Assessment • Coursework: 20%; • Examination: 2 hours; attempt 3 from 5 questions; 80% of the ? nal mark. 1. 4. 4 Lecture plan • Overall ? ight envelope • Flight control systems • Modern control design methodology • The introduction of the course– structure, assessment, exercises, references 1. Introduction 2. Response to the controls (a) State space analysis (b) Longitudinal response to elevator and throttle (c) Transient response to aileron and rudder 3. Aircraft stability augmentation systems 1. 4. INTRODUCTION TO THE COURSE (a) Performance evaluation • • • • stability Time domain requirements Frequency domain speci? ations Robustness 11 (b) Longitudinal Stability Augmentation Systems • Choice of the feedback variables • Root locus and gain determination • Phugoid suppress (c) Lateral stability augmentation systems • Roll feedback for aileron control • Yaw rate feedback for rudder control 4. Simple autopilot design • Augmented longitudinal dynamics • Height hold systems 5. Handling Qualities (a) Time delay systems (b) Pilot-in-loop dynamics (c) Handling qualities (d) Frequency domain analysis (e) Pilot induced oscillation 6. Flight Control system implementation Fly-by-wire technique 1. 4. 5 References 1. Flight Dynamics Principles.
M. V. Cook. 1997. Arnold. Chaps. 4,5,6,7,10,11 2. Automatic Flight Control Systems. D. McLean. 1990. Prentice Hall International Ltd. Chaps. 2, 3,6,9. 3. Introduction to Avionics Systems. Second edition. R. P. G. Collinson. 2003. Kluwer Academic Publishers. Chap. 4 12 CHAPTER 1. INTRODUCTION Chapter 2 Longitudinal response to the control 2. 1 Longitudinal dynamics From Flight Dynamics course, we know that the linearised longitudinal dynamics can be written as mu ? ? ? X ? X ? X ? X u? w? ? w + (mWe ? )q + mg? cos ? e ? u ? w ? ?w ? q ? Z ? Z ? Z ? Z ? u + (m ? )w ? ? w ? (mUe + )q + mg? sin ? e ? u ? w ? ?w ? q ?
The Term Paper on Human Factors Design System Control
A Technical Analysis of Ergonomics and Human Factors in Modern Flight Deck Design. Introduction Since the dawn of the aviation era, cockpit design has become increasingly complicated owing to the advent of new technologies enabling aircraft to fly farther and faster more efficiently than ever before. With greater workloads imposed on pilots as fleets modernize, the reality of he or she exceeding ...
M ? M ? M ? M u? w? ? w + Iy q ? ? q ? ?u ? w ? ?w ? q = = = ? X ? t ? Z ? t ? M ? t (2. 1) (2. 2) (2. 3) The physical meanings of the variables are de? ned as u: Perturbation about steady state velocity Ue w: Perturbation on steady state normal velocity We q: Pitch rate ? : Pitch angle Under the assumption that the aeroplane is in level straight ? ight and the reference axes are wind or stability axes, we have ? e = We = 0 (2. 4) The main controls in longitudinal dynamics are the elevator angle and the engine trust. The small perturbation terms in the right side of the above equations can be expressed as ? X ? t ?
Z ? t ? M ? t where 13 = = = ? X ? X ? e + ? ?? e ?? ?Z ? Z ? e + ? ?? e ?? ?M ? M ? e + ? ?? e ?? (2. 5) (2. 6) (2. 7) 14 CHAPTER 2. LONGITUDINAL RESPONSE TO THE CONTROL ? e : the elevator de? ection (Note ? is used in Appendix 1) ? : engine thrust perturbation Substituting the above expression into the longitudinal symmetric motion yields ? X ? X ? X ? X u? w? ? w? q + mg? ?u ? w ? ?w ? q ? Z ? Z ? Z ? Z ? u + (m ? )w ? ? w ? (mUe + )q ? u ? w ? ?w ? q ? M ? M ? M ? M u? w? ? w + Iy q ? ? q ? ?u ? w ? ?w ? q mu ? ? = = = ? X ? X ? e + ? ?? e ?? ?Z ? Z ? e + ? ?? e ?? ?M ? M ? ?e + ?? e ?? (2. 8) (2. 9) (2. 10)
After adding the relationship ? ? = q, (2. 11) Eqs. (2. 8)- (2. 11) can be put in a more concise vector and matrix format. The longitudinal dynamics can be written as ? m ? 0 ? ? 0 0 ? ?X ? w ? ?Z m ? ?w ? ? ? M ? w ? 0 0 0 Iy 0 ?? u ? 0 0 ?? w ?? ? ? 0 ?? q ? ? 1 ? ? ? = ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?X ? u ? Z ? u ? M ? u ? X ? w ? Z ? w ? M ? w ? Z ? q ? X ? q + mUe ?M ? q 0 0 ?X ?? e ? Z ?? e ? M ?? e 0 ?X ?? ?Z ?? ?M ?? ? ? ? ? 1 ?? ?mg u 0 ?? w ?? 0 ?? q ? 0 ? ? ?+ ? ?e ? (2. 12) 0 Put all variables in the longitudinal dynamics in a vector form as ? ? u ? w ? ? X=? ? q ? ? and let m ? ?X ? w ? ? 0 m ? ?Z ? ?w ? = ? 0 ? ?M ? w ? 0 ? ?X ? X ? = ? ? ? B ? = ? ? ? u ? Z ? u ? M ? u ? w ? Z ? w ? M ? w ? Z ? q (2. 13) ? M 0 0 Iy 0 ?X ? q ? 0 0 ? ? 0 ? 1 (2. 14) ? ?mg 0 ? ? 0 ? 0 A + mUe ?M ? q (2. 15) 0 0 ?X ?? e ? Z ?? e ? M ?? e 0 ?X ?? ?Z ?? ?M ?? ? ? ? ? 1 (2. 16) 0 U= ?e ? (2. 17) 2. 1. LONGITUDINAL DYNAMICS Equation (2. 12) becomes 15 ? MX = A X + B U (2. 18) It is custom to convert the above set of equations into a set of ? rst order di? erential equations by multiplying both sides of the above equation by the inverse of the matrix M , i. e. , M ? 1 . Eq. (2. 18) becomes ? ? ? ? ? ?? ? u ? xu xw xq x? x? e x? u ? w ? ? zu zw zq z? ? ? w ? ? z? z? ? ? e ? ? ? =? ? ? ?? ? (2. 19) ? q ? ? mu mw mq m? ? ? q ? + ? m? e m? ? ? ? ? ? 0 0 1 0 0 0 ? Let xu ? zu A = M ? 1 A = ? ? mu 0 ? ? xw zw mw 0 xq zq mq 1 ? x? z? ? ? m? ? 0 (2. 20) and x? e ? z? e B = M ? 1 B = ? ? m ? e 0 ? x? z? ? ? m? ? 0 (2. 21) It can be written in a concise format ? X = AX + BU (2. 22) Eq. (2. 22) with (2. 20) and (2. 21) is referred as the state space model of the linearised longitudinal dynamics of aircraft. Appendix 1 gives the relationship between the new stability and control derivatives in the matrix A and B, i. e. xu , so on, with the dimensional and non-dimensional derivatives, where ?
The Essay on Affective Gaming Player Game State
Shigeru Miyamoto, the father of the Mario and Zelda franchises, tells us that he designs his games around a series of specific emotional experiences. Console manufacturer Sony have christened the PlayStation 2's CPU the 'emotion engine'. Clearly the gaming community understands the importance of emotion in games, so why do most games offer the player such a shallow emotional play experience? The ...
X ? Xu = ? u (2. 23) denotes dimensional derivative and Xu its corresponding non-dimensional derivative. These relationships are derived based on the Cramer’s rule and hold for general body axes. In the case when the derivatives are referred to wind axes, as in this course, the following simpli? cations should be made Ue = Vo , We = 0, sin ? e = 0, cos ? e = 1 (2. 24) The description of the longitudinal dynamics in the matrix-vector format as in (2. 19) can be extended to represent all general dynamic systems. Consider a system with order n, i. e. , the system can be described by n order di? rential equation (as it will be explained later, this is the same as the highest order of the denominator polynomial in the transfer function is n).
In the representation (2. 22), A ? Rn? n is the system matrix ; B ? Rn? m is the input matrix ; X ? Rn is the state vector or state variables and U ? Rm the input or input vector. The equation (2. 22) is called state equation. For the stability augmentation system, only the in? uence of the variation of the elevator angle, i. e. the primary aerodynamic control surface, is concerned. The above equations of motion can be simpli? ed. The state space representation remains the 6 CHAPTER 2. LONGITUDINAL RESPONSE TO THE CONTROL same format as in eq. (2. 22) with the same matrix A and state variables but with a di? erent B and input U as given below ? ? x ? e ? z ? B = M ? 1 B = ? ?e ? (2. 25) ? m? e ? 0 and U = ? e (2. 26) Remark: It should be noticed that in di? erent textbooks, di? erent notations are used. For the state space representation of longitudinal dynamics, sometime widetilded derivatives are used as follows ? ? 1 ? X 1 ? X ? ? 1 ? X ? ? ?? 0 ? g u ? u m ? u m ? w m ?? e 1 ? Z 1 ? Z 1 ? Z ? w ? ? 0 ? ? w ? ? m ?? e ? ?+? ? ? ? = ? m ? u m ? w Ue ?? ? ? e (2. 27) ? q ? Mu ? Mw Mq 0 ? ? q ? ? M? e ? ? ? ? 0 0 1 0 0 where Mu = Mw = 1 ? M 1 ? Z 1 ? M + ? Iyy ? u m ? u Iyy ? w ? 1 ? M 1 ? Z 1 ? M + ? Iyy ? w m ? w Iyy ? w ? 1 ? M 1 ? M + Ue ? Iyy ? q Iyy ? w ? (2.
The Dissertation on Qr Decomposition Based Matrix Inversion Technique
In this paper, we overcome this barrier by presenting a novel matrix inversion algorithm which is ideally suited to high performance floating-point implementation. We show how the resulting architecture offers fundamentally higher performance than currently published matrix inversion approaches and we use it to create the first reported architecture capable of supporting real-time 802. 11n ...
28) (2. 29) (2. 30) (2. 31) Mq = M? e = 1 ? M 1 ? Z 1 ? M + ? Iyy ?? e m ?? e Iyy ? w ? The widetilded derivatives and the other derivatives in the matrices are the same as the expression of the small letter derivatives under certain assumptions, i. e. using stability axis. 2. 2 2. 2. 1 State space description State variables A minimum set of variables which, when known at time t0 , together with the input, are su? ient to describe the behaviours of the system at any time t > t0 . State variables may have no any physical meanings and may be not measurable. For the longitudinal dynamic of aircraft, there are four state variables, i. e, ? ? u ? w ? ? X=? (2. 32) ? q ? ? and one input or control variable, the elevator de? ection, U = ? e (2. 33) 2. 3. LONGITUDINAL STATE SPACE MODEL Thus n=4 m=1 17 (2. 34) The system matrix and input matrix of the longitudinal dynamics are given by ? ? xu xw xq x? ? z zw zq z? ? ? A = M ? 1 A = ? u (2. 35) ? mu mw mq m? ? 0 0 1 0 and ? x? e ? z ? B = M ? 1 B = ? ?e ? ? m ? e ? 0 ? (2. 36) respectively. . 2. 2 General state space model w Ue When the angle of attack ? is of concern, it can be written as ? = which can be put into a general form as y = CX where y=? = and C= 0 1/Ue 0 0 (2. 40) Eq. (2. 38) is called Output equation; y the output variable and C the output matrix. For more general case where there are more than one output and has a direct path from input to output variable, the output equation can be written as Y = CX + DU (2. 41) w Ue (2. 38) (2. 39) (2. 37) where Y ? Rr ,C ? Rr? n and D ? Rr? m . For motion of aerospace vehicles including aircraft and missiles, there is no direct path between input and output.
The Research paper on Space
Title Length Color Rating Manufacturing in Space - Man's capability to leave the Earth offers many new prospects for the future. Asteroid mining, building launch facilities on the moon, tourism, and space manufacturing are only some of the many opportunities that are being considered. There are many considerations which must be examined . For example, in the case of manufacturing in space, ec... [ ...
In this course only the case D = 0 is considered if not explicitly pointed out. Eq. (2. 22) and (2. 38) (or (2. 41)) together represent the state space description of a dynamic system, which is opposite to the transfer function representation of a dynamic system studied in Control Engineering course. 2. 3 Longitudinal state space model When the behaviours of all the state variables are concerned, all those variables can be chosen as output variables. In addition, there are other response quantities of interest including the ? ight path angle ? , the angle of attack ? and the normal acceleration az (nz ).
Putting all variables together, the output vector can be written as 18 CHAPTER 2. LONGITUDINAL RESPONSE TO THE CONTROL ? ? ? ? ? Y =? ? ? ? ? Invoking the relationships ? = ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? u w q ? ? ? az w Ue (2. 42) (2. 43) w Ue (2. 44) the ? ight path angle ? =??? =?? and the normal acceleration az (nz ) az = = = ?Z/m = ? (Zu u + Zw w + Zq q + Zw w + Z? e ? e )/m ? ? ? (w ? qUe ) ? ?zu u ? zw w ? zq q ? z? e ? e + Ue zq (2. 45) where the second equality substituting the expression matrix is given by ? ? ? u 1 ? w ? ? 0 ? ? ? ? q ? ? 0 ? ? ? Y =? ? ? =? 0 ? ? ? ? ? ? ? 0 ? ? ? ? ? ? ? 0 az ? zu ollows from (2. 9) and the last equality is obtained by of w in its concise derivative format. Hence the output ? 0 1 0 0 1/Ue ? 1/Ue ? zw 0 0 1 0 0 0 ? zq + Ue 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 ? ?? ? ? ?? ?? ?? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? u ? ? ? w ? ? +? q ? ? ? ? ? 0 0 0 0 0 0 ? z? e ? ? ? ? ? ? ? e ? ? ? ? (2. 46) There is a direct path between the output and input! The state space model of longitudinal dynamics consists of (2. 22) and (2. 46).
2. 3. 1 Numerical example Boeing 747 jet transport at ? ight condition cruising in horizontal ? ight at approximately 40,000 ft at Mach number 0. 8. Relevant data are given in Table 2. 1 and 2. 2.
Using tables in Appendix 1, the concise small derivatives can be calculated and then the system matrix and input matrix can be derived as ? ? ? 0. 006868 0. 01395 0 ? 32. 2 ? ?0. 09055 ? ?0. 3151 774 0 ? A=? (2. 47) ? 0. 0001187 ? 0. 001026 ? 0. 4285 ? 0 0 0 1 0 ? ? ? 0. 000187 ? ?17. 85 ? ? B=? (2. 48) ? ?1. 158 ? 0 Similarly the parameters matrices in output equation (2. 46) can be determined. It should be noticed that English unit(s) is used in this example. 2. 4. AIRCRAFT DYNAMIC BEHAVIOUR SIMULATION USING STATE SPACE MODELS19 Table 2. 1: Boeing 747 transport data 636,636lb (2. 83176 ? 106 N) 5500 ft2 (511. m2 ) 27. 31 ft (8. 324 m) 195. 7 ft (59. 64 m) 0. 183 ? 108 slug ft2 (0. 247 ? 108 kg m2 ) 0. 331 ? 108 slug ft2 (0. 449 ? 108 kg m2 ) 0. 497 ? 108 slug ft2 (0. 673 ? 108 kg m2 ) -0. 156 ? 107 slug ft2 (-0. 212 ? 107 kg m2 ) 774 ft/s (235. 9m/s) 0 5. 909 ? 10? 4 slug/ft3 (0. 3045 kg/m3 ) 0. 654 0. 0430 W S c ? b Ix Iy Iz Izx Ue ? 0 ? CL0 CD Table 2. 2: Dimensional Derivatives– B747 jet X(lb) Z(lb) M(ft. lb) u(f t/s) ? 1. 358 ? 102 ? 1. 778 ? 103 3. 581 ? 103 w(f t/s) 2. 758 ? 102 ? 6. 188 ? 103 ? 3. 515 ? 104 q(rad/sec) 0 ? 1. 017 ? 105 ? 1. 122 ? 107 2 w(f t/s ) ? 0 1. 308 ? 102 -3. 826 ? 103 5 ? e (rad) -3. 17 ? 3. 551 ? 10 ? 3. 839 ? 107 2. 3. 2 The choice of state variables The state space representation of a dynamic system is not unique, which depends on the choice of state variables. For engineering application, state variables, in general, are chosen based on physical meanings, measurement, or easy to design and analysis. For the longitudinal dynamics, in additional to a set of the state variables in Eq. (2. 32), another widely used choice (in American) is ? u ? ? ? ? X=? ? q ? ? ? (2. 49) Certainly, when the logitudinal dynamics of the aircraft are represented in terms of the above state variables, di? rent A, B and C are resulted (see Tutorial 1).
The Essay on Internal Control System
We would like to thank you for the opportunities you have provided us in evaluate the internal control systems of your company. As you know, internal control systems are paramount securing the assets of any company or organization. In your case Control System will play an important role in limiting the risk of fraud or asset misappropriation. Understanding how to segregate duties among your ...
2. 4 Aircraft dynamic behaviour simulation using state space models State space model developed above provides a very powerful tool in investigate dynamic behavious of an aircraft under various condition. The idea of using state pace models for predicting aircraft dynamic behavious or numerical simulation can be explained by 20 CHAPTER 2. LONGITUDINAL RESPONSE TO THE CONTROL the following expression X(t + ? t) = X(t) + dX(? ) ? |? =t ? t = X(t) + X(t)? t d? (2. 50) ? where X(t) is current state, ? t is step size and X(t) is the derivative calculated by the state space equation. . 4. 1 Aircraft response without control ? X = AX X(0) = X0 (2. 51) 2. 4. 2 Aircraft response to controls ? X = AX + BU ; X(0) = 0 (2. 52) where U is the pilot command 2. 4. 3 Aircraft response under both initial conditions and controls ? X = AX + BU ; X(0) = X0 (2. 53) 2. 5 Longitudinal response to the elevator After the longitudinal dynamics are described by the state space model, the time histories of all the variables of interests can be calculated. For example, the time responses of the forward velocity u, normal velocity w (angle of attack) and ? ight path angle ? under the step movement of the levator are displayed in Fig 2.
The Review on The Choice of Foreign Entry Modes in a Control Perspective
The Choice of Foreign Entry Modes in a Control Perspective Svend Hollensen*, Britta Boyd** and Anna Marie Dyhr Ulrich*** The aim of this article is to investigate the choice of entry modes for international markets in a control perspective. A survey from the Confederation of Danish Industry with 234 Danish Small and Medium Enterprises (SMEs) served as the data base. The entry modes are categorized ...
1–2. 5 Discussion: If the reason for moving the elevator is to establish a new steady state ? ight condition, then this control action can hardly be viewed as successful. The long lightly damped oscillation has seriously interfered with it. A good operation performance cannot be achieved by simply changing the angle of elevator. Clearly, longitudinal control, whether by a human pilot or automatic pilot, demands a more sophisticated control activity than open-loop strategy. 2. 6 Transfer of state space models into transfer functions Taking Laplace transform on both sides of Eq. (2. 2) under the zero initial assumption yields sX(s) = Y (s) = where X(s) = L{X(t)}. AX(s) + BU (s) CX(s) (2. 54) (2. 55) 2. 6. TRANSFER OF STATE SPACE MODELS INTO TRANSFER FUNCTIONS21 Step response to elevator: Velocity 90 80 70 60 Velocity(fps) 50 40 30 20 10 0 0 1 2 3 4 5 Time(s) 6 7 8 9 10 Figure 2. 1: Longitudinal response to the elevator Step response to evelator: angle of attack 0 ?0. 005 ?0. 01 Angle of attack(rad) ?0. 015 ?0. 02 ?0. 025 ?0. 03 0 1 2 3 4 5 Time(s) 6 7 8 9 10 22 CHAPTER 2. LONGITUDINAL RESPONSE TO THE CONTROL Step respnse to elevator: Flight path angle 0. 1 0. 08 0. 06 0. 04 Flight path angle (rad) 0.
02 0 0. 02 ?0. 04 ?0. 06 ?0. 08 ?0. 1 0 1 2 3 4 5 Time(s) 6 7 8 9 10 Figure 2. 2: Longitudinal response to the elevator Step Response to elevator: long term 90 80 70 60 Velocity (fps) 50 40 30 20 10 0 0 100 200 300 Time (s) 400 500 600 Figure 2. 3: Longitudinal response to the elevator 2. 6. TRANSFER OF STATE SPACE MODELS INTO TRANSFER FUNCTIONS23 Step response to elevator: long term 0 ?0. 005 ?0. 01 Angle of attack (rad) ?0. 015 ?0. 02 ?0. 025 ?0. 03 0 100 200 300 Time (s) 400 500 600 Figure 2. 4: Longitudinal response to the elevator Step response to elevator: long term 0. 1 0. 08 0. 06 0. 04 Flight path angle (rad) 0. 02 0 ?0. 2 ?0. 04 ?0. 06 ?0. 08 ?0. 1 0 100 200 300 Time (s) 400 500 600 Figure 2. 5: Longitudinal response to the elevator 24 CHAPTER 2. LONGITUDINAL RESPONSE TO THE CONTROL Y (s) = C[sI ? A]? 1 BU (s) Hence the transfer function of the state space representation is given by G(s) = C[sI ? A]? 1 B = C(Adjoint(sI ? A))B det(sI ? A) (2. 56) (2. 57) Example 1: A short period motion of a aircraft is described by ? ? q ? = ? 0. 334 ? 2. 52 1. 0 ? 0. 387 ? q + ? 0. 027 ? 2. 6 ? e (2. 58) where ? e denotes the elevator de? ection. The transfer function from the elevator de? ection to the angle of attack is determined as follows: ? (s) ? 0.
27s ? 2. 6 = 2 ? e (s) s + 0. 721s + 2. 65 (2. 59) # The longitudinal dynamics of aircraft is a single-input and multi-output system with one input ? e and several outputs, u, w, q, ? , ? , az . Using the technique in Section (2. 6), the transfer functions between each output variable and the input elevator can be derived. The notation u(s) Gue = (2. 60) ? ?e (s) is used in this course to denote the transfer function from input ? e to output u. For the longitudinal dynamics of Boeing 747-100, if the output of interest is the forward velocity, the transfer function can be determined using formula (2. 56) as u(s) ? e (s) ? 0. 00188s3 ? 0. 2491s2 + 24. 68s + 11. 6 s4 + 0. 750468s3 + 0. 935494s2 + 0. 0094630s + 0. 0041959 (2. 61) Gue ? = = Similarly, all other transfer functions can be derived. For a system with low order like the second order system in Example 1, the derivation of the corresponding transfer function from its state space model can be completed manually. For complicated systems with high order, it can be done by computer software like MATLAB. It can be found that although the transfer functions from the elevator to di? erent outputs are di? erent but they have the same denominator, i. e. s4 + 0. 750468s3 + 0. 935494s2 + 0. 0094630s + 0. 041959 for Beoing 747-100. Only the numerators are di? erent. This is because all the denominators of the transfer functions are determined by det(sI ? A).
2. 6. 1 From a transfer function to a state space model The number of the state variable is equal to the order of the transfer function, i. e. , the order of the denominator of the transfer function. By choosing di? erent state variables, for the same transfer function, di? erent state space models are given. 2. 7. BLOCK DIAGRAM REPRESENTATION OF STATE SPACE MODELS 25 2. 7 Block diagram representation of state space models 2. 8 2. 8. 1 Static stability and dynamic modes
Aircraft stability Consider aircraft equations of motion represented as ? X = AX + BU (2. 62) The stability analysis of the original aircraft dynamics concerns if there is no any control e? ort,whether the uncontrolled motion is stable. It is also referred as openloop stability in general control engineering. The aircraft stability is determined by the eigenvalues of the system matrix A. For a matrix A, its eigenvalues can be determined by the polynomial det(? I ? A) = 0 (2. 63) Eigenvalues of a state space model are equal to the roots of the characteristic equation of its corresponding transfer function.
An aircraft is stable if all eigenvalues of its system matrix have negative real part. It is unstable if one or more eigenvalues of the system matrix has positive real part. Example for a second order system Example 1 revisited 2. 8. 2 Stability with FCS augmentation When a ? ight control system is installed on an aircraft. The command applied on the control surface is not purely generated by a pilot any more; it consists of both the pilot command and the control signal generated by the ? ight control system. It can be written as ? U = KX + U (2. 64) ? where K is the state feedback gain matrix and U is the reference signal or pilot command.
The stability of an aircraft under ? ight control systems is refereed as closed-loop stability. 26 CHAPTER 2. LONGITUDINAL RESPONSE TO THE CONTROL Then the closed-loop system under the control law is given by ? ? X = (A + BK)X + B U (2. 65) Stability is also determined by the eigenvalues of the system matrix of the system (2. 65), i. e. , A + BK. Sometimes only part of the state variables are available, which are true for most of ? ight control systems, and only these measurable variables are fed back, i. e. output feedback control. It can be written as ? ? U = KY + U = KCX + B U where K is the output feedback gain matrix.
Substituting the control U into the state equation yields ? ? X = (A + BKC)X + B U (2. 67) (2. 66) Then the closed-loop stability is determined by the eigenvalues of the matrix A+BKC. Boeing Example (cont. ) Open-loop stability: ? 0. 3719 + 0. 8875i ? 0. 3719 ? 0. 8875i eig(A) = ? 0. 0033 + 0. 0672i ? 0. 0033 ? 0. 0672i (2. 68) Hence the longitudinal dynamics are stable. The same conclusion can be drawn from the the transfer function approach. Since the stability of an open loop system is determined by its poles from denominator of its transfer function, i. e. , s4 +0. 750468s3 + 0. 935494s2 + 0. 0094630s + 0. 041959=0. Its roots are given by s1,2 = ? 0. 3719 ± 0. 8875i s3,4 = ? 0. 0033 ± 0. 0672i (2. 69) (This example veri? es that the eigenvalues of the system matrix are the same as the roots of its characteristic equation! ) 2. 8. 3 Dynamic modes Not only stability but also the dynamic modes of an aircraft can be extracted from the stat space model, more speci? cally from the system matrix A. Essentially, the determinant of the matrix A is the same as the characteristic equation. Since there are two pairs of complex roots, the denominator can be written in the typical second order system’s format as 2 2 (s2 + 2? ? p s + ? p )(s2 + 2? s ? s s + ? s ) (2.
70) (2. 71) (2. 72) where ? p = 0. 0489 for Phugoid mode and ? s = 0. 3865 for the short period mode. ?s = 0. 9623 ? p = 0. 0673 2. 9. REDUCED MODELS OF LONGITUDINAL DYNAMICS B 747 Phugoid mode 1. 5 27 1 93. 4s 0. 5 Perturbation 0 ? 0. 5 ? 1 0 300 600 Time (s) Figure 2. 6: Phugoid mode of Beoing 747-100 The ? rst second order dynamics correspond to Phugoid mode. This is an oscillad d tion with period T = 1/? p = 1/(0. 0672/2? ) = 93. 4 second where ? p is the damped frequency of the Phugoid mode. The damping ratio for Phugoid mode is very small, i. e. , ? p = 0. 489. As shown in Figure 2. 6, Phugoid mode for Boeing 747-100 at this ? ight condition is a slow and poor damped oscillation. It takes a long time to die away. The second mode in the characteristic equation corresponds to the short period mode in aircraft longitudinal dynamics. As shown in Fig. 2. 7, this is a well damped response with fast period about T = 7. 08 sec. (Note the di? erent time scales in Phugoid and short period response).
It dies away very quickly and only has the in? uence at the beginning of the response. 2. 9 Reduced models of longitudinal dynamics Based on the above example, we can ? d Phugoid mode and short period mode have di? erent time scales. Actually all the aircraft have the similar response behaviour as Boeing 747. This makes it is possible to simplify the longitudinal dynamics under certain conditions. As a result, this will simplify following analysis and design. 2. 9. 1 Phugoid approximation The Phugoid mode can be obtained by simplifying the full 4th order longitudinal dynamics. Assumptions: • w and q respond to disturbances in time scale associated with the short period 28 CHAPTER 2. LONGITUDINAL RESPONSE TO THE CONTROL Beoing 747 Short period mode From: U(1) 0. 7 0. 6 0. 5 0. 4
Perturbation To: Y(1) 0. 3 0. 2 0. 1 0 ?0. 1 ?0. 2 0 5 10 15 Time (sec. ) Figure 2. 7: Short Period mode of Beoing 747-100 mode; it is reasonable to assume that q is quasi-steady in the longer time scale associated with Phugoid mode; q=0; ? • Mq , Mw , Zq , Zw are neglected since both q and w are relatively small. ? ? ? Then from the table in Appendix 1, we can ? nd the expression of the small concise derivatives under these assumptions. The longitudinal model reduces to ? ? ? Xu Xw ?? ? ? X? e ? 0 ? g u ? u m m m Zw ? w ? ? Zu Ue 0 ? ? w ? ? Z? e ? m m ? ? ? =? M ?? ? + ? M ? ?e (2. 73) ? m ? ? 0 ? ? u Mw 0 0 ? q ? ? ? e ? Iyy Iyy Iyy ? ? ? 0 0 1 0 0 This is not a standard state space model. However using the similar idea in Section 2. 6, by taking Laplace transform on the both sides of the equation under the assumption that X0 = 0, the transfer function from the control surface to any chosen output variable can be derived. The characteristic equation (the denominator polynomial of a transfer function) is given by ? (s) = As2 + Bs + C where A = ? Ue Mw Ue B = gMu + (Xu Mw ? Mu Xw ) m g C = (Zu Mw ? Mu Zw ) m (2. 75) (2. 76) (2. 77) (2. 74) 2. 9. REDUCED MODELS OF LONGITUDINAL DYNAMICS 29 This corresponds to the ? st mode (Phugoid mode) in the full longitudinal model.
After substituting data for Beoing 747 in the formula, the damping ratio and the natural frequency are given by ? = 0. 068, ? n = 0. 0712 (2. 78) which are slightly di? erent from the true values, ? p = 0. 049, ? p = 0. 0673, obtained from the full 4th longitudinal dynamic model. 2. 9. 2 Short period approximation In a short period after actuation of the elevator, the speed is substantially constant while the airplane pitches relatively rapidly. Assumptions: • u=0 • Zw (compared with m) and Zq (compared with mUe ) are neglected since they ? are relatively small. w ? q ? Zw m mw Ue mq w q + Z ? e m m ? e ?e (2. 79) The characteristic equation is given by s2 ? ( Zw 1 1 Mq Zw + (Mq + Mw Ue ))s ? (Ue Mw ? )=0 ? m Iyy Iyy m (2. 80) Using the data for B747-100, the result obtained is s2 + 0. 741s + 0. 9281 = 0 with roots s1,2 = ? 0. 371 ± 0. 889i The corresponding damping ratio and natural frequency are ? = 0. 385 wn = 0. 963 (2. 83) (2. 82) (2. 81) which are seen to be almost same as those obtained from the full longitudinal dynamics. Actually the short period approximation is very good for a wide range of vehicle characteristics and ? ight conditions. Tutorial 1 1. Using the small concise derivatives, ? d the state equations of longitudinal dynamics of an aircraft with state variables ? ? u ? ? ? ? X=? (2. 84) ? q ? ? 30 CHAPTER 2. LONGITUDINAL RESPONSE TO THE CONTROL Normal acceleration at the pilot seat is a very important quantity, de? ned as the normal acceleration response to an elevator measured at the pilot seat, i. e. aZx = w ? Ue q ? lx q ? ? (2. 85) where lx is the distance from c. g. to the pilot seat. When the outputs of interest are pitch angle ? and the normal acceleration at the pilot seat, ? nd the output equations and identify all the associated parameter matrices and dimension of variables (state, input and output).
. The motion of a mass is governed by m? (t) = f (t) x (2. 86) where m is mass, f (t) the force acting on the mass and x(t) the displacement. When the velocity x(t) and the velocity plus the position x(t) + x(t) are chosen ? ? as state variables, and the position is chosen as output variable, ? nd the state space model of the above mass system. Determine the transfer function from the state space model and compare it with the transfer function directly derived from the dynamic model in Eq. (2. 86).
3. Find the transfer function from elevator de? ection ? e to pitch rate q in Example 1.
Determine the natural frequency and damping ratio of the short period dynamics. Is it possible to ? nd these information from a state space model directly, instead of using the transfer function approach? 4. Suppose that the control strategy ? ?e = ? + 0. 1q + ? e (2. 87) ? is used for the aircraft in Example 1 where ? e is the command for elevator de? ection from the pilot. Determine stability of the short period dynamics under the above control law using both state space method and Routh stability criterion in Control Engineering (When Routh stability criterion is applied, you can study the stability using the transfer function from ? to q or that from ? e to ? (why? )).
Compare and discuss the results achieved. Chapter 3 Lateral response to the controls 3. 1 Lateral state space models mv ? ?Y v ? ( ? Y + mWe )p ? ?v ? p ? mUe )r ? mg? cos ? e ? mg? sin ? e ? L ? L ? L ? v + Ix p ? ? p ? Ixz r ? ? r ? v ? p ? r ? N ? N ? N v ? Ixz p ? ? p + Iz r ? ? r ? ?v ? p ? r = = = ? Y ? A + ?? A ? L ? A + ?? A ? N ? A + ?? A ? Y ? R ?? R ? L ? R ?? R ? N ? R ?? R (3. 1) (3. 2) (3. 3) Referred to body axes, the small perturbed lateral dynamics are described by ? ( ? Y ? r where the physical meanings of the variables are de? ed as v: Lateral velocity perturbation p: Roll rate perturbation r: Yaw rate perturbation ? : Roll angle perturbation ? : Yaw angle perturbation ? A : Aileron angle (note that it is denoted by ? in Appendix 1) ? R : Rudder angle (note that it is denoted by ? in Appendix 1) Together with the relationships ? ?=p and ? ? = r, (3. 4) (3. 5) the lateral dynamics can be described by ? ve equations, (3. 1)-(3. 5).
Treating them in the same way as in the longitudinal dynamics and after introducing the concise notation as in Appendix 1, these ? ve equations can be represented as ? ? ? ? ? ? v ? p ? r ? ? ? ? ? ? yv lv nv 0 0 yp lp np 1 0 yr lr nr 0 1 y? 0 0 0 0 y? 0 0 0 0 ?? ?? ?? ?? ?? ?? v p r ? ? ? ? y? A l? A n ? A 0 0 y? R l? R n ? R 0 0 ? ? ? ? ? ? ? A ? R (3. 6) ? ? ? ? ?=? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?+? ? ? ? ? 31 32 CHAPTER 3. LATERAL RESPONSE TO THE CONTROLS When the derivatives are referred to airplane wind axes, ? e = 0 (3. 7) from Appendix 1, it can be seen that y? = 0. Thus all the elements of the ? fth column in the system matrix are zero. This implies that ? has no in? uence on all other variables. To simplify analysis, in most of the cases, the following fourth order model is used ?? ? ? ? ? ? v ? v y? A y? R yv yp yr y? ? p ? ? lv lp lr 0 ? ? p ? ? l? A l? R ? ?A ?? ? ? ? ? ? ? =? (3. 8) ? r ? ? n v n p n r 0 ? ? r ? + ? n ? A n ? R ? ? R ? ? ? 0 1 0 0 0 0 ? (It should be noticed that the number of the states is still ? ve and this is just for the purpose of simplifying analysis).
Obviously the above equation can also be put in the general state space equation ? X = AX + BU with the state variables ? v ? p ? ? X=? ? r ? , ? ?A ? R yp lp np 1 yr lr nr 0 ? (3. 9) (3. 10) the input/control variables U= the system matrix yv ? lv A=? ? nv 0 and the input matrix ? ? , ? y? 0 ? ? 0 ? (3. 11) (3. 12) y ? A ? l? A B=? ? n ? A 0 ? y? R l? R ? ? n ? R ? 0 (3. 13) For the lateral dynamics, another widely used choice of the state variables (American system) is to replace the lateral velocity v by the sideslip angle ? and keep all others. Remember that v (3. 14) ?? Ue The relationships between these two representations are easy to identify. In some textbooks, primed derivatives, for example, Lp , Nr , so on, are used for state space representation of the lateral dynamics. The primed derivatives are the same as the concise small letter derivatives used in above and in Appendix 1.
For stability augmentation systems, di? erent from the state space model of the longitudinal dynamics where only one input elevator is considered, there are two inputs in the lateral dynamic model, i. e. the aileron and rudder. 3. 2. TRANSIENT RESPONSE TO AILERON AND RUDDER Table 3. 1: Dimensional Derivatives– B747 jet Y(lb) L(ft. lb) N(ft. lb) v(ft/s) ? 1. 103 ? 103 ? 6. 885 ? 104 4. 790 ? 104 p(rad/s) 0 ? 7. 934 ? 106 ? 9. 809 ? 105 r(rad/sec) 0 7. 302 ? 106 ? 6. 590 ? 106 ? A (rad) 0 ? 2. 829 ? 103 7. 396 ? 101 ? R (rad) 1. 115 ? 105 2. 262 ? 103 ? 9. 607 ? 103 33 3. 2 3. 2. 1 Transient response to aileron and rudder
Numerical example Consider the lateral dynamics of Boeing 747 under the same ? ight condition as in Section 2. 3. 1. The lateral aerodynamic derivatives are listed in Table 3. 1. Using the expression in Appendix 1, all the parameters in the state space model can be calculated, given by ? ? ? 0. 0558 0. 0 ? 774 32. 2 ? ?0. 003865 ? 0. 4342 0. 4136 0 ? ? A=? (3. 15) ? 0. 001086 ? 0. 006112 ? 0. 1458 0 ? 0 1 0 0 and 0. 0 ? ?0. 1431 B=? ? 0. 003741 0. 0 ? ? 5. 642 0. 1144 ? ? ? 0. 4859 ? 0. 0 (3. 16) Stability Issue ? 0. 0330 + 0. 9465i ? 0. 0330 ? 0. 9465i eig(A) = ? 0. 5625 ? 0. 0073 (3. 17)
All the eigenvalues have negative real part hence the lateral dynamics of the Boeing 747 jet transport is stable. 3. 2. 2 Lateral response and transfer functions ? v p ? ?+B r ? ? State space model of lateral dynamics ? ? ? v ? ? p ? ? ? ? ? = A? ? r ? ? ? ? ? ?A ? R (3. 18) This is a typical Multi-Input Multi-Output (MIMO) system. For an MIMO system like the lateral dynamics, similar to the longitudinal dynamics, its corresponding transfer function can be derived using the same technique introduced in Chapter 2. However, in this case the corresponding Laplace transform of the state space model, 34 CHAPTER 3.
LATERAL RESPONSE TO THE CONTROLS G(s) ? Rr? m is a complex function matrix which is referred as a transfer function matrix where m is the number of the input variables and r is the number of the output variables. The ijth element in the transfer function matrix de? nes the transfer function between the ith output and jth input, that is, Gyij (s) = u yi (s) . uj (s) (3. 19) For example, GpA (s) denotes the transfer function from the aileron, ? A , to the roll ? rate, p. Its corresponding transfer function matrix is given by ? ? ? ? v G? A (s) GvR (s) v(s) ? ? p(s) ? ? Gp (s) Gp (s) ? ?A (s) ? R ? ? ? ? ?A (3. 20) ? r(s) ? ? Gr (s) Gr (s) ? ?R (s) ? A ? R ? p ? (s) G? A (s) G? R hi(s) With the data of Boeing 747 lateral dynamics, these transfer functions can be found as ? 2. 896s2 ? 6. 542s ? 0. 6209 GvA (s) = 4 fps/rad (3. 21) ? s + 0. 6344s3 + 0. 9375s2 + 0. 5097s + 0. 003658 ? 0. 1431s3 ? 0. 02727s2 ? 0. 1101s rad/s/rad, or deg/s/deg s4 + 0. 6344s3 + 0. 9375s2 + 0. 5097s + 0. 003658 (3. 22) 0. 003741s3 + 0. 002708s2 + 0. 0001394s ? 0. 004534 GrA (s) = rad/s/rad, deg/s/deg ? s4 + 0. 6344s3 + 0. 9375s2 + 0. 5097s + 0. 003658 (3. 23) ? 0. 1431s2 ? 0. 02727s ? 0. 1101 ? rad/rad, or deg/deg (3.
24) G? A (s) = 4 s + 0. 6344s3 + 0. 9375s2 + 0. 097s + 0. 003658 and GpA (s) = ? GvR (s) = ? 5. 642s3 + 379. 4s2 + 167. 5s ? 5. 917 fps/rad s4 + 0. 6344s3 + 0. 9375s2 + 0. 5097s + 0. 003658 (3. 25) GpR (s) = ? 0. 1144s3 ? 0. 1991s2 ? 1. 365s rad/s/rad, or deg/s/deg s4 + 0. 6344s3 + 0. 9375s2 + 0. 5097s + 0. 003658 (3. 26) ? 0. 4859s3 ? 0. 2321s2 ? 0. 008994s ? 0. 05632 rad/s/rad, or deg/s/deg s4 + 0. 6344s3 + 0. 9375s2 + 0. 5097s + 0. 003658 (3. 27) 0. 1144s2 ? 0. 1991s ? 1. 365 rad/rad, or deg/deg (3. 28) s4 + 0. 6344s3 + 0. 9375s2 + 0. 5097s + 0. 003658 GrR (s) = ? G? R (s) = ? The denominator polynomial of the transfer functions can be factorised as (s + 0. 613)(s + 0. 007274)(s2 + 0. 06578s + 0. 896) (3. 29) 3. 3. REDUCED ORDER MODELS 35 It has one large real root, -0. 5613, one small real root, -0. 0073 (very close to origin) and a pair of complex roots (-0. 0330 + 0. 9465i, -0. 0330 – 0. 9465i).
For most of the aircraft, the denominator polynomial of the lateral dynamics can be factorized as above, ie. , with two real roots and a pair of complex roots. That is, 2 (s + 1/Ts )(s + 1/Tr )(s2 + 2? d ? d s + ? d ) = 0 (3. 30) where Ts Tr is the spiral time constant (for spiral mode), Tr is the roll subsidence time constant (for roll subsidence), and ? d , ? are damping ratio and natural frequency of Dutch roll mode. For Boeing 747, from the eigenvalues or the roots, these parameters are calculated as: Spiral time constant Ts = 1/0. 007274 = 137(sec); (3. 31) Roll subsidence time constant Tr = 1/0. 5613 = 1. 78(sec) and Dutch roll natural frequency and damping ratio ? d = 0. 95(rad/sec), ? d = 0. 06578 = 0. 0347 2? d (3. 33) (3. 32) The basic ? ight condition is steady symmetric ? ight, in which all the lateral variables ? , p, r, ? are identically zero. Unlike the elevator, the lateral controls are not used individually to produce changes in steady state.
That is because the steady state values of ? , p, r, ? that result from a constant ? A and ? R are not of interest as a useful ? ight condition. Successful movement in the lateral channel, in general, should be the combination of aileron and rudder. In view of this, the impulse response, rather than step response used in the lateral study, is employed in investigating the lateral response to the controls. This can be considered as an idealised situation that the control surface has a sudden move and then back to its normal position, or the recovering period of an airplane deviated from its steady ? ght state due to disturbances. The impulse lateral responses of Boeing 747 under unit aileron and rudder impulse action are shown in Figure 3. 1 and 3. 2 respectively. As seen in the response, the roll subsidence dies away very quickly and mainly has the in? uence at the beginning of the response. The spiral mode has a large time constant and takes quite long time to respond. The Dutch roll mode is quite poorly damped and the oscillation caused by the Dutch roll dominates the whole lateral response to the control surfaces. 3. 3 Reduced order models Although as shown in the above ? gures, there are di? rent modes in the lateral dynamics, these modes interact each other and have a strong coupling between them.
In general, the approximation of these models is not as accuracy as that in the longitudinal dynamics. However to simplify analysis and design in Flight Control Systems, reduced order models are still useful in an initial stage. It is suggested that the full lateral dynamic model should be used to verify the design based on reduced order models. 36 CHAPTER 3. LATERAL RESPONSE TO THE CONTROLS Lateral response to impluse aileron deflection 0. 1 Lateral velocity (f/s) 0. 05 0 ? 0. 05 ? 0. 1 ? 0. 5 0 10 20 30 Time(s) 40 50 60 0. 05 Roll rate (deg/sec) 0 ? 0. 05 ? 0. 1 ? 0. 15 0 x 10 ?3 10 20 30 Time (s) 40 50 60 5 Yaw rate(deg/sec) 0 ? 5 ? 10 ? 15 0 10 20 30 Time (s) 40 50 60 0 Roll angle (deg) ? 0. 05 ? 0. 1 ? 0. 15 ? 0. 2 ? 0. 25 0 10 20 30 Time (s) 40 50 60 Figure 3. 1: Boeing 747-100 lateral response to aileron 3. 3. REDUCED ORDER MODELS 37 Lateral response to unit impluse rudder deflection 10 Lateral velocity (f/s) 5 0 ? 5 ? 10 0 10 20 30 Time (s) 40 50 60 2 Roll rate (deg) 1 0 ? 1 ? 2 0 10 20 30 Time (s) 40 50 60 0. 4 Yaw rate (deg) 0. 2 0 ? 0. 2 ? 0. 4 ? 0. 6 0 10 20 30 Time (s) 40 50 60 Roll angle (deg) 0 ? 1 ? 2 ? 3 ? 4 0 10 20 30 Time (s) 40 50 60 Figure 3. 2: Boeing 747-100 lateral response to Rudder 38 CHAPTER 3.
LATERAL RESPONSE TO THE CONTROLS 3. 3. 1 Roll subsidence Provided that the perturbation is small, the roll subsidence mode is observed to involve almost pure rolling motion with little coupling into sideslip and yaw. A reduced order model of the lateral-directional dynamics retaining only roll subsidence mode follows by removing the side force and yaw moment equations to give p = lp p + l? A ? A + l? R ? R ? (3. 34) If only the in? uence from aileron de? ction is concerned and assume that ? R = 0, taking Laplace transform on Eq. (3. 34) obtains the transfer function p(s) l ? A kp = = ? A s ? lp s + 1/Tr where the gain kp = l? A and the time constant Tr = 1 Ix Iz ? Ixz =? lp Iz Lp + Ixz Np (3. 36) (3. 37) (3. 35) Since Ix Ixz and Iz Ixz , then equation (3. 37) can be further simpli? ed to give the classical approximation expression for the roll mode time constant Tr = ? Ix Lp (3. 38) For the Boeing 747, the roll subsidence estimated by the ? rst order roll subsidence approximation is 0. 183e + 8 Tr = ? = 2. 3sec. (3. 39) ? 7. 934e + 6 It is close to the real value, 1. sec, given by the full lateral model. 3. 3. 2 Spiral mode approximation As shown in the Boeing 747 lateral response to the control surface, the spiral mode is very slow to develop. It is usual to assume that the motion variables v, p, r are quasi-steady relative to the time scale of the mode. Hence p = v = r = 0 and the ? ? ? lateral dynamics can be written as ? ? ? 0 yv ? 0 ? ? lv ? ? ? ? 0 ? = ? nv ? 0 ? yp lp np 1 yr lr nr 0 ?? y? v 0 ?? p ?? 0 ?? r 0 ? ? y? A ? ? l ? A ? +? ? ? n ? A 0 ? ? y ? R l? R ? ? n ? R ? 0 ?A ? R (3. 40) If only the spiral mode time constant is concerned, the unforced equation can be used.
After solving the ? rst and third algebraic equations to yield v and r, Eq. (3. 40) reduces to lp nr ? l n l np ? lp n 0 p yv lr nv ? lr np + yp + yr lv nv ? lv nv y? v r r r (3. 41) ? = ? ? 1 0 3. 3. REDUCED ORDER MODELS 39 Since the terms involving in yv and yp are assumed to be insigni? cantly small compared to the term involving yr , the above expression for the spiral mode can be further simpli? ed as ? y? (lr nv ? lv nr ) ? = 0 ? + (3. 42) yr (lv np ? lp nv ) Therefore the time constant of the spiral mode can be estimated by Ts = yr (lv np ? lp nv ) y? (lr nv ? lv nr ) (3. 43)
Using the aerodynamic derivatives of Boeing 747, the estimated spiral mode time constant is obtained as Ts = 105. 7(sec) (3. 44) 3. 3. 3 Dutch roll ? p=p=? =? =0 ? v ? r ? = yv nv yr nr v r + 0 n ? A y? R n ? R ? A ? R (3. 45) (3. 46) Assumptions: From the state space model (3. 46), the transfer functions from the aileron or rudder to the lateral velocity or roll rate can be derived. For Boeing 747, the relevant transfer functions are given by GvA (s) = ? GrA (s) = ? GvR (s) = ? GrR (s) = ? ?2. 8955 s2 + 0. 2013s + 0. 8477 0. 003741(s + 0. 05579) s2 + 0. 2013s + 0. 8477 s2 5. 642(s + 66. 8) + 0. 013s + 0. 8477 (3. 47) (3. 48) (3. 49) (3. 50) ?0. 4859(s + 0. 04319) s2 + 0. 2013s + 0. 8477 From this 2nd order reduced model, the damping ratio and natural frequency are estimated as 0. 1093 and 0. 92 rad/sec. 3. 3. 4 Three degrees of freedom approximation Assume that the following items are small and negligible: 1).
The term due to gravity, g? 2).
Rolling acceleration due to yaw rate, lr r 3).
Yawing acceleration as a result of roll rate, np p Third order Dutch roll approximation is given by ? ? ? ?? ? ? ? v ? yv yp yr v 0 y ? R ? p ? = ? lv lp 0 ? ? p ? + ? l? A l? R ? ? r ? nv 0 nr r n? A n?
R ?A ? R (3. 51) 40 CHAPTER 3. LATERAL RESPONSE TO THE CONTROLS For Boeing 747, the corresponding transfer functions are obtained as GvA (s) = ? GpA (s) = ? GrA (s) = ? ?2. 8955(s + 0. 6681) (s + 0. 4511)(s2 + 0. 1833s + 0. 8548) ? 0. 1431(s2 + 0. 1905s + 0. 7691) (s + 0. 4511)(s2 + 0. 1833s + 0. 8548) 0. 003741(s + 0. 6681)(s + 0. 05579) (s + 0. 4511)(s2 + 0. 1833s + 0. 8548) 5. 642(s + 0. 4345)(s + 66. 8) (s + 0. 4511)(s2 + 0. 1833s + 0. 8548) 0. 1144(s ? 4. 432)(s + 2. 691) (s + 0. 4511)(s2 + 0. 1833s + 0. 8548) ? 0. 4859(s + 0. 4351)(s + 0. 04254) (s + 0. 4511)(s2 + 0. 1833s + 0. 8548) (3. 52) 3. 53) (3. 54) and GvR (s) = ? GpR (s) = ? GrR (s) = ? (3. 55) (3. 56) (3. 57) The poles corresponding to the Dutch roll mode are given by the roots of s2 + 0. 1833s + 0. 8548 = 0. Its damping ratio and natural frequency are 0. 0995 and 0. 921 rad/sec. Compared with the values given by the second order Dutch roll approximation, i. e. , 0. 1093 and 0. 92 rad/sec, they are a little bit closer to the true damping ratio ? d = 0. 0347 and the natural frequency ? d = 0. 95 (rad/sec) but the estimation of the damping ratio still has quite poor accuracy. 3. 3. 5 Re-formulation of the lateral dynamics
The lateral dynamic model can be re-formulated to emphasise the structure of the reduced order model. ? ? v ? yv ? r ? ? nv ? ? ? ? ? p ? = ? lv ? ? 0 ? ? yr nr lr 0 yp np lp 1 ?? g v 0 ?? r ?? 0 ?? p 0 ? ? 0 ? ? n ? A ? +? ? ? l? A 0 ? ? y? R n ? R ? ? l? R ? 0 ? A ? R (3. 58) The system matrix A can be partitioned as A= Directional e? ects Directional/roll coupling e? ects Roll/directional coupling e? ects Lateral or roll e? ects (3. 59) Tutorial 2 1. Using the data of Boeing 747-100 at Case II, form the state space model of the lateral dynamics of the aircraft at this ? ight condition.
When the sideslip angle and roll angle are of interest, ? nd the output equation. 2. Find the second order Dutch roll reduced model of this airplane. Derive the transfer function from the rudder to the yaw rate based on this reduced order model. 3. 3. REDUCED ORDER MODELS 41 3. Using MATLAB, assess the approximation of this reduced order model based on time response, and the damping ratio and natural frequency of the Dutch roll mode. 4. Based on the third order reduced model in (3. 51), ? nd the transfer function from the aileron to the roll rate under the assumption y? A = yp = 0.
