Académique Documents
Professionnel Documents
Culture Documents
Tilt duct VTOL UAV concept is presented. The equations of motion are given and, trim
and simulation code is described. Trim flight conditions are given for hover, cruise and
forward flight cases. A two loop SDRE control is proposed and explained. The blended
inverse control allocation algorithm is used for allocating controllers during the transition
flight phase, where there are redundant controls. Simulation results during transition phase
are presented, and the success of the controller as well as the allocation algorithm is
demonstrated.
Nomenclature
I ij
In
= n dimensional unit matrix
M A , N A , LA = aerodynamic moments
p, q, r
= body angular velocities
u, v, w
= translational velocities in the body fixed frame
X A , YA , Z A = aerodynamic forces
X A , YA , Z A = forces due to engine thrust
X A , YA , Z A = moments due to engine thrust
, , = Euler angles
I. Introduction
here has been an increased interest in the use of unmanned aerial vehicles for performing flights where the use
of manned flight vehicles is not appropriate or feasible for missions like delivery or supply, reconnaissance, target
acquisition or designation, data acquisition. Present improvements are mainly on three types of UAV configurations;
fixed-wing configuration, helicopter type configuration and tilt thrust type configurations. The latter two offers
VTOL capabilities, removing the need for long runways, and permit operation in constrained areas. Among the tilt
thrust configurations, the most feasible solutions are probably the tilt-rotor and tilt-duct concepts.
Tilt-rotor or tilt-duct type UAVs, provide translational flight, as well as vertical take-off and landing
capabilities. Their ability to take-off and land vertically, combined with their ability to hover for extended periods
of time over a point and operate in confined areas off steep slopes, make them ideally suited for real time tactical
reconnaissance, target acquisition, surveillance, and ordnance delivery missions for front line tactical units. The
rotors on these UAVs are designed to provide the thrust necessary for both vertical and translational flights.
Aircraft vertical motion of the UAV is provided by maintaining the vehicle fuselage substantially horizontal so that
the thrust (downwash) of the rotors provides the necessary lift for the aircraft.
Copyright 2009 by the American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics, Inc. All rights reserved.
Ducted propellers have many advantages over tilt rotors1. They offer more thrust during vertical flight as well as
forward flight. Reduced blade loading alleviate compressibility problems, cavitation and noise generation1. They
are much more efficient in side winds, and ducted fans at the end of the wings also have the end plate effect.
Finally, they are mechanically easy to construct since they do not require a swash plate mechanisms needed for
helicopter or tilt rotor configurations.
A conceptual design of a tilt-duct UAV was presented previously1. Linear controllers were also designed2.
It was shown that the system is over-actuated with redundant controls and it is unstable in transition mode2. The
purpose of this study is to examine the flight control of the tilt-duct UAV further. The tilt-duct UAV is a highly
nonlinear system, makes it a real challenge to come up with stable, robust, and simple controllers. In this
manuscript we propose to use State Dependent Riccati Equation (SDRE) control, mainly because it is locally
asymptotically stable and is expected to have similar robustness properties as the linear quadratic regulators3. One
main issue with the SDRE control is the fact that although the system is controllable, it may become uncontrollable
due to the choice of state factorization used4. To alleviate the controllability problem, a double loop control is used5.
In the inner loop the translational and rotational velocities, in the outer loops, attitudes are controlled. Since during
transition the system is over actuated, the blended inverse control allocation algorithm, recently developed is
used5. The advantage of blended inverse is that it can not only provide the necessary controls, but also allocate them
to the actuators properly, avoiding saturation in the controls6.
In the next section, after a brief description of the tilt duct UAV concept, the equations of motion are given. It is
followed by the description of the simulation program and trimmer. The flight control system is given next. First
the SDRE controller and its implementation for the tilt duct UAV is described. Then the control allocation is
explained. The trim results during different flight phases and simulation results during the transition period are
presented and discussed. Finally conclusions are given.
2
American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics
(1)
&
mv + ur wp g cos sin = YA + YT
(2)
&
mw + vp uq g cos cos = Z A + Z T
(3)
&
&
I xx p I xz r + I xz pq + ( I zz I yy )rq = LA + LT
(4)
&
I yy q + ( I xx I zz ) pr + I xz ( p 2 r 2 ) = M A + M T
(5)
&
&
I zz r I xz p + ( I yy I xx ) pq + I xz rq = N A + NT
(6)
Aerodynamic forces and moments are calculated in a component buildup fashion. The necessary coefficients are
estimated from semi-empirical formulas available in the literature7. Following stability derivative are estimated and
used in the calculation of the aerodynamic forces and moments.
CL = CL
WBT
( ) + C L
CD = CL
elev
WBT
CD
elev
CY = CY
CL = CL
+ CY
WBT
( ) + CL
( ) + CD
elev
c
V
(7)
( elev )
(8)
( ) + CM
WBT ,
&
CM = CM
WBT
&
( elev ) + (CL q + C L )
ail
elev
rud
(9)
&
( rud ) + (CY ( ) p + CY r )
( ail ) + CL
c
V
(10)
b
2V
(11)
&
( elev ) + (CM q + CM )
rud
( rud ) + (CL ( ) p + CL ( ) r )
p
3
American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics
b
2V
(12)
CN = CN
WBT ,
+ CN
ail
( , ail ) + CN
rud
( , rud ) + (CN ( ) p + CN ( )r )
p
b
2V
(13)
Components of the thrust forces and moments are carried to the center of mass, and written in the body fixed
coordinate frame:
(14)
YT = (TAft )cos( )
(15)
(16)
LT = Lycg
Thm
(17)
M T = Lxcg
Tha
(TAft )sin( )
(18)
NT = Lxcg
Thm
(TAft ) cos( )
(19)
Thm
Tha
The upper and lower limits on the controls are listed in Table 1.
Table 1. Limits and units used for the controls
Control
Throttle, main left and right
Limits
0 ~ 100% ( max 640 N )
Elevator
20o ~ +20o
Aileron
15o ~ +10o
Rudder
25o ~ +25o
(20)
Additional conditions are imposed depending on the trim flight condition requested (i.e., steady wings level flight,
symmetric pull up, coordinated turn etc.).
4
American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics
(21)
The state x may be factored as: f (x) = A(x) x . Then the system equations becomes,
&
x = A(x) x + B(x) u, x(0) = x 0
(22)
This is called extended linearization3. Note that this factorization is not unique. The control of this equation
may be sought by freezing the state instantaneously and posing the following infinite horizon quadratic performance
index:
J=
1
{xT Q(x) x + uT R(x) u}dt
2
0
(23)
where, x = x(t ) , u = u (t ) , Q (x) 0 , and R ( x ) > 0 . The above system may be controlled in a similar fashion as
the LQR control. Provided that the factorized plant is fully controllable, the feedback control may be given
as, u = K (x) x = R 1 (x) BT (x) P (x) x , where P (x) is the solution of the following Algebraic State Dependent
Riccati Equation:
P(x) A(x) + AT (x) P(x) P (x) B(x) R 1 (x) BT (x) P(x) + Q (x) = 0
(24)
This approach is expected to have the usual robustness and asymptotic stability properties of the classical LQR.
The controller is a nonlinear controller which does not require the linearization of the system matrices. One
important issue is to make sure that the system matrices factorized as shown is fully controllable. A physically
controllable system may become uncontrollable from time to time due to the choice of factorization carried out5. To
avoid uncontrollable circumstances, the equations of motion are treated as inner and outer loop states and inputs. In
the inner loop, translational and rotational velocities are considered. The state and input vector of the inner loop are:
x1 = [ u v
u1 = Fx
Fy
Fz
p q r]
Mx
My
(25)
Mz
(26)
Then the inner loop state dependent system matrix, A1 ( x) , and input matrix, B1 (x ) are:
Xu
Yu q / 2
Z +q/2
u
A1 ( x) =
I1 Lu + I 2 N u
Mu
I5 Nu + I 2 Lu
r/2
Yv
p/ 2
I1 Lv + I 2 Nv
0
I5 N v + I 2 Lv
Xq w / 2
p / 2 Yp + w / 2
u / 2
0
Zw
v / 2
Zq + u / 2
0
0
I4q / 2
( I3r + I 4 p) / 2
I 3q / 2
M w I 7 p + I8 r
Mq
I 7 p I8 r
0
I6q / 2
(I6 p I4r ) / 2 I4 q / 2
w/2
r/2
5
American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics
v/2
(27)
0
0 1/ m
B1 ( x ) =
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
I2
0
I5
0
0
0
0
I1
0 1/ Iyy
I2
(28)
where,
2
2
I num = I xx I zz I xz , I1 = I zz / I num , I 2 = I xz / I num , I 3 = ( I yy I zz ) I zz I xz / I num
2
I 4 = ( I xx I yy + I zz ) I xz / I num , I5 = I xx / I num , I 6 = ( I xx I yy ) I xx + I xz / I num
(29)
The outer loop only uses the Euler angle kinematics relations. In addition integral states are also added to avoid
steady state error. Hence,
x 2 = [ , , , I , I , I ] , u 2 = [ p, q, r ]
T
6
American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics
(30)
&
0
&
0
0
&
& =
I 1
&
0
I
I 0
&
0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0
1
+
0 0 0 0 0 I cos
1 0 0 0 0 I
0 1 0 0 0 I
cos
0
0
0
sin sin
cos cos
sin
0
0
0
sin cos
cos sin
p
cos
q
0
r
0
&
x 2 = A 2 x 2 + B 2 ( x 2 ) u2
(31)
(32)
The inner loop feedback gain is computed by solving the SDRE equation. The inputs to the inner loop are the
differences with the reference and current states. This difference is multiplied by SDRE gain calculated online. The
outer loop, on the other hand, uses eigenvalue assignment. The block diagram of the controller is shown in Figure 3.
Those two loops are observable from this figure. In addition, inner loop Riccati equation solver block is shown.
B. Control Allocation
In Eq. (26) controls are defined in terms of forces and moments. They are related to the actual inputs such as
aileron, rudder, elevator, left main engine thrust, right main engine thrust, aft engine thrust, exit guide vane angle,
duct angle etc. In total there are eight physical controls as opposed to three forces and three moments of u1 , making
the system over actuated when all the controls are turned on. The relation between the forces and moments and
actual physical controls may be written as:
u1 = F
(33)
Since the matrix F is a rectangular matrix, one way to invert it is to use Moore-Penrose pseudo inverse (MPinverse), which finds the minimum norm solution of the vector.
1
MP
= FT FF T u1
(34)
However, with MP-inverse the allocation is not controllable. The only control allocation routine, that gives the
desired output, u1 , while controlling the physical inputs, , is the Blended inverse (B-inverse)6.
= qI n + F T F q
BI
desired
+ FT u1
(35)
Here, q is the blending coefficient, usually taken as a scalar. In this manuscript the desired controls are taken as
trim values at the given flight condition. To help controls stay in the neighborhood of the trim values, and prevent
them from saturating, the blending coefficient may be increased exponentially as the controls wander away from
their desire values. For example,
q = diag ( qi exp( i _ error ))
(36)
(37)
where q is a diagonal matrix dynamically changed according to the error between the desired and actual controls.
7
American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics
VII. Conclusion
Modeling, flight simulation and control of a tilt-duct UAV is presented. The trim flight conditions while the
UAV goes from hover to forward flight are calculated and presented. A two loop control algorithm is proposed.
The inner loop uses SDRE control where in the outer loop, eigenvalue assignment is done. It is shown that the
control system successfully controlled the tilt-duct UAV during transition, while resisting nose wind input. Hence
8
American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics
SDRE control is very effective in controlling this nonlinear tilt-duct UAV. It also may be concluded that the Binverse control allocation algorithm realizes the flight stability without saturating the controls and it is reversible.
Acknowledgments
This work is supported by The Scientific and Technological Research Council of Turkey, Project No: 107M346.
References
1
Armutcuoglu, O, Kavsaoglu, M.S. and O. Tekinalp ilt Duct Vertical Takeoff and Landing Uninhabited Aerial Vehicle
Concept Design Study, AIAA Journal of Aircraft, Vol. 41, No. 2, 2004, pp. 215-223.
2
Okan, A., Tekinalp, O., and Kavsaoglu, M., Flight Control of a Tilt-Duct UAV, 1st International Conference on
Unmanned Aerospace Vehicles, AIAA-2002-3466, May 2002.
3
Tayfun Cimen State-Dependent Ricatti Equation (SDRE) Control : A Survey, The International Federation of Automatic
Control, 2008, pp. 3761 - 3775.
4
Hammet,K.D., Hall, C.D., and Ridgley, D.B., Controllability issues in Nonlinear State-Dependent Ricatti Equation
Control, Journal of Guidance Control and Dynamics, Vol. 21, No.5, 1998, pp. 767-773.
5
Coultier, J.R., Stansbery, D.T., Nonlinear, Hybrid Bank-to-Turn / Skid-to-Turn Missile Autopilot Design, AIAA Guidance
Navigation and Control Conference, AIAA-01-5929, 2001.
6
Tekinalp, O., Yavuzoglu, E., A New Steering Law for Redundant Control Moment Gyroscope Clusters, Aerospace
Science and Technology, V. 9, 2005, pp. 626-634.
7
Lan, C-T.E., Roskam, J., Airplane Aerodynamics and Performance, U. of Kansas, Lawrence, Kansas, 1988.
9
American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics
90
80
70
70
80
60
50
40
30
60
50
40
30
20
10
20
10
-10
20
40
60
80
100
10
20
30
Airspeed (m/s)
60
70
80
90
20
-1
Elevator (deg)
50
Elevator vs Speed
15
40
Airspeed (m/s)
10
-2
-3
-5
-4
10
20
30
40
50
Airspeed (m/s)
60
70
80
90
-5
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
Airspeed (m/s)
Figure 6. Trim flight conditions during transition flight. Tilt angle is linearly changed with speed.
10
American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics
80
60
40
20
0
10
20
30
Airspeed (m/s)
Elevator vs Speed
40
50
15
10
5
0
60
40
20
0
-20
10
20
30
40
Airspeed (m/s)
Alpha - Theta vs Speed
10
50
1
Alpha - Theta (deg)
Elevator (deg)
20
80
10
20
30
Airspeed (m/s)
40
50
0.5
0
-0.5
-1
20
30
Airspeed (m/s)
40
Figure 7. Trim flight conditions during transition flight. Pitch attitude is fixed.
11
American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics
50
10
-5
-10
0
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
time[sec]
12
American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics
input[deg]
[deg]
20
output[deg]
10
0
-10
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
time[sec]
u [m/s]
60
40
uinput[m/s]
20
0
uoutput[m/s]
0
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
time[sec]
winput[m/s]
10
w [m/s]
woutput[m/s]
0
-10
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
time[sec]
1000
320
315
800
600
400
310
Altitude [m]
Y Distance [m]
X Distance [m]
0.5
-0.5
200
305
300
295
290
285
20
40
time[sec]
-1
60
20
20
40
time[sec]
280
60
20
40
time[sec]
60
20
60
0.5
0.5
-40
[deg]
[deg]
[deg]
-20
-60
-0.5
-0.5
-80
-100
20
40
time[sec]
60
-1
20
40
60
-1
time[sec]
40
time[sec]
13
American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics
1000
Fy [N]
Fx [N]
500
0
-500
no gust
hor gust 10 m/s
hor gust -10 m/s
10
20
30
40
-1
50
10
time[sec]
Mx [Nm]
Fz [N]
-2000
10
20
30
40
-1
50
10
20
30
40
50
40
50
time[sec]
1
Mz [Nm]
200
My [Nm]
50
time[sec]
0
-200
10
20
30
time[sec]
Figure 10.
40
-1000
-400
30
time[sec]
-3000
20
40
50
-1
10
20
30
time[sec]
Control forces and moments during transition flight. Simulation results with nominal and
horizontal gust.
..
14
American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics
100
ThMR
ThML
100
50
0
no gust
gust 10m/s
gust -10 m/s
10
20
30
40
50
0
50
10
time[sec]
ThAlon
[deg]
0
10
20
30
40
50
10
elev [deg]
ThAlat
10
20
30
40
50
rud [deg]
ail [deg]
40
50
40
50
40
50
0
-20
10
20
30
20
30
time[sec]
10
30
20
time[sec]
20
time[sec]
40
50
1
0
-1
10
time[sec]
Figure 11.
50
50
time[sec]
-1
40
100
50
-1
30
time[sec]
100
20
20
30
time[sec]
Allocated physical controls during transition phase of the flight. Nominal and horizontal gust
acted upon.
15
American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics