Hostname: page-component-7b7567c8c-jswmv Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-11-15T12:49:57.640Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Robust scheduled control of longitudinal flight with handling quality satisfaction

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 January 2016

D. Saussié,
C. Bérard,
O. Akhrif and
L. Saydy
D. Saussié*
Affiliation:
Department of Electrical Engineering, École Polytechnique de Montréal, Montréal, Canada
C. Bérard
Affiliation:
Department of Mathematics, Computer Science and Control Theory, ISAE, Toulouse, France
O. Akhrif
Affiliation:
Department of Electrical Engineering, École de Technologie Supérieure, Montréal, Canada
L. Saydy
Affiliation:
Department of Electrical Engineering, École Polytechnique de Montréal, Montréal, Canada
*
david.saussie@polymtl.ca
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Core share and HTML view are not available for this content. However, as you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the 'Save PDF' action button.

Classic flight control systems are still widely used in the industry because of acquired experience and good understanding of their structure. Nevertheless, with more stringent constraints, it becomes difficult to easily fulfil all the criteria with these classic control laws. On the other hand, modern methods can handle many constraints but fail to produce low order controllers. The following methodology proposed in this paper addresses both classic and modern flight control issues, to offer a solution that leverages the strengths of both approaches. First, an H∞ synthesis is performed in order to get controllers which satisfy handling qualities and are robust with respect to mass and centre of gravity variations. These controllers are then reduced and structured by using robust modal control techniques. In conclusion, a self-scheduling technique is described that will schedule these controllers over the entire flight envelope.

Information

Type
Research Article
Information
The Aeronautical Journal , Volume 115 , Issue 1165 , March 2011, pp. 163 - 174
Copyright
Copyright © Royal Aeronautical Society 2011 

References

1. Hyde, R.A. H∞ Aerospace Control Design – A VSTOL Flight Application, 1996, Springer, New York, USA.Google Scholar
2. Tischler, M.B. Advances in Aircraft Flight Control, 1996, Taylor & Francis Ltd, London, UK.Google Scholar
3. Gautrey, J.E. Flying Qualities and Flight Control System Design for a Fly-by-Wire Transport Aircraft, 1998, PhD thesis, Cranfield University, College of Aeronautics.Google Scholar
4. Zames, G. Feedback and optimal sensitivity: Model reference transformations, multiplicative seminorms, and approximations, IEEE Transactions on Automatic Control, 1989, 26, (2), pp 301–320.Google Scholar
5. Doyle, J.C., Glover, K., Khargonekar, P.P. and Francis, B.A. Statespace solutions to standard H 2 and H ∞ control problems, IEEE Transactions on Automatic Control, 1989, 34, (8), pp 831–847.Google Scholar
6. Obinata, G. and Anderson, B.D.O. Model Reduction for Control System Design, 2001, Springer, New York, USA.Google Scholar
7. Chable, S., Mathieu, S. and Chiappa, C. Design and optimisation of restricted complexity controller: A modal approach for reduced-order controllers, European J Control, 2003, 9, (1), pp 39–47.Google Scholar
8. Le Gorrec, Y., Magni, J.F., Döll, C. and Chiappa, C. A modal multimodel control design approach applied to aircraft autopilot design, AIAA J Guidance, Control and Dynamics, 1998, 21, (1), pp 77–83.Google Scholar
9. Magni, J.F. Robust Modal Control with a Toolbox for use with Matlab®, 2002, Springer.Google Scholar
10. Döll, C., Le Gorrec, Y., Ferreres, G. and Magni, J.F. A robust self-scheduled missile autopilot: Design by multi-model eigenstructure assignment, Control Engineering Practice, October 2001, 9, (10), pp 1067–1078.Google Scholar
11. Leith, D.J. and Leithead, W.E. Survey of gain-scheduling analysis and design, Int J Control, 2000, 73, (11), pp 1001–1025.Google Scholar
12. Rugh, W.J. and Shamma, J.S. Research on gain-scheduling, Automatica, October 2000, 36, (10), pp 1401–1425.Google Scholar
13. Le Gorrec, Y. Commande Modal Robuste et Synthèse de Gains Autoséquencés. Approche Multimodèle, 1998, PhD thesis, École Nationale Supérieure de l’Aéronautique et de l’Espace.Google Scholar
14. Moore, B.C. On the flexibility offered by state feedback in multivariable system beyond closed loop eigenvalue assignment, IEEE Transactions on Automatic Control, 1976, 21, pp 659–692.Google Scholar
15. Magni, J. F., Le Gorrec, Y. and Chiappa, C. A multimodel-based approach to robust and self-scheduled control design, 37th IEEE Conference on Decision and Control, Tampa, Florida, USA, 1998, pp 3009–3014.Google Scholar
16. Kalman, R.E., Ho, Y.C. and Narendra, K.S. Controllability of linear dynamic systems, Contributions to Differential Equations, 1963, 1, (2), pp 189–213.Google Scholar
17. Doyle, J.C., Lenz, K. and Packard, A. Design examples using μ-synthesis: Space shuttle lateral axis FCSduring re-entry, 25rd IEEE Conference on Decision and Control, Athens, Greece, 1986, pp 2218–2223.Google Scholar
18. Packard, A. and Doyle, J.C. The complex structured singular value, Automatica, January 1993, 29, (1), pp 71–109.Google Scholar
19. Magni, J.F. and Döll, C. A new lower bound of the mixed structured singular value, Proc. 2nd Asian Control Conference, Seoul, South Korea, 1997, I, pp 847–850.Google Scholar
20. Magni, J.F. Multimodel eigenstructure assignment in flight control design, Aerospace Sciences and Technologies, 1999, 3, (3), pp 141–151.Google Scholar
21. Chiappa, C., Magni, J.F., Döll, C. and Le Gorrec, Y. Improvement of the robustness of an aircraft autopilot designed by an H ∞ technique, Procedures of the CESA’98 Conference, 1998, pp 1016–1020.Google Scholar
22. Lawrence, D.A. and Rugh, W.J. Gain scheduling dynamic linear controllers for a nonlinear plant, Automatica, March 1995, 31, (3), pp 381–390.Google Scholar
23. Stilwell, D.J. and Rugh, W.J. Stability preserving interpolation methods for the synthesis of gain-scheduled controllers, Automatica, 2000, 33, (7), pp 1263–1271.Google Scholar
24. Constant, G., Chable, S., Chiappa, C. and Döll, C. Robustification of an H2 autopilot for flexible aircraftby self scheduling based on multi model eigenstructure assignment, International Council of Aeronautical Sciences, 2002, pp 542.1–542.9.Google Scholar
25. Saussié, D., Saydy, L. and Akhrif, O. Gain scheduling control design for a pitch-axis missile autopilot, AIAA Guidance, Navigation and Control Conference and Exhibit, Honolulu, USA, 2008.Google Scholar
26. Nelson, R.C. Flight Stability and Automatic Control, 2nd edition, 1998, WCB/McGrawHill, Boston, USA.Google Scholar
27. Magni, J.F. User manuel of the linear fractional representation toolbox, version 2.0, Technical report, CERT – DCSD, 2005.Google Scholar
28. Saussié, D., Saydy, L. and Akhrif, O. Longitudinal flight control design with handling quality requirements, Aeronaut J, 2006, 110, (1111), pp 627–637.Google Scholar
29. US Department of Defence, Flying qualities of piloted aircraft, MIL-HDBK-1797A, 1997, Government Printing Office, Washington DC, USA.Google Scholar
30. Doyle, J.C. Analysis of feedback systems with structured uncertainty, IEE Proceedings, Part D, 1982, 129, pp 242–250.Google Scholar
31. Zhou, K. and Doyle, J.C. Essentials of robust control, 1998, Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle River, NJ, USA.Google Scholar
32. Alazard, D., Cumer, C., Apkarian, P., Gauvrit, M. and Ferreres, G., Robustesse et commande optimale, 1999, Cepadues-Editions, Toulouse, France.Google Scholar