Aircraft Roll Control System Using LQR and Fuzzy
Logic Controller
M. Ali Usta Ömür Akyazı
Dept. of Electrical and Electronics Sürmene Abdullah Kanca MYO,
Engineering, Karadeniz Technical Karadeniz Technical University,
University, Trabzon/Turkey Trabzon/Turkey
mausta@ktu.edu.tr oakyazi@ktu.edu.tr
Abstract—In this paper, an aircraft roll control system based on
design an autopilot that controls the roll angle of an aircraft is
modeled using Matlab/Simulink. Firstly, modeling phase begins
with a derivation of suitable mathematical model to describe the
lateral directional motion of an aircraft. Then, the Linear
Quadratic Controller (LQR) and Fuzzy Logic Controller (FLC)
are developed for controlling the roll angle of an aircraft system.
Simulation results of roll controllers are presented in time
domain and the results obtained with LQR control are compared
with the results of FLC. Finally, the performances of roll control
systems are analyzed in order to decide which control method
gives better performance with respect to the desired roll angle.
According to simulation results, it is showed that LQR controller
deliver the best performance than fuzzy logic controller.
Keywords-aircraft roll control; autopilot; lateral directional
dynamic; LQR; FLC.
I. INTRODUCTION
The development of autopilots closely followed the
successful development of powered man-carrying airplane by
the Wright brothers [1]. The first automatic flight controller in
the world is designed by the Sperry brothers in 1912. The
Sperry brothers developed an autopilot that is sensitive to the
movements of an aircraft. When an aircraft deviated from a
particular flight route, this autopilot adjusted the pitch, roll and
heading angles of an aircraft. Then, in 1914, the Sperry
brothers demonstrated this autopilot at the Paris air-show. To
demonstrate the effectiveness of their design, Lawrence
Sperry trimmed his airplane for straight and level flight and
then engaged the autopilot [1]. Since then, the fast
advancement of high performance military, commercial and
general aviation aircraft design has required the development
of many technologies; these are aerodynamics, structures,
materials, propulsion and flight controls [2]. Currently, the
aircraft design relies heavily on automatic control systems to
monitor and control many of the aircraft subsystems [2].
Therefore, the development of automatic control systems has
played an important role in the growth of civil and military
aviation [1]. Modern aircrafts are much more complex and
includes a variety of automatic control system.
Generally, an aircraft is controlled by three main surfaces.
These are elevator, rudder and ailerons. Pitch control can be
achieved by changing the lift on either a forward or aft control
surface. If a flap is used, the flapped portion of the tail surface
978-1-61284-922-5/11/$26.00 ©2011 IEEE
223
A. Sefa Akpınar
Dept. of Electrical and Electronics
Engineering, Karadeniz Technical
University, Trabzon/Turkey
akpinar@ktu.edu.tr
is called an elevator. Yaw control is achieved by deflecting a
flap on the vertical tail called the rudder and roll control can
be achieved by deflecting small flaps located outboard toward
the wing tips in a differential manner [1]. These flaps are
called ailerons. Elevator, rudder and ailerons are depicted in
Fig. 1.
Figure 1. Aerodynamic controls of an aircraft [1].
The two ailerons are typically interconnected and both
ailerons usually move in opposition to each other. The ailerons
are used to bank the aircraft. The banking creates an
unbalanced side force component of the large wing lift force
which causes the aircraft’s flight path to curve [3]. Thus, when
the pilot applies right push force on the stick, as the aileron on
the right wing is deflected upward, the aileron on the left wing
is deflected downward. As a result of this, the lift on the left
wing is increased, while the lift on the right wing is decreased.
So, the aircraft performs a rolling motion to the right as
viewed from the rear of the aircraft.
The rolling motion of an aircraft is controlled by adjusting
the roll angle. In this study, for this situation an autopilot is
designed to control the roll angle of an aircraft. In aircraft
modeling phase, the aerodynamic forces (lift and drug) as well
as the aircraft’s inertia are taken into account [4]. This is a
third order, nonlinear system which is linearized about the
operating point [4]. A modern controller (LQR) and intelligent
controller (FLC) is developed for the roll control of an aircraft
system. Performances of both controllers are analyzed with
respect to the desired roll angle. Comparison of both control
theory is presented and we discussed that which controller is
more suitable for the roll control of an aircraft.
II. MODELING OF A ROLL CONTROL SYSYEM
The equations governing the motion of an aircraft are very
complicated set of six nonlinear coupled differential
equations. However, under certain assumptions, they can be Equation (1), (2) and (3) are nonlinear and they can be
decoupled and linearized into the longitudinal and lateral linearized by using small-disturbance theory. According to
equations [5]. Roll control is a lateral problem and this work is small-disturbance theory, all the variables in the equation (1),
developed to control the roll angle of an aircraft for roll (2) and (3) are replaced by a reference value plus a
control in order to stabilize the system when an aircraft perturbation or disturbance, as given in equation (4).
performs the rolling motion. The roll control system is shown
in Fig. 2.
u = u0 + Δu v = v0 + Δv w = w0 + Δw
p = p0 + Δp q = q0 + Δq r = r0 + Δr
δa Y = Y0 + ΔY L = L0 + ΔL M = M0 + ΔM
δ = δ 0 + Δδ (4)

For convenience, the reference flight condition is assumed

to be symmetric and the propulsive forces are assumed to
remain constant. This implies that,
Figure 2. Description of roll control system [1].
v0 = p0 = q0 = r0 = φ0 =ψ 0 = 0 (5)
In this figure, Yb and Zb represent the aerodynamics force
components, φ and δa represent the orientation of aircraft After linearization the following equations are obtained,
(roll angle) in the earth-axis system and aileron deflection see [1].
angle respectively. The forces, moments and velocity
components in the body fixed frame of an aircraft system are
shown in Fig. 3 where L, M and N represent the aerodynamic ⎛d ⎞ (6)
⎜ − Yv ⎟Δv − Yp Δp + (u0 − Yr )Δr − (g cosθ0 )Δφ = Yδr Δδ r
moment components, the term p, q and r represent the angular ⎝ dt ⎠
rates components of roll, pitch and yaw axis and the term u, v ⎛d ⎞ ⎛I d ⎞
− Lv Δv + ⎜ − Lp ⎟Δp − ⎜⎜ xz + Lr ⎟⎟Δr = Lδa Δδ a + Lδr Δδ r (7)
and w represent the velocity components of roll, pitch and yaw
⎝ dt ⎠ I
⎝ x dt ⎠
axis.
⎛I d ⎞ ⎛d ⎞ (8)
− Nv Δv − ⎜⎜ xz + N p ⎟⎟Δp + ⎜ − Nr ⎟Δr = Nδa Δδ a + Nδr Δδ r
⎝ I z dt ⎠ ⎝ dt ⎠

The lateral directional equations of motion consist of the

side force, rolling moment and yawing moment equations of
motion. It is sometimes convenient to use the sideslip angle
Δβ instead of the side velocity Δv . These two quantities are
related to each other in the following way;

Δv Δv (9)
Figure 3. Definition of forces, moments and velocity components in a body Δβ ≈ tan−1 =
fixed frame [1]. u0 u0

Referring to Fig. 2 and Fig. 3, the rigid body equations of Using this relationship and if the product of inertia Ixz=0,
motion are obtained from Newton’s second law, see [1]. But, a the lateral equations of motion can be rearranged and reduced
few assumption and approximation need to be considered into the state space form in the following manner.
before obtaining the equations of motion. Assume that the
aircraft is in steady-cruise at constant altitude and velocity,
thus, the thrust and drag cancel out and the lift and weight ⎡ • ⎤ ⎡ Yβ Yp ⎛ Y ⎞ g cosθ0 ⎤ ⎡ Yδr ⎤
balance out each other. Also, assume that change in pitch ⎢Δ β• ⎥ ⎢ u − ⎜⎜1− r ⎟⎟ ⎥⎡Δβ ⎤ ⎢ 0
u0 ⎝ u0⎠ u ⎢ ⎥ u0 ⎥ (10)
angle does not change the speed of an aircraft under any ⎢Δ p⎥ ⎢ 0 0 ⎥ Δp ⎢ ⎥⎡Δδ ⎤
⎢ • ⎥ = ⎢ Lβ Lp Lr 0 ⎥ ⎢ ⎥ + ⎢ Lδa Lδr ⎥⎢ a ⎥
circumstance [5]. Under these assumptions, the lateral ⎢ Δ r ⎥ ⎢N ⎢ Δr ⎥ Δδ
directional motion of an aircraft is well described by the Np Nr 0 ⎥⎥⎢ ⎥ ⎢Nδa Nδr ⎥⎣ r ⎦
⎢ •⎥ ⎢ β ⎣Δφ ⎦ ⎢ ⎥
following kinematic and dynamic differential equations. ⎣ Δφ ⎦ ⎢⎣ 0 1 0 0 ⎥⎦ ⎣⎢ 0 0 ⎥⎦

For this system, the input will be the aileron deflection

•
Y + mgCθ Sθ = m(v+ ru − pw) (1) angle and the output will be the pitch angle. In this study, the
• •
data from General Aviation Airplane: NAVIONa [1] is used in
L = I x p− I xz r+ qr(I z − I y ) − I xz pq (2) system analysis and modeling. The lateral directional
• • derivatives stability parameters for this airplane are given
N = −I xz p+ I z r+ pq(I y − I x ) + I xzqr (3) Table I.

224
 TABLE I. THE LATERAL DIRECTIONAL DERIVATIVES STABILITY ∆β
PARAMETERS ∆δa u(t) Longitudinal
+ ∆p
N Aircraft
∆r
The Dynamic Pressure and the Terms Dynamics
- ∆φ
−
2
General Q = 36.8 Ib/ ft QS c = 38596 ft ⋅ Ib
Aviation QS = 6771 Ib c 2u0 = 0.016 s Kβ
Airplane: +
NAVIONa Components + Kp
Y-Force Yawing Moment Rolling Moment
Derivatives Derivatives Derivatives Kr
Pitching +
Yv=-0.254 Nv=0.025 Lv=-0.091 +
Velocities Kφ
Side Slip Angle Yβ=-44.665 Nβ=4.549 Lβ=-15.969
Feedback Gain Matrix
Rolling Rate Yp=0 Np=-0.349 Lp=-8.395
Figure 4. Full-state feedback controller with reference input for the roll
control system.
Yawing Rate Yr=0 Nr=-0.76 Lr=2.19
Rudder
Yδr=12.433 Nδr=-4.613 Lδr=23.09
The state and output matrix equations describing the lateral
Deflection directional equations of motion can be written as the following
Aileron equation.
Yδa=0 Nδa=-0.224 Lδa=-28.916
Deflection

Before finding transfer function, let’s plug in numerical •

value given Table I by using equation (10). This work presents x(t ) = Ax(t ) + Bu(t ) (13)
the roll control schemes for roll angle of an aircraft system. y(t ) = Cx(t ) + Du(t)
So, the rudder deflection given in equation (10) is not used.
And that all of the four states x are available for the
controller. The feedback gain is a matrix K of the optimal
⎡ • ⎤ − 0.254 − 1 0.183⎤⎡Δβ ⎤ ⎡ 0 ⎤
control vector.
⎢Δ β• ⎥ ⎡
0
(11)
⎢Δ p⎥ ⎢− 15.969 − 8.395 2.19 0 ⎥⎥⎢⎢ Δp ⎥⎥ ⎢⎢− 28.916⎥⎥
⎢ •⎥=⎢ + [Δδa ] K = [K β
⎢ Δ r ⎥ ⎢ 4.549 − 0.349 − 0.76 0 ⎥⎢ Δr ⎥ ⎢ − 0.224 ⎥
K p Kr Kϕ ] (14)
⎢ • ⎥ ⎢⎣ 0 ⎥⎢ ⎥ ⎢ ⎥
1 0 0 ⎦⎣Δφ ⎦ ⎣ 0 ⎦ u(t ) = −K ⋅ x(t) + Δδ a ⋅ N
⎣ Δφ ⎦

Transfer function from aileron deflection angle to roll So as to minimize the performance index,
angle is given the following equation.
∞
(
J = ∫ xT Qx+ u T Ru ⋅dt) (15)
Δφ(s) 2
− 28.92s − 29.81s − 140.8 (12) 0
=
Δδ a (s) s 4 + 9.409s 3 + 14.02s 2 + 48.5s + 0.3979
Where Q is state-cost matrix and R is performance index
matrix. For this study, R=1 and Q=CTxC where C is the matrix
III. DESIGN PROCESS OF THE PROPOSED CONTROLLER from state equation (13) and CT is the matrix transpose of C.
Linear Quadratic Regulator (LQR) and Fuzzy Logic For designing LQR controller, the value of the feedback gain
Controller (FLC) are proposed for the roll control system and matrix, K, must be determined. The following block is shown
in this section; these controllers are described in detail. how to determine the values of K.

A. Linear Quadratic Regulator (LQR) A

Modern Control Systems
B K
The recent decades, a new approach to control system Design Package
C
design has evolved. This new approach is commonly called D
MATLAB
modern control theory. Linear quadratic regulator (LQR) is a R N
[K]=lqr(A, B, Q, R)
method in modern control theory and it is an alternative and Q
very powerful method for flight control system designing. The
method is based on the manipulation of the equations of Figure 5. Determine the values of matrix K and constant N.
motion in state space form and makes full use of the
K=[0.5284, -0.5349, -0.0917 -8.6567] values are obtained
appropriate computational tools in the analytical process [6].
by using method is depicted as Fig. 5 as the weighting factor
LQR control system for the lateral directional control of an
equals 75. To obtain the desired output in other words to
aircraft is shown in Fig. 4.
reduce steady-state error, we must use a feed-forward scaling
factor called N. Because, the full-state feedback system does
not compare the output to the reference, it compares all states
multiplied by the feedback gain matrix to the reference [5].

225
These are shown in Fig. 4. So, the reference must be scaled by TABLE II. RULES FOR THE FUZZY LOGIC CONTROLLER
scaling factor N. The scaling factor N is obtained from Matlab e
function that is a designer-defined function in m-file code. In NB NS ZZ PS PB
∆e
this case, N=-8.6603 is determined. NB NB NB NS NS ZZ

B. Fuzzy Logic Controller (FLC) NS NB NS NS ZZ PS

In most research literature, a fuzzy controller system is ZZ NS NS ZZ PS PS

commonly defined as a system that emulates a human expert. PS NS ZZ PS PS PB
In this case, the knowledge of the human operator would be PB ZZ PS PS PB PB
put in the form of a set of fuzzy linguistic rules. These rules
would produce an approximate decision in the same manner a
human would do. The fuzzy controller is composed of four An inference mechanism emulates the expert’s decision
elements. These are fuzzification, rule base, inference making in interpreting and applying knowledge about how
mechanism and defuzzification. A block diagram of a fuzzy best to control the plant. A defuzzification interface converts
control system is shown in Fig. 6. the conclusions of the inference mechanism into the crisp
inputs for the process. A general overlooked view of the FLC
Fuzzy Inference System is given in Fig. 8 where the processes from inputs e and Δe to
e(k ) output Δu are shown. The input data blocks to represent fuzzy
Rule Base membership functions for the error e, error change ∆e and the
Defuzzification
Fuzzification

Δu(k) controlled output change ∆u are shown in Fig. 8. The user is

able to edit and change the parameters of the membership
Δe(k ) Inference functions on this stage without going into the detail of the
Mechanism FLC.

Figure 6. The basic structure of fuzzy logic based controller.

In Fig. 6, the values of error (e(k)) and its change (Δe(k))

occurring during the operation of the system form the crisp
inputs of the system. These two inputs defined as in (16) and
(17).

e(k ) = r(k ) − y(k ) (16)

Δe(k ) = e(k ) − e(k − 1) (17)

r(k), y(k) and k are expressed as the reference input, the

actual output of the system and the sampling step respectively.
These crisp inputs e(k) and Δe(k) are converted to fuzzy
membership value on the fuzzy subsets negative big (NB), Figure 8. The input and output of the FLC.
negative small (NS), zero (ZZ), positive small (PS) and
positive big (PB). Each fuzzy subset is represented by a
triangular membership function as shown in Fig. 7. IV. APPLICATION AND RESULTS
An aircraft roll control system is simulated using LQR and
FLC and the related simulation results are presented and
discussed. Matlab/Simulink model block diagram of this
system is shown in Fig. 9.

Figure 7. The triangle membership functions in each fuzzy subset.

This fuzzy membership values are used in the rule base in

order to execute the related rules so that an output can be
generated. A rule base consists of a data table which includes
information related to the system. A fuzzy control that has
twenty-five rules is realized. These rules have been utilized in
designing the controller and the rules are defined in Table II.
Figure 9. Matlab/Simulink model for the roll control system.

226
 A unit step command is required in order for roll angle to
follow the reference value of 0.15 radian=8.625 degree. The
system response with LQR is shown in Fig. 10 and Fig. 11
shows the fuzzy logic controller response of the roll angle.
Figure 10. The response of the system for LQR.
Figure 11. The response of the system for FLC.
The system responses from both controllers are plotted on
the same graph for better comparison. Fig. 12 is shown the
output of the system for FLC and LQR.
Figure 12. The response of the system for FLC and LQR.
It is observed that LQR controller gives faster response as
compared to FLC in terms of rising time. But, the results
clearly demonstrate that LQR controller is occurred overshoot
more than FLC. Furthermore, although both controllers follow
the desired angle, LQR controller follow the reference input
by producing very small steady-state error in comparison to
FLC. This can be indicating that LQR controller can handle
the effect of disturbances in the system. FLC gives a good
performance in terms of percent overshoot that is 0%. But,
227
FLC has more state-steady error than LQR. It’s mean that FLC
eliminate the effect of disturbances in the system.
TABLE III. SUMMARY OF PERFORMANCE CHARACTERISTIC FOR ROLL
ANGLE
Performance Characteristic LQR FLC
Settling Time (TS) 0.365 s 0.47 s
Steady-State Error (eSS, %) 0.01 1
Overshoot (M, %) 2.8 0
V. CONCLUSION
In this paper, the model of an aircraft roll control system
that is helpful in developing the control strategy for a,,n actual
aircraft system was designed for Matlab/Simulink
environment and control methods were proposed for this
system. LQR and FLC are successfully designed and
presented for this situation. The results from LQR are
compared with those obtained using FL controller. It was
observed that both FLC and LQR have different settling time,
steady-state error and overshoot. LQR has good and
acceptable performances according to the results from
simulation and analysis. Practically obtained results show that
LQR controller relatively gives the best performance in
comparison to FLC and using such controller increases speed
of the time response.
REFERENCES
[1] R. C. Nelson, 1998, Flight Stability and Automatic Control, McGraw Hill,
Second Edition.
[2] Lucio R. Riberio and Neusa Maria F. Oliveira, “UAV Autopilot
Controllers Test Platform Using Matlab/Simulink and X-Plane”, 40th
ASEE/IEEE Frontiers in Education Conference, October 27-30, 2010,
Washington, DC.
[3] www.nasa.gov (01.03.2011)
[4] Nurbaiti Wahid and Mohd Fua’ad Rahmat, “Pitch Control System Using
LQR and Fuzzy Controller”, 2010 IEEE Symposium on Industrial
Electronics and Applications (ISIEA 2010), October 3-5, 2010, Penang,
Malaysia
[5] http://www.engin.umich.edu/class/ctms/index.htm (01.03.2011)
[6] Mıchael V. Cook, 2007, Flight Dynamics Prıncıples, Elsevıer, Second
Edition.
[7] I. H. Altas and A. M. Sharaf, “A Generalized Direct Approach for
Designing Fuzzy Logic Controllers in Matlab/Simulink GUI
Environment”, Accepted for publication in International Journal of
Information Technology and Intelligent Computing, Int. J. IT&IC no.4
vol.1.
[8] İ.H. Altaş, “Bulanık Mantık: Bulanık Denetim”, Enerji, Elektrik,
Elektromekanik-3e, vol.64, pp. 76–81,1999.
[9] İ. H. Altaş, “Bulanık Mantık Denetleyici: Matlab/Simulink Ortamı İçin
Bir Modelleme”, Otomasyon Dergisi, Bileşim Yayınları, Mart 2007, pp.
58-62.
[10] Joao P. Hespanha, April 1,2007, Umdergraduate Lecture Notes on
LQG/LQR Controller Design.