

V Inertial speed (norm)
Vb Inertial velocity vector along Fb
vb Velocity of aircraft CoG in body y-direction
Vv Inertial velocity vector along Fv
VW Wind velocity in Fb
VZ Vertical speed (positive down) in Fv
Vapp Selected calibrated approach speed
Vcas Calibrated airspeed
Veas Equivalent airspeed
Vg Ground speed
Vtas True airspeed
wb Velocity of aircraft CoG in body z-direction
WSx Specific wind shear in Fe x-direction
WX33 Wind (3 3 ft above ground) in Fe x-direction
WY 33 Wind (3 3 ft above ground) in Fe y-direction
wngld White noise for glide slope disturbance
wnloc White noise for localiser disturbance
wnT urbx White noise for x-turbulence in Fe
wnT urby White noise for y-turbulence in Fe
wnT urbz White noise for z-turbulence in Fe
x Vector with model states
X(t) Vector containing potential state variables in set of model equations
xc Reference state vector in model-following control scheme
xe Aircraft CoG x-Position in geodetic axes
xg Struct. grid point DOF in Fs (g-set)
xL Lag state vector
xR Vector with rigid aircraft state variables
xCG x-Position of CoG in Fac
xL E Vector with aerodynamic lag states, driven by airframe deformation
xL R Vector with aerodynamic lag states, driven by rigid motion
xL X Vector with aerodynamic lag states, driven by control defl ections and wind
xM LG x-Position of main gear in Fb
xN W x-Position of nose gear in Fb
x Rb FD body states xT T T
R = [Vb , Ωb ]
b
264 Nomenclature

x Rb Rigid body states: velocity and angular rates w.r.t. Fb

x Re FD position/attitude states: xT T T
Re = [Re , Θ ]

x Re Rigid body states: position and attitude w.r.t. Fe

Xtr x-Position of height step w.r.t. threshold
xwheel x-Position of wheel in Fb
xP O Srwy Inertial x-position of runway threshold
y Vector with model outputs
ye Aircraft CoG y-Position in geodetic axes
yo Vector containing other outputs than command variables
ycmd Vector containing command variable outputs
yM eas Vector containing sensor measurements
yrwy y-Offset of aircraft CoG from runway centre line
ySim Vector containing model outputs for simulation analysis
ywheel y-Position of wheel in Fb
ze Aircraft CoG z-Position in geodetic axes

Symbols (Greek)
α Aerodynamic angle of attack
αdist (Sinusoidal) alpha sensor disturbance
β Aerodynamic angle of side slip
βtyre Slip angle of tyre w.r.t. ground surface
χ Flight path heading angle
∆CD U ncertainty level of CD
∆Cl0 U ncertainty level of Clβ , Clβ, l g , and Clβ, g r
∆Clδa U ncertainty level of Clδa and Clδa , α
∆CLδe U ncertainty level of CLδe
h h

∆Clδr U ncertainty level of Clδr

∆CLg r U ncertainty level of CLαg r and CLF , g rh

∆CLh U ncertainty level of CLh

∆Clp U ncertainty level of Clp and Clp, M a

∆Clr U ncertainty level of Clr and Clr, α

∆Cm0 U ncertainty level of Cm0 , Cml g , CmM a , Cm0, g r , and Cmβ
∆Cmq U ncertainty level of Cmqw b
and Cmq, l g
∆Cn0 U ncertainty level of Cnβ , Cnβ, l g , and Cnβ, g r
∆Cnδa U ncertainty level of Cnδa
Nomenclature 265

∆Cnδr Uncertainty level of Cnδr

∆Cnp Uncertainty level of Cnp and Cnp,α
∆Cnr Uncertainty level of Cnr , Cnr,lg , and Cnβ̇

∆CY Uncertainty level of CY

∆Ixz Uncertainty level of Ixz
∆Ix Uncertainty level of Ix
∆Iy Uncertainty level of Iy
∆Iz Uncertainty level of Iz
∆ Structured uncertainty matrix in LFT model
δ Vector of control surface deflections
∆loc Displacement of localiser signal
δA Aileron deflection angle
δE Elevator deflection angle
δR Rudder deflection angle
δT Tailplane rotation angle
δAm ax Maximum aileron deflection
δE m ax Maximum elevator deflection
δE m in
Minimum elevator deflection
δ Rm ax Maximum rudder deflection
δT hr1c Throttle command for engine 1
δT hr2c Throttle command for engine 2

δ̇Am ax Maximum aileron rate

δ̇Em ax Maximum elevator rate

δ̇Rm ax Maximum rudder rate

η Generalised mode shape co-ordinates
ηE Generalised elastic mode shape co-ordinates
ηR Generalised rigid mode shape co-ordinates
ηX Control surface deflections (from trim)
γ Flight path climb angle
γa Air mass-referenced flight path climb angle
γgld ILS glide slope angle
γrwy Slope of runway
γtr Slope of terrain before runway
µ Aerodynamic bank angle
µ Structured singular value
266 Nomenclature

ω Frequency
Ωb Inertial body angular velocity vector along Fb
φ Aircraft body axes Euler angle: roll
ΦgE Modal matrix: elastic modes
Φgh Modal matrix
ΦgR Modal matrix: rigid modes
ψ Aircraft body axes Euler angle: yaw
ψrwy Heading of runway
τ Time constant of first order filter
θ Aircraft body axes Euler angle: pitch
Θ Vector with Euler angles [φ, θ, ψ]T
θN W Commanded steering angle of nose wheel
θsteer Commanded steering angle of wheel
εgld Glide slope displacement signal
εloc Localiser displacement signal
Fa Aerodynamic reference system origin in ARP, x in dir. of airspeed, z down
Fb Body-fixed reference system origin in CoG, x to AC nose, z down
Fe Earth-fixed reference system (inertial) origin on earth surface, orientation NED
Ff Flight path-oriented reference system origin in CoG, x in direction of V, z down
Fs Structural reference system (inertial) origin e.g. at AC nose, x to AC tail, z upw.
Fv Vehicle-carried vertical reference system origin in CoG, orientation NED
Fac Aircraft-fixed reference system, parallel to Fb , origin in agreed aircraft-specific reference
point
FECEF Earth-centred Earth-fixed reference system
FECI Earth-centred Inertial reference system
∂ε ∂ε
∂ α grunc
Uncertainty level of ∂ α gr

∂ε ∂ε
∂ α unc
Uncertainty level of ∂α

Subscripts
0 Initial value
A Aerodynamic, aileron
a Aerodynamic, w.r.t. Fa
b Body, w.r.t. Fb
c Commanded value
cas Calibrated airspeed
cmd Commanded
Nomenclature 267

e Error value
E Elevator, elastic
eas Equivalent airspeed
ext external
f Flight path, w.r.t. Ff
FD Flight dynamics
g Struct. grid point DOF in (g-set)
gE Right-generalised, only elastic deformation
gh Right-generalised
gR Right-generalised, only rigid motion
H Horizontal stabiliser
h W.r.t. generalised co-ordinates (h-set)
hh Generalised
inv Inverse
max Maximum
min Minimum
M LG Main landing gear
NW Nose wheel
o pt Optimum, optimal
R Rudder, rigid
r Rotational
T Thrust
t Translational
tas True airspeed
tyre From or of tyre
v W.r.t. Fv
W Wind
WB Wing-body combination
X Controls and wind
dist Disturbance
EE Elastic - Elastic matrix partitions
ER Elastic - Rigid matrix partitions
lag Lag term in RFA equation
other Non-aerodyn. forces/moments (e.g. thrust)
RE Rigid - Elastic matrix partitions
RR Rigid - Rigid matrix partitions
268 Nomenclature

unst Unsteady

Other
χ̈ Second time derivative of χ
δχ Deviation from initial value: χ − χ0
δχ Small perturbation of variable χ
χ̇ Time derivative of χ
χ̂ χ Augmented with aerodyn. effects
χ̃ Time domain representation of χ(s)
χ−1 Inverse of χ

Superscripts
T Transpose
λ Longitude angle in WGS84 co-ordinates
φ Latitude angle in WGS84 co-ordinates
χ̄ Actual value of χ (includes uncertainty)
χ̄ Mean value of χ (e.g. applies to state vector feedback)
χ0 Dummy-derivative of χ
χri rith time derivative
χ̂ Estimated, or complementary filtered value of χ

Abbreviations
AC Aerodynamic Centre
AC Aircraft
AE Aeroelasticity, Aeroelastic
AFCS Automatic Flight Control System
AIAA American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics
AIC Aerodynamic Influence Coefficient
ALC Active Loads Control
AP Autopilot
ARP Aerodynamic Reference Point
AT Automatisierungstechnik
ATHR Auto throttle
ATTAS Advanced Technologies Testing Aircraft System
AVDS Aviator Visual Design Simulator
AWO All Weather Operations
BSCU Braking and Steering Control Unit
Cat. Category
CFD Computational Fluid Dynamics
CFRP Carbon Fibre Reinforced Plastic
CIT Comfort In Turbulence
CG Centre of Gravity
Nomenclature 269

CoG Centre of Gravity

CONDUIT Control Designer’s Unified Interface
CS Certification Specifications
CV Command Variable
DAE Differential Algebraic Equation
DAMIP Dynamic Aircraft Model Integration Process
DGLR Deutsche Gesellschaft für Luft- und Raumfahrt
DLM Doublet-Lattice Method
DLR Deutsches Z entrum für Luft und Raumfahrt,
German Aerospace Centre
DME Distance Measuring Equipment
DOF Degree(s) Of Freedom
Dymola Dynamic Modelling Laboratory
Dynamic Modelling Language
EASA European Aviation Safety Agency
ECI Earth-Centred Inertial
ECEF Earth-Centred Earth-Fixed
EGM9 6 Earth Gravitation Model 19 9 6
EPR Engine Pressure Ratio
EQ M Equation(s) of Motion
FADEC Full Authority Digital Engine Controller
FBW Fly-By-Wire
FC Flight Control
FCC Flight Control Computer
FCS Flight Control System
FCL Flight Control Law
FD Flight Dynamics
FDL Flight Dynamics Library
FE Finite Element
FEM Finite Element Method
FIT Functional Integration Technology (NASA program)
FG Flight Guidance
FG& C Flight Guidance and Control
FL Feedback Linearisation
FM Flight Management
FM Flight Mechanics
FMS Flight Management System
FSA First Shot Approach
GARTEUR Group for Aeronautical Research and Technology in EURope
GPS Global Positioning System
GS Glide slope
IEEE Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers
IFASD International Forum on Aeroelasticity and Structural Dynamics
IFFC Inverse FeedForward Compensation
ILA Internationale Luftfahrt Ausstellung
ILS Instrument Landing System
ISA International Standard Atmosphere
ISV Servo Valve Control Current
J AA J oint Aviation Authorities
J AR J oint Aviation Regulations
K S K önig-Schuler method
LaRC Langley Research Center
LFT Linear Fraction Transformation
LQ Linear Q uadratic
MC Monte Carlo
MCDU Mode Control and Display Unit
270 Nomenclature

MD Multi-Disciplinary
MFC Model Following Control
MOPS Multi-Objective Parameter Synthesis
MSL Mean Sea Level
NASA National Aeronautics and Space Administration
NATO North Atlantic Treaty Organisation
NDI Nonlinear Dynamic Inversion
NED North-East-Down
NGA National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency (NGA)
NLP Nonlinear Programming
ODE Ordinary Differential Equation
OOM Object-Oriented Modelling
RFA Rational Function Approximation
RM Residualised Model method
RM Institute for Robotics and Mechatronics
RCAM Research Civil Aircraft Model
REAL Robust and Efficient Autopilot control Law design
RealCAM REAL Civil Aircraft Model
Ref. Reference
RTO Research & Technology Organisation
SC Structural Control
SCA Stability and Command Augmentation
SLC Structural and Loads Control
SPT Speed / Path Tracking
SQP Sequential Quadratic Programming
TECS Total Energy Control System
THCS Total Heading Control System
TP Technical Publication
TR Technical Report
TU Technische Univerität, Technische Univeriteit, Technical University
UDP User Datagram Protocol
VECTOR Vectoring, Extremely short take-off and landing, Control, Tailless
Operations Research
VFW Vereinigte Flugtechnische Werke
VHF Very High Frequency
VLM Vortex-Lattice Method
VOR VHF Omni-directional Radio Range
WGS84 World Geodetic System 1984
WMM-2xxx World Magnetic Model valid from year 2xxx
X WB eX tra Wide Body
Index

active loads control system, 3 damping matrix, 224

Airbus, 4 deformable aircraft, 223
Airbus A340, 4 design process
aircraft aircraft, 55, 191, 198
pre-design phase, 83 flight control law, 7, 8, 10–15, 17,
aircraft control 55, 99, 157, 159, 161, 162, 168,
direct law, 6 174, 185, 186, 191, 194–196,
mechanical, 3 198–200
aircraft control functions rapid prototyping, 97, 101, 193
primary, 4 structure, 15, 191, 192
secondary, 4 desktop simulator, 105
aircraft-on-ground differential algebraic equation, 92
automatic inversion, 104 differential algebraic index, 92
object oriented implementation, 87, dummy derivative, 94
101 Dymola, 87
ATTAS, 40 Dynamic Aircraft Model Integration Pro-
automatic flight control system, 3 cess (DAMIP), 196
automatic landing (autoland), 9, 10, 185, dynamics
196 internal, 97
certification, 31, 43, 87 zero, 97
control laws, 31, 40, 157, 162, 194
Earth Gravitational Model 1996, 30
functions, 175
Earth-Centred Earth-Fixed frame, 87
performance, 157, 201
Earth-Centred Inertial frame, 87
requirements, 157
envelope protection, 3
system, 3, 99, 115, 150, 156, 159, equation
161, 186, 188 nonlinear solver, 90
equations of motion
behavioural approach, 23
generalised, 225
bicycle model approximation, 85, 92, 93,
half-generalised, 224
97, 100
feedback linearisation, 83, 84, 96, 97,
Carbon Fibre Reinforced Plastic, 11 115, 116
command filter, 94, 96, 100 feedback signal synthesis, 99
command variables, 83 filter
selection, 98 complementary, 127, 128, 150, 163–
control allocation, 98, 103 165, 182
272 INDEX

notch, 128 Lie derivatives, 95

First-Shot Approach in flight control law Linear Fractional Transformation, 25
design, 13 loads (flight loads), 4, 21, 55, 196, 197,
flight control, 3, 4, 7, 16, 25, 47, 101, 210, 227, 243
198 active control, 4
computer, 4, 125, 138 analysis, 9, 12, 21, 25, 55, 60, 76,
department, 13 192, 194, 196, 197, 223, 225,
functions, 16 226
law design, 6, 13–15, 27, 40, 83, 97, department, 16, 55, 83
115, 127, 150, 156, 196 design manoeuvre, 197
model, 16 discipline, 13
process, 7, 99, 157, 195, 198, 200, fatigue, 4, 197
206, 207 gust, 9, 55
laws, 5, 7, 9–13, 21, 27, 28, 55, 74, manoeuvre, 55, 197
82, 115, 194, 200, 207 model, 65
system, 3–5, 9, 11, 55 unsteady aerodynamic, 61
flight guidance and control system, 3 Lockheed 1011 Tristar, 4
flight management system, 3, 4 loop capability, 25
flutter
analysis, 223, 225 mass matrix, 223
department, 55 Mean Sea Level, 30
equation, 225 modal
margin, 9, 16, 55 analysis, 223
fly-by-wire, 4 matrix, 224
landing system, 114 response, 226
system, 4 mode
test bed, 40, 160 acceleration method, 227
force summation method, 227 displacement method, 226
free vibration modes, 227 elastic, 224
full authority digital engine control sys- rigid body, 224
tem, 5 shapes, 224
model
gain scheduling, 83 aircraft
GARTEUR, 7, 28 flexible, 89
generalised co-ordinates, 224 rigid-body, 89
causality, 85
handling commonality, 4 compiler, 83
differential equations, 96
inline integration, 104 inverse
Instrument Landing System (ILS), 31, stability, 96
36, 41, 43, 87, 120, 157, 160 inversion, 83, 95
Inverse Feedforward Compensation, 83 automatic, 93, 105
inversion object-oriented
automatic, 83 translation of, 90
iron bird, 10 Model Following Control, 83
INDEX 273

Modelica, 20, 27, 28, 37, 43, 47, 65, min-max, 159, 176, 177
86, 89, 114, 115, 119, 120, 151, multi-model, 129
194, 216 multi-objective, 13, 14, 17, 105, 128,
Association, 27 131–133, 150, 151, 157, 168,
environment, 38 175, 185, 193
Flight Dynamics Library, 76, 87 problem, 177
translator, 27 problem set-up, 168, 174, 175, 193,
modelling 199
block diagram, 84 process, 174
object-oriented, 83, 84 ordinary differential equation, 92
signal flow, 84 orthogonality of modes, 225, 227
Monte Carlo analysis, 9, 156, 157, 159,
171–173, 177, 179–181 rapid prototyping, 83
criteria based on, 175, 185 REAL project, 40
MOPS (Multi-Objective Parameter Syn- relative degree, 94, 96
thesis), 13, 133, 135, 159, 174,
simulation
177
batch, 99
multi-body system, 89
desktop, 105, 194
multi-disciplinary
pilot-in-the-loop, 83, 99
aircraft model, 2, 20, 21, 194
real-time, 105
aircraft model integration, 194, 229
stiffness matrix, 223
aircraft modelling, 194
structural
design analysis, 13
damping, 224
design requirements, 194
degrees of freedom, 223
flight control law design, 12, 14, 190,
eigenfrequencies, 224
193, 194, 196
eigenvalue problem, 223
model, 27, 47, 83
structural control system, 3
model implementation, 27
structured singular value µ, 137, 140
model integration, 14, 87
analysis, 130, 137, 138, 140–142,
modelling, 25, 85
144, 151, 194, 199, 200, 207
simulation model, 21
bounds, 139, 143
system model, 82
robust stability, 199
multi-purpose control and display unit,
synthesis, 128
4
Total Energy Control System (TECS),
Nonlinear Dynamic Inversion, 115, 116, 162–165, 169, 171, 175, 177,
118, 123 180, 182, 183, 192
nonlinear dynamic inversion, 16, 17, 83, trim computation, 101
97, 125, 128, 150, 162, 175,
191, 192, 199, 200, 207 World Geodetic System 1984, 30
nonlinear equations of motion, 223 World Magnetic Model, 30

optimisation
algorithm, 159
criterion, 130, 159, 173
274 INDEX
Samenvatting

EGELWETTEN in boordcomputers van moderne verkeers- en gevechtsvlieg-

R tuigen maken het verschil uit tussen de vliegeigenschappen van het vliegtuig
op zichzelf en de vliegeigenschappen zoals deze door de piloot en passagier er-
varen worden. Deze regelwetten bestaan uit terug- en voorwaartskoppelingen
van gemeten sensor- en commandosignalen die in geschikte stuuruitslagen wor-
den omgezet. Dit gebeurt zo, dat zowel gewenst stuurgedrag als ook aangenaam
vliegcomfort voor de passagier bereikt wordt. Bovendien zijn het de regelwetten
die automatische besturingstaken waarnemen.
Het zal duidelijk zijn dat regelwetten voor vliegtuigbesturing aan een groot aantal
prestatie- en veiligheidseisen moeten voldoen, zodat ze betrouwbaar in alle vlieg-
toestanden, onder slechte weersomstandigheden, bij uitval van hardware compo-
nenten, enz. hun taak vervullen. De terugkoppeling van sensorsignalen beı̈n-
vloedt en wordt beı̈nvloed door vliegmechanika, door het dynamische gedrag van
de structuur, besturingshardware, sensoren, motoren, landingsgestel, enzovoorts.
Door toedoen van regelwetten ontstaan bovendien dynamische interacties tussen
deze aspecten, hetgeen het ontwerpen van regelwetten voor vliegtuigen tot een
multi-disciplinaire taak bij uitstek maakt.
Juist het multi-disciplinaire aspect in het ontwerp wordt van steeds grotere beteke-
nis. Ten einde de efficiëntie van vliegtuigen verder te verbeteren, gaat men fysiek
tot het (veilige) uiterste om een zo hoog mogelijk prestatieniveau uit het vliegtuig
als geheel te verkrijgen. Dit leidt bijvoorbeeld tot lichte en daarmee vaak behoor-
lijk flexibele constructies en tot het gebruik van actuatoren die zeer maatgesneden
zijn. De mogelijkheid tot het implementeren van regelwetten wordt bovendien
steeds meer uitgebuit, bijvoorbeeld om belastingen in de vlucht actief te reduc-
eren, het vliegtuig als geheel te stabiliseren (vooral bij gevechtsvliegtuigen) en om
vibraties in de constructie actief te dempen. Het huidige ontwerpproces voor vlieg-
tuig regelwetten is helaas niet goed geschikt voor een inherent multi-disciplinaire
aanpak. Hoofdreden is dat interacties met andere ontwerpdisciplines voor het
grootste deel pas ná het eigenlijke ontwerpwerk door gespecialiseerde afdelingen
van de vliegtuigproducent geanalyseerd worden. Dit leidt doorgaans tot aanvra-
gen de regelwetten aan te passen, hetgeen resulteert in nieuwe ontwerpslagen.
Het doel van dit proefschrift is de ontwikkeling van concepten en methoden voor
een nieuw ontwerpproces van regelwetten dat een inherent multi-disciplinaire aan-
pak omvat. De mogelijkheid daartoe staat of valt met de beschikbaarheid van dy-
276 Samenvatting

namische vliegtuigmodellen die zich niet, zoals gebruikelijk, tot de vliegmechanika

beperken, maar tevens structuurdynamica, belastingen, systeemdynamica, enz.
voldoende nauwkeurig beschrijven. Zo een geı̈ntegreerd model laat het bijvoor-
beeld toe de bandbreedte (reactiesnelheid op stuursignalen) van het vliegtuig te
verhogen, terwijl de daarmee toenemende belasting van de constructie tegelijk-
ertijd nauwkeurig in ogenschouw kan worden genomen. Dit bespaart naderhand
langdurige ontwerpiteraties met de afdeling die voor belastingsberekeningen ver-
antwoordelijk is.
Het maken van geı̈ntegreerde vliegtuigmodellen vereist een geschikte generieke
modelstructuur en het juiste gebruik van beschikbare databronnen, vooral in-
dien daarin overlappingen bestaan (daarover gelijk meer). In dit proefschrift
wordt een modelstructuur gedefinieerd die gebaseerd is op de techniek van object-
georiënteerd modelleren. Deze techniek staat een directe implementatie van fysieke
vergelijkingen toe, in plaats van de gangbare implementatie van differentiaal-
vergelijkingen (die door de gebruiker eerst handmatig uit de fysieke vergelijkingen
moeten worden afgeleid). Op deze manier kunnen modelcomponenten aan de ene
kant door het direct programmeren van –in de specifieke vakdiscipline gangbare en
vertrouwde– fysieke vergelijkingen geı̈mplementeerd worden. Aan de andere kant
kunnen componenten uit verschillende disciplines nog steeds makkelijk samen-
gevoegd worden, omdat de onderliggende object-georiënteerde modelleringstaal
één een dezelfde is. De eerste bijdrage van dit proefschrift is een nieuwe algemene
structuur voor multi-disciplinaire vliegtuigmodellen en de implementatie ervan in
de modelleringstaal Modelica.
Zelfs in het geval van een inherent multi-disciplinaire ontwerpaanpak worden de
regelwetten naderhand door gespecialiseerde vakafdelingen geanalyseerd met be-
trekking tot flutter, structuurbelastingen en interacties met systeemhardware.
Het is daarom van enorm belang dat voor geı̈ntegreerde vliegtuigmodellen model-
databases (of op zijn minst, berekeningsmethoden) uit de gespecialiseerde afdelin-
gen worden gebruikt en deze dus niet nog eens zelf ontwikkeld worden. Anders
kunnen alleen al door incompatibiliteiten tussen modellen vermijdbare ontwerpit-
eraties ontstaan. Echter, vooral in het geval van aeroelasticiteit ontstaat hier een
probleem. Tussen aeroelastische en vliegmechanische modellen bestaan namelijk
behoorlijke overlappingen. De tweede bijdrage van dit proefschrift is een proce-
dure de bewegings- and aerodynamische vergelijkingen achter deze modellen op
een geschikte manier te integreren.
Voor numerieke simulatie is het nodig het vliegtuigmodel in de vorm van dif-
ferentiaal- of differentiaal-algebraı̈sche vergelijkingen ter beschikking te hebben.
Het mooie aan object-georiënteerde modelimplementatie is dat deze vereiste vorm
volledig automatisch uit de geı̈mplementeerde fysieke modelvergelijkingen worden
gegenereerd. Daartoe staan betrouwbare symbolische algoritmes ter beschikking.
Behalve gangbare simulatiemodellen kunnen met deze algoritmes evengoed inverse
modellen gegenereerd worden. Nu bestaan er verschillende ontwerpmethoden,
zoals “ Nonlinear Dynamic Inversion” (NDI), die door middel van het inverteren
van modelvergelijkingen in regelwetten resulteren die voor praktisch alle vliegom-
standigheden geldig zijn. De derde bijdrage van dit proefschrift is het idee deze
Samenvatting 277

ontwerpmethode en de mogelijkheid automatisch inverse modellen te genereren, te

combineren in een “rapid-prototyping” ontwerpproces voor regelwetten. Dit stelt
de ontwerper ertoe in staat in hele korte ontwerpcycli te experimenteren met stu-
urvariabelen, te gebruiken stuurvlakken, de dimensionering van deze stuurvlakken
(of eisen daartoe), enz. Dit is een nieuw hulpmiddel om over ver–strekkende
ontwerpkeuzes in een vroeg stadium beter gefundeerde beslissingen te kunnen
nemen. Tevens stelt deze snelle procedure de ontwerpafdeling in staat al in een
vroeg stadium van het vliegtuigontwerp ook aan andere vakafdelingen eerste func-
tionele regelwetten te leveren, zodat ook zij vroegtijdig eerste ontwerpanalysen
kunnen beginnen of voorbereiden. In dit proefschrift wordt de ontwerpprocedure
gedemonstreerd aan de hand van een regelsysteem voor het manoeuvreren van
een vliegtuig op de grond.
Indien het “rapid prototyping” ontwerp veelbelovend is, wordt overgegaan tot
gedetailleerd ontwerp van de regelwetten. In dit proefschrift wordt dit gedaan
voor regelwetten voor automatisch landen, toegepast op een klein passagiersvlieg-
tuig. Hierbij wordt in het bijzonder op praktische aspecten zoals synthese van
terug te koppelen sensorsignalen en op verschillen tussen de voor inversie ge-
bruikte modellen en de eigenschappen van het eigenlijke vliegtuig. Bij NDI is
het gebruikelijk het laatste probleem door middel van robuuste regelwetten in
een lus buitenom aan te gaan. Als een vierde bijdrage wordt in dit proefschrift
een andere manier voorgesteld, namelijk het met betrekking tot robuustheid opti-
maliseren van onzekere modelparameters in het inverse model. Deze bieden extra
graden van vrijheid die voor een robuuster ontwerp uitgebuit kunnen worden.
In het huidige ontwerpproces van regelwetten voor vliegtuigen worden de ontwerp-
parameters doorgaans met de hand ingesteld. Echter, multi-disciplinair ontwerpen
betekent dat een veel groter aantal ontwerpcriteria uit verschillende vakrichtingen
tegelijkertijd in ogenschouw moet worden genomen. Daarom wordt het gebruik
van zogenaamde “multi-objective” optimalisatie aangeraden. De onderliggende
“min-max” formulering van het optimalisatiecriterium staat het toe een zeer groot
aantal individuele multi-disciplinaire ontwerpcriteria en -beperkingen in rekening
te brengen en zo geschikte compromis-oplossingen te vinden. Het relatieve belang
van deze individuele criteria wordt door middel van schalingen uitgedrukt die
eenvoudig fysisch interpreteerbaar zijn. Het optimalisatieprobleem is natuurlijk
niet convex. Het gaat er echter om automatisch geschikte ontwerpoplossingen
te vinden. De modellen die voor het berekenen van de criteria nodig zijn, wor-
den uit de eerder voorgestelde object-georiënteerde modellen gegenereerd. Als
een vijfde bijdrage wordt in dit proefschrift een ontwerpprocedure voorgesteld die
de optimalisatiemethode uitbreidt met het oog op grote complexe regelwetstruc-
turen met vele onderling afhankelijke functies. Er wordt een ontwerpstrategie
toegepast waarbij nieuwe functies sequentieel aan de synthese van de regelwetten
worden toegevoegd, hetgeen stapsgewijs leidt tot optimalisatie van het gehele sys-
teem. Deze strategie staat bijvoorbeeld toe functies in binnenste regellussen zo
in te stellen dat ze met verschillende functies in lussen daarbuiten samen kunnen
werken. Daar op deze manier voor iedere taak nog slechts één functie nodig is,
leidt dit tot eenvoudiger regelwetstructuren.
278 Samenvatting

De hierboven beschreven bijdragen zijn gecombineerd in een nieuw, eenvoudiger

multi-disciplinair ontwerpproces voor regelwetten voor vliegtuigbesturing. Dit
proces is in zijn geheel toegepast op het ontwerp van een stuurautomaat die het
een klein passagiersvliegtuig mogelijk maakt automatisch te landen. De hierboven
beschreven ontwerpstrategie staat het toe dezelfde regelwetten in de binnenste lus
in combinatie met alle functies in regellussen daaromheen (voor het afvangen, het
volgen van het aanvliegpad, snelheidsregeling, enz.) te gebruiken. Alvorens een
automatisch landingssysteem in testvluchten beproefd kan worden, worden na
voltooiı̈ng van het ontwerp uitgebreide Monte Carlo analysen uitgevoerd, hetgeen
vaak tot nieuwe ontwerpiteraties voort. In het beschreven ontwerp wordt deze
analyse direct bij het instellen van de ontwerpparameters als ontwerpcriterium
opgenomen. Op deze manier is aangetoond dat het voorgestelde ontwerpproces
daadwerkelijk in staat is zulke ontwerp iteraties naderhand te vermijden. De
resulterende regelwetten zijn met succes in zes automatische landingen beproefd.
Hierbij bleek dat de ontwerpparameters reeds tijdens het ontwerpproces goed
waren ingesteld en dat geen noodzaak tot aanpassingen bestond.
Acknowledgements

HIS thesis is a spin-off result of several projects I conducted or have been

T involved in during some ten years as a research engineer at the German
Aerospace Center (DLR) in Oberpfaffenhofen, Germany. For the opportunity to
compile results of scientific significance into a PhD thesis, I first of all would like
to thank Prof.dr.ir. J.A. (Bob) Mulder of the faculty of Aerospace Engineering
at the Delft University of Technology, and Dr. J. Bals, my department head at
DLR.
Bob strongly encouraged me to write this thesis. I would like to thank him for his
continuous enthusiastic support and for his patience during writing it, and above
all, for willing to be my promotor. I am happy that the start of my career as
a junior researcher in his Control and Simulation group, although via a detour,
eventually led to this thesis.
I would like to thank Dr. J. Bals, head of the Dynamics and Control department
at the DLR Institute of Robotics and Mechatronics, for offering a most pleasant
working environment, for getting me involved in very interesting and challenging
projects, and for his strong support and encouragement to write this thesis.
I am very grateful to Dr. Q.P. (Ping) Chu for his strong encouragement during the
writing of this thesis, and for very interesting discussions on Nonlinear Dynamic
Inversion control. I also would like thank him for dealing with administrative work
at the university in preparation of the promotion, relieving me from travelling
shortly after the birth of my son. I am very proud that Ping has been willing to
be co-promotor.
I owe special thanks to the person who first came up with the idea of pursuing
a PhD degree, Samir Bennani. Samir supervised my MSc project at the Delft
University of Technology, introduced me to emerging robust and nonlinear con-
trol theory, got me involved in the (in hindsight) legendary GARTEUR project
FM(AG08) on Robust Flight Control, and gave me the opportunity to present
our results on µ-based robust flight control and Nonlinear Dynamic Inversion at
several Benelux meetings and other conferences.
I further would like to thank Tony Lambregts. I think I was very lucky that
my graduation work coincided with his sabbatical at the Faculty of Aerospace
Engineering. Discussions with Tony have been real eye openers and taught me
the indispensable practical aspects of flight control. His written material has been
of enormous help for years afterwards.
280 Acknowledgements

My first project (freelance) at DLR, back in 1996, was set up by Samir and Prof.
G. Grübel, at that time department head of the Control Design Engineering (now
Dynamics and Control) department at the Institute of Robotics and Mechatronics
at DLR. I would like to thank Prof. Grübel offering this opportunity at DLR,
for offering the position in his department one year later, and for his strong
encouragement to write this thesis.
I would like to thank many people at the Institute of Robotics and Mechatronics
at DLR. Hereby I especially mention those involved in flight dynamics, control,
loads and aeroelasticity: Dieter Moormann, Lester Faleiro (my former office col-
league), Hans-Dieter Joos (with whom I intensively co-operated in a.o. the REAL
project on autoland control), Andras Varga, Reinhold Steinhauser (my current of-
fice colleague), Christian Ballauf, Simon Hecker, Thiemo Kier, Marion Reijerkerk,
Moriz Scharpenberg, and Christian Reschke. Two former students, Philipp Nagel
and André Rudolph provided valuable contributions to the GARTEUR FM(AG-
17) project (Chapter 4) and the flexible aircraft simulator presented at the ILA
2006 respectively. I further would like to thank Frau Jaschinski (our group’s for-
mer secretary), and Monika Köhler and Christine Traurig (our group’s current
secretaries) for all their help in organisational, bureaucratic and travel matters.
In Delft, I further would like to thank all members and former members of the Con-
trol and Simulation group, especially Jan-Willem van Staveren, Bertine Markus,
Peter Kraan, and Henk Lindenburg.
Finally, I especially would like to thank my parents, who enabled and uncondi-
tionally supported my studies in Delft and strongly encouraged me to write this
thesis. I am very grateful to my sister Lieneke, and brothers Ernstjan, and Robert
Jan (who made the painting depicted on the cover), for their continuous strong
support, even though I have been living quite far away. I am most grateful to my
wife Claudia, who has given me enormous support and love during the writing
of this thesis. I am amazed and grateful I could finish it the same year we got
married, bought and renovated a house, and saw the birth of our son, Hendrikjan.

This thesis is dedicated to Claudia.

Mundraching, Germany
December 2007

Gertjan Looye
Curriculum Vitae

Personal data:
Full name: Gertjan Hendrik Nicolaas LOOYE
Date of birth: May 28, 1972
Place of birth: Maasland, The Netherlands
Nationality: Dutch

Education:
1984 – 1990 Christelijke Scholengemeenschap “Westland-Zuid”,
Vlaardingen. Diploma: VWO
1990 – 1996 Delft University of Technology, Aerospace Engineering
Diploma: M.Sc. (with honours)
Graduation thesis: Design of a Flight Controller for
the Research Civil Aircraft Model using µ-Synthesis.
Prepared within Stability & Control Group
(Prof.dr.ir. J.A. Mulder)

Professional career:
1996 – 1997 Research assistant in Stability & Control Group,
Faculty of Aerospace Engineering,
Delft University of Technology, The Netherlands
1997 – Research Engineer at the Institute of Robotics and
Mechatronics, German Aerospace Center,
DLR-Oberpfaffenhofen, Germany.
Principal fields of work:
- Multi-disciplinary aircraft model integration
- Flight control law design and design methods
 STELLINGEN
behorende bij het proefschrift
An Integrated Approach to Aircraft Modelling and
Flight Control Law Design
Gertjan H.N. Looye, 16 januari 2008

1. D e in d e v lieg tuig m od ellering v eel g eb ruik te uitd ruk k ing “ fl ex ib el v lieg tuig ”
is een p leonasm e.
2. In d e p rak tijk v an h et ontw erp en v an reg elaars is niet “ rob uuste stab iliteit” ,
m aar “ rob uuste stab iliteitsm arg e” d e b elang rijk ste sp ec ifi c atie.
3 . M onte C arlo analyse z oals d ez e w ord t toeg ep ast op reg elw etten v oor au-
tom atisch land en, is v anuit h et oog p unt v an m od elonz ek erh eid op te v atten
als een nom inale p restatieanalyse. [D it p roefsch rift, h oofd stuk 6]
4 . V anuit p rak tisch e ov erw eg ing en z ou h et z inv ol z ijn m eer th eoretisch ond er-
z oek te rich ten op h et in rek ening b reng en v an onz ek erh ed en m et statistisch e
eig ensch ap p en en m et ond erling e afh ank elijk h ed en.
5 . Het feit d at een M atlab sk rip t d oorloop t z ond er “ W arnig s” en “ E rrors”
b etek ent niet d at h et resultaat ook z ond er “ W arning ” te interp reteren is, of
g een “ E rrors” b ev at.
6. D e synth ese m eth od e “ Nonlinear D ynam ic Inv ersion” m ag alleen in c om b i-
natie m et fysisch inz ich t toeg ep ast w ord en.
7 . D e d uim stok d ank t z ijn p rak tisch e b ruik b aarh eid aan h et feit d at d e c osinus
v an k leine h oek en ong ev eer g elijk aan één is.
8. B ij re-im p lem entatie en v alid atie v an een m od el k an een relatief v ersch il in
d e ord e v an g rootte v an 10−6 (b ijv oorb eeld in een tijd srep onsie) m oeilijk aan
slech ts num eriek e eff ec ten w ord en toeg esch rev en. E en d erg elijk e afw ijk ing
d uid t eerd er of op een nog aanw ez ig e fout of een aanp assing in d e nieuw e
im p lem entatie.
9 . V oor iem and v an b uiten h et v ak is th e uitd ruk k ing “ rob ust c ontrol” een
onjuiste form ulering (m isnom er).
10. Het fund am entele v ersch il tussen tech niek en als M od el-F ollow ing C ontrol,
Nonlinear D ynam ic Inv ersion en Inv erse F eed -F orw ard C ontrol z it h em in
d e h erk om st v an d e v ariab elen d ie in d e inv erse m od elv erg elijk ing en w ord en
g esub stitueerd . [D it p roefsch rift, h oofd stuk 4 ]
11. K arak teristiek e k enm erk en v an D uitse snelw eg en z ijn d e afw ez ig h eid v an een
g enerale snelh eid slim iet en h et feit d at een inv oeg strook z eer v aak d oor een
sch erp e b och t w ord t ing eleid . Het laatste k enm erk b ep erk t d e m og elijk h eid
snelh eid te m ak en b ij h et inv oeg en, h etg een v ak er tot g ev aarlijk e situaties
leid t d an h et eerste k enm erk .

D ez e stelling en w ord en v erd ed ig b aar g each t en z ijn als z od anig g oed g ek eurd d oor
d e p rom otor, P rof.d r.ir. J .A . M uld er.
 PROPOSITIONS
belonging to the thesis
An Integrated Approach to Aircraft Modelling and
Flight Control Law Design
Gertjan H.N. Looye, January 16th , 2008

1. T he phrase “flexible aircraft”, which is commonly used in aircraft modelling,

is a pleonasm.
2. In flight control law design practice, “robust stability margin” rather than
“robust stability” is the most important specification.
3. From a model uncertainty point of view, Monte Carlo analysis as applied in
autoland control law design should be considered as a nominal performance
analysis. [T his thesis, chapter 6]
4. From a practical point of view, it would be expedient to put more theoretical
research effort into handling of uncertainties with statistical properties and
inter dependencies.
5. A Matlab script that executes without “warnings and errors” does not imply
that its results may be interpreted without warning, or do not contain any
errors.
6. T he synthesis method “Nonlinear Dynamic Inversion” may only be applied
in combination with physical insight.
7. T he carpenter’s rule owes its practical use to the fact that the cosine of
small angles approximately eq uals one.
8. When re-implementing and validating a model it is hard to still justify a
10−6 order-of-magnitude relative difference (e.g. in a time response) as a
“numerical effect”. S uch a difference rather indicates an error or adaptation
in the new implementation.
9. T o someone not familiar with the subject, the phrase “robust control” is a
misnomer.
10. T he fundamental difference between techniq ues like Model-Following Con-
trol, Nonlinear Dynamic Inversion, and Inverse Feed-Forward Control is in
the origin of the variables that are substituted into the inverse model eq ua-
tions. [T his thesis, chapter 4]
11. Characteristic features of German highways are firstly the absence of a gen-
eral speed limit and secondly the fact that the slip road is often preceded
by a sharp turn. T he latter reduces the possibility of gaining speed before
entering the highway, more freq uently resulting in dangerous situations than
the first feature.

T hese propositions are considered defendable and as such have been approved by
the supervisor, Prof.dr.ir. J.A. Mulder.