Académique Documents
Professionnel Documents
Culture Documents
DE LISBOA
Orientador:
J
uri:
Presidente:
Vogais:
Dezembro de 2007
Resumo
O trabalho desenvolvido e apresentado nesta tese foca o projecto, validacao
e comparacao de diferentes solucoes de controlo nao-linear que permitam um
dirigvel navegar autonomamente. De modo a atingir esta meta, e desenvolvido um modelo nao-linear de seis graus de liberdade do dirigvel baseado
nas equacoes de Lagrange, reproduzindo a resposta do dirigvel a entradas
dos actuadores e a perturbacoes de vento. A linearizacao deste modelo para
diferentes condicoes de equilbrio resulta no conhecido desacoplamento dos
movimentos longitudinal e lateral, e permite uma analise exaustiva do problema de projecto de controlo de dirigveis em todo o envelope de voo. Existem
entao condicoes para propor solucoes alternativas de controlo nao-linear de
modo a obter uma u
nica lei de controlo, valida para diferentes missoes, independente das condicoes de voo, e robusta a perturbacoes realistas de vento.
As metodologias de controlo desenvolvidas neste trabalho com vista ao voo
autonomo de dirigveis sao o Escalonamento de Ganho, a Dinamica Inversa
e o Backstepping. Alem da analise de problemas especficos inerentes ao projecto e implementacao de cada um dos controladores, sao tambem definidos
criterios desejados de desempenho, permitindo a comparacao das diferentes
solucoes. Esta analise, baseada em resultados de simulacao para missoes de
voo completas definidas desde a descolagem ate `a aterragem, e considerando
perturbacoes de vento realistas, e importante de modo a estabelecer a viabilidade da implementacao dos controladores a bordo da plataforma experimental
do dirigvel. Esta tese e parte da investigacao feita na area de controlo de
voo nao-linear de dirigveis nos projectos AURORA e DIVA do Instituto de
Engenharia Mecanica (IDMEC) do Instituto Superior Tecnico, Universidade
Tecnica de Lisboa.
Keywords: Controlo nao-linear, Escalonamento de ganho, Dinamica inversa,
Backstepping, Dirigvel, Modelacao, Controlo de voo.
ii
Abstract
The work developed and presented in this thesis focuses on the design, validation and comparison of different nonlinear control solutions allowing an
airship to navigate autonomously. To accomplish this task, a six-degrees-offreedom nonlinear model of the airship is developed based on the Lagrangian
equations, reproducing the airship response to actuator and wind disturbances
inputs. The linearization of this model for trim conditions over the flight envelope results in the known decoupling of the longitudinal and lateral motions,
and allows a thorough analysis of the airship control design problem over the
entire aerodynamic range. The conditions are then set to propose alternative
nonlinear control solutions so as to have a single control law valid for different
missions, independent of the flight region, and robust to realistic wind disturbances. The control methodologies developed in this work for the airship
autonomous flight are Gain Scheduling, Dynamic Inversion and Backstepping.
Besides the analysis of specific problems inherent to the design and implementation of each controller, desired performance criteria are also defined, allowing
the comparison of the different solutions. This assessment, based on simulation results for complete flight missions defined from take-off to landing, and
considering realistic wind disturbances, is important in order to establish the
viability of the controllers implementation onboard the experimental airship
platform. This thesis is part of the research made in the area of nonlinear
flight control of airships for the AURORA and DIVA projects of the Institute
of Mechanical Engineering (IDMEC) in Instituto Superior Tecnico, Technical
University of Lisbon.
Keywords: Nonlinear control, Gain Scheduling, Dynamic inversion, Backstepping, Airship, Modeling, Flight Control.
iii
iv
Acknowledgments
My first words of appreciation are undoubtedly to my supervisor, Professor
Jose Raul Azinheira. In his words, A PhD thesis is not intended to close
doors, but to open some more. His broad knowledge on subjects like modeling,
control, aerodynamics and instrumentation certainly opened a lot of doors for
me, being at the basis of clarifying and motivating discussions for this work.
I also want to thank Doctor Ely Carneiro de Paiva and Doctor Samuel Siqueira
Bueno of the AURORA project in CenPRA Brazil, one of the leading projects
in autonomous airships research, for the joint work developed even from such
a distance. A more recent project in this area is the Portuguese DIVA project,
whose team I also want to thank for the insight provided in the different aspects
of building an airship.
My appreciation goes also to my colleagues at GCAR, namely Miguel Pedro
Silva for always being available to discuss some of my doubts, and Mario
Mendes for all the technical support provided.
Last but definitely not least, I want to thank Carlos, my family and my friends
for being there. Bem hajam!
vi
Contents
Resumo
Abstract
iii
Acknowledgments
List of Figures
xi
List of Tables
xv
Notation
xvii
Acronyms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . xvii
Nomenclature . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . xviii
Variables description . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . xix
1 Introduction
1.1
1.2
1.3
1.4
1.5
17
2.1
Airship platform . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
2.2
Airship dynamics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
2.2.2
Airship kinematics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32
2.2.3
Airship simulator . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34
vii
viii
CONTENTS
2.3
2.4
2.3.2
Model linearization . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38
Conclusions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43
45
Position errors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45
3.1.1
Path-following . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46
3.1.2
Path-tracking . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46
3.2
3.3
Case-study mission . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50
3.3.2
53
4.1
4.2
Lateral models . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 56
4.2.1
No-roll approximation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 56
4.2.2
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 57
4.3
4.4
Simulation results . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 60
4.5
4.4.1
4.4.2
Conclusions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 65
5 Gain Scheduling
5.1
67
5.1.2
5.2
Scheduling . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 72
5.3
Robustness analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 75
5.4
5.3.1
Performance robustness
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 75
5.3.2
Stability robustness . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 80
Simulation results . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 87
5.4.1
CONTENTS
ix
5.4.2
Case-study mission . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 89
5.4.3
5.5
Conclusions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 97
6 Dynamic Inversion
6.1
99
6.1.2
6.1.3
6.2
6.3
6.4
6.5
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 109
6.4.1
6.4.2
Conclusions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 121
7 Backstepping
125
7.1
7.2
7.3
7.4
7.5
7.6
7.7
7.6.2
Conclusions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 146
149
8.1
8.2
8.3
8.4
Conclusions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 155
157
CONTENTS
A Referentials
161
165
167
171
List of Figures
1.1
1.2
Manned airships. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
1.3
Unmanned airships. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
2.1
2.2
2.3
2.4
2.5
2.6
3.1
3.2
3.3
3.4
4.1
4.2
4.3
4.4
4.5
Trajectory, lateral error and yaw angle for lateral control comparison. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 63
4.6
Sideslip angle, rudder deflection and roll angle for lateral control
comparison. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 64
5.1
5.2
xii
LIST OF FIGURES
5.3
5.4
5.5
5.6
5.7
5.8
5.9
6.2
6.3
6.4
6.5
6.6
6.7
6.8
6.9
7.2
7.3
LIST OF FIGURES
xiii
7.4
7.5
7.6
7.7
7.8
8.1
8.2
8.3
8.4
xiv
LIST OF FIGURES
List of Tables
5.1
6.1
7.1
8.1
8.2
8.3
xv
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 154
xvi
LIST OF TABLES
Notation
Acronyms
ABC
AF
AURORA
CB
CG
CV
DIVA
ECI
GPS
HF
IMU
LQR
LTA
LTI
MIMO
NED
PP
RMS
UAV
xvii
xviii
NOTATION
Nomenclature
Typeface
italic
bold
scalar variables
vector or matrix variables
Subscripts
a
B
e
h
v
w
Superscripts
c
o
regarding the CG
regarding the CV
Operations
cross-product
Others
. variation relative to equilibrium condition or reference
xix
NOTATION
Variables description
Symbol
Domain
Unit
Definition
0i
a
e
r
v
Rii
R
R
R
R
R
R
R
R
R
R
R31
none
rad
rad
m
m
rad
rad
rad
rad
m
rad
rad
R
R
R33
R31
rad
rad
rad/s
rad/s
6
ag
A
B
C
C3
d
h
Ii
J
J
JB
R66
R31
Rnn
Rnm
R31
R33
R61
R
Rii
R33
R66
R33
rad/s
m/s2
m
m
m
none
kg.m2
none
kg.m2
Jv
m
Ma
R33
R
R66
kg.m2
kg
mB
MB
R
R66
kg
MBa
R66
zero matrix
angle of attack
sideslip angle
vertical position error
lateral position error
aileron deflection
elevator deflection
rudder deflection
main propellers vectoring angle
longitudinal position error
pitch angle
angular position vector relative to {i} frame
with Euler angles, [, , ]T
roll angle
yaw angle
cross-product matrix equivalent to
angular velocity and components in {l} frame,
[p, q, r]T
see equation (2.45)
inertial gravity acceleration vector, [0, 0, g]T
n-state dynamic matrix
m-input matrix
CG, center of mass of the airship
cross-product matrix equivalent to OC
disturbance vector
altitude, pD
identity matrix
inertia matrix of the airship
see equation (2.77)
inertia matrix of the buoyancy air, diagonal
matrix
virtual inertia matrix, diagonal matrix
airship mass
generalized apparent mass matrix of the airship
with masses and inertias, Mo + Mv
buoyancy mass
generalized inertial mass matrix of the buoyancy
air with masses and inertias, diag(mB I3 , JB )
generalized apparent mass matrix of the buoyancy
air with masses and inertias, MB + Mv
xx
NOTATION
Symbol
Domain
Unit
Mo
R66
Mv
Mv
R33
R66
mw
O
OC
P
p
R
R31
R31
R61
R31
p
pN or N
pE or E
pD or D
p
R
R
R
R
R31
q
r
R
S
TD
TL
TR
Tx
Ty
Tz
u
u
u
ue
V
v
v
V3
V6
Vt
w
W
x
x
xe
XT
R
R
R33
R33
R
R
R
R
R
R
R
R71
R71
R71
R61
R31
R
R33
R66
R
R
R
R121
R121
R121
R
Definition
input vector, [e , TL , TR , v , a , r , Ty ]T
Chapter 1
Introduction
Contents
1.1
1.2
1.3
1.4
11
1.5
13
H
a um ditado que ensina o genio e uma grande paciencia;
sem pretender ser genio, teimei em ser um grande paciente. As
invencoes s
ao, sobretudo, o resultado de um trabalho teimoso, em
que n
ao deve haver lugar para o esmorecimento.
Alberto Santos-Dumont, 19181
1.1
There is a saying that teaches the genius is a great patience; not intending to be a
genius, I insisted on being very patient. The inventions are, most of all, the result of a
persistent work, where no wilting shall take place. Alberto Santos-Dumont, 1918
CHAPTER 1. INTRODUCTION
Union, the United States and Japan operated semi-rigid airships, while blimps
(nonrigid airships) were operated in many nations.
The war, however, disclosed the vulnerability of airships to aeroplane attack,
and caused the abandonment of the dirigible for offensive military purposes.
The United States was the only power to use airships during World War II,
and the airships played a small but important role. The Navy used them
for minesweeping, search and rescue, photographic reconnaissance, scouting,
escorting convoys, and antisubmarine patrols. Airships accompanied many
oceangoing ships, both military and civilian. Of the 89.000 ships escorted by
airships during the war, not one was lost to enemy action. The Akron and
Macon were two rigid airships built in the United States for the U.S. Navy.
They were the only airships that could launch and retrieve planes in midair
(fig. 1.1(e)).
When the various restrictions imposed by the Treaty of Versailles on Germany
were lifted, Germany was again allowed to construct airships. It built three
giant rigid airships: the LZ-127 Graf Zeppelin, LZ-l29 Hindenburg, and LZ-l30
Graf Zeppelin II. The Graf Zeppelin is considered the finest airship ever built.
It flew more miles than any airship had done to that time or would in the future.
Its first flight was on September 18, 1928. In August 1929, it circled the globe.
Its flight began with a trip from Friedrichshaften, Germany, to Lakehurst, New
Jersey, stopping only at Tokyo, Japan, Los Angeles, California, and Lakehurst.
The trip took twelve days, less time than the ocean trip from Tokyo to San
Francisco. During the ten years the Graf Zeppelin flew, it made 590 flights
including 144 ocean crossings. It flew more than 1.609.344km, visited the
United States, the Arctic, the Middle East, and South America, and carried
13.110 passengers.
When the Hindenburg was built in 1936, Zeppelins had been accepted as a
quicker and less expensive way to travel long distances than ocean liners provided. After making ten transatlantic crossings in regular commercial service
in 1936, when it was preparing to land at Lakehurst, New Jersey, its hydrogen
ignited and the airship exploded and burned (fig. 1.1(f)).
Since the destruction of the Hindenburg, airship activity has been confined
to the nonrigid type of craft. Although airships are no longer used for passenger transportation, they continued to be used for other purposes such as
advertising and sightseeing.
CHAPTER 1. INTRODUCTION
1.2
After half century of hibernation, the interest in using airships for several
different applications is increasing worldwide nowadays [1, 2].
The lift of airships is mainly aerostatic, as opposed to aerodynamic as in
airplanes and helicopters. Consequently, and comparing to other aerial vehicles, airships spend most energy moving and compensating wind disturbances,
rather than trying to keep themselves on air. For this reason, they need less
powerful engines, leading to a lower energy consumption, as well as less noise
or vibrations. They possess a big load capacity and long endurance, and they
can fly at low speeds or even hover. Airships also present a slow degradation
in case of failure and are intrinsically more stable than other platforms.
Considering these characteristics, airships have a wide spectrum of applications as observation and data acquisition platforms. They can be used in
several fields related to biodiversity, ecological and climate research and monitoring. Inspection oriented applications cover different areas such as mineral
and archaeological prospecting, agricultural and livestock studies, crop yield
prediction, land use surveys in rural and urban regions, fire detection and also
inspection of man-made structures such as pipelines, power transmission lines,
dams and roads.
Besides their use in advertising2 and leisure flights3 , manned airships are being used in some of the above mentioned applications, among other. The
US/LTA conducts remote sensing experiments with airships since 1992. In
2000, SkyKitten maiden flight takes place in Cardiff. It is capable of landing
virtually anywhere on land or water without need of ground infrastructure and
carrying heavy payloads. In 2001, the first test of a new airship from CargoLifter, also designed to carry up heavy loads, happens in Berlin. The Russian
company RosAeroSystem commercializes the Au-30 Patrol Airship series. The
Total Pole Airship Project (fig. 1.2(a)), for instance, aims to measure the thickness of the pack ice layer covering the Arctic Ocean, using one of the series.
Two others are used for surveillance of power lines in Russia and one other is
scheduled to monitor traffic conditions in Moscow. With a more humanitarian
purpose, Mineseeker (fig. 1.2(b)) is an airship-based mine detection system
with optical, electro-optical and ground penetrating radar sensors, tested in
2
http://www.globalskyships.com/, http://www.airshipman.com/,
http://www.lightships.com/
3
http://www.zeppelinflug.de/, http://www.nac-airship.com/
CHAPTER 1. INTRODUCTION
High altitude flight provides a unique vantage point for scientific exploration as
well as for observation and surveillance. An airship, with its heavy lifting capacity, provides the potential for carrying certain types of payloads that would
not be practical for other types of high altitude long endurance vehicles. The
main interest in high altitude airships [3] has been for communications or wide
area surveillance. For civilian applications, high altitude airships represent a
low cost alternative to a geostationary satellite. For the military it represents
a versatile platform that can be positioned over key areas of interest quickly
and provide continuous wide area coverage for extended periods of time.
With these goals in mind, in the USA, Lockheed Martin finished a detailed
design of a high-altitude airship prototype airship in support of the Department of Defense, in order to demonstrate, among others, launch and recovery,
station-keeping and flight control capabilities. The Japan Aerospace eXploration Agency (JAXA) [4] has developed and flight tested a 60m-class unmanned airship successfully to the altitude of 4km in October 2004. In Korea [5], the 50m unmanned airship system KARI (fig. 1.3(a)) is developed and
4
5
http://www.jeanlouisetienne.com/.
http://www.airforce-technology.com/projects/mineseeker/.
1.3
During the last decades Unmanned Aerial Vehicle (UAV) systems have evolved
into highly capable machines, used mostly for surveillance and data acquisition
purposes. For a rapid unmanned capability advancement, and from a military
perspective, the US Dept. of Defense presented a UAV roadmap in 2005 [12],
containing a survey of platforms and UAV technologies. From the civilian
side, a capabilities assessment of UAVs use in Earth observations is presented
by NASA [13], addressing the technologies and capabilities required for viable
UAV missions.
Many of the UAV applications require the capacity for autonomous flight,
involving the development of a flight control and navigation system. Several
advances made in this field have been published, applying different control
solutions to a variety of UAVs [14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22].
CHAPTER 1. INTRODUCTION
French projects at LAAS-CNRS (fig. 1.3(e)) [25], and LSC in Universite dEvry
(fig. 1.3(f)) [26]. In the USA there is a partnership between the projects of
STWing-SEAS6 [27] of University of Pennsylvania and the EnviroBLIMP at
CMU7 (fig. 1.3(g)). Recently, Project DIVA - Dirigvel Instrumentado para
Vigilancia Aerea (fig. 1.3(h)) started in Portugal8 , sharing a partnership with
the AURORA Project.
Aiming at the autonomous airship goal, aerial platform positioning and pathtracking should be assured by a control and navigation system. Such a system
needs to cope with the highly nonlinear and underactuated airship dynamics,
ranging from hover flight (defined here as a flight in low airspeed condition) to
cruise or aerodynamic flight. In addition, the abrupt and continuous dynamics
transition between the two regions, and the different use of actuators necessary
within each region, makes that a very difficult issue to be dealt with by the
control scheme.
The most common solution to the highly nonlinear airship dynamics lies in its
linearization. One important result of the linearization approach is the separation of two independent motions: the motion in the vertical plane, named
longitudinal, and the motion in the horizontal plane, named lateral. This
decoupling allows the design of independent controllers for the two motions.
Following this approach, experimental results were obtained for the AURORA
airship for path following through a set of pre-defined points in latitude/longitude,
along with an automatic altitude control [23]. Also based on a linearized airship model, Wimmer et al. [24] introduced a robust controller design method
6
http://www.stwing.org/blimp/
http://www.frc.ri.cmu.edu/projects/enviroblimp/
8
http://paloma.isr.uc.pt/diva/
7
10
CHAPTER 1. INTRODUCTION
to compensate for the lack of knowledge about the Lotte airship dynamic behavior and model parameters. The decoupled longitudinal and lateral control
systems both consist of an inner H -controller for the dynamics and an outer
SISO P- or PI-controller for the remaining states. Experimental results are
shown therein for the pitch and velocity control. We remark that, as far as
we are aware, both experimental results (from Lotte and AURORA Projects)
on automatic control for outdoor airships are the only ones reported in the
literature at this moment.
Also based on linearized decoupled models of the airship, and for aerodynamic
flight, solutions for the lateral control include H [28], H2 /H approach for
the design of a lateral PD-PI controller [29] and state feedback with integral
control [25]. Considering the control of both lateral and longitudinal motions
different solutions are also proposed, namely one-loop-at-a-time PID [30] and
PI control [31], sliding modes techniques [32, 33], vision-based [34, 35, 36, 37],
fuzzy logic [9] and fuzzy logic improved with genetic algorithms [38]. The
LAAS/CNRS autonomous blimp project [39, 40] proposes a global control
strategy including hover and aerodynamic flight. It is achieved by switching
between four sub-controllers based on linear and backstepping solutions, one
for each of the independent flight phases considered, take-off and landing, and
longitudinal and lateral navigation.
The use of linearized model dynamics restricts the validity of the controller to
trim points, or implies the scheduling between controllers. Using a nonlinear
model avoids these limitations, allowing to design an automatic control system
covering all the aerodynamic range, such that the different flight regions, from
hover to aerodynamic flight, are considered inside a sole formulation. For
security reasons, as well as simplicity and flexibility, a global nonlinear control
is more interesting than a linearized and decoupled one.
Considering a nonlinear model, but assuming a simplified case where the dirigible motion is limited to the horizontal plane, Bestaoui and Hima [41] propose
an input-output linearization control. Using a six-degrees-of freedom nonlinear
model of the airship, Beji et al. [26] introduce a backstepping tracking feedback control for ascent and descent flight maneuvers, where the objective is to
stabilize the airship engine around trimmed flight trajectories. Park et al. [42]
also propose an input-output linearization with a neural network applied to
compensate the underlying model errors, to control velocity, pitch and yaw.
Image-based solutions are also used in the control of indoor airships [43, 44, 45].
11
Recently, Guzman [46] compared different control laws that assured reference
tracking in velocity, altitude and heading during aerodynamic flight. The
compared controllers are the classic PID strategy, a generalized predictive
controller and nonlinear first order techniques.
None of these works, with the exception of the LAAS-CNRS group solution
with decoupled controllers [40, 47], presented results for complete missions
including take-off and landing, path-tracking and stabilization. Moreover, seldom are the ones that consider such an important issue as robustness to wind
disturbances. This work, inserted in the AURORA and DIVA projects, aims to
accomplish this task: to develop and compare airship control solutions, valid
for the entire flight envelope and capable of executing realistic missions, while
being robust to wind input.
1.4
Part of the AURORA and DIVA projects objectives lies on the development of
control solutions to provide an airship with autonomous flight capacities. The
progress in this area comprises different stages: (i) control design theoretical
development and analysis; (ii) implementation of the controller in the simulator, and consequent validation; and (iii) experimental validation in autonomous
flight. This work focuses on the first two steps. We propose to design, validate
on simulation and compare different nonlinear control solutions that will allow
an airship to navigate autonomously.
The first milestone is obviously the modeling of the airship, which is a complex dynamic system with six-degrees-of-freedom. Chapter 2 is dedicated to
this objective. In order to provide a general idea of this kind of aerial vehicle,
like usual sensor and actuators available, their configuration and limitations,
the AURORA prototype is described. A model description allows us to better understand the airship behavior using a simulator, and is at the basis of
model-based control laws. The airship equations of motion are comprised of
both dynamics and kinematics, and include the wind input. The dynamics are
obtained using the Lagrangian approach, instead of the Newtonian method
used in [48]. The airship equations of motion provide a good system description, and therefore allow to reproduce the airship response to actuator and
wind disturbances inputs. For demonstration purposes, a simulator based on
the AURORA airship characteristics is available [29]. The complexity of the
12
CHAPTER 1. INTRODUCTION
equations, however, justifies the search for a linear version, a usual practice
in aeronautics. The linearization of the airship model around an equilibrium
condition results in the decoupling of the longitudinal and lateral modes. The
analysis of the different models obtained for trim points over the flight envelope provides a good knowledge of the airship behavior at different airspeeds,
important in order to develop a controller valid for any type of mission.
Before advancing to the control design, some common concepts and tools are
described in Chapter 3. These include references and errors definition, wind
estimation, and the criteria used in the comparison of the different nonlinear
controllers presented.
Chapter 4 is justified as an introduction for the control design part. Considering only linear control, and therefore a single model and controller, the
applicability of the solutions presented is restricted to the regulation of the
state errors, assuring the validity of the linearization at the chosen trim point.
This limitation vanishes if the linear systems and controllers are not fixed but
change with the measured airspeed (which defines an equilibrium condition).
This is the idea of the Gain Scheduling technique presented in Chapter 5,
which extends the validity of the linearization approach to a range of operating
points, instead of a single one. For each linear model obtained, a control law
is designed, and the overall control synthesis is achieved by switching between
models and respective controllers as function of scheduling variables. This is
the first of the three nonlinear control solutions we propose.
This approach, however, depends mostly on the engineer knowledge of the
system for a good choice of the scheduling parameters, resulting in an iterative
and time consuming process. Moreover, its guarantees of success depend on
extensive simulations covering different possible scenarios. This leads to the
search of a single control law, more related to the airship system itself than to
the control designer experience. The Dynamic Inversion approach described in
Chapter 6 is such a methodology. By inverting the system model, a control law
is obtained that cancels existing deficient or undesirable dynamics by replacing
them with a set of desired ones.
The third and last solution is Backstepping, a Lyapunov-based control design
approach presented in Chapter 7. By formulating a scalar positive function
of the system states and then choosing a control law to make this function
decrease, it is guaranteed that the nonlinear control system thus designed will
be stable. Moreover, it will be robust to some unmatched uncertainties.
13
Any of the three control solutions presents its advantages and disadvantages,
many of which are discussed in the respective chapters. Yet, a common comparison between them is important as to provide a better overview of the
different control options. In Chapter 8 this assessment is made considering
parameters such as path-tracking trajectory errors and actuators request for
a case-study complete mission, controller performance robustness in face of
model parameter uncertainty and computational effort. These factors, together with some implementation issues, are relevant to evolve to the next
phase, the experimental validation in autonomous flight.
In Chapter 9, the conclusions of this work summarize the knowledge gained,
and point the directions of our forthcoming investigation.
1.5
14
CHAPTER 1. INTRODUCTION
15
16
CHAPTER 1. INTRODUCTION
Chapter 2
The Airship Model
Contents
2.1
Airship platform . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
18
2.2
19
2.3
2.4
2.2.1
Airship dynamics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
2.2.2
Airship kinematics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32
2.2.3
Airship simulator . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34
34
2.3.1
2.3.2
Model linearization . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38
Conclusions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
43
A good knowledge of the airship model and behavior is essential for a successful control design. For this reason, this chapter presents the airship modeling.
In order to provide a general idea of this kind of aerial vehicle, like usual sensor and actuators available, their configuration and limitations, the AURORA
prototype is described in Section 2.1. The airship nonlinear dynamic model
is introduced in Section 2.2, formed from both dynamic and cinematic equations. The complexity of the nonlinear model justifies the search for a linear
simplified version. Section 2.3 describes the linearization procedure that leads
to the decoupled longitudinal and lateral state-space models. For the insight
it provides on the airship behavior, the longitudinal motion of the airship is
analyzed as function of the airspeed.
Whenever necessary for demonstration purposes, the AURORA airship platform characteristics and configuration are used.
17
18
2.1
Airship platform
The main control and navigation sensors currently used on the airship are (see
fig. 2.2(a)): a GPS with differential correction that provides the inertial position coordinates and velocity; an Inertial Measurement Unit (IMU), which
provides the roll, pitch, and yaw attitude, the angular rates and body axes
linear acceleration, serving as an inclinometer and compass as well; a Wind
sensor that measures the relative airship air speed in all three axes, the aerodynamic incidence angles, as well as the barometric altitude; and a Camera
that provides aerial images for vision processing algorithms.
The airship actuators are its deflection surfaces and two main propellers disposed on each side of the gondola (see fig. 2.2(b)). The four deflection surfaces
at the stern, arranged in a shape with allowable deflections in the range
[25o , +25o ], generate the equivalent rudder r and elevator e commands of
the classical + tail. The aileron command a is obtained with the rotation of the four deflection surfaces in the same direction. The two engines,
with a vectoring angle v within the interval [30o , +120o ], are driven by twostroke engines providing total XT (within [0, 80]N ) and differential TD (within
[0, 40]N ) thrusts. A small lateral stern thruster Ty may also be available, perpendicular to the airship longitudinal axis, to introduce one extra horizontal
input actuation during hovering tasks.
19
GPS antenna
Wind sensor
e
v
XT , TD
_
+
+
_
Camera
GPS, IMU
TY
+ _
(a) Sensors.
(b) Actuators.
Figure 2.2: AURORA airship sensors and actuators. (The aileron command
a is obtained with the rotation of the four deflection surfaces in the same
direction.).
2.2
(2.1)
where:
the state x = [vT , T , pT , T ]T includes the linear v = [u, v, w]T and
angular = [p, q, r]T inertial velocities of the airship expressed in the
{l} frame, the cartesian position p = [pN , pE , pD ]T of its center of volume
in the {i} frame, and the attitude of the airship = [, , ]T given by
the Euler angles;
the input vector u = [e , TL , TR , v , a , r , TY ]T includes the elevator deflection e , the left and right engines thrust TL , TR , the engines vectoring
angle v , the aileron deflection a , the rudder deflection r and the lateral thrust TY (since it is not yet implemented in the AURORA airship,
although mentioned, it will not be used for control);
20
the disturbance vector d includes the wind input (wind velocity) expressed in the {i} frame with a constant term and a six components
vector modeling the atmospheric turbulence (nonconstant wind). It is
represented by linear velocity p w = [pNw , pEw , pDw ]T (a horizontal representation in polar components is [psw , phw ]T , with wind strength psw and
heading phw ) and angular velocity w .
In the attempt to establish a workable mathematical model of the airship flight,
a number of considerations have to be taken into account [48]:
1. the airship displaces a very large volume of air and its virtual (added)
mass and inertia properties become significant, i.e., the LTA vehicle behaves as if it had a mass and moments of inertia substantially higher
than those indicated by conventional physical methods;
2. three kinds of masses and inertia matrices must be considered: the mass
and inertia (m, J) of the vehicle itself; the mass and inertia (mB , JB ) of
the buoyancy air, corresponding to the air displaced by the total volume
of the airship; and the virtual mass and inertia (Mv , Jv ), which may be
regarded as the mass of air around the airship and displaced with the
relative motion of the airship in the air;
3. the airship mass changes in flight due to ballonet deflation or inflation.
However, fuel changes are ignored;
4. the airship is assumed to be a rigid body, and the aeroelastic effects are
neglected.
The airship model (2.1) can be described by two equations. The first one
characterizes the system dynamics with respect to the {l} frame, while the
second one represents the cinematic relation between the {l} and {i} frames.
The next two sections present these two equations, that together describe the
airship nonlinear dynamic model.
2.2.1
Airship dynamics
When the displaced fluid mass is not negligible, as is the case for airships, the
equations of motion are usually derived using the Lagrangian approach [49, 50].
21
Let the motion of the airship be described by its inertial velocity V = [vT , T ]T ,
a 6D vector including the inertial linear (v) and angular () velocities. Let
the surrounding air be described by an inertial wind velocity Vw = [vwT , Tw ]T .
The airship has thus a relative air velocity Va equal to the difference of the
previous two:
Va = V Vw
(2.2)
(2.3)
accounting for:
the vehicle motion, expressed in the center of gravity C, with M c =
diag(mI3 , J) is the generalized mass matrix:
1
W c = VcT M c Vc
2
(2.4)
the kinetic energy added to the buoyancy air (displaced by the airship
volume), expressed in the center of buoyancy O where the {l} frame is
fixed (we will drop the O to lighten the notation), and where MB =
diag(mB I3 , JB ) is the generalized mass matrix of the buoyancy air:
1
1
WBo = VT MB V + VaT MB Va
2
2
(2.5)
the energy due to an extra virtual mass, also expressed in O, and where
Mv = diag(Mv , Jv ) is the generalized virtual mass matrix:
1
Wvo = VaT Mv Va
2
(2.6)
(2.7)
We can represent all terms of the kinetic energy in the {l} frame considering
that the linear speed of the CG (vc ) is related to the linear speed of the CV
22
(2.8)
"
I3 C3
03 I3
(2.9)
(2.10)
with:
Mo =
"
I3 03
C3 I3
Mc
"
I3 C3
03 I3
"
mI3
mC3
mC3 J mC23
(2.11)
(2.13)
as:
0
a = az
ay
az
0
ax
ay
ax
0
23
W
q
W
q
(2.14)
(2.15)
"
ST 03
03 R
#"
q = J V
(2.16)
cos cos
sin cos
sin
S = cos sin sin sin cos sin sin sin + cos cos cos sin
cos sin cos + sin sin sin sin cos cos sin cos cos
(2.17)
R= 0
cos
sin
0 sin / cos cos / cos
(2.18)
The first term of the kinetic energy corresponding to the case with no wind is
then:
1
W1 = VT Ma V
2
(2.19)
24
W1 = q T JT
M a J q
2
(2.20)
(J Ma J1
=
) + (J Ma J ) q
q
2
1
= JT
M a J q
(2.21)
W1
q
1
1
+ JT M J1 q
+ JT
= (JT
a
Ma (J )q
) Ma J q
= JT
Ma V + (J ) Ma V
(2.22)
(J1
)J + J J = 0
(2.23)
=
(q J Ma J1
q)
q
2 q
= KMa V
(2.24)
with:
J1
K=
q
q
"
03 03
K1 K2
"
#
q
J1
J1
q
(2.25)
The generalized force relative to the kinetic energy with no wind is then obtained from the difference between (2.22) and (2.24) according to (2.14):
= JT
F1 (q, q)
Ma V + (J ) Ma V KMa V
(2.26)
We will now proceed applying (2.14) to the second term of equation (2.13).
We start defining the wind coordinates vector as:
T
qw = [pNw , pEw , pDw , w , w , w ]T = pTw , Tw
(2.27)
25
whose time derivative is related with the wind velocity vector Vw by:
"
p w
w
"
ST 03
03 R
#"
vw
w
q w = J Vw
(2.28)
(2.29)
W2
q
=0
(2.30)
(2.31)
with:
w
Kw =
J1
q
q
"
03
03
Kw1 Kw2
"
w
J1
q
#
w
J1
q
(2.32)
The generalized force relative to W2 is then obtained from the difference between (2.30) and (2.31) according to (2.14):
= Kw MBa Vw
F2 (q, q)
(2.33)
(2.34)
we obtain:
=
F3 (q, q)
JT
h
iT
1
(2.35)
26
F(q, q)
=JT
Ma V + (J ) Ma V KMa V Kw MBa Vw
h
i
) T M V + K M V + KM V
w (J1
JT
V
M
Ba
Ba w
w
Ba
Ba w
(2.36)
Considering that:
F(V) = JT F(q, q)
(2.37)
we have:
T
T
+ (JT (JT
F(V) =Ma V
) J K)Ma V J Kw MBa Vw
h
iT
1
T
(2.39)
(2.40)
Vw3 = RT Kw1
(2.41)
0 = RT Kw2
(2.42)
where V3 , and Vw3 denote the antisymmetric cross-product matrices corresponding, respectively, to the operations v, and vw , leads to:
T
JT (JT
) J K = 6 + V6
(2.43)
JT Kw = Vw6
(2.44)
whereas:
V6 =
"
03 03
V3 03
6 =
"
03
03
Vw6 =
"
03 03
Vw3 03
(2.45)
The dynamics equation of the airship in the inertial frame is then given by:
+ (6 + V6 )Ma V MBa V
w (6 + V6 )MBa Vw Vw6 MBa (V Vw )
F = Ma V
(2.46)
27
in accordance with the equations derived by Thomasson in [50], using quasicoordinates, without the gradient terms.
Let us now deduce the dynamics equation in the air frame which we will
limit to the case of constant translation wind velocity in the inertial frame.
Considering that (see Appendix A.2):
w =
p
dvw
= v w + vw
dt
(2.47)
we have:
constant wind v w = vw
(2.48)
translation wind w = 0
(2.49)
(2.50)
(2.51)
(2.52)
Considering that:
Ma MBa =
"
(m mB )I3
mC3
mC3
J mC23 JB
(2.53)
28
"
"
0
m(C3 C3 )vw
0
(Va6 + Vw6 )(Ma MBa )(Va + Vw ) =
(Va3 + Vw3 )mC3
#
"
0
Va6 MBa Va =
Va3 Mv va
(2.54)
#
(2.55)
(2.56)
Substituting equalities (2.54)-(2.56) into equation (2.52) and knowing that the
cross-product satisfies the Jacobi Identity2 , leads to:
a + 6 Ma Va +
F = Ma V
"
0
Va3 (Mv va mC3 )
(2.57)
Finally, since:
"
0
Va3 (Mv va mC3 )
= Va6 Ma Va
(2.58)
we obtain the dynamics equation of the airship in the air frame for a constant
translation wind:
a + (6 + Va6 )Ma Va
F = Ma V
(2.59)
which has the same form as equation (2.46) for the no-wind case, i.e., equation (2.46) is invariant under a steady translation, as pointed out in [52].
Let us now go back to equation (2.46). We can write it as:
= Fkw + F
Ma V
(2.60)
a (b c) + b (c a) + c (a b) = 0
29
namic pressure ( 12 Vt2 , with the air density), identified in wind tunnel tests.
This means all terms proportional to the square of the airspeed in Fkw are
already included in Fa and are at the moment accounted twice in the dynamic
model.
A closer look at (2.61) shows that:
FV V6 Ma V + V6 MBa Vw + Vw6 MBa Va
= V6 (Ma MBa )V Va6 MBa Va
(2.62)
(2.63)
According to [48], the gravitational force Fg , which adds the weight force
applied at the GC and the buoyancy force applied at the CV, is a function of
the transformation matrix S:
#
# "
"
m w I3
S(m mB )ag
Sag = Eg Sag
(2.64)
=
Fg =
mC3
OC Smag
with the gravity acceleration ag = [0, 0, g]T given in the {i} frame and the
airship weighting mass defined as the difference between its weight and its
buoyancy, mw = m mB .
Finally, the dynamic equation of the airship in the inertial frame is given by:
= 6 Ma V V6 (Ma MBa )V + MBa V
w + 6 MBa Vw + Eg Sag +Fa + Fp
Ma V
{z
} | {z }
|
Fkw
Fg
(2.65)
(2.66)
Fg
30
2.2.1.1
(2.67)
with the state only depending part Fa (Va ) and the control surfaces force input
Fa (), we may rewrite equations (2.65)-(2.66), respectively, as:
= 6 Ma V V6 (Ma MBa )V + MBa V
w + 6 MBa Vw
Ma V
+ Eg Sag + Fa (Va ) + uf
(2.68)
31
the tail surfaces depend on the airspeed and their authority vanishes in
the no-wind case, leaving the airship to be controlled by the force inputs
only;
all the actuators have level and rate saturation limits, that cannot be
avoided;
the force actuators, in particular, have their own dynamics, with limited
response times, that must be taken into account.
The relation between actuators and force inputs may then be established for
design purposes, neglecting the actuators dynamics, using the airspeed measurement and resolving the possible redundancies according to the usual operation of the airship [23] (the airship aerodynamic angles also have their effect,
but they may be neglected on a first approach, assuming small angles):
uf = fu (u, Vt )
(2.70)
32
(2.71a)
fv = k2 r
(2.71b)
fw = XT sin v + k3 e
(2.71c)
fp = k2 l4 a + b4 sin v TD
(2.71d)
fq = XT b3 cos v + k5 e
(2.71e)
fr = k2 l6 r + b4 cos v TD
(2.71f)
2.2.2
Airship kinematics
For control and navigation purposes, the velocity vector V, expressed in the
airship {l} frame, must be transformed to the {i} frame. This leads to the
cinematic relations.
Consider the airship position is given by its coordinates in the {i} frame and the
attitude is described in terms of the Euler angles (, , ). Then, the airship
position may simply be regarded as the integration of the inertial velocity in
the {i} frame:
N
u
T
E =S v
D
w
(2.72)
where S is the orthogonal transformation matrix (2.17) that satisfies the equation:
S = S
(2.73)
Similarly, the time derivatives of the Euler angles may be related to the local
33
p
= R q
(2.74)
(2.75)
(2.76)
with:
J =
"
ST 03
03 R
(2.77)
and:
J = J CJ , with CJ =
"
03
03 (R1 )R
(2.78)
The kinematics equation may also be given considering the air relative velocity
by:
= J (Va + Vw )
P
(2.79)
"
I3
03
(2.80)
34
2.2.3
Airship simulator
Based on the 6 degrees of freedom nonlinear model compounded by equations (2.68), (2.71) and (2.76), a MATLABr /Simulinkr -based simulator was
built, allowing the design and validation of flight control and guidance strategies [29]. The simulator block diagram of the airship open-loop model is represented in fig. 2.3.
wind / turbulence
input
uc
actuators
model
airship
nonlinear model
x
2.3
2.3.1
35
(2.81)
A trim point of the system (2.81) is then a point (x, u) = (xe , ue ) such that
the airship is in equilibrium, with a subset y e of its derivatives null:
x e = f (xe , ue )
(2.82)
y e = Cx e = 0
(2.83)
This implies there is a balance between forces acting on the airship and the
airship will remain in that particular flight condition until some disturbance
or some control input occurs.
The first step, prior to the system linearization, is to find the solutions (xe , ue )
of (2.82)-(2.83) over the flight envelope, i.e., for varying airspeed. Due to the
complex functional dependence of the aerodynamic data, this cannot be done
analytically. A numerical way to do so is to specify a convex optimization problem, with the following constraints for the restricted case problem of a straight
level flight at a given constant altitude he = De and constant airspeed Vte :
for steady flight, the derivatives of the linear and angular velocities are
= 0;
zero: v,
for steady straight flight, the derivative of the vertical position and the
= 0;
angular velocity are zero: D,
for symmetric pure longitudinal flight, the sideslip and roll angles are
zero: , = 0;
from the cinematic relation (2.74), the derivatives of the Euler angles are
= 0;
zero:
for still straight flight, the left and right engines thrust is equal: TL = TR ;
no need for lateral actuation: a , r , Ty = 0;
36
u2 + v 2 + w2 = Vte ;
(2.84)
(2.85)
37
100
12
90
mw = 1kg
mw = 3kg
mw = 5kg
80
70
60
6
e (deg)
ve (deg)
mw = 1kg
mw = 3kg
mw = 5kg
10
50
40
4
2
30
20
10
-2
0
-10
7
8
Vt (m/s)
10
11
12
13
14
-4
15
8
7
Vt (m/s)
10
11
12
14
13
15
60
mw = 1kg
mw = 3kg
mw = 5kg
50
2
0
40
XTe (N )
ee (deg)
-2
-4
30
-6
20
-8
mw = 1kg
mw = 3kg
mw = 5kg
-10
-12
-14
8
7
Vt (m/s)
10
11
12
13
14
10
15
7
8
Vt (m/s)
10
11
12
13
14
15
Figure 2.4: Trim values of state and control input for different weighting
masses mw over the flight envelope.
It can be seen in fig. 2.4(b) that the need for a higher pitch angle occurs in
the mid-range airspeeds, when the airship is asking for more aerodynamic lift.
At low airspeeds, as this extra up force is supplied by the propellers vectoring
and the aerodynamic efficiency decreases, this is no longer necessary.
Also observed is, the lower the weighing mass, the lower the pitch angle necessary to provide the sufficient aerodynamic force to maintain the equilibrium
condition.
The necessary lift is obtained through the pitch angle, which in turn produces
a pitch rate, that must be compensated by the elevator control surface action
represented in fig. 2.4(c), which justifies the similarity of both curves. At low
airspeeds, the elevator, as all the control surfaces, has reduced authority since
its action is a function of the dynamic pressure and varies with the squared
38
airspeed [53].
The elevator deflection is almost the same for the three kinds of weighting
conditions, except in the transition area.
At low airspeeds, the total thrust, represented in fig. 2.4(d), is demanded basically to generate the upward force for weight compensation. At high airspeeds,
however, it is demanded mainly to compensate for the drag forces, which increase with the square of the airspeed [1] and do not depend on the weighting
condition.
2.3.2
Model linearization
(2.86)
f
A
x x=xe ,u=ue
f
B
u
(2.88)
= x xe
x
(2.89)
= u ue
u
(2.90)
(2.87)
x=xe ,u=ue
(2.91)
39
nal at a time, and then computing the resulting accelerations. The elements
of the A and B matrices are approximated as:
fi (xj ) fie
fi
xj
xj
fi
fi (uj ) fie
Bij =
uj
uj
Aij =
(2.92)
(2.93)
where fi (xj ), fi (uj ) are the accelerations at the disturbed state and input,
xj , uj are the perturbation value of the jth state and input and fie is the
value of fi at the equilibrium condition.
The linearized model (2.91), i.e., the dynamic matrix A and the input matrix
B, depend on the trim point chosen for the linearization, and in particular of
the chosen airspeed Vte and altitude he .
Note that, as seen in Section 2.2.1, the airship dynamics represented in the
inertial frame when no wind disturbance is present corresponds to the airship
dynamics represented in the air frame for constant translation wind. This
means the state vectors (2.89) may contain either v or va , as long as there is
no wind or it is a steady translation one.
As a result of the system linearization, and as usual in aeronautics, two independent (decoupled) motions may be considered: the motion in the vertical
plane, named longitudinal, and the motion in the horizontal plane and rolling,
named lateral. The corresponding linearized models will be presented next.
The analysis of the eigenvalues of the dynamic matrices A will allow us to
make an approximate description of the airship stability modes [1].
2.3.2.1
Longitudinal model
u
u
e
w
= Av w + Bv
T
(2.94)
X
q
q
40
T = TL + TR is the change in
where e is the change in elevator deflection, X
thrust demand and v is the change in the vectoring angle.
When necessary, the altitude may be introduced as an additional integrating
state of the longitudinal motion, since:
Vte w
h
(2.95)
3
0.5
-0.5
1 surge
:
-1.5
-12
3 longitudinal pendulum
:
-10
-8
-4
-6
Real axis (rad/s)
-2
The surge mode is described by a real pole with a long time constant and is
associated to the forward speed u. The influence of the airspeed increase in this
mode is hardly noticeable. The other real pole, associated with the vertical
41
speed w
(or, equivalently, the angle of attack ), describes, at hover (poles
indicated by ), the heave mode. As the airspeed increases (poles indicated
by ), the mode becomes faster and develops into a pitch subsidence. This
mode is described by the faster of the two real poles.
The longitudinal pendulum mode corresponds to the complex pair of poles that
is associated to the pitch angle and the pitch rate q. In the hover condition the
damping is zero and the pendulum oscillation property in this mode becomes
evident. As the airspeed increases the frequency decreases. The damping, on
the other hand, augments, reaching its maximum value in the transition region
with a near coupling of the four modes.
All modes are stable (marginally for air-hover) over the flight envelope.
2.3.2.2
Lateral model
In the lateral case, the state vector considered for the dynamic characteristics
T and the input vector is given by u
h = [
h = [a , r , TD ]T . All the
is x
v , p, r, ]
variables represent the variations around the trim value, which for the lateral
case corresponds to xeh = 0 and ueh = 0 (see Section 2.3.1).
Therefore, the lateral dynamic equation is given by:
v
p
r
= Ah
v
p
r
+ Bh
r
TD
(2.96)
(2.97)
Figure 2.6 shows the change in the poles of the linearized lateral model with
the airspeed Vt .
In the hover condition (poles indicated by ), the zero damping of the complex
pair of poles characterizes the oscillatory roll mode related to the roll rate p
42
3
3
-1
-2
-3
-6
1 sideslip subsidence
:
2
: yaw subsidence
3 roll oscillation
:
-5
-4
-2
-3
Real axis (rad/s)
-1
2.4. CONCLUSIONS
43
2.4
Conclusions
This chapter presented the airship nonlinear model, based on both dynamics
and kinematics analysis. The UAV model introduced considers all forces that
act upon it, namely, aerodynamics, gravity, propulsion, kinematics and wind.
The nonlinear model is, however, too complex to allow a system analysis.
Therefore, a linearization procedure was followed to obtain the linearized models of the decoupled airship motions, lateral and longitudinal. The observation
of the poles location of each individual system as function of airspeed, provides
a good knowledge of the airship behavior over the flight envelope. The fact, for
example, that the damping of the oscillatory roll mode approximates zero near
hover, indicates that this motion should not be overlooked at low airspeeds.
The airship is controlled by the action of two vectored propellers and control
surfaces. It was seen, however, that these actuators authority or influence is
not constant. In fact, it varies as function of the airspeed. This indicates that
the action of the different actuators shall depend not only on the goal mission
which may include, for instance, groundspeed tracking, but also on the wind
disturbances present since they have influence in the resulting airspeed.
All this information and knowledge is undoubtedly essential to the next chapters, where the control of the airship will be addressed.
44
Chapter 3
Common Concepts and Tools
Contents
3.1
Position errors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
45
3.1.1
Path-following . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46
3.1.2
Path-tracking . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46
3.2
47
3.3
49
. . . . . . . .
3.3.1
Case-study mission . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50
3.3.2
3.1
Position errors
46
3.1.1
Path-following
The path-following problem considers a reference trajectory defined by waypoints, not being therefore time-dependent. This means the lateral and
vertical position errors at a given time are defined as the closest distances
(respectively, in the horizontal and vertical planes) between the airship position
p and the reference trajectory (see fig. 3.1). This reference, given any AB
segment, defines the {r} frame.
vh
vv
B
xr
dh
dv
yr
p
zr
= |projvv dv | = vvT dv
3.1.2
(3.1)
(3.2)
Path-tracking
The path-tracking problem differs from the path-following one by the fact that
the reference path is in this case time-dependent. The reference coordinates
may be obtained from given way-points if a desired velocity is also set. This is
the case of the missions considered in this work, as will be seen ahead in this
chapter.
47
Consider the airship is at position p(t) when it is supposed to be at the reference position pr (t). This reference point lies in the desired trajectory defined
by the given way-points A and B, which define the reference frame {r} (see
fig. 3.2).
xi
xr
B
r
xl
p(t)
Nr
pr(t)
yl
A
Er
E
yr
yi
N Nr
= = Sr E Er
D Dr
(3.3)
3.2
The first idea is that the attitude reference shall be coincident with the reference trajectory attitude r . However, there are two situations when this is
not desirable: in the presence of wind disturbances (a certainty when flying
outdoors) and if the objective is ground-hover (since r is arbitrarily defined).
An aircraft of conventional shape must fly against the apparent wind in order
to have low drag [53]. This is also true for airships, moreover because of the
48
lateral underactuation. So, whenever there is wind, the airship will try to align
itself with the relative air, reducing the sideslip angle (see Appendix A). For
this reason, the relative air attitude ar is chosen as attitude reference.
We compute ar following these four steps (see fig. 3.3):
1. with the airship attitude and the aerodynamic variables Vt , and
(all measured variables), compute de inertial air velocity p a :
Vt
p a = ST va = ST STa 0
0
(3.4)
(3.5)
(3.6)
B
.
pw
.
pr
.
p
r
pr
.
pa
.
pw
xl
.
pa
A
yl
yi
49
(3.7)
(3.8)
3.3
One of the objectives of this work is to compare the performance of the different
control methodologies used. The performance will be evaluated according to
the following three criteria:
Airship behavior for a selected case-study mission. This mission is defined to be representative of a realistic case. The controller performance
will be mainly evaluated by the airship path-tracking errors (see Section 3.1.2) and the actuators request.
Sensitivity and robustness to parameter uncertainty. The controller
should guarantee the stability of the closed-loop system even in the
present of wind disturbances and model parameter uncertainty.
Computational effort. For a real-time implementation to be possible, the
computational time taken by the controller is an important measure of
its performance.
50
3.3.1
Case-study mission
The simulation examples presented throughout this work consider a 3kg weighting mass. The controllers are implemented at 10Hz. This frequency is high
enough when compared with the frequency of the airship dynamic system,
that the continuous control design is still applicable. The fastest frequency
obtained in open-loop is approximately 2rad/s 0.32Hz for the roll oscillation pendulum.
Although other missions might occasionally be used to demonstrate the controllers performance, the following airship mission, realistic and in agreement
with the airship characteristics, will be used for comparison between controllers. It starts with a vertical take-off, a path-tracking with two semicircles, airship stabilization for ground-hover, and finally a vertical landing
(see fig. 3.4).
60
50
h (m)
40
1
3
30
20
10
0
200
100
0
300
200
100
-100
-200
N (m)
0
-100
E (m)
Figure 3.4: Case-study mission reference. North N , east E and altitude reference (bold) and projections (normal).
The same initial conditions are considered, namely at the position (Ni , Ei , hi ) =
(30, 20, 1)m and with attitude (i , i , i ) = (10, 1, 20)o . The airship has
then 15s to be stabilized at the initial reference point pr0 = (Nr0 , Er0 , hr0 ) =
(30, 20, 5)m so as to be stable and ready to start the mission. From this
point, the vertical take-off at 1m/s climbing rate begins, finishing at the first
point of the horizontal path-tracking pr1 = (Nr1 , Er1 , hr1 ) = (30, 20, 50)m.
At 7m/s groundspeed, the airship is to track a reference path provided, comprised of straight lines and two semi-circles of 200m diameter. Although in
this mission we do not always use a straight line reference, with a groundspeed
51
of 7m/s and a 200m circle radius, the approximation is quite acceptable since
the yaw rate is fairly small. Obviously, the angular reference must be adapted
to the case. When reaching the point pr2 = (Nr2 , Er2 , hr2 ) = (100, 0, 50)m,
the path-tracking gives place to the airship stabilization at the coordinates
pr3 = (Nr3 , Er3 , hr3 ) = (30, 20, 50)m during 40s, preparing it for vertical
landing at pr4 = (Nr4 , Er4 , hr4 ) = (30, 20, 1)m at 0.5m/s descent rate.
In order to test the controllers robustness to wind disturbances, the airship is
submitted to a 4m/s constant wind blowing from northwest at 20o , added to
a 3D 3m/s continuous turbulence.
This mission, defined to be representative and illustrative of a realistic case,
clearly represents a challenge for the automatic control system, as (i) the dynamics varies from air-hover to aerodynamic flight during the path-tracking,
(ii) the wind input has different incidence angles (as the trajectory is circular) and also stochastic components, and (iii) the mission includes vertical
maneuvers.
3.3.2
Some of the parameters that describe the airship system are likely to be uncertain. These parameters are mostly the aerodynamic model parameters,
obtained in wind tunnel experiments. The weighting mass or heaviness, which
represents the difference between the weight and buoyancy forces, is also considered, since the equilibrium flight is mostly affected by its value. The parameters for which some uncertainty is assumed are then:
mw - weighting mass;
Clp , CMq , CNr - roll, pitch and yaw damping aerodynamic coefficients;
CD0 , CL0 - drag and lift coefficients;
CM - pitching moment coefficient;
CDi , CY , CL - aerodynamic force coefficient derivatives;
Cl , CM , CM , CM , CM , CN - aerodynamic torque coefficient derivatives;
CLe , CYr , CMe , CNr - aerodynamic input coefficient derivatives.
52
The mission considered for the evaluation of the controllers sensitivity and
robustness to parameter uncertainty corresponds to a straight line at 50m
altitude aligned with the north axis, which the airship is to follow at 8m/s
groundspeed.
The control laws are designed considering a deterministic model of the airship,
named nominal. However, the real airship system has a wind disturbance
input, since in a real flight wind disturbances are always present. The following
wind perturbation, with two components, is considered:
constant wind blowing from west at 4m/s;
turbulent gust, with an intensity of 3m/s, which is an intermediate value,
in a scale from 0m/s for clear air with no turbulence, to 7m/s for a
hurricane [54].
For the baseline simulation, we consider no error in the model parameters,
only wind disturbance input for the aerodynamic flight described. For selected
variables, we then compare the Root Mean Square (RMS) values obtained in
this baseline simulation with the RMS results obtained repeating the simulation varying each of the above parameters. The parameters vary one at a time
in order to allow the evaluation of the influence of each one.
Chapter 4
Classical Approach: Linear
Control
Contents
4.1
55
4.2
Lateral models . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
56
4.2.1
No-roll approximation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 56
4.2.2
4.3
58
4.4
Simulation results . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
60
4.5
4.4.1
4.4.2
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 62
Conclusions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
65
54
55
4.1
[
u, w,
q, ] and the input u
v = [e , XT , v ] .
With the purpose of maintaining the trim conditions chosen for linearization,
namely a straight level flight at a chosen airspeed Vte and altitude he , the
regulation of these two variables is an important issue.
Assuming either no wind is present or a steady translation one is, we can
substitute the groundspeeds u and w respectively by the airspeeds ua and wa
in the state vector x
v .
Also, as referred in Section 2.3.2.1, the altitude may be added to the model
as an additional integrating state of the longitudinal motion. Using equation (2.95) and for D = h:
w Vte
D
(4.1)
u a
w a
q
av11
av21
av31
0
av41
av12
av22
av32
1
av42
av13
av23
av33
0
av43
0 av14
0 av24
0 av34
0 Vte
0 av44
ua
wa
q
e
T
X
(4.2)
are the coefficients of the constant matrices Av and Bv
56
(4.3)
(4.4)
q = q
= e
(4.5)
(4.6)
and is the vertical position error measured in the trajectory reference frame
(see Section 3.1).
4.2
Lateral models
The lateral model used in Section 2.3.2.2 for the dynamic characteristics anal T and the input u
h = [
h = [a , r , TD ]T .
ysis considered the state x
v , p, r, ]
However, two different models will be used for control purposes.
4.2.1
No-roll approximation
The three degrees of freedom approximation that describes the coupling between the yawing and rolling oscillations is called Dutch-roll motion in the
flight control literature [57, 53]. For the airship case we may neglect the
rolling motion, p, 0, and we designate the remaining side slipping and
yawing motions as no-roll mode. In this case, the aileron a , whose function
is to regulate the roll movement, is not used for control. For the same reason,
the differential thrust TD is not used in hover flight (when v 90o ). When
in aerodynamic flight (v 0o ), the differential thrust TD and the rudder r ,
both control the yaw angle. Since at these airspeeds the control surfaces show
a high authority, the rudder will be used over the differential thrust.
Assuming the reference path aligned with north, and for position control or
guidance, this no-roll approximation can be complemented with the lateral
whose dynamic equations are given by:
position E and the yaw angle ,
E Vte sin Vte
= r/ cos
e
(4.7)
(4.8)
For a generic
where e is the trim value of the pitch angle, and sin .
57
v a
r
ah11
ah13
ah31
ah33
0
0
0 1/ cos e
0 0
0 0
0 Vte
0 0
va
r
bh12
bh32
0
0
(4.9)
where ahij and bhij are the coefficients of the Ah and Bh constant matrices
defined in (2.96). The state variables are given by:
4.2.2
va = va vae = Vt sin
(4.10)
r = r
= ar
(4.11)
(4.12)
(4.13)
where the positive constant k is obtained by observing the yaw rate originated
by different values of airspeed and rudder deflection. The negative sign is
due to the convention that a positive rudder deflection leads to a negative
yaw rate. This equation results from simulation and flight observations, which
show that the yaw rate obeys an almost proportional relation with the product
of airspeed and rudder deflection, when in aerodynamic flight.
Substituting this simplified dynamics into (4.8), yields:
(kVte / cos e )r
(4.14)
=
The time derivative of a variable z may be written as the product z = dz
dt
z x
x
where t = u is the longitudinal groundspeed. Assuming u Vte , valid
x t
in the no-wind case, it is possible to rewrite equations (4.7) and (4.14) now in
58
dz
dx
(4.15)
(4.16)
"
0 1
0 0
#"
"
0
kv
(4.17)
which, for the assumptions made earlier, is only valid when in aerodynamic
flight.
4.3
This section briefly describes the LQR theory. The reader is referred to [56, 55]
for a more in depth survey.
Consider the linear time-invariant (LTI) dynamical system:
= A
x
x + B
u,
(t0 ) = x
0
x
(4.18)
(4.19)
The pair (A, B) is stabilizable if there exists a real matrix K such that A BK is
stable.
59
T R
(
xT Q
x+u
u)dt
(4.20)
t0
(4.22)
Under the assumptions made above a unique solution exists, and the closedloop dynamics, obtained by substituting (4.19) into (4.18):
= (A BK) x
(4.23)
(4.24)
While the design of the linear controller only involves the state and input
), its implementation produces and requires the complete
variations (
x and u
variables (x and u). For instance, the actuation request u has a feedback
and a feedforward component ue , as illustrated in fig. 4.1(b).
component u
60
xe
= A
x
x + B
u
ue
u
- l
-
++
K
(a) Design.
airship
?
- l
K
(b) Implementation.
4.4
Simulation results
This section presents illustrative simulation results of the airship linear control
using the longitudinal and lateral models presented, and implemented according to the block diagram in fig. 4.1(b).
4.4.1
This section focuses on the longitudinal control using model (4.2). The purpose
is airspeed and altitude regulation, so the desired operating conditions are
maintained.
The chosen equilibrium values are 10m/s for airspeed and 50m for altitude.
This corresponds to an aerodynamic flight. In order to observe only the longitudinal behavior, the trajectory coincides with a straight line. The simulation
starts with no wind, and at t = 20s a 3m/s wind starts blowing from north.
Figure 4.2 shows the cartesian position variables. The motion is only made
along the longitudinal plane, as may be noticed by the trajectory and altitude
graphics. The altitude regulation is well achieved, with an error inferior to
0.6m. However, it presents a small static error, which (if considered significant)
may be canceled including an integrator state in the model.
The state Q and input R weighting matrices are set as (in SI units):
R
) = diag(1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 0.1)
Q(
ua , wa , q, , ,
T , v ) = diag(500, 0.1, 1000)
R(e , X
(4.25)
(4.26)
61
50.6
50.4
h (m)
N (m)
400
200
50.2
50.0
0
-200
0
E (m)
49.8
200
40
20
Time (s)
60
11
14
10
13
Vt (m/s)
u (m/s)
9
8
11
10
7
6
12
20
40
Time (s)
60
40
20
Time (s)
60
Finally, in fig. 4.4 it is possible to see the control action. As expected, only
the engines thrust and the elevator deflection are necessary to accomplish the
airspeed and altitude regulation objectives (the vectoring angle variation is
negligible). In face of the wind incidence, the thrust XT is reduced until
the equilibrium airspeed value is attained, which is possible by reducing the
groundspeed. The engines vectoring v is close to zero as expected for an
aerodynamic flight. The rudder deflection is zero, since no lateral control is
used.
62
32
0.76
31
0.74
v (deg)
XT (N )
30
29
20
40
Time (s)
0.66
60
40
20
Time (s)
60
40
20
Time (s)
60
0.5
r (deg)
e (deg)
1.0
3
2
0.0
-0.5
1
0
0.70
0.68
28
27
0.72
20
40
Time (s)
60
-1.0
Figure 4.4: Control action for airspeed and altitude regulation: total thrust XT ,
vectoring angle v , elevator e and rudder r (. equilibrium value, real
value without integrator, real value with D integrator).
4.4.2
The purpose of this section is to compare the performance of the lateral approximation models, no-roll approximation and space domain. The equilibrium conditions, necessary to the validity of the models, are guaranteed by the
longitudinal controller, regulating both airspeed and altitude.
The simulation considers an aerodynamic flight at Vte = 10m/s and De =
50m subject to three tests:
initial alignment on a straight line segment, with no wind incidence.
The airship starts deviated from the reference trajectory at (Ni , Ei ) =
(0, 10)m and with an orientation i = 10o ;
reference trajectory following. The airship has to track a two-segment
trajectory in the shape of a 50o elbow, corresponding to the crossing of
a route way-point, again with no wind incidence;
robustness to disturbances. At t = 60s wind starts blowing from northwest at 3m/s.
63
For the no-roll approximation, the state Q and input R weighting matrices
are set as (in SI units):
= diag(1, 1, 1, 1)
Q(
va , r, , )
R(r ) = diag(1000)
(4.27)
(4.28)
while for the space domain approximation they are set as:
= diag(1, 1)
Q(, )
R(r ) = diag(1000)
(4.29)
(4.30)
700
600
N (m)
500
0
-10
-20
50
Time (s)
100
50
Time (s)
100
400
80
300
60
(deg)
200
100
40
20
0
0
0
200
400
E (m)
600
-20
Figure 4.5: North-east trajectory, lateral error and yaw angle (. reference trajectory, no-roll approximation, space domain approximation).
always being able to track the reference path, after the initial deviation and
orientation are corrected. The space domain approximation presents slightly
higher errors and slower corrections than the no-roll model, namely when reacting to the wind disturbance step.
Note that when the wind starts blowing at t = 60s, the reference yaw angle is
no longer the trajectory reference angle r but something in between it and the
64
blowing wind (w = 45o ). This yaw reference corresponds to the yaw angle
the relative air inertial velocity p ar does with the {i} frame, ar , as described
in Section 3.2. Allowing the airship to align itself with the relative air reduces
the drag force and minimizes the sideslip angle , as seen in fig. 4.6. In the
no-wind case, ar r .
The lateral control actions (only the rudder r is used in both cases) are very
similar for both cases (see fig. 4.6). Although it is the no-roll approximation
which requests higher rudder deflections, both approximations reach the lower
saturation limit in the elbow curve.
5
(deg)
0
-5
-10
-15
-20
100
50
Time (s)
5
30
10
(deg)
r (deg)
20
0
-10
-20
-30
50
Time (s)
100
-5
50
Time (s)
100
Figure 4.6: Sideslip angle , rudder deflection r and roll angle ( no-roll
approximation, space domain approximation).
In fig. 4.6 it is also possible to see the roll angle . For both models, the
maximum values of the roll angle confirm the validity of the approximation
made, neglecting the rolling motion.
The small differences between the results obtained with both approximations
and the fact that the space domain model only requires the measurement of
two variables, leads to a major advantage of this approximation over the no-roll
one. On the other hand, the latter one is valid over the entire flight envelope,
while the space domain model is only applicable when in aerodynamic flight.
4.5. CONCLUSIONS
4.5
65
Conclusions
This chapter analyzes the linear control of the AURORA airship using the
Linear Quadratic Regulator.
The use of linear control is obviously limited to the existence of linear models
of the airship. For this reason, the linearization of the nonlinear system around
a given equilibrium condition is performed, as described in Section 2.3. The
linearization, as usual in aerial systems, leads to simplified decoupled longitudinal and lateral linear models of the airship motion.
In order for the linear models to be valid, the equilibrium condition for which
the linearization is performed must be guaranteed. Usually, the trim coincides
with a straight level flight with no wind incidence. Therefore, the linear control
so that
presented in this chapter aims at the regulation of the state variables x
x xe . The longitudinal controller is responsible to regulate both airspeed
and altitude, while the lateral approximations are in charge of correcting the
lateral error and the yaw angle.
Simulation results demonstrate the good performance of the LQ regulator applied to the three models, even in the presence of wind disturbances. Position
errors are corrected, and so is the airspeed, to compensate for the variation of
wind.
However, linear control is limited, since the controller designed for a given
system is only valid in the vicinity of the equilibrium condition considered.
For instance, mission objectives like ground-hover that involve groundspeed
regulation are not possible, since the equilibrium airspeed would be unknown
a priori in the presence of wind.
This problem is solved if the linear systems and controllers are not fixed but
change with the measured airspeed and altitude (which define an equilibrium
condition). This is the idea of the gain scheduling technique, which extends the
validity of the linearization approach to a range of operating points, instead of
a single one. This control technique, already considered a nonlinear one, shall
be presented in the second part of this work.
66
Chapter 5
Gain Scheduling
Contents
5.1
68
5.1.1
5.1.2
5.2
Scheduling . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
72
5.3
Robustness analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
75
5.4
5.5
5.3.1
Performance robustness . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 75
5.3.2
Stability robustness . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 80
Simulation results . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
87
5.4.1
5.4.2
Case-study mission . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 89
5.4.3
Conclusions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
97
Today, Gain Scheduling is the prevailing flight control design methodology [59].
While the linear control presented in the previous chapter is only valid around
a single equilibrium condition, this conventional solution performs point designs for a large set of trim conditions and then constructs a gain schedule by
considering gains with respect to flight conditions.
Using several linear models to describe the aircraft dynamics over the flight
envelope, allows the control designer to make use of all the classical design and
analysis tools. For this reason, gain scheduling is the obvious next step in the
AURORA airship control. It will hopefully provide a better knowledge of the
control design issues, as well of possible solutions.
Depending on the process considered for linearization, it is sometimes possible
67
68
to find auxiliary variables that correlate well with the changes in the process
dynamics. In the airship case, these variables mostly correspond to the airspeed and altitude. Still, the altitude influence may be disregarded for low
altitude flights where the envelope pressure is kept practically constant. For
this reason, from now on we will only consider the airspeed as trim parameter.
This chapter presents the gain scheduling approach applied to the airship pathtracking control. In Section 5.1 two new linear models are introduced, one for
the longitudinal motion only, the other considering all the 12-states, combining the longitudinal and lateral motions in the same model. Section 5.2 describes the scheduling procedure and in Section 5.3 the closed-loop robustness
is analyzed, considering both performance and stability issues. Finally, some
simulation results are presented in Section 5.4, followed by some conclusions
in Section 5.5.
5.1
This section introduces alternative linear models which are a natural evolution
of the previously presented ones when considering gain scheduling.
5.1.1
(5.1)
69
u a
w a
q
av11
av21
av31
1
0
av41
av12
av22
av32
e
1
av42
av13
av23
av33
0
0
av43
0
0
0
0
0
0
0 av14
0 av24
0 av34
0
0
0 Vte
0 av44
bv21 bv22 bv23
b
v31 bv32 bv33
XT
+
0
0
0
v
0
0
0
0
0
0
(5.2)
constant matrices Av and Bv
ua
wa
q
(5.3)
wa = wa war
(5.4)
q = q
=
ar
(5.5)
(5.6)
and is the vertical position error, measured in the trajectory reference frame
(see Section 3.1).
Given the desired groundspeed reference p r and having estimated previously
the wind velocity p w , the air velocity reference var = [uar , var , war ]T is obtained
from (see Section 3.2):
var = Sar (p r p w )
(5.7)
with Sar = S(ar ) and ar given by (3.8). The equilibrium values xe and
ue , as well as the linear matrices Av and Bv , are obtained in real-time from a
lookup table, function of the measured airspeed Vt .
5.1.2
The next and final linear model evolution is obviously the complete 12-states
model. Although the longitudinal and lateral motions are still decoupled (a
consequence of the linearization), the advantage of joining both models in a
single one is having also a single controller instead of two. This requires that
all state variables are measured so the full state feedback is possible. This is
the AURORA case (see Section 2.1), otherwise a state estimator may be used.
70
a
v
a
v
+ B
= A
e
T
X
v
a
r
TD
(5.8)
with:
a = va var
v
= r
= [, , ]T
=
ar
(5.9)
with r = [0, 0, rr ]T
(5.10)
given by (3.3)
(5.11)
(5.12)
Note that, although we have assumed a rectilinear reference path for the linearization, the approach may also be extended to the cases where the reference path varies slowly, with negligible derivatives when compared to the state
derivative. In this case, the angular velocity reference must be adapted to the
case, reason for which we considered r 6= 0.
Again, the equilibrium values xe and ue , as well as the linear matrices A and
B, are obtained in real-time from a lookup table, function of the measured
airspeed Vt .
The evaluation of the longitudinal and lateral decoupling due to the lin =
earization is easily noticeable if we rearrange the A matrix considering x
Tlat ]T . In fact, the A matrix can be partitioned into four distinct sub[
xTlong , x
matrices as:
#
"
A
0
long
(5.13)
A =
0
Alat
where all elements in the lower left submatrix are zero, while some few in the
upper right submatrix are not exactly zero but of smaller magnitude when
compared with the elements in Along and Alat .
state. The resulting
We can also rearrange the B matrix lines considering the x
71
"
Blong 0
0
Blat
(5.14)
The elements relative to either longitudinal and lateral position variables are
obviously null since the kinematics does not directly depend on the input. The
lower left and upper right submatrices are null. This shows the decoupling be t , v ]T
long = [e , X
tween what we already called longitudinal actuators inputs u
]
T , as well
long = [e , Tx , Tz ]T ) and the lateral states x
lat = [
(or u
va , p, r, , ,
lat = [a , r , TD ]T and the longitudinal states
as of the lateral actuators input u
T.
long = [
x
ua , wa , q, , , ]
Figure 5.1 describes the evolution of the 12-states linear model poles with the
airspeed. As expected, 8 of the 12 modes match the longitudinal and lateral
ones described in sections 2.3.2.1 and 2.3.2.2, respectively.
3
3 lat
2
3 long
Imaginary axis
1 long
1 lat
2 long
-1
-2
-3
-12
2 lat
1 long : surge
2 long : heave/pitch subsidence
3 long : longitudinal pendulum
1 lat : sideslip subsidence
2 lat : yaw subsidence
3 lat : roll oscillation
-10
-8
-4
-6
Real axis
-2
The remaining 4 modes rest in the origin over the entire flight envelope. This
is expected since they correspond to the 4 natural position integrators N, E, D
72
5.2
(5.15)
Scheduling
The linear models presented in Section 5.1 vary with the airspeed (we are
assuming the altitude influence may be disregarded for low altitude flights
where the envelope pressure is kept practically constant). The airspeed is thus
the considered scheduling variable. In applications of gain scheduling, the
practice has been that one can schedule on time-varying variables, as is the
case of the airspeed, as long as they are slow enough relative to the dynamics
of the system [60].
The gain scheduling methodology may be defined as a routine of four steps,
executed for different airspeeds over the flight envelope:
1. definition of the equilibrium condition;
2. linearization of the nonlinear system equations around the trim;
3. computation of the control gain;
4. computation of the control input obtained from full state feedback.
At each sampling time t, the true airspeed Vt is measured. The first step is
then to obtain the corresponding equilibrium variables, xe and ue , solving the
optimization problem described in Section 2.3.1. We may then proceed to the
second step, where the nonlinear system is numerically linearized about the
trim, obtaining the A and B system matrices (see Section 2.3.2). We now have
almost all variables necessary to complete the third step, where we compute
the control gain K, solution of the LQR problem described in Section 4.3.
First we have to define the state Q and input R weighting matrices.
In order to have an idea of the actuators influence on the system dynamics, the evolution of the B matrix coefficients with the airspeed are shown in
fig. 5.2. The more obvious conclusion is that the longitudinal/lateral actuators
only influence the longitudinal/lateral states. In fact, observing fig. 5.2(a), we
note that the coefficients relative to the lateral states v, p, r are null, while in
q coefficients null.
fig. 5.2(b) we have the longitudinal states u, w,
73
5.2. SCHEDULING
10
B(a )
B(e )
0
0
-10
10
-20
-40
15
Vt (m/s)
0.00
0
10
-10
15
15
10
15
Vt (m/s)
0.0
0.05
B(TD )
B(v )
10
Vt (m/s)
-0.5
-1.0
15
10
0.05
B(r )
T )
B(X
0.10
-0.05
10
Vt (m/s)
10
15
Vt (m/s)
0.00
-0.05
5
Vt (m/s)
, w,
q, v, :
(b) Lateral actuators ( u
p, . r).
We also observe that the influence of the actuators depends on the available
airspeed. For instance, the reduced authority of the control surfaces e , a
and r is noticeable at low airspeeds, where the respective coefficients are null.
T ) coefficients evolution, we note the total
From the observation of the B(X
T mostly influences the longitudinal speed u in aerodynamic flight,
thrust X
while at low airspeeds the influence is on the vertical speed w.
This is justified
o
o
for the change of the vectoring angle v from 0 to 90 . The differential thrust
TD makes its more significant contribution at low airspeeds, being the sole
responsible for the rolling motion control.
For ease of implementation, we have chosen the cartesian (Tx , Tz ) version of
the thrust longitudinal input over the polar (XT , v ) one. This way we consider
the forces produced by the propellers and the forces produced by the control
surfaces deflection. The evolution of the respective B coefficients is represented
in fig. 5.3.
We can then see that the B matrix coefficients have the necessary information
on the actuators behavior over the flight envelope. Therefore, the R matrix
may be constant with Vt , only having to be adjusted to the different types
(units) of actuators presents, namely engines vs. control surfaces. Although
being constant, the R matrix coefficients are chosen by the designer (with
an iterative process) such that the performance of the closed-loop system can
satisfy the desired requirements.
74
B(Tx )
0.1
0.0
-0.1
10
15
10
15
Vt (m/s)
B(Tz )
0.05
0.00
-0.05
5
Vt (m/s)
(5.16)
? control
- regulator signal- airship
u
output
y
state
x
We have seen in Section 4.3 that the optimal gains at each gain scheduling point
75
guarantee the stability of the closed-loop system. However, they should also
guarantee robust stability and performance. This means, they should guarantee stability and good performance at points near the design equilibrium point.
Such robustness can be verified after the LQR design by using multivariable
frequency-domain techniques [53]. This shall be done in the sequence.
5.3
Robustness analysis
Kp
x = A
x + B
u
+
+
6
6
x
Cp
p y
int
y
Kint
Cint
5.3.1
Performance robustness
76
control input is u(t), and the reference input, null for the regulation problem,
is r(t). The uncertainties are characterized by a disturbance d(t) acting on the
d(s)
d
-
+
6
r(s)
e (s)
K(s)
u(s)
G(s)
+?
+-
+
?
+
z(s)
n(s)
system (wind gusts, for instance), and sensors measurement noise n(t). The
disturbances occur typically at low frequencies, below some value d , while the
measurement noise has its predominant effect at high frequencies, above some
value n .
The regulation error is:
e(t) = z(t)
(5.18)
Due to the presence of noise n(t), e(t) may not be represented in fig. 5.6. The
signal ed (t) is given by:
ed (t) = z(t) n(t) = e(t) n(t)
(5.19)
(5.20)
(5.21)
(5.22)
(5.23)
(5.24)
(5.25)
77
and:
T(s) = GK(I + GK)1 = (I + GK)1 GK
(5.26)
S(s) + T(s) = I
(5.27)
Since:
(5.28)
(M) = 1/(M1 )
(5.29)
(AB) (A)(B)
(5.30)
(5.31)
78
(5.32)
Thus, to keep the regulation norm ||e(t)||2 small, it is only necessary to ensure
that the L2 operator norm ||S||2 is small at all frequencies where d(j) is
appreciable. This may be achieved by ensuring that, at such frequencies,
(S(j)) is small. So, since at low frequencies (see fig. 5.7(a)):
(S) = [(I + GK)1 ] =
1
1
(I + GK)
(GK)
(5.33)
(5.34)
High-frequency specifications We now turn to the high-frequency performance specifications. The sensor noise is generally appreciable at frequencies
above some known value n . Thus, according to (5.24), to keep the regulation
norm ||e(t)||2 small in face of measurement noise, we should ensure the operator norm ||T||2 is small at high frequencies above this value. Since at high
frequencies (see fig. 5.7(b)):
(T) = [GK(I + GK)1 ] (GK)
(5.35)
(5.36)
Figure 5.8 represents the singular values of the closed-loop system gain of
the nominal system in fig. 5.5, together with a graphical representation of
conditions (5.34) and (5.36). The minimum (GK) and maximum (GK)
singular values, are represented respectively in figs. 5.8(a) and 5.8(b). Referring to our nominal system represented in fig. 5.5, the loop gain corresponds
to GK = Gp Kp , where Gp is the transfer-function matrix of the inner-loop
delimited by a dashed line. Since different equilibrium conditions, i.e., different
79
150
150
100
100
50
50
Magnitude (dB)
Magnitude (dB)
-50
-50
-100
-100
(S(j))
(T(j))
1/(GK(j)) --150
103
10
10
(GK(j)) -0
10
10
Frequency (rad/s)
10
10
-150
103
10
100
101
101
Frequency (rad/s)
102
103
60
40
40
20
20
0
Low-frequency
condition
-40
Vt
-60
-80
-60
-80
-100
-120
-120
-140
-140
-160
-160
102
High-frequency
condition
-40
-100
-180
103
Vt
-20
(GK) (dB)
(GK) (dB)
-20
101
101
100
Frequency (rad/s)
102
103
-180
103
102
101
101
100
Frequency (rad/s)
102
103
Figure 5.8: Frequency analysis (singular values) of the MIMO nominal system
over the flight envelope 0 Vt 15m/s (steps of 0.5m/s).
Observing fig. 5.8 we see that the cutting frequency of (GK) varies between
0.05 and 0.4rad/s, while for (GK) it varies between 0.3 and 0.5rad/s. According to conditions (5.34) and (5.36), we need to know what is the frequency
range where wind disturbances and measurement noise are significant (d and
n , respectively).
We start by determining d . In order to represent the perturbations introduced
in the airship system by the nonhomogeneous properties of the surrounding air,
80
Vt
h
(5.37)
Notice that this is a conservative value 1 that depends on the airspeed and
altitude of the airship. So one solution is to evaluate the value of (GK(j))
at = d . The magnitude of (GK(jd )) corresponds to the factor by which
wind disturbances will be attenuated (if positive) or amplified (if negative).
Figure 5.9(a) describes the variation of (GK(jd )) with airspeed Vt and altitude h, which we see is always positive. We also see that, the higher the altitude, the higher the wind disturbances attenuation. The magnitudes of (GK)
and of the gust transfer functions (B.2)-(B.4) are represented in fig. 5.9(b) for
Vt = 0.5m/s and in fig. 5.9(c) for Vt = 15m/s, both for h = 50m. These
figures show us that, in fact, (GK)(j) 1 for < d , which we may
consider here as : 20 log10 |Gi (j)| > 0. In face of this analysis, we conclude
the closed-loop system is robust to wind disturbances, i.e., condition (5.34) is
verified.
Measurement noise is well attenuated, since usually n 1 rad/s. At frequencies > n , (GK()) 0 dB (see fig. 5.8), which validates condition (5.36).
So far we analyzed the performance robustness of the closed-loop system. We
now proceed to the evaluation of its stability robustness.
5.3.2
Stability robustness
It is unusual for the plant model to be exactly known. Two basic sorts of
modeling errors are incorrect dynamics coefficients identification and plant
parameter variation. It is therefore important to determine if the closed-loop
system remains stable in the case these errors occur, i.e., if the system is
robustly stable.
1
Considering (5.37) valid beyond the ground boundary layer, we reasonably assume h 0
so that d 9 .
81
35
30
(GK(jd )) (dB)
25
20
15
h = 50 500m
10
10
15
Vt (m/s)
60
60
40
40
20
20
-20
-20
Magnitude (dB)
Magnitude (dB)
-40
-60
-80
-100
-120
20 log10 |Gu | :
20 log10 |Gv |
20 log10 |Gw | .
20 log10 (GK)
-60
-80
-100
-120
-140
-160
103
-40
20 log10 |Gu | :
20 log10 |Gv |
20 log10 |Gw | .
20 log10 (GK)
-140
102
101
101
100
Frequency (rad/s)
102
103
-160
103
102
100
101
101
Frequency (rad/s)
102
103
82
We consider here that the airship nominal linear model (5.8) has a parameter uncertainty of 20%, i.e., each nonzero coefficient of the A and B matrices
has 20% uncertainty over its nominal value. Although having the same maximum value, the uncertainty of each coefficient is defined independently of the
uncertainty of the remaining coefficients.
The performance of a nominally stable uncertain system will generally degrade
for specific values of its uncertain elements. Moreover, the maximum possible
degradation increases as the uncertain elements are allowed to further and
further deviate from their nominal values.
The robust stability margin is the size of the smallest deviation from nominal of the uncertain elements that leads to system instability, and allows us
to evaluate the stability robustness of uncertain systems. A nominally stable
uncertain system is generally unstable for specific values of its uncertain elements. If the uncertain system is stable for all values of uncertain elements
within their allowable ranges, the uncertain system is robustly stable. Conversely, if there is a combination of element values that cause instability, and
all lie within their allowable ranges, then the uncertain system is not robustly
stable. A robust stability margin greater than one means that the uncertain
system is stable for all values of its modeled uncertainty. A robust stability
margin less than one implies that certain allowable values of the uncertain
elements, within their specified ranges, lead to instability.
As with other uncertain-system analysis tools, only bounds on the exact stability margin are computed. The precise value is guaranteed to lie between these
upper and lower bounds. Figure 5.10 expresses the evolution of the lower and
upper bounds of the stability margin with the airspeed Vt in steps of 0.25m/s.
In the analysis we consider the worst scenario described by the lower bound.
We can see that for airspeeds between 2 and 4.5m/s and above 8.25m/s the
20% uncertain system is robustly stable since both bounds are higher than 1.
A margin of 1.3, for example, implies that the uncertain system remains stable
for all values of uncertain elements up to 30% outside their modeled uncertain
ranges (i.e., in this case the system is robustly stable for an uncertainty of 26%
over all matrices coefficients).
For the remaining airspeeds the stability margin is less than one, which means
the system is not robustly stable for some values of uncertainty. A margin
of 0.5, for instance, implies the uncertain system remains stable for all values
83
3.0
2.5
Upper bound
Lower bound
Stability Margin
2.0
1.5
1.0
0.5
0.0
10
15
Vt (m/s)
of uncertain elements that are less than 0.5 normalized units away from their
nominal values (which corresponds to an uncertainty of less than 10% in our
case) and, there is a collection of uncertain elements that are more than or
equal to 0.5 normalized units away from their nominal values that results in
instability (which corresponds to an uncertainty between 10% and 20%).
We can see that the stability margin reduces for low airspeeds and during the
transition to higher ones. These are the more problematic regions, one for the
lack of controllability from the control surfaces, the other due to the change of
the actuators control action. Considering that usually Vt > 2m/s, we observe
that a 10% error in all coefficients assures a robustly stable closed-loop system
whatever the airspeed. This, however, is still a low error margin.
84
function:
G(s) = C(sI A)1 B
(5.38)
However, due to operating point changes, the actual system is described by:
= (A + A)
x
x + (B + B)
u
(5.39)
= (C + C)
y
x
(5.40)
(5.41)
with:
G(s) = C(sI A)1 B + C(sI A)1 B C(sI A)1 A(sI A)1 B
(5.42)
where second-order effects have been neglected. A state-space realization of
G is given by:
#
#
"
B
A A
u
x +
x =
B
0
A
h
i
y = C C x
"
(5.43)
(5.44)
Since we may write the additive uncertainty equation (5.41) in the multiplicative form:
G (j) = [I + G(j)G1 (j)]G(j) [I + M(j)]G(j)
(5.45)
(5.46)
85
(5.47)
for all 0 1, all M(s) satisfying (5.46), and all s on the standard Nyquist
contour.
Since G vanishes on the infinite radius segment of the Nyquist contour, and
assuming for simplicity that no indentations are required along the j-axis
portion, this reduces to the following condition:
(GK(I + GK)1 ) = (T(j)) <
1
m()
(5.48)
86
The m() bound for robustness to gain scheduling model parameter variation
is obtained the following way. Define Gij (s) as the transfer function matrix
of the state-space system (5.43)-(5.44) with A = Ai Aj , B = Bi Bj
and C = Ci Cj , and i and j representing two consecutive linear system
models. From (5.45) we have that:
M(j) = G(j)G1 (j)
(5.49)
1
= m()
(G)
(5.50)
40
1/m()
1/m()
40
20
20
0
-20
Magnitude (dB)
Magnitude (dB)
0
-20
-40
-60
-60
-80
-80
(T(j))
(T(j))
-100
-100
-120
-120
-140
103
-40
102
101
101
100
Frequency (rad/s)
102
103
-140
103
102
100
101
101
Frequency (rad/s)
102
103
87
ing to the lower airspeed and transition regions, clearly where the dynamics
more rapidly change.
If there is no problem in keeping and accessing a big dimension lookup table in real-time, the 0.01m/s grid should be used for system scheduling. In
practice, this corresponds to consider a new dynamic system at each airspeed
measurement (assuming at least 0.01m/s resolution of the wind sensor).
5.4
Simulation results
This section presents illustrative simulation results of the airship gain scheduling control.
5.4.1
This section focuses on the longitudinal control using the model (5.2). The
purpose is to follow groundspeed and altitude profiles. The groundspeed profile
is given in terms of velocity along the reference path, i.e., vr = [ur , 0, 0]T m/s.
In order to observe only the longitudinal behavior, the trajectory coincides
with a straight line. The groundspeed profile starts at 10m/s and at tu1 = 10s
accelerates to 12m/s, with a limit of 1m/s2 . At tu2 = 65s goes back to 10m/s,
with a rate limit of 0.5m/s2 . Concerning the altitude profile, it starts at 50m
and at th1 = 40s it goes up to 60m. At th2 = 100s goes down again to 50m.
The ascent and descent rates are 1m/s. The simulation considers constant
wind incidence from north at 3m/s.
The N ED trajectory, longitudinal () and vertical () position errors, and the
altitude profile are shown in fig. 5.12. As expected, there is only motion in the
vertical plane, as may be noticed by the perfect following of the straight reference segment. The position errors oscillate around zero, with and inferiors
to 2m. The and errors correspond respectively to the transient response
of the speed and altitude profiles following. Although with an overshoot and
a small delay, the altitude profile is well followed.
The groundspeed profile and output are represented in fig. 5.13, together with
the aerodynamic variables. The groundspeed components v = [u, v, w]T are
described in fig. 5.13(a) and the airspeed Vt , the sideslip angle and the
angle of attack may be seen in fig. 5.13. Notice that the difference between
88
(m)
65
2
1
0
-1
-2
55
(m)
h (m)
60
50
45
200
1000
100
h (m)
40
1500
500
-100
0
N (m)
-200
2
1
0
-1
-2
65
60
55
50
45
20
40
60
80
Time (s)
100
120
140
20
40
60
80
Time (s)
100
120
140
20
40
60
80
Time (s)
100
120
140
E (m)
11
10
9
20
40
60
80
Time (s)
100
120
140
Vt (m/s)
u (m/s)
13
12
16
15
14
13
12
20
40
80
60
Time (s)
100
120
140
20
40
80
60
Time (s)
100
120
140
20
40
80
60
Time (s)
100
120
140
1
(deg)
v (m/s)
1
0
-1
20
40
60
80
Time (s)
100
120
140
-1
(deg)
w (m/s)
2
1
0
-1
-2
20
40
60
80
Time (s)
100
120
140
10
5
0
-5
-10
89
10
a (deg)
e (deg)
20
0
-10
-20
20
40
60
80
Time (s)
100
120
-1
140
r (deg)
XT (N )
60
40
20
0
20
40
60
80
Time (s)
100
120
40
80
60
Time (s)
100
120
140
20
40
80
60
Time (s)
100
120
140
20
40
80
60
Time (s)
100
120
140
TD (N )
v (deg)
20
0
-1
140
6
0
-3
-6
80
20
40
60
80
Time (s)
100
120
140
0
-1
5.4.2
Case-study mission
90
and vertical errors, allowing to identify the more problematic mission points,
namely when the wind is aft the airship, at the end of the first half-circle
and the transition from the vertical ascent and the horizontal path-tracking
(see fig. 5.16(a)). The remaining noticeable errors correspond to instantaneous
references changes before the second stabilization, which the airship smoothly
corrects. In order to avoid saturation of the propellers, probable when the
controller tries to rapidly correct the longitudinal position, the error is limited. This approaches the idea of Teel [63] which will be better explored in
Section 7.4. The limitation of can be noticed by the constant rate at which
the north position is corrected in fig. 5.15(b). Note that the existence of instant position errors might be caused by a transition in the mission objectives,
namely from path-tracking to stabilization, but also from a discontinuity in
the position provided by the GPS when the available satellites change.
(m)
60
-40
-60
-80
50
100
150
200
Time (s)
250
300
350
400
10
20
10
0
-10
-20
-30
0
50
100
150
200
Time (s)
250
300
350
400
50
100
150
200
Time (s)
250
300
350
400
50
40
30
(m)
h (m)
-20
20
100
300
200
100
-100
-200
N (m)
(m)
200
-5
-100
E (m)
91
The pitch angle shows higher errors during take-off and landing, as well as
during stabilization.
10
200
(deg)
250
wind
heading
0
-10
150
50
100
150
200
Time (s)
250
300
350
400
-20
0
50
100
150
200
Time (s)
250
300
350
400
50
100
150
200
Time (s)
250
300
350
400
100
20
(deg)
N (m)
50
-50
-100
(deg)
-150
-200
-250
-100
100
E (m)
200
300
450
360
270
180
90
0
-90
92
Vt (m/s)
u (m/s)
8
6
4
2
0
50
100
150
200
Time (s)
250
300
350
400
50
100
150
200
Time (s)
250
300
350
400
-20
0
50
100
150
200
Time (s)
250
300
350
400
50
100
150
200
Time (s)
250
300
350
400
20
10
0
-2
-4
-6
0
50
100
150
200
Time (s)
250
300
350
400
0
-10
20
10
(deg)
w (m/s)
2
(deg)
v (m/s)
14
12
10
8
6
4
2
0
-1
-2
0
-10
-20
50
100
150
200
Time (s)
250
300
350
-30
400
30
15
0
-15
-30
XT (N )
a (deg)
30
15
100
150
200
Time (s)
250
300
350
0
-15
-30
400
50
100
150
200
Time (s)
250
300
350
400
-30
0
50
100
150
200
Time (s)
250
300
350
400
50
100
150
200
Time (s)
250
300
350
400
80
30
60
15
40
20
0
0
50
100
150
200
Time (s)
250
300
350
400
0
-30
0
-15
20
120
90
60
30
TD (N )
v (deg)
50
r (deg)
e (deg)
50
100
150
200
Time (s)
250
300
350
400
10
0
-10
-20
93
5.4.3
Although the closed-loop system robustness has been analyzed in Section 5.3,
we present here the results of the sensitivity and robustness test described in
Section 3.3.2 as a tool of comparison between controllers performance.
For the baseline simulation, we consider no variation of the model parameters,
only wind disturbance input for the aerodynamic flight at 8m/s groundspeed
and 50m altitude. Figure 5.19(a) shows the airship north-east position and
heading when following the straight line reference aligned with north, while
subject to the 4m/s constant wind blowing from west, plus 3m/s turbulent
gust. We notice the airship is able to follow the reference, although with an
(deg)
10
1200
-10
1000
50
100
150
50
100
150
50
100
150
50
100
150
50
100
150
(deg)
10
800
5
0
-5
-20
(deg)
N (m)
wind
heading
600
-25
-30
-35
400
w (deg)
200
0
-5
-10
w (deg)
100
0
-100
-50
50
E (m)
90
80
Time (s)
Figure 5.19: Airship north-east trajectory and attitude, and wind attitude.
2
The different scales might give a wrong idea of the airship heading ( 27o ).
94
orientation that helps it minimize the drag force produced by the lateral wind.
Figure 5.19(b) represents the airship attitude references (see Section 3.2) and
output, as well as the wind estimated attitude. Notice that neither w nor w
are constant, since they echo both constant and gust wind components. The
excitation of the signals is due to the wind turbulence.
As may be expected, the airship position errors oscillate around zero instead
of converging, due to the wind turbulence input, as may be seen in fig. 5.20(a).
The aerodynamic variables are represented in fig. 5.20(b). The around 9m/s
airspeed corresponds to the relative air speed between the 8m/s groundspeed
heading north and the 4m/s wind speed from west. The sideslip angle is
close to zero, showing the airship is aligned with the relative airspeed.
1
Vt (m/s)
(m)
10
0
-1
100
50
150
Time (s)
50
100
150
100
150
100
150
time (s)
1
(deg)
(m)
5
0
-1
50
100
-5
150
10
0
-1
100
50
50
time (s)
(deg)
(m)
Time (s)
150
Time (s)
0
-5
50
time (s)
95
a (deg)
e (deg)
10
0
-5
50
100
-2
150
50
Time (s)
150
100
150
100
150
10
r (deg)
XT (N )
80
60
40
20
0
100
Time (s)
50
100
-10
150
50
Time (s)
Time (s)
120
1
TD (N )
v (deg)
90
60
30
0
-30
50
100
150
-1
50
Time (s)
Time (s)
96
Table 5.1: Robustness tests on model parameters (RMS values of selected variables).
Baseline
(m)
(m)
(m)
Vt (m/s)
(deg)
(deg)
eu (m/s)
0.24
0.33
0.45
9.01
3.41
1.17
0.16
Cl
90%
+90%
0.20
0.34
0.28
0.45
0.45
0.45
9.01
9.02
3.47
3.22
0.93
1.72
0.12
0.25
CM0
90%
+90%
0.24
0.24
0.33
0.33
0.46
0.45
9.01
9.01
3.47
3.35
1.17
1.17
0.16
0.16
CM
90%
+90%
0.33
0.25
0.35
0.33
1.07
0.69
9.01
9.01
4.09
3.12
1.20
1.15
0.16
0.15
CM
90%
+90%
0.24
0.24
0.33
0.33
0.45
0.45
9.01
9.01
3.40
3.42
1.17
1.17
0.16
0.16
CM
90%
+90%
0.24
0.24
0.33
0.34
0.45
0.46
9.01
9.01
3.35
3.48
1.17
1.17
0.16
0.16
CM
90%
+90%
0.24
0.24
0.33
0.33
0.45
0.45
9.01
9.01
3.40
3.42
1.17
1.17
0.16
0.16
CMe
90%
+90%
166.29
0.23
91.32
0.34
100.08
0.48
13.64
9.01
2.87
3.61
1.97
1.18
7.30
0.15
CN
90%
+90%
0.21
0.25
0.29
0.35
0.45
0.45
9.01
9.01
3.44
3.40
1.15
1.22
0.12
0.19
CNr
90%
+90%
23.75
0.16
9.07
0.12
2.57
0.44
9.28
9.01
4.10
3.43
7.71
1.05
1.37
0.11
CY
90%
+90%
0.38
0.21
0.56
0.30
0.51
0.45
9.02
9.01
3.48
3.42
2.56
0.85
0.22
0.14
CYr
90%
+90%
0.21
0.26
0.28
0.37
0.44
0.45
9.01
9.01
3.44
3.39
1.22
1.53
0.13
0.19
CD0
90%
+90%
1.78
0.78
0.51
0.32
0.66
0.65
9.02
9.00
4.26
2.75
1.24
1.12
0.27
0.14
CDi
90%
+90%
0.31
0.24
0.33
0.34
0.47
0.44
9.01
9.01
3.49
3.35
1.17
1.17
0.17
0.15
CL0
90%
+90%
0.24
0.24
0.33
0.33
0.45
0.45
9.01
9.01
3.33
3.50
1.17
1.17
0.16
0.16
CL
90%
+90%
6.49
0.24
0.41
0.34
7.18
0.59
9.05
9.01
19.78
2.00
1.57
1.12
0.36
0.15
CLe
90%
+90%
0.23
0.26
0.33
0.33
0.43
0.68
9.01
9.01
4.08
3.16
1.20
1.15
0.16
0.17
Clp
90%
+90%
0.26
0.24
0.33
0.34
0.51
0.45
9.01
9.01
3.39
3.41
1.29
1.15
0.18
0.16
CMq
90%
+90%
401.88
0.43
102.32
0.37
11.96
1.37
8.55
9.03
20.31
4.44
13.76
1.19
2.81
0.21
CNr
90%
+90%
626.99
0.43
281.01
0.79
7.55
0.48
3.76
9.01
39.40
3.43
75.92
1.43
3.96
0.22
mw
90%
+90%
0.28
0.23
0.32
0.34
1.33
1.45
9.01
9.01
1.67
6.54
1.03
1.31
0.16
0.16
5.5. CONCLUSIONS
97
bust to a 90% uncertainty in the remaining parameters, for these four cases,
the mismatch between the airship system and the model considered in the gain
scheduling controller design is too significant for the control action to overcome
it.
In any case, the gain scheduling controller may be considered robust to wind
disturbances and plant uncertainties. Among the list selected, these six parameters CL , CD0 , CMe , CNr , CMq and CNr (and specially the last four) are
in fact the model parameters for which a more careful identification or determination should take place, though the required precision could merely remain
inside a 70% margin.
5.5
Conclusions
This chapter covers the analysis and results obtained applying a gain scheduled
state-feedback optimal controller to the airship path-tracking control problem
over the entire flight envelope. Considering the 12-states model, and for each
equilibrium condition considered, the control law provides in a single action
actuator commands to regulate both lateral and longitudinal motions.
Although at each equilibrium point the closed-loop system is guaranteed to
be stable by the optimal controller, it is important to analyze the robustness
to input disturbances as well as model uncertainties and parameter variation.
Doing so we have come to the following conclusions about the closed-loop
system:
its performance is robust to wind disturbances;
its performance is robust to measurement noise;
it is robustly stable to model parameters uncertainties up to 10% for
airspeeds over 2m/s. A 20% uncertainty in the parameters still leads to
stable systems, except for very low airspeeds and in the transition region.
This indicates that a better identification of the model should be made
for these airspeeds, namely of the aerodynamic coefficients;
it is robustly stable to parameter variations for a 0.01m/s scheduling.
This means the closed-loop system remains stable even if the actual
system does not correspond to the equilibrium condition considered. For
a 0.1m/s grid, the parameter variation still leads to stable systems, again
98
except for very low airspeeds and in the transition region. If such a
scheduling is necessary, one should try to avoid missions that induce the
airship to fly at such airspeeds for significant periods of time.
These robustness properties, together with (many) satisfactory simulation results and implementation simplicity, indicate the gain scheduling control is a
possible solution to the AURORA airship path-tracking problem.
However, is it the best? The control solution is optimal for given weighting
matrices, which are still obtained empirically. Moreover, we are only considering a linearized version of the airship, eventually discarding important features
of the system. These issues do not guarantee an optimal overall result, reason
for which other nonlinear solutions will be considered.
Chapter 6
Dynamic Inversion
Contents
6.1
General theory . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
101
6.1.1
6.1.2
6.1.3
6.2
109
6.3
. .
111
6.4
Simulation results . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
114
6.5
6.4.1
6.4.2
Conclusions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
121
As in most complex engineering problems we are facing nowadays, flight control design is generally based in a divide-and-conquer approach. First, the
nonlinear equations of motion of the air vehicle are linearized about selected
operating points over the flight envelope. The tools of linear control theory can
then be used to design individual compensators to satisfy closed-loop specifications. Finally, a gain scheduled control is obtained by switching between the
individual compensators according to predefined scheduling variables. This
approach, for its relevance in flight control, was outlined in Chapter 5.
However, the gain scheduling procedure is time consuming, costly to iterate,
and still relies substantially on the engineers knowhow. An alternate methodology to flight control design, that avoids this iterative tuning process and
directly considers the nonlinear nature of the problem, is Dynamic Inversion.
Dynamic Inversion is a methodology to design closed-loop control laws for
99
100
101
6.1
General theory
This section presents the classical dynamic inversion theory, and mostly follows
reference [64].
The objective of the dynamic inversion approach is to change a nonlinear
system into a linear and controllable one by means of feedback and coordinates
transformation. With this in mind, and for MIMO (multi-input multi-output)
square systems (i.e., n-states systems with the same number m of inputs and
outputs) in a neighborhood of a point xo , we first describe a suitable change of
coordinates in state space that allows us to represent the system in a normal
form of special interest. It is then based on this normal form that we obtain
a state feedback control law which applied yields a linear and controllable
closed-loop system. Finally, we consider the problem of asymptotic output
tracking.
102
6.1.1
m
X
gi (x)ui
(6.1a)
i=1
y1 = h1 (x)
(6.1b)
ym = hm (x)
where x is the state n-vector, u is the control input m-vector (of components
ui ) and y is the output m-vector (of components yi ); f (x) and h(x) are smooth1
n- and m-vector fields respectively, and g(x) is an nm matrix whose columns
are smooth vector fields gi . A more condensed form of (6.1) is:
x = f (x) + g(x)u
(6.2a)
y = h(x)
(6.2b)
We will start our development with the multivariable version of relative degree
(see Appendix C for the Lie derivative Lkf h(x) used notation). A multivariable
nonlinear system of the form (6.1) has a (vector) relative degree {r1 , . . . , rm }
at a point xo if:
(i)
Lgj Lkf hi (x) = 0
(6.3)
for all 1 j m, for all 1 i m, for all k < ri 1, and for all x in a
neighborhood of xo ;
(ii) the m m matrix:
A(x) =
rm 1
Lg1 Lf
hm (x)
rm 1
hm (x)
Lgm Lf
(6.4)
is nonsingular at x = xo .
1
A vector field f (x) is considered smooth if it has continuous partial derivatives of any
required order.
103
Note that ri is exactly the number of times one has to differentiate the i-th
output yi (t) at t = to in order to have at least one component of the input
vector u(to ) explicitly appearing.
(6.5)
Set, for 1 i m:
i1 (x) = hi (x)
i2 (x) = Lf hi (x)
(6.6)
In the remaining of this section, we will restrict our description to the systems
where the sum r = r1 + r2 + . . . + rm is exactly equal to the dimension n of
the state space. In this case, the set of functions:
ik (x) = Lk1
hi (x)
f
for 1 k ri , 1 i m
(6.8)
104
diri 1
= iri (t)
dt
m
X
diri
ri
Lgj Lfri 1 hi (x(t))uj (t)
= Lf hi (x(t)) +
dt
j=1
(6.9)
for all 1 i m. Note that the coefficient that multiplies uj (t) in the latter
equation is exactly equal to the (i, j) entry of the matrix A(x) in (6.4).
Set now:
1i
2i
ri i
i1 (x)
i2 (x)
i
ri (x)
= [ 1 , . . . , m ]T
for 1 i m
(6.10)
(6.11)
ri i 1 = ri i
ri i = bi () +
m
X
(6.12)
aij ()uj (t)
j=1
yi =
1i
for 1 i, j m
(6.13)
for 1 i m
(6.14)
The structure of equations (6.12) characterizes the normal form of the equations (see fig. 6.1) describing (locally around a point xo ) a nonlinear system,
with m inputs and m outputs, having a (vector) relative degree {r1 , . . . , rm }
at xo , with r = r1 + . . . + rm exactly equal to the dimension n of the state
105
space. In this case, when r = n, the system has no internal (zero) dynamics,
and so it is minimum phase by default. Note that in (6.12) the coefficients
uj
- bi () + Pm aij ()uj
j=1
6 6
ri i
- R
ri i
2i
- R
1i = yi
aij () are exactly the entries of matrix (6.4), with x replaced by 1 (), and
the coefficients bi () are the entries of a vector:
b(x) =
Lrf 1 h1 (x)
Lrf 2 h2 (x)
rm
Lf hm (x)
(6.15)
6.1.2
The main problem dealt with in this section is that of using feedback and
coordinates transformation to the purpose of changing a nonlinear system into
a linear and controllable one. Formally, the problem in question can be stated
the following way:
(f (x) + g(x)(x))
= Az
x
x=1 (z)
(g(x)(x))
=B
x
x=1 (z)
(6.16)
(6.17)
106
and:
rank(B AB An1 B) = n
(6.18)
Our point of departure will be the normal form developed in the previous
section. Recall that in a neighborhood of the point o = 1 (xo ) the matrix
A() is nonsingular and therefore the equations:
= b() + A()u
(6.19)
(6.20)
ri i 1 = ri i
ri i = i
(6.21)
(6.22)
(6.23)
(6.24)
and A(x) and b(x) as in (6.4) and (6.15). The linearizing coordinates are
defined as:
hi (x)
ki (x) = Lk1
f
for 1 k ri , 1 i m
(6.25)
107
The closed-loop system obtained applying the control law (6.22) to the system (6.2) is (see fig. 6.2):
(6.26a)
y = h(x)
(6.26b)
- (x) + (x)
6
- x = f (x) + g(x)u
y = h(x)
x
The conditions that the system, for some choice of output functions h1 (x), . . . ,
hm (x), has a (vector) relative degree {r1 , . . . , rm } at xo , and that r1 +. . .+rm =
n, imply the existence of a coordinates transformation and a state feedback,
defined locally around xo , which solve the state space exact linearization problem. The following Lemma shows that these conditions are also necessary.
Lemma 6.1. Suppose the matrix g(xo ) has rank m. Then, the state space
exact linearization problem is solvable if and only if there exists a neighborhood
U of xo and m real-valued functions h1 (x), . . . , hm (x) defined on U , such that
the system (6.2) has some (vector) relative degree {r1 , . . . , rm } at xo and r1 +
. . . + rm = n.
Proof. See [64], pp. 247.
6.1.3
(6.27a)
(6.27b)
108
model are and for every input (t) to the model, an output y(t) asymptotically
converging to the corresponding output yr (t) produced by the model under the
effect of (t).
Suppose the model has a (vector) relative degree equal to the (vector) relative
degree {r1 , . . . , rm } of the system and r1 = . . . = rm = r. In this case, since:
CB = CAB = . . . = CAr2 B = 0
(6.28)
we have that:
yr(i) (t) = CAi (t)
for all 0 i r 1
(6.29a)
(6.29b)
Consider again the normal form (6.12) and choose the control input as:
u = A1 (x) b(x) + yr(r) q
(6.30)
with A(x) and b(x) as in (6.4) and (6.15) and q a column vector with elements
P
(i1)
qj = ri=1 ci1 (ij yrj ) for 1 j m where c0 , . . . , cr1 are real numbers.
Define an error e(t) as the difference between the real output y(t) and the
model output yr (t):
e(t) = y(t) yr (t)
(6.31)
(i1)
Since, by construction, ij = yj
= Li1
f hj (x) for 1 i r, we may write
Pr
(i1)
qj = i=1 ci1 ej . Substituting (6.29) into (6.30) leads to:
Pr
i1
i=1 ci1 (Lf h1
u = A1 b + CAr + CAr1 B
C 1 Ai1 )
Pr
i1
i1
)
i=1 ci1 (Lf hm C m A
(6.32)
(6.33)
i.e.:
(r)
(r1)
ej + cr1 ej
+ . . . + c1 e j + c0 ej = 0
(6.34)
109
= A + B
- (, x) + (, x)
x = f (x) + g(x)u
- y
= h(x)
6
x
6.2
Section 6.1 presents the general theory of the dynamic inversion approach for
MIMO systems with the same number m of inputs and outputs, and for which
the sum of the relative degrees ri , for 1 i m, equals the dimension n of
the state space. A new formulation for dynamic systems which respect these
assumptions will now be presented here.
Consider an affine in control system whose description is given by the following
dynamics, kinematics and output equations:
= fv (V, P) + gv (V, P)u
V
= fp (V, P)
P
(6.35b)
y = h(V, P) = P
(6.35c)
(6.35a)
110
where the n-state vector x = [VT , PT ]T contains the velocity V and position
P components and the m-vectors u and y are the input and output vectors,
respectively; fv (V, P) and fp (V, P) are smooth m-vector fields and gv (V, P)
is an m m matrix with rank m for x = xo and whose columns are smooth
vector fields gvi (V, P).
This new dynamic inversion formulation simplifies the dynamic inversion implementation for systems with the cascaded form (6.35a)-(6.35b), and for which
the output variable of interest is the position vector, usual in path-tracking
problems.
Let us differentiate the output (6.35c) in order to have the input u explicitly
appearing. We then have:
= fp (V, P)
y = P
= fp fv + fp fp + fp gv u
=P
y
V
P
V
= fp (V)fv + fp (P)fp + fp (V)gv u
(6.36)
(6.37)
It is easy to verify that every output i of this system has relative degree ri = 2
at a point x = xo where the m m matrix fp (V)gv is nonsingular, and that
Pm
i=1 ri = n. Therefore, according to the theory reviewed in Section 6.1, there
is a local coordinates transformation:
T ]T
T , . . . , PT , P
(x) = [PT1 , P
1
m
m
(6.38)
such that we may represent (locally around xo ) the nonlinear system (6.35) in
the normal form:
= fp (V, P)
P
= fp (V)fv + fp (P)fp + fp (V)gv u
P
y=P
(6.39)
(6.40)
(6.41)
(6.42)
111
(6.43)
(6.44)
(6.45)
(6.46)
6.3
This section applies the dynamic inversion approach to the airship path-tracking
problem, using the formulation described in the previous section.
Consider the deterministic no-wind case where the inertial and air velocities
are equal (V = Va ). Moreover, consider the position is given, not relative to
the inertial frame, but to the reference trajectory. In this scenario, we may
represent the airship equations of motion as:
a = M1 (6 Ma Va + Va6 (Ma MBa )Va Eg Sag Fa ) + M1 uf
V
a
a
(6.47a)
= J V V
P
(6.47b)
= [T ,
T ]T corresponds to the position error relative to the reference
where P
trajectory. The transformation matrix between the local and the reference
112
with
= r the attitude
trajectory frames is given by J = J(),
between frames. Vr corresponds to the reference groundspeed given in the
reference trajectory frame, as is assumed constant.
We may represent (6.47a)-(6.47b) in the general form (6.35a)-(6.35b) as 2 :
a = fv (Va , P)
+ gv uf
V
= f (V , P)
P
p
(6.48a)
(6.48b)
with:
= M1 (6 Ma Va + Va6 (Ma MBa )Va Eg Sag Fa ) (6.49)
fv (Va , P)
a
fp (Va , P) = J Va Vr
(6.50)
1
gv = Ma
(6.51)
Take the position relative to the reference trajectory as the output variables
of interest:
y=P
(6.52)
(6.53)
with:
c c c s s s c c s c + s s 0
s s
c
s
c
s c s s s + c c s s c c s
s
c s
c c
fp (Va ) =
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
s c
c
(6.54)
c
c
+ r )
We may write the transformation matrix in the gravity force as S = S() = S(
and assume r to be constant.
2
=
fp (P)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
113
0 (c s c + s s ) v + (c s s + s c ) w
0 (s s c c s ) v + (s s s c c ) w
0
c c v c s w
s c q
s s r
0
c c
0
s q c r
c q
s r
0
c c
(6.55)
c s u + c c s v + c c c w s c u + (s s s c c ) v + (s s c + c s ) w
s s u + s c s v + s c c w
c c u + (c s s s c ) v + (c s c + s s ) w
c u s s v s c w
s q +
(s )2 s q
(c )2
+ c r +
(s )2 c r
(c )2
0
s qs
(c )2
0
c rs
(c )2
= c and sin()
= s , will lead to an
using the condensed notation cos()
asymptotic output tracking if the new reference input has the form (6.45).
In the airship case we verified a time reference excites unmodelled dynamics.
To solve this problem, and in order to provide some robustness to the dynamic
r P
m.
inversion solution, we consider tracking a model dynamics, i.e., P
The obvious choice is the linear 12-states system with the LQR state feedback
control described in Chapter 5, which, besides robust, takes into account the
real limitations of the airship system. The model dynamics is described by:
m
m = (A BK)
x
xm = Ac x
m
ym = C
xm = P
(6.56)
(6.57)
(6.58)
m
m = CA2c x
y
(6.59)
(6.60)
114
platform.
The control input, however, is a force input, which cannot be directly fed to
the airship. The control law (6.53) considers an input uf that includes both
forces and torques. However, the real inputs of an airship are its actuators.
For this reason, a conversion from forces to actuators inputs is necessary for
the proper implementation of the attained controller.
The actuators input u = [e , TL , TR , v , a , r ]T is obtained solving the equations system (2.71). As referred in Section 2.2.1.1, although we have six actuators inputs to control the six forces, several limitations lead to the underactuation of the airship. Moreover, the system of equations (2.71) is not directly invertible, which implies an empiric allocation in some situations.
6.4
Simulation results
This last section demonstrates the performance of the dynamic inversion approach applied to the airship path-tracking problem. We present the results
obtained for the case-study mission and to the sensitivity and robustness to
parameter uncertainty test.
6.4.1
Case-study mission
The first results we present concern the case-study mission described in Section 3.3.1. The mission covers a wide range of the flight envelope, with the
airspeed varying from 3 to 14m/s.
The airship position coordinates and errors are represented in fig. 6.4. The
vertical take-off and landing are well perceived in fig. 6.4(a), as well as the
path-tracking performance. Figure 6.4(b) displays the longitudinal , lateral
and vertical errors. The end of the first half-circle, when the wind is aft
the airship, and the transition between the ascent and the horizontal tracking,
remain problematic mission points, with the last one showing higher position
errors than in the gain scheduling case. But other regions also rise difficulties:
the beginning of the second curve and the stabilization prior to the descent.
In those occasions we notice an increase of the position errors. In order to
avoid saturation of the propellers, probable when the controller tries to rapidly
correct the longitudinal position, the error is limited to 2m, as was in the
115
(m)
60
50
20
0
-20
-40
-60
-80
50
100
150
200
Time (s)
250
300
350
400
-30
0
50
100
150
200
Time (s)
250
300
350
400
50
100
150
200
Time (s)
250
300
350
400
40
(m)
h (m)
30
30
20
15
0
-15
10
0
10
100
300
200
0
100
-100
-200
N (m)
(m)
200
5
0
-5
-10
-100
E (m)
116
250
30
wind
heading
(deg)
200
150
15
0
-15
-30
50
100
150
200
Time (s)
250
300
350
400
30
20
10
0
-10
-20
0
50
100
150
200
Time (s)
250
300
350
400
50
100
150
200
Time (s)
250
300
350
400
100
(deg)
N (m)
50
-50
-100
(deg)
-150
-200
-250
-100
100
E (m)
200
360
270
180
90
0
0
300
Vt (m/s)
10
8
6
4
2
0
4
2
0
-2
-4
-6
0
2
1
0
-1
-2
-3
50
100
150
200
Time (s)
250
300
350
400
14
12
10
8
6
4
2
50
100
150
200
Time (s)
250
300
350
400
-20
0
50
100
150
200
Time (s)
250
300
350
400
50
100
150
200
Time (s)
250
300
350
400
20
50
100
150
200
Time (s)
250
300
350
400
(deg)
w (m/s)
v (m/s)
(deg)
u (m/s)
path-tracking. Along the circular segments, the errors are more noticeable due
to the change of the wind incidence angle while the airship is turning. The
error is higher when the wind is aft the airship. The lateral velocity v is also
mostly influenced by the circular segments and during the tail wind segment.
The vertical velocity w follows its reference, with the 1 and 0.5m/s steps
corresponding to the take-off and landing vertical motion. The airspeed and
50
100
150
200
Time (s)
250
300
350
400
10
0
-10
20
10
0
-10
-20
-30
117
airship covers a wide flight envelope, from hover to the aerodynamic flight,
crossing the troublesome transition region between the two. Here, the behavior
of shows also correlation with w.
30
15
0
-15
-30
XT (N )
a (deg)
30
15
100
150
200
Time (s)
250
300
350
0
-15
-30
400
50
100
150
200
Time (s)
250
300
350
400
-30
0
50
100
150
200
Time (s)
250
300
350
400
50
100
150
200
Time (s)
250
300
350
400
80
30
60
15
40
20
0
0
50
100
150
200
Time (s)
250
300
350
400
120
90
60
30
0
-30
0
-15
-10
TD (N )
v (deg)
50
r (deg)
e (deg)
The actuators input is described in fig. 6.7, with the longitudinal actuators
elevator e , total thrust XT and vectoring angle v in fig. 6.7(a) and the lateral
input, aileron a , rudder r and differential thrust TD , in fig. 6.7(b). The
elevator e , while responsible for the altitude and pitch control, shows a more
constant demand during the vertical displacements. The rudder r , mainly
responsible for the lateral position and airship yaw, has a higher command
with tail wind, due to the reduced authority at lower airspeeds. The airship
roll is controlled by the aileron a at higher airspeeds, and by the differential
thrust TD when the control surface loses authority (which usually corresponds
to a vectoring angle close to 90o , allowing TD to effectively control the roll and
not the yaw). This actuator has a negligible action in aerodynamic flight (the
control surfaces authority is sufficient for the rudder r to control the airship
yaw ), an option taken when converting the forces input to an actuators
request.
10
0
50
100
150
200
Time (s)
250
300
350
400
118
on the altitude and pitch control, unlike the gain scheduling controller.
As a remark, note that the engines inputs are coupled, as are the tail surfaces
due to the -shape. Note, for instance, that when the rudder r is saturated,
the other two control surfaces inputs, elevator e and aileron a , are zero.
In the overall, the airship under dynamic inversion control executed the mission
satisfactorily, although with a more erroneous behavior than under the gain
scheduling control.
6.4.2
119
10
(deg)
1200
-10
1000
50
100
150
50
100
150
50
100
150
50
100
150
50
100
150
(deg)
10
800
5
0
-5
-20
(deg)
N (m)
wind
heading
600
-25
-30
-35
400
w (deg)
5
0
-5
200
-10
w (deg)
100
0
-100
-50
50
E (m)
90
80
Time (s)
Figure 6.8: Airship north-east trajectory and attitude, and wind attitude.
The aerodynamic variables are represented in fig. 6.9(b). The around 9m/s
airspeed corresponds to the relative airspeed between the 8m/s groundspeed
heading north and the 4m/s wind speed from west. The sideslip angle is
close to zero, showing the airship is aligned with the relative airspeed.
The actuators input applied to the AURORA airship is represented in fig. 6.10,
with the longitudinal actuators action given in fig. 6.10(a), while the lateral
actuation is in fig. 6.10(b). The vectoring angle v , which is expected to have
a negligible action in aerodynamic flight, is clearly helping the elevator to
cancel the altitude error . The differential thrust TD , represented here for
completeness, has a negligible control action in aerodynamic flight, an option
taken when converting from forces to actuators.
Table 6.1 shows the RMS values of selected variables. They are the airship
positions errors, namely longitudinal , lateral and vertical errors, and the
true airspeed Vt , the angle of attack and the sideslip angle , together with
3
The different scales might give a wrong idea of the airship heading ( 27o ).
120
10
Vt (m/s)
(m)
1
0
-1
50
100
9
8
150
50
(deg)
(m)
1
0
-1
0
100
50
-5
150
50
150
100
150
time (s)
10
(deg)
(m)
100
Time (s)
3
2
1
0
-1
-2
-3
150
-2
100
time (s)
Time (s)
50
100
5
0
-5
150
50
Time (s)
time (s)
e (deg)
20
10
0
-10
50
100
0
-5
150
50
20
10
r (deg)
XT (N )
80
60
40
20
0
100
50
100
150
100
150
0
-20
150
50
Time (s)
1
TD (N )
v (deg)
150
-10
Time (s)
120
90
60
30
0
-30
100
Time (s)
Time (s)
50
100
150
0
-1
50
Time (s)
Time (s)
the groundspeed error eu relative to the 8m/s reference. The first row has the
RMS values obtained for the baseline case, and is to serve as reference for the
remaining lines where each of the listed coefficients is varied one at a time.
For a parameter uncertainty of 70%, the controlled airship still performed
qualitatively like the baseline case, except for a few cases. For the coefficients
CMe and CMq , a +30 and 30% uncertainty respectively already influenced
the controller performance, while for CL this influenced appeared for 50%.
The dynamic inversion controller appeared to be affected only by the increase
6.5. CONCLUSIONS
121
6.5
Conclusions
This chapter describes the general theory of the dynamic inversion approach.
Bearing in mind systems like the airship whose dynamic equations are given
by a cascaded description, we formulate a more straightforward procedure to
obtain the dynamic inversion control law for this type of systems.
The next step is obviously its application to the AURORA airship pathtracking problem, where the controlled system shows a satisfactory performance in the execution of realistic missions.
The dynamic inversion approach is based on the cancelation of the system
122
Table 6.1: Robustness tests on model parameters (RMS values of selected variables).
Baseline
(m)
(m)
(m)
Vt (m/s)
(deg)
(deg)
eu (m/s)
0.60
0.45
0.78
9.01
3.26
1.21
0.14
Cl
90%
+90%
0.59
0.62
0.41
0.51
0.78
0.74
9.01
9.01
3.31
3.03
0.95
1.80
0.12
0.19
CM0
90%
+90%
0.58
0.61
0.45
0.45
0.79
0.76
9.01
9.01
3.32
3.20
1.22
1.21
0.14
0.14
CM
90%
+90%
0.48
0.65
0.44
0.46
1.31
0.73
9.01
9.01
3.96
2.80
1.24
1.20
0.14
0.14
CM
90%
+90%
0.60
0.60
0.45
0.45
0.77
0.78
9.01
9.01
3.25
3.28
1.21
1.21
0.14
0.14
CM
90%
+90%
0.62
0.58
0.45
0.45
0.76
0.80
9.01
9.01
3.19
3.34
1.21
1.22
0.14
0.14
CM
90%
+90%
0.60
0.60
0.45
0.45
0.77
0.78
9.01
9.01
3.25
3.27
1.21
1.21
0.14
0.14
CMe
90%
+90%
19.40
62.17
2.66
1.84
6.79
2.05
8.81
9.91
2.83
4.11
1.47
1.47
0.44
1.44
CN
90%
+90%
0.59
0.60
0.43
0.45
0.76
0.78
9.01
9.01
3.28
3.25
1.33
1.13
0.12
0.15
CNr
90%
+90%
19.98
0.49
16.05
0.34
6.61
0.79
9.44
9.01
4.47
3.31
5.77
1.35
1.98
0.19
CY
90%
+90%
0.55
0.61
0.72
0.41
0.80
0.78
9.02
9.01
3.30
3.27
2.93
0.88
0.17
0.13
CYr
90%
+90%
0.58
0.61
0.44
0.45
0.77
0.77
9.01
9.01
3.33
3.19
1.25
1.50
0.12
0.16
CD0
90%
+90%
0.53
1.07
0.49
0.46
1.02
0.98
9.01
9.01
4.13
2.60
1.26
1.17
0.18
0.14
CDi
90%
+90%
0.55
0.64
0.45
0.45
0.81
0.75
9.01
9.01
3.36
3.18
1.21
1.21
0.15
0.13
CL0
90%
+90%
0.60
0.59
0.45
0.45
0.77
0.78
9.01
9.01
3.18
3.34
1.21
1.22
0.14
0.14
CL
90%
+90%
140.23
0.69
42.03
0.46
87.44
0.60
9.38
9.01
27.25
1.87
8.11
1.17
3.68
0.13
CLe
90%
+90%
0.56
0.63
0.43
0.46
0.72
1.04
9.01
9.01
3.82
3.10
1.24
1.20
0.13
0.15
Clp
90%
+90%
0.61
0.60
0.45
0.46
0.79
0.77
9.01
9.01
3.18
3.28
1.40
1.18
0.15
0.14
CMq
90%
+90%
265.78
0.78
3.12
0.52
1.52
2.09
12.79
9.04
3.41
4.72
1.33
1.21
4.65
0.24
CNr
90%
+90%
597.96
0.64
189.82
0.77
6.01
0.80
4.19
9.01
36.24
3.23
73.23
1.40
4.81
0.16
mw
90%
+90%
0.67
0.33
0.48
0.58
1.29
1.45
9.02
9.02
1.52
3.92
1.52
1.37
0.21
0.16
6.5. CONCLUSIONS
123
124
Chapter 7
Backstepping
Contents
7.1
Wind estimator
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
126
7.2
128
7.3
128
7.4
132
7.5
Control implementation
136
7.5.1
7.6
7.7
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Simulation results . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
138
7.6.1
7.6.2
Conclusions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
146
Although Lyapunovs direct method is originally a method of stability analysis, an important application is the design of nonlinear controllers. Backstepping [60] is a recursive procedure that interlaces the choice of a Lyapunov
function with the design of feedback control. In the backstepping approach,
by formulating a scalar positive function of the system states and then considering a control law that makes this function decrease, we have the guarantee
that the nonlinear control system thus designed will be asymptotically stable,
and still robust to some unmatched uncertainties.
Several successful applications of the backstepping approach for UAV control
have been reported [73, 15, 74, 75, 76].
Backstepping as also been used in the specific case of airships. A backstepping technique has been proposed by the LAAS/CNRS autonomous blimp
project [39, 40]. The global control strategy studied is obtained by switching
125
126
CHAPTER 7. BACKSTEPPING
between four sub-controllers, one for each of the flight phases considered. Each
controller is however still based on linearized models of the airship, what leads
to the separate control of the longitudinal and lateral motions. An imagebased control solution for airship tracking is based by Fukao et al. [43] on
backstepping techniques for underactuated vehicles. The airship model considered is built from the kinematics between the camera used as only sensor
and the target. Robustness issues like wind disturbance rejection are still to
be improved.
In this chapter we propose a backstepping based control solution to the airship
path-tracking problem. Based on the six-degrees-of-freedom nonlinear model
of the airship, it is valid for missions over the entire flight envelope.
Before going into the backstepping airship path-tracking control design, we
first describe in Section 7.1 a wind estimator. The interest of using this estimator instead of the wind estimation method described in Section 3.2 lies, not
in a better estimation, but in the fact that it provides useful bounds, as we
will later see. We then present a general backstepping control approach in Section 7.2, applying it to the path-tracking problem in Section 7.3. Saturation
limits are included in the control design in Section 7.4 and important implementation issues are discussed in Section 7.5.1. The controller performance is
evaluated in Section 7.6, with simulation results concerning the case-study mission and the sensitivity and robustness to parameter uncertainty test. Finally,
the conclusions are drawn in Section 7.7.
7.1
Wind estimator
The dynamics equations (2.66) or (2.69) and the kinematics equation (2.80),
expressed in the air frame, assume a constant translation wind. However, the
wind disturbance is unknown, being necessary to build an estimator based
on (2.48)-(2.49) and (2.80). Since the wind input is not affecting the angular
position part in (2.80), only the cartesian position p of the airship should be
considered:
p = ST va + p w
(7.1)
127
p
w
p
"
ST va
0
"
Lp I 3
Lpw 03
#"
pp
p w
(7.2)
"
Lp I3
Lpw 03
#"
pp
w
p w p
= A
(7.3)
where the two constant matrices (Lp , Lpw ) are chosen so that A be Hurwitz.1
Therefore, the origin of (7.3) is asymptotically stable and there exists a Lyapunov function:
We = T P
(7.4)
(7.5)
"
Qp 03
03 Qpw
(7.6)
w
w = p w p
p
(7.7)
(7.8)
Tw Qpw p
p
W
pT Qp p
2
(7.9)
For instance, taking Lp = aI3 and Lpw = ab I3 leads to three pairs of poles at a2 (1i)
q
2
1
with = 4b
b , i.e., with a damping factor = 2 b.
1
128
7.2
CHAPTER 7. BACKSTEPPING
Let us consider a generic control problem with output y. We first define two
y1 = ay + y
y2 = y
y 1 = ay + y
y 2 = y
(7.10)
(7.11)
ay + y
(7.13)
(7.14)
will clearly be negative definite and the system will be globally asymptotically
stable.
7.3
We shall now proceed applying the control design described in the previous
section to the path-tracking problem.
Let us assume a point pr with a constant ground velocity vr is to be tracked
with constant attitude along a rectilinear path AB (see figure 7.1):
p r = STr vr
(7.15)
129
vw
vr
va r
p
As the wind velocity vw is considered, the desired air velocity var may be
deduced. Moreover, since the airship is being aligned with this air velocity
we have a reference for the attitude given by the transformation Sar from the
inertial frame to the air velocity var , which is described by the desired attitude
vector ar . This leads to the reference position:
Pr =
"
pr
ar
(7.16)
"
STr vr
0
= Jr Vr
"
vr
0
(7.17)
and Jr =
"
STr 03
03 Rr
(7.18)
where the output auxiliary variables y1 and y2 are again derived from the
130
CHAPTER 7. BACKSTEPPING
y1 = a(P Pr ) + J Va + BI p w Jr Vr
y2 = J Va + BI p w Jr Vr
(7.20)
= (ay + y)
T (ay + y
) ay T y
= (ay + 2y)
(7.21)
ay + y
(7.22)
or:
a=
a(J Va + BI p w Jr Vr ) + J CJ Va + J V
(a(P Pr ) + 2(J Va + BI p w Jr Vr )) (7.23)
where we used:
a + J CJ Va
= J V
y
(7.24)
(7.27)
131
(7.28)
(7.29)
(7.30)
(7.32)
The control law may be deduced from equations (2.69) and (7.26), leading to:
a KVa ) Eg Sag Fa
uf = Ma (V
a = aJ1 (P Pr ) CJ Va J1 2 (J Va + BI p
w Jr Vr )
V
2
(7.33)
(7.34)
uf = Ma A1 (J Va + BI p w Jr Vr ) + B1 (P Pr ) + C1 Va Eg Sag Fa
(7.35)
1
2
with A1 = J1
2 , B1 = aJ and C1 = CJ + K, resulting in an asymptotically stable closed-loop system.
However, the force control input, as is it, may result in excessively high de2
w )T (y0 Gp
w ) = y0T (y0 Gp
w )(Gp
w )T (y0 Gp
w ) = y0T (y0 2Gp
w )+(Gp
w )T Gp
w
(y0 Gp
w ) = (y0 Gp
w )T (y0 Gp
w ) p
Tw GT Gp
w
it is easily deduced that: y0T (y0 2Gp
132
CHAPTER 7. BACKSTEPPING
mands for a real system subject to input constraints. In the next section the
control solution (7.35) will be adapted to deal with this matter.
7.4
In order to include saturation limits into the control design, let us rewrite
equation (7.22), corresponding to a second derivative demand:
= ay (ay + 2y)
= (aI6 + 2)y ay = 22 y 1 y
y
(7.36)
(7.37)
(7.38)
(7.39)
Before proceeding, we will now define linear saturation as well as its properties,
and provide an important theorem used in the proof of stability of the saturated
control.
(7.40)
133
(7.41)
Properties 7.1. It may easily be verified that the definition yields the following
properties [63]:
z Rn ; zT [z] > 0
(7.42)
z Rn ; |[z]| R
P
where |z| = zT z is the norm of vector z as defined in Rn and R2 = ni=1 m2i .
Theorem 7.1. If two saturations 1 and 2 are defined, such that R1 < 21 r2 ,
then:
1
(7.43)
(z1 , z2 ) Rn , |z2 | > r2 zT2 2 [z2 + 1 [z1 ]] > 0
2
Proof. Since |z2 | > 12 r2 and | 1 [z1 ]| R1 < 21 r2 , one can write the orthogonal
projection of the saturated vector 1 [z1 ] on z2 as:
1 [z1 ] = 1 z2 + v1
(7.44)
(7.45)
= (1 + 1 ) zT2 2 z2 > 0
We can now proceed and introduce the second derivative (7.39) saturated
demand:
s = 2 2 [z2 + 1 [z1 ]]
y
(7.46)
134
CHAPTER 7. BACKSTEPPING
(7.47)
T (ay 2 z2 2 1 [z1 ]) ay T y
= (ay + 2y)
(7.48)
(7.49)
Two scenarios are now possible: (i) z1 is not saturated, in which case 1 = I,
ts < 0; or (ii) z1 is saturated and 1 = m1i 1. Let us further
resulting in W
i
|z1i |
analyze this case.
s = a1/2 1 y, and Z = 1
Taking z0 = 21/2 y,
1 , we have:
ts = (z0 + Zs)T (z0 + s) ay T y
W
(7.50)
(zi + si )(zi + i si )
(7.51)
Noting that s and z0 have behaviors similar to, respectively, z1 and z2 , and
that z2 is in its linear zone and converging, we have that after some time
135
(i si + si )(i si + i si )
(7.52)
(si )2 (i + 1)(i + i )
(7.53)
X
i
which shows that each term is positive, making the result of the sum also
ts is negative definite.
positive. Therefore, W
To include the input forces limitations into the control law design, let us con=y
s . From (7.24) and (7.47)
sider the desired demand is a saturated one, y
we obtain:
a + J CJ Va =
J V
(7.54)
2 2 2 (J Va + BI p w Jr Vr ) + 1 [1
2 1 (P Pr )]
a:
or, solving for V
a = J1 2 2 2 (J Va + BI p w Jr Vr ) + 1 [1 1 (P Pr )] CJ Va
V
2
(7.55)
Substituting now (7.55) into (7.33) leads to the control law:
1
V
)
+
(P
P
)]
p
(J
V
+
B
uf s = Ma J1
r
1
1
r
w
a
I
2
2
r
2
Ma C1 Va Eg Sag Fa
(7.56)
Again, as the wind is estimated, the control law that considers the force input
saturations is finally given by:
i
h
w Jr Vr ) + 1 [1
(P
P
)]
p
(J
V
+
B
uf s = Ma J1
1
r
2
a
I
2
2
2
Ma C1 Va Eg Sag Fa
(7.57)
where 1 and 2 are the velocity saturation matrices obtained from (7.57)
with uf s corresponding to the input force maximum values related to the
actuators limits (see sections 2.1 and 2.2.1.1), and that satisfy the condition
R1 < 12 r2 < |z2 |. This control law will lead to an asymptotically stable closedloop system as long as the estimation error is bounded according to (7.31).
136
7.5
CHAPTER 7. BACKSTEPPING
Control implementation
The control law (7.57) solves the airship path-tracking problem in the presence
of constant translational wind while taking into account the limitations of the
demanded forces input. However, this control law cannot be directly fed into
the system, and needs to be adapted.
Although the control law assumes 3 forces and 3 torques are fully available, this
isnt really the case, since the airship is an underactuated vehicle, as described
in Section 2.2.1.1. The available actuation results in weak lateral and vertical
forces responses, and therefore, the position and velocity references used in
the backstepping control law should be shaped to deal with this scenario.
This matter is analyzed in the next section.
As in the dynamic inversion controller case, the backstepping control input is a
force input, which cannot be directly fed to the airship. The control law (7.57)
considers an input uf s that includes both forces and torques. However, the
real inputs of an airship are its actuators. For this reason, a conversion from
forces to actuators inputs is necessary for the proper implementation of the
attained controller.
The actuators input u = [e , TL , TR , v , a , r ]T is obtained solving the equations system (2.71). As referred in Section 2.2.1.1, although we have six actuators inputs to control the six forces, several limitations lead to the underactuation of the airship. Moreover, the system of equations (2.71) is not directly invertible, which implies an empiric allocation in some situations.
7.5.1
137
errors might find insufficient response on the actuators side. In the following,
we adapt the control law (7.57) to deal with this scenario, obtaining a faster
error correction with smoother input requests.
Consider the approximated kinematic relations:
E Vt
D Vt
(7.58)
(7.59)
where and are the pitch and yaw Euler angles [53] that describe the airship
orientation. Equations (7.58)-(7.59) allow us to relate the airship orientation
with its lateral and vertical positions.
Consider now the airship is to track a rectilinear path with orientation (r , r )
and has lateral and vertical errors respectively y and z. The angular errors are
defined as:
= r
(7.60)
= r
(7.61)
Due to the airship underactuation, if we try to independently correct the position and angular errors, depending on their magnitude, we will probably have
input saturation. However, if we consider the relation between position and
attitude, we may consider instead the following expressions:
= r ky y
= r kz z
(7.62)
(7.63)
where the constants ky and kz are dependent of the airspeed Vt . This means
we will postpone the angular corrections and use them to annulate the position
errors first. The angular references used in Pr in the control law (7.57) will
then be:
r = r + ky y
(7.64)
r = r + kz z
(7.65)
138
7.6
CHAPTER 7. BACKSTEPPING
Simulation results
7.6.1
Case-study mission
The first results we present concern the case-study mission described in Section 3.3.1.
The airship position coordinates and errors are represented in fig. 7.2. The
vertical take-off and landing are well perceived in fig. 7.2(a), as well as the
path-tracking performance. Figure 7.2(b) displays the longitudinal , lateral
and vertical errors. Like in the gain scheduling and dynamic inversion cases,
the airship deviates from the reference trajectory when the wind is at the rear,
at the end of the first half-circle, and in the transition from ascent to horizontal
tracking (see fig. 7.3(a)). Other problematic mission point, shared with the
dynamic inversion but showing higher errors, is the stabilization prior to the
descent. The correction of the longitudinal and lateral position errors due
to the instantaneous reference change induces a significant vertical error. With
the backstepping solution, the stabilization is more slowly achieved. Remember
that in this solution the controller has no prior information of the actuation
available (the gain scheduling considers the actuators input and the dynamic
inversion indirectly knows the actuation limitation through the gain scheduling
model used as reference), and therefore the errors correction is not optimized.
Comparing the airship trajectory executed with the backstepping controller
(see fig. 7.2(a)) with the ones controlled by the gain scheduling (see fig. 5.15(a))
and dynamic inversion (see fig. 6.4(a)) approaches, we observe that all control
laws lead to the accomplishment of the mission within acceptable deviations
from the trajectory reference. The backstepping resulting trajectory is less
erroneous than the dynamic inversion one, but shows higher vertical errors
than the gain scheduling.
Figure 7.3 represents the airship horizontal trajectory and its attitude during
the mission. The airship north-east coordinates and heading during the mission
139
(m)
60
-40
-60
-80
50
40
30
(m)
h (m)
-20
20
10
0
50
100
150
200
Time (s)
250
300
350
400
20
10
0
-10
-20
-30
0
50
100
150
200
Time (s)
250
300
350
400
50
100
150
200
Time (s)
250
300
350
400
4
100
300
200
0
100
-100
-200
N (m)
(m)
200
0
-4
-8
-100
E (m)
are described in fig. 7.3(a). The preferential alignment with the wind during
take-off and landing is again well recognized. During the maneuvers at low
airspeeds the airship motion is smoother than in the previous two cases, due to
the references shaping described in Section 7.5.1. The Euler angles evolution
is displayed in fig. 7.3(b). The roll angle (), with a null reference, has a
significant amplitude in the transition from vertical to horizontal tracking,
which is then corrected. During the descent, the roll is well controlled. The
pitch () and yaw () angles approximately follow the respective references
described in Section 7.5.1.
The airship ground velocity and the aerodynamic variables are depicted in
fig. 7.4 and are somewhat similar to the ones obtained in the previous cases.
The ground velocity components are described in fig. 7.4(a). The longitudinal groundspeed u mostly follows the reference that varies between 0m/s for
stabilization, take-off and landing, and 7m/s during the path-tracking. Along
the circular segments, the errors are more noticeable due to the change of the
wind incidence angle while the airship is turning. The error is higher when
the wind is aft the airship. The lateral velocity v is also mostly influenced by
the circular segments and during the tail wind segment. The vertical velocity
w follows its reference, with the 1 and 0.5m/s steps corresponding to the
take-off and landing vertical motion. The airspeed and aerodynamic angles
can be seen in fig. 7.4(b). During the whole mission, the airspeed Vt varies
significantly, from values around 2.5m/s up to 12.5m/s. The airship covers a
140
CHAPTER 7. BACKSTEPPING
250
(deg)
200
wind
heading
150
60
45
30
15
0
-15
-30
50
100
150
200
Time (s)
250
300
350
400
15
10
5
0
-5
-10
0
50
100
150
200
Time (s)
250
300
350
400
50
100
150
200
Time (s)
250
300
350
400
100
(deg)
N (m)
50
-50
-100
(deg)
-150
-200
-250
-100
100
E (m)
300
200
450
360
270
180
90
0
-90
Vt (m/s)
10
8
6
4
2
0
-2
4
2
0
-2
-4
-6
0
50
100
150
200
Time (s)
250
300
350
400
50
100
150
200
Time (s)
250
300
350
400
(deg)
w (m/s)
2
0
-1
-2
14
12
10
8
6
4
2
50
100
150
200
Time (s)
250
300
350
400
-20
0
50
100
150
200
Time (s)
250
300
350
400
50
100
150
200
Time (s)
250
300
350
400
20
(deg)
v (m/s)
u (m/s)
50
100
150
200
Time (s)
250
300
350
400
10
0
-10
20
10
0
-10
-20
-30
141
30
15
0
-15
-30
XT (N )
a (deg)
30
15
100
150
200
Time (s)
250
300
350
0
-15
-30
400
50
100
150
200
Time (s)
250
300
350
400
-30
0
50
100
150
200
Time (s)
250
300
350
400
50
100
150
200
Time (s)
250
300
350
400
80
30
60
15
40
20
0
0
50
100
150
200
Time (s)
250
300
350
400
0
-15
30
120
90
60
30
0
-30
TD (N )
v (deg)
50
r (deg)
e (deg)
mainly responsible for the lateral position and airship yaw, has a higher command with tail wind, due to the reduced authority at lower airspeeds. The
airship roll is controlled by the aileron a at higher airspeeds, and by the
differential thrust TD when the control surface loses authority (which usually
corresponds to a vectoring angle close to 90o , allowing TD to effectively control
the roll and not the yaw). This actuator has a negligible action in aerodynamic
flight (the control surfaces authority is sufficient for the rudder r to control
the airship yaw ), an option taken when converting the forces input to an
actuators request.
50
100
150
200
Time (s)
250
300
350
400
15
0
-15
-30
The vectoring angle v is responsible for the airship lift when the airspeed Vt
is too low to provide the necessary aerodynamic lift. The correlation between
these two variables, although not as obvious as in the gain scheduling case,
is visible when comparing the graphics of v and Vt . At higher airspeeds, the
backstepping control law chooses to use this actuator to help the elevator on
the altitude and pitch control, unlike the gain scheduling controller.
In the overall, the airship under backstepping control executed the mission
satisfactorily.
142
CHAPTER 7. BACKSTEPPING
7.6.2
This section evaluates the stability and performance robustness of the backstepping control methodology when solving the path-tracking control problem
of the AURORA airship. Due to the nonlinearity of both system and backstepping control law, we cannot make use of the analysis tools used in the gain
scheduling robustness analysis. Therefore, we limit our analysis of the backstepping closed-loop system robustness to the test described in Section 3.3.2.
For the baseline simulation, we consider no variation of the model parameters,
only wind disturbance input for the aerodynamic flight at 8m/s groundspeed
and 50m altitude. Figure 7.6(a) shows the airship north-east position and
1200
(deg)
10
1000
-10
50
100
150
50
100
150
50
100
150
50
100
150
50
100
150
(deg)
10
800
5
0
-5
N (m)
wind
heading
-20
(deg)
600
-25
-30
-35
400
w (deg)
200
0
-5
-10
w (deg)
100
0
-100
-50
50
E (m)
90
80
Time (s)
Figure 7.6: Airship north-east trajectory and attitude, and wind attitude.
heading when following the straight line reference aligned with north, while
subject to the 4m/s constant wind blowing from west, plus 3m/s turbulent
3
The different scales might give a wrong idea of the airship heading ( 27o ).
143
gust. We notice the airship is able to follow the reference, although with an
orientation that helps it minimize the drag force produced by the lateral wind.
Figure 7.6(b) represents the airship attitude references (see Section 7.5.1) and
output, as well as the wind estimated attitude. The excitation of the signals
is due to the wind turbulence.
As may be expected, the airship position errors oscillate around zero instead
of converging, due to the wind turbulence input, as may be seen in fig. 7.7(a).
The aerodynamic variables are represented in fig. 7.7(b). The around 9m/s
airspeed corresponds to the relative air speed between the 8m/s groundspeed
heading north and the 4m/s wind speed from west. The sideslip angle is
close to zero, showing the airship is aligned with the relative airspeed.
10
Vt (m/s)
(m)
1
0
-1
50
100
9
8
150
50
100
50
-5
150
50
150
100
150
time (s)
10
(deg)
(m)
100
Time (s)
0
-1
150
5
(deg)
(m)
-1
100
time (s)
Time (s)
50
100
150
Time (s)
5
0
-5
50
time (s)
CHAPTER 7. BACKSTEPPING
20
20
10
10
a (deg)
e (deg)
144
0
-10
-20
100
50
0
-10
-20
150
50
80
20
60
10
40
20
0
0
50
150
100
100
150
100
150
0
-10
-20
150
50
Time (s)
Time (s)
120
90
60
30
0
-30
1
TD (N )
v (deg)
100
Time (s)
r (deg)
XT (N )
Time (s)
100
50
150
0
-1
50
Time (s)
Time (s)
145
Table 7.1: Robustness tests on model parameters (RMS values of selected variables).
Baseline
(m)
(m)
(m)
Vt (m/s)
(deg)
(deg)
eu (m/s)
0.40
0.23
0.29
9.00
2.87
1.13
0.12
Cl
90%
+90%
0.37
0.45
0.22
0.24
0.29
0.28
9.00
9.00
2.91
2.78
0.99
1.33
0.11
0.13
CM0
90%
+90%
0.40
0.39
0.23
0.24
0.27
0.31
9.00
9.00
2.90
2.82
1.13
1.15
0.12
0.12
CM
90%
+90%
0.34
0.36
0.20
0.25
0.12
0.48
9.00
9.00
3.19
2.53
1.08
1.18
0.11
0.17
CM
90%
+90%
0.39
0.40
0.23
0.22
0.29
0.29
9.00
9.00
2.85
2.87
1.13
1.12
0.12
0.12
CM
90%
+90%
0.39
0.40
0.24
0.22
0.31
0.27
9.00
9.00
2.82
2.90
1.14
1.12
0.12
0.12
CM
90%
+90%
0.39
0.40
0.23
0.23
0.29
0.29
9.00
9.00
2.86
2.87
1.13
1.13
0.12
0.12
CMe
90%
+90%
1.51
0.38
6.16
0.20
27.06
0.15
8.99
9.00
2.18
3.14
1.56
1.08
0.29
0.10
CN
90%
+90%
0.37
0.40
0.23
0.27
0.28
0.30
9.00
9.00
2.89
2.81
1.17
1.19
0.11
0.13
CNr
90%
+90%
3.56
0.38
6.78
0.08
3.16
0.27
9.16
9.00
4.16
2.91
3.88
1.01
0.77
0.09
CY
90%
+90%
0.39
0.39
0.60
0.21
0.34
0.29
9.01
9.00
2.83
2.87
3.13
0.87
0.20
0.11
CYr
90%
+90%
0.38
0.59
0.09
1.04
0.27
0.67
9.00
9.03
2.91
2.63
1.13
3.76
0.09
0.39
CD0
90%
+90%
1.36
0.86
0.43
0.22
0.52
0.34
9.02
9.00
3.18
2.68
1.54
1.13
0.33
0.13
CDi
90%
+90%
0.36
0.43
0.23
0.23
0.28
0.30
9.00
9.00
2.90
2.83
1.13
1.12
0.12
0.12
CL0
90%
+90%
0.41
0.38
0.23
0.23
0.30
0.28
9.00
9.00
2.76
2.97
1.13
1.13
0.12
0.12
CL
90%
+90%
49.86
0.47
0.74
0.27
10.84
0.44
9.72
9.00
19.32
1.52
1.52
1.18
1.06
0.13
CLe
90%
+90%
0.39
0.42
0.19
0.29
0.10
0.54
9.00
9.00
4.18
2.10
1.08
1.22
0.11
0.15
Clp
90%
+90%
0.42
0.38
0.23
0.24
0.29
0.29
9.00
9.00
2.76
2.87
1.33
1.10
0.13
0.12
CMq
90%
+90%
265.78
0.41
3.12
0.30
1.52
0.75
12.79
9.01
3.41
2.74
1.33
1.21
4.65
0.20
CNr
90%
+90%
0.38
0.79
0.07
1.52
0.28
0.90
9.00
9.05
2.88
2.91
0.98
2.84
0.10
0.38
mw
90%
+90%
0.46
0.23
0.37
0.30
0.95
0.32
9.02
9.01
1.99
3.01
1.16
1.31
0.25
0.13
146
CHAPTER 7. BACKSTEPPING
7.7
Conclusions
7.7. CONCLUSIONS
147
ones of the model. Therefore, the analysis of the controlled system performance and stability robustness in the presence of realistic wind disturbances
and model parameter uncertainties is very important. The backstepping controller, robust to wind disturbances, shows to be tolerant to uncertainties in
most of the model parameters tested. However, for some aerodynamic coefficients, namely CNr , CMe , CL and CMq , a more careful identification or
determination should take place.
148
CHAPTER 7. BACKSTEPPING
Chapter 8
Comparison of controllers
performance
Any of the three control solutions described in the previous chapters presents
its advantages and disadvantages, many of which are discussed in the respective
chapters. Yet, an overall comparison between them is important as to provide a
better overview of the different control options. In this chapter this assessment
is made considering parameters such as path-tracking performance for a casestudy complete mission (Section 8.1), robustness in face of model parameter
uncertainty (Section 8.2) and computational effort (Section 8.3). These factors,
together with some implementation issues, are relevant to evolve to the next
phase, the experimental validation in autonomous flight.
8.1
The case-study mission described in Section 3.3.1 was used to test the pathtracking performance of each of the controllers. It considers important phases
of a generic mission, like take-off and landing, path-tracking and stabilization.
The reference trajectory considered, as well as the resulting trajectories for
each of the three controllers are gathered in fig. 8.1. Although all three controllers are able to accomplish the entire mission, the different performances
are noticeable. The gain scheduling and backstepping solutions both show
smaller deviations from the reference trajectory, with the backstepping controller presenting more difficulties in the vertical positioning control during the
transition from vertical ascent to horizontal tracking and during the stabiliza149
60
60
50
50
40
h (m)
h (m)
1
3
2
40
30
30
20
20
10
10
0
200
0
4
200
100
100
300
100
-100
-200
N (m)
100
-100
-200
-100
N (m)
E (m)
0
-100
E (m)
(a) Reference.
60
60
50
50
40
40
h (m)
h (m)
300
200
200
30
30
20
20
10
10
200
200
100
300
200
300
-200
200
100
-100
N (m)
100
100
-100
-200
-100
E (m)
N (m)
0
-100
E (m)
(d) Backstepping.
tion. Notice that these two points represent nonsmooth tracking references.
The dynamic inversion visibly results in a more erroneous tracking.
In order to better quantify the position errors obtained with each of the controllers, the longitudinal , lateral and vertical local errors are represented
in fig. 8.2, together with an indication of the mission phase being executed.
Observing with this detail, it is obvious that none of the controllers is better
(or worse) during the entire mission. Dynamic inversion, for instance, although
usually having the higher deviations presents a smoother longitudinal stabilization.
Figure 8.3 allows us to compare the horizontal path-tracking results. Both
gain scheduling and dynamic inversion solutions lead to a higher crabbing of
151
(m)
(m)
20
0
-20
-40
-60
-80
ascent
horizontal path-tracking
descent
stabilization
50
100
150
200
Time (s)
250
300
350
400
20
10
0
-10
-20
-30
0
50
100
150
200
Time (s)
250
300
350
400
50
100
150
200
Time (s)
250
300
350
400
(m)
5
0
-5
-10
the airship during the tail wind periods. The backstepping control results in
a smoother overall trajectory, consequence of the references shaping to deal
with the airship underactuation.
250
250
wind
heading
200
250
wind
heading
200
150
150
100
100
100
50
50
50
N (m)
150
N (m)
N (m)
200
-50
-50
-50
-100
-100
-100
-150
-150
-150
-200
-200
-200
-250
-100
-250
-100
100
E (m)
200
300
100
E (m)
200
300
wind
heading
-250
-100
100
E (m)
200
(c) Backstepping.
300
The UAV capabilities report [13] analyzes 53 proposed missions in the Earth
observation scope, and 16 capabilities required. One of the requirements refers
to the precision of trajectories. They define four levels of accuracy, namely
level 5, where the trajectory is to be based on a position accuracy better than
5m; level 3, that requires a position accuracy between 5m and 50m; level
1, where the mission requires some sensitivity to vehicle trajectory, absolute
or relative, but position accuracy can be less than 50m; and level 0 for
missions that do not involve a precision trajectory. Observing these limits, and
considering only the continuous path-tracking part of the mission (neglecting
the second stabilization, at the end of the second curve), we observe that the
three controllers, with position errors below 30m, respect the level 3 limits.
The control solutions presented here are therefore appropriate, what trajectory
precision concerns, for missions such as topographic mapping and topographic
change, river discharge and urban management.
For long endurance applications, energy management is an important autonomy issue. A lower fuel and batteries consumption requires a reduced control
effort. Figure 8.4 allows us to compare the actuators request made by each
of the three controllers during the execution of the case-study mission. The
dynamic inversion and backstepping controllers show higher and more oscillatory requests, denoting the nonlinearity of the control laws and of the control
allocation procedure. The smooth gain scheduling control effort is a direct
consequence of the linearization procedure, resulting in a linear airship model
with actuators input instead of forces.
8.2
The sensitivity and robustness to parameter uncertainty test described in Section 3.3.2 investigates the stability of the closed-loop systems even in the
present of wind disturbances and model parameter uncertainty.
The baseline simulation considered the nominal model of the airship subject to
wind disturbances. The baseline results obtained for the particular mission of
a north-aligned straight line tracking with lateral wind from the three control
solutions are gathered in table 8.1. The dynamic inversion controller leads to
the higher position errors, while the backstepping solution results in smaller
ground velocity and lateral and vertical position errors.
Regarding the robustness to model parameter uncertainty, both gain schedul-
153
30
15
0
-15
-30
XT (N )
a (deg)
30
15
100
150
200
Time (s)
250
300
350
0
-15
-30
400
50
100
150
200
Time (s)
250
300
350
400
-30
0
50
100
150
200
Time (s)
250
300
350
400
50
100
150
200
Time (s)
250
300
350
400
80
30
60
15
40
20
0
0
50
100
150
200
Time (s)
250
300
350
400
0
-30
0
-15
20
120
90
60
30
TD (N )
v (deg)
50
r (deg)
e (deg)
50
100
150
200
Time (s)
250
300
350
10
0
-10
-20
400
30
15
0
-15
-30
XT (N )
a (deg)
30
15
100
150
200
Time (s)
250
300
350
0
-15
-30
400
50
100
150
200
Time (s)
250
300
350
400
-30
0
50
100
150
200
Time (s)
250
300
350
400
50
100
150
200
Time (s)
250
300
350
400
80
30
60
15
40
20
0
0
50
100
150
200
Time (s)
250
300
350
400
120
90
60
30
0
-30
0
-15
-10
TD (N )
v (deg)
50
r (deg)
e (deg)
10
0
50
100
150
200
Time (s)
250
300
350
400
30
15
0
-15
-30
XT (N )
a (deg)
30
15
100
150
200
Time (s)
250
300
350
0
-15
-30
400
50
100
150
200
Time (s)
250
300
350
400
-30
0
50
100
150
200
Time (s)
250
300
350
400
50
100
150
200
Time (s)
250
300
350
400
80
30
60
15
40
20
0
0
50
100
150
200
Time (s)
250
300
350
400
0
-15
30
120
90
60
30
0
-30
TD (N )
v (deg)
50
r (deg)
e (deg)
50
100
150
200
Time (s)
250
300
350
400
15
0
-15
-30
(m)
(m)
eu (m/s)
Gain Scheduling
0.24
0.33
0.45
0.16
Dynamic Inversion
0.60
0.45
0.78
0.14
Backstepping
0.40
0.23
0.29
0.12
ing and backstepping controllers demonstrated robustness to a 70% uncertainty in all analyzed parameters (changing one at a time), while the dynamic
inversion presented control problems for lower values of uncertainties for some
aerodynamic coefficients. For uncertainties up to 90%, the aerodynamic coefficients that resulted in an inefficient control, namely CL , CD0 , CMe , CNr ,
CMq and CNr , are the ones for which a more careful identification or determination should take place.
8.3
Computational effort
155
8.4. CONCLUSIONS
8.4
Gain Scheduling
0.0475
95.4
Dynamic Inversion
0.0498
100.0
Backstepping
0.0271
54.4
Conclusions
Dynamic Inversion
Backstepping
Path-tracking performance:
Path-tracking errors
Tracking smoothness
Requested control effort
+
+
Robustness to:
Wind disturbances
Parameters uncertainty
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
Implementation issues:
Computational effort
Code simplicity
+
+
+
Others:
Design parameters tuning
Possible evolution
The table is divided into four parts, three of which, path-tracking performance,
controllers robustness and implementation issues, were already analyzed in the
previous sections. The last one contains more subjective, designer experience
1
related, but also relevant issues, namely design parameters tuning and possible
evolution.
The evaluation of the design parameters tuning provides a comparative idea of
the necessary effort of the designer to correctly tune the controllers parameters.
While the dynamic inversion, using a model reference, has the decision of which
model to follow, the gain scheduling requires the adjustment of the state and
input control matrices parameters. The backstepping performance depends of
a proper choice of the reference shaping parameters.
The last item refers to the possible evolution of each solution. This evaluation
is merely based on the knowledge acquired throughout this work, and serves
as an indication of the future work yet to be developed for each of the control
solutions (see next chapter).
Chapter 9
Conclusions and Future Work
Considering their particular features, airships have a wide spectrum of applications as observation and data acquisition platforms. If we also consider
the quest for autonomy, airships present characteristics and competitive costs
when compared to other aircrafts, certainly constituting an important option
for research, development and experimental validation in autonomous aerial
robotics. Moreover, most of the solutions established for this kind of air vehicle may be transferred or adapted for airplanes or helicopters, where the risks
and costs involved in testing new methodologies are obviously higher.
The role of airships as UAVs depends, however, of their autonomous flight
capacity. This implies the development of control solutions for the airship
autonomous flight, that allow the execution of different missions even in the
presence of wind disturbances.
So far, a global control solution as not yet been presented for airships, with the
exception of the LAAS-CNRS group solution with decoupled controllers [40,
47], for complete missions including take-off and landing, path-tracking and
stabilization. Moreover, seldom are the ones that consider such an important
issue as robustness to wind disturbances. This work, inserted in the AURORA
and DIVA projects, made a breakthrough in this topic, developing and comparing airship control solutions, valid for the entire flight envelope, and capable
of executing realistic missions, while being robust to wind input.
An airship is an highly nonlinear system. The dynamics when in hover or aerodynamic flight varies greatly, with different combinations of actuators available,
which leads to a problematic transition region between the two. The successful
development of an overall control solution depends therefore on a good knowl157
158
edge of the system behavior over the flight envelope, and on a good model of
the airship. With this in mind, a six-degrees-of-freedom nonlinear model was
developed based on the Lagrangian approach. The linearization of this model
over the aerodynamic range lead to the usual decoupling of the longitudinal
and lateral motions. A detailed analysis of these linear models provided the
necessary insight of the airship behavior characteristics, allowing the design of
the first control solution.
The Gain Scheduling approach is based on the linear description of the airship. In order for the solution to be valid over the entire flight envelope, for
each linear model obtained (one for each equilibrium condition defined), an
optimal state feedback control law is designed. The overall control synthesis
is achieved by switching between models and respective controllers as function
of the scheduling variable airspeed. The main advantages of this method are
the simplicity of both linear model and controller, allowing to use the classic
control tools, and the fact that the model inputs are the airship actuators, a
result of the linearization procedure. A disadvantage is the time consuming
tuning of the control design parameters, namely the state and input control
matrices.
The Dynamic Inversion solution results of the inversion of the six-degrees-offreedom nonlinear airship model, obtaining a control law that cancels existing
deficient or undesirable dynamics by replacing them with a set of desired ones.
For systems, like the airship, described in a cascaded form based on dynamics
and kinematics, a new dynamic inversion formulation is presented, allowing an
easier implementation. However, a control solution based on the nonlinear description of the system presents a disadvantage if the system is underactuated,
as is the airship. The nonlinear model considers forces as input. Therefore,
the controller, obtained by inversion of this model, computes a forces request
considering all six forces are fully available. This is however not the case.
The airship has serious actuation constraints regarding the lateral force and,
although not so severe, with the downward force as well. If this information is
not provided a priori to the controller, the resulting forces request will demonstrate to be inadequate. A first solution to this problem was found by providing
the gain scheduling closed-loop dynamics as reference to the dynamic inversion
controller, instead of the reference trajectory dynamics, since the linear model
provides indirect information on the airship actuation limits. This solution,
however, limits the performance of the dynamic inversion controller to that of
the gain scheduling provided as model.
159
160
Appendix A
Referentials
Contents
A.1 Frames definition . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
161
163
In this chapter we define the referentials used in the description of the airship
dynamics and kinematics, and how they are related.
A.1
Frames definition
A.1.1
The ECI frame is centered at the origin of the Earth. The z-axis coincides
with the Earths spin axis, pointing to the north Pole and the x-axis points in
the direction of the vernal equinox (the vernal equinox is an imaginary point
161
162
APPENDIX A. REFERENTIALS
y
E
x
ABC frame
z
xl
NED frame
z
ECI frame
Equator
A.1.2
The NED frame is centered on the Earths surface at the point vertically below
the airships Center of Gravity (CG), at its initial location, where it is fixed.
The xy-plane is tangent to the Earths surface. The x-axis points in the north
direction, the y-axis to the east and the z-axis is normal to the Earths surface,
pointing inward.
In this work the Earth will be assumed as flat and taken as an inertial frame.
It will be referenced as {i} frame.
A.1.3
The ABC or local frame (referenced as {l} frame) is a right handed orthogonal
axis system fixed to the air vehicle. In order to accommodate the constantly
changing CG, the ABC frame is centered at the airships Center of Volume
(CV), assumed to be also the Center of Buoyancy (CB), and constrained to
move with it. The x-axis is coincident with the axis of symmetry of the envelope and the xz-plane coincides with the longitudinal plane of symmetry of
the airship (see fig. A.2). It is reasonable to assume both the CV and the CG
163
q,
yl
p,
r,
zl
xl
relative
air (Vt)
xa
A.1.4
A.2
(A.1)
Changing frame
The time derivative is defined in the inertial frame. The time derivative from
inertial {i} to local {l} frame introduces the Coriolis acceleration:
dv
dv
=
+ v = v + v
dt {i}
dt {l}
(A.2)
164
APPENDIX A. REFERENTIALS
Following the assumption of a rigid body, the linear velocity of the CG (point
C) is related to the linear velocity of the CV (O) through the angular velocity:
vc = v0 + OC = v OC
(A.3)
The transformation from the inertial reference to the local frame is achieved
by the following sequence of rotations:
1. rotation about the zi -axis (positive yaw angle);
2. rotation about the resulting y-axis (positive pitch angle);
3. rotation about the resulting x-axis (positive roll angle).
where the roll , pitch and yaw angles are commonly referred to as Euler
angles (see fig. A.2).
The complete transformation from the inertial {i} to the local {l} frame is
then given by the S matrix (often called Direction Cosine Matrix), expressed
as function of the Euler angles = [, , ]T and given by (2.17).
Appendix B
Dryden Model For Continuous
Gust
This Appendix mostly follows reference [54].
To generate the gust signals with the required intensity, scale lengths and
power spectral density (PSD) functions for some given velocity and height,
a white-noise source with a PSD function N () = 1 is used to provide the
input signal to a linear filter, chosen such that it has an appropriate frequency
response so that the output signal from the filter will have a PSD function
i (). The scheme is represented in the block diagram shown in fig. B.1.
linear filter
white noise N()
generator
Gi (s)
i ()
The relation of the PSD function of the output signal to the PSD function of
the input signal is given by:
i () = |Gi (s)|2s=j N ()
(B.1)
The filters needed to generate the appropriate spectral densities for the trans165
166
Ku
s + u
p
s + v
Gv (s) = Kv
(s + v )2
p
s + w
Gw (s) = Kw
(s + w )2
Gu (s) =
(B.2)
(B.3)
(B.4)
where
3Vt v2
3Vt w2
2Vt u2
, Kv =
, Kw =
Lu
Lv
Lw
Vt
Vt
v =
, w =
3Lv
3Lw
Ku =
(B.5)
(B.6)
(B.7)
The turbulence intensity reaches its maximum value of 7 m/s in a thunderstorm scenario. The turbulence scale length varies with height. The dependence of scale length on height is defined in this manner:
h > ho Lu = Lv = Lw = ho
p
h ho Lu = Lv = ho h, Lw = h
(B.8)
(B.9)
where ho = 533 m and h is the height of the airship encountering the turbulence.
Appendix C
Differential geometry and
topology
Contents
C.1 Lie derivatives . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
168
169
f
x
(C.2)
168
C.1
Lie derivatives
Given a scalar function h(x) and a vector field f (x), a new scalar function
Lf h(x) is defined, called the Lie derivative of h with respect to f .
Thus, the Lie derivative Lf h(x) is simply the directional derivative of h(x)
along the direction of the vector f (x).
If h is being differentiated k times along f , the notation Lkf h is used; in other
words, the function Lkf h satisfies the recursion
L0f h(x) = h(x)
(C.3)
for k = 1, 2, ...
(C.4)
Similarly, if g(x) is another vector field, then the scalar function Lg Lf h(x) is
Lg Lf h(x) = (Lf h) g(x)
(C.5)
This simple example will show the relevance of Lie derivatives to dynamic
systems. Consider the following single-output system:
x = f (x)
(C.6)
y = h(x)
(C.7)
and so on.
(C.8)
(C.9)
C.2
169
(C.10)
y = h(x)
(C.11)
(C.12)
Differentiation of z yields
z =
(f (x) + g(x)) .
x =
x
x
(C.13)
(C.14)
y = h (z)
(C.15)
170
where x = 1 (z) has been used, and the functions f , g and h are defined
obviously.
Bibliography
[1] Gabriel Alexander Khoury and John David Gillett. Airship Technology,
volume 10 of Cambridge Aerospace Series. Cambridge University Press,
1999.
[2] O. J. Netherclift. Airships today and tomorrow. Airship Association
Publication, (4), 1993. The Airship Association, Ltd.
[3] Anthony Colozza. Initial feasibility assessment of a high altitude long
endurance airship. Technical report, NASA - Dryden Flight Research
Center, December 2003.
[4] K. Eguchi, Y. Yokomaku, and M. Mori. Overview of stratospheric
platform airship R&D program in japan. In Proceedings of the AIAA
14th Lighter-Than-Air Technical Committee Convention and Exhibition,
Akron, USA, July 2001.
[5] Yung-Gyo Lee, Dong-Min Kim, and Chan-Hong Yeom. Development of
korean high altitude platform systems. International Journal of Wireless
Information Networks, 13(1):3142, January 2006.
[6] Chang-Hee Won. Regional navigation system using geosynchronous satellites and stratospheric airships. IEEE Transactions on Aerospace and
Electronic Systems, 38(1):271278, January 2002.
[7] St.D. Ilcev and A. Singh. Development of stratospheric communications
platforms (SCP) for rural applications. In Proceedings of the IEEE 7th
AFRICON Conference in Africa, volume 1, pages 233238, Gaborone,
Botswana, September 2004.
[8] W.J. Hurd, B.E. MacNeal, G.G. Ortiz, R.V. Moe, J.Z. Walker, M.L.
Dennis, E.S. Cheng, D.A. Fairbrother, B. Eegholm, and K.J. Kasunic.
171
172
BIBLIOGRAPHY
BIBLIOGRAPHY
173
[17] Lingzhong Guo, Chris Melhuish, and Quanmin Zhu. Towards neural adaptive hovering control of helicopters. In Proceedings of the IEEE International Conference on Control Applications, pages 5458, Glasgow, Scotland, UK, September 2002.
[18] Sahjendra N. Singh, Marc L. Steinberg, and Anthony B. Page. Nonlinear adaptive and sliding mode flight path control of F/A-18 model. IEEE
TRansactions on Aerospace and Electronic Systems, 39(4):12501262, October 2003.
[19] Ciann-Dong Yang and Wen-Hsiung Liu. Nonlinear h decoupling hover
control of helicopter with parameter uncertainties. In Procedings of the
American Control Conference, pages 34543459, Denver, Colorado, USA,
June 2003.
[20] Xin Chen and Changchun Pan. Application of h control and inverse
dynamic system in direct side force control of UAV. Journal of Nanjing
University of Aeronautics & Astronautics, 38(1):3336, February 2006.
[21] C. Patel and I. Kroo. Control law design for improving UAV performance
using wind turbulence. In Proceedings of the 44th AIAA Aerospace Sciences Meeting and Exhibit, Nevada, USA, January 2006.
[22] Dan Necsulescu, Yi-Wu Jiang, and Bumsoo Kim. Neural network based
feedback linearization control of an unmanned aerial vehicle. International
Journal of Automation and Computing, 4(1):7179, January 2007.
[23] Ely Carneiro de Paiva, Jose Raul Azinheira, Jr. Josue G. Ramos, Alexandra Moutinho, and Samuel Siqueira Bueno. Project AURORA: Infrastructure and flight control experiments for a robotic airship. Journal of
Field Robotics, 23(3/4):201222, March/April 2006.
[24] Dirk-A. Wimmer, Michael Bildstein, Klaus H. Well, Markus Schlenker,
Peter Kungl, and Bernd-H. Kroplin. Research airship Lotte: Development and operation controllers for autonomous flight phases. In Workshop
on Aerial Robotics, IEEE International Conference on Intelligent Robots
and Systems, pages 5568, Lausanne, Switzerland, October 2002.
[25] Emmanuel Hygounenc and Philippe Sou`eres. Lateral path-following GPSbased control of a small-size unmanned blimp. In Proceedings of the IEEE
International Conference on Robotics and Automation, volume 1, pages
540545, Taipei, Taiwan, September 2003. IEEE Press.
174
BIBLIOGRAPHY
[26] L. Beji and A. Abichou. Tracking control of trim trajectories of s blimp for
ascent and descent flight manoeuvres. International Journal of Control,
78(10):706 719, July 2005.
[27] G.A. Kantor, D. Wettergreen, J.P. Ostrowski, and S. Singh. Collection
of environmental data from and airship platform. In Proceedings of the
SPIE Conference on Sensor Fusion and Decentralized Control in Robotic
Systems IV, volume 4571, October 2001.
[28] Swee B. Tan and Bellur L. Nagabhushan. Robust heading-hold autopilot
for an advanced airship. In Proceedings of the 12th AIAA Lighter-ThanAir Technology Conference, July 1997.
[29] Ely C. de Paiva, Samuel S. Bueno, S. B. V. Gomes, J. J. G. Ramos,
and M. Bergerman. A control system development environment for AURORAs semi-autonomous robotic airship. In Proceedings of the IEEE
International Conference on Robotics and Automation, volume 3, pages
23282335, Detroit, USA, May 1999.
[30] J. Mueller and M. Paluszek. Development of an aerodynamic model and
control law design for a high altitude airship. In Proceedings of the AIAA
3rd Unmanned Unlimited Technical Conference, Workshop and Exhibit,
Chicago, USA, September 2004.
[31] A. Elfes, J. Montgomery, J. Hall, S. Joshi, J. Hall, J. Payne, and C. Bergh.
Autonomous Flight Control for a Planetary Exploration Aerobot. In
Proceedings of the 8th International Symposium on Artificial Intelligence,
Robotics and Automation in Space, volume 603 of ESA Special Publication, 2005.
[32] Guoqing Xia and Dan R. Corbett. Cooperative control systems of searching targets using unmanned blimps. In Proceedings of the 5th Worth
Congress on Intelligent Control and Automation, volume 2, pages 1179
1183, Hangzhou, P.R. China, June 2004. IEEE Press.
[33] Ely de Paiva, Fabio Benjovengo, and Samuel Bueno. Sliding mode control
for the path following of an unmanned airship.
[34] Sjoerd van der Zwaan, Matteo Perrone, Alexandre Bernardino, and Jose
Santos-Victor. Control of an aerial blimp based on visual input. In Proceedings of the 8th International Symposium on Intelligent Robotic Systems, Reading, UK, July 2000.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
175
[35] Jose R. Azinheira, Patrick Rives, Jose R. H. Carvalho, Geraldo F. Silveira, Ely C. de Paiva, and Samuel S. Bueno. Visual servo control for
the hovering of an outdoor robotic airship. In Proceedings of the IEEE
International Conference on Robotics & Automation, pages 27872792,
Washington, DC, USA, May 2002.
[36] Geraldo F. Silveira et al. Optimal visual servoed guidance of outdoor
autonomous robotic airships. In Proceedings of the American Control
Conference, pages 779784, Anchorage, May 2002.
[37] Geraldo F. Silveira, Jose R. Azinheira, Patrick Rives, and Samuel S.
Bueno. Line following visual servoing for aerial robots combined with
complementary sensors. In Proceedings of the 11th International Conference on Advanced Robotics, Coimbra, Portugal, June 2003.
[38] Jinjun Rao, Zhenbang Gong, Jun Luo, and Shaorong Xie. A flight control
and navigation system of a small size unmanned airship. In Proceedings
of the IEEE International Conference on Mechatronics & Automation,
pages 14911496, Niagara Falls, Canada, July 2005. IEEE Press.
[39] Emmanuel Hygounenc and Philippe Soueres. Automatic airship control involving backstepping techniques. In Proceedings of the IEEE International Conference on Systems, Man and Cybernetics, Hammamet,
Tunisia, October 2002.
[40] Emmanuel Hygounenc, Il-Kyun Jung, Philippe Soures, and Simon
Lacroix. The autonomous blimp project of LAAS-CNRS: Achievements in
flight control and terrain mapping. The International Journal of Robotics
Research, 23(4-5):473511, AprilMay 2004.
[41] Y. Bestaoui and S. Hima. Trajectory tracking of a dirigible in a high
constant altitude flight. In Proceedings of the 5th IFAC symposium on
Nonlinear control systems, Saint Petersburg, Russia, July 2001.
[42] Chang-Su Park, Hyunjae Lee, Min-Jea Tahk, and Hyochoong Bang. Airship control using neural network augmented model inversion. In Proceedings of the IEEE Conference on Control Applications, pages 558563,
June 2003.
[43] Takanori Fukao, Kazushi Fujitaniy, and Takeo Kanade. Image-based
tracking control of a blimp. In Proceedings of the 42nd IEEE Confer-
176
BIBLIOGRAPHY
177
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Optimal Control.
Wiley-
[66] Dale Enns, Dan Bugajski, Russ Hendrick, and Gunter Stein. Dynamic
inversion: an evolving methodology for flight control design. International
Journal of Control, 59(1):7191, January 1994.
[67] Daigoro Ito, Donald T. Ward, and John Valasek. Robust dynamic inversion controller design and analysis for the X-38. In Proceedings of the 2001
AIAA Guidance, Navigation, and Control Conference, Montreal, Canada,
August 2001. AIAA-2001-4380.
178
BIBLIOGRAPHY
[68] Jacob Reiner, Gary J. Balas, and William L. Garrard. Robust dynamic
inversion for control of highly maneuverable aircaft. Journal of Guidance,
Control and Dynamics, 18(1):1824, January-February 1995.
[69] Samir Bennani and Gertjan Looye. Flight control law design for a civil
aircraft using robust dynamic inversion. In Proceedings of the 2nd IMACSIEEE/SMC International Multiconference on Computational Engineering
in Systems Applications, Nabeul-Hammamet,Tunisia, April 1998.
[70] Rama K. Yedavalli, Praveen Shankar, and David B. Doman. Robustness
study of a dynamic inversion based indirect adaptive control system for
flight vehicles under uncertain model data. In Proceedings of American
Control Conference, pages 10051010, Denver, USA, June 2003.
[71] Alexandra Moutinho and Jose Raul Azinheira. Path control of an autonomous airship using dynamic inversion. In Proceedings of the 5th
IFAC/EURON Symposium on Intelligent Autonomous Vehicles, Lisbon,
Portugal, July 2004.
[72] Alexandra Moutinho and Jose Raul Azinheira. Hover stabilization of an
airship using dynamic inversion. In Proceedings of the 8th International
IFAC Symposium on Robot Control, Bologna, Italy, September 2006.
[73] R. Mahony, T. Hamel, and A. Dzul. Hover control via Lyapunov control
for an autonomous model helicopter. In Proceedings of the 38th Conference
on Decision & Control, Phoenix, Arizona, USA, December 1999.
[74] Ki-Seok Kim and Youdan Kim. Robust backstepping control for slew maneuver using nonlinear tracking function. IEEE Transactions on Control
Systems Technology, 11(6):822829, November 2003.
[75] Najib Metni, Tarek Hamel, and Franois Derkx. A UAV for bridges inspection: Visual servoing control law with orientation limits. In Proceedings
of the 5th IFAC/EURON Symposium on Intelligent Autonomous Vehicles,
Lisbon, Portugal, July 2004.
[76] Jay Farrell, Manu Sharma, and Marios Polycarpou. Backstepping-based
flight control with adaptive function approximation. Journal of Guidance,
Control and Dynamics, 28(6):10891102, NovemberDecember 2005.