Workshop Hinfini Launcher Control MASTERS ENG 2021

Control of Launcher
HControl Practice
Emmanuel CHAMBON
2021
ArianeGroup
78133 Les Mureaux Cedex
Ce document et les informations qu'il contient sont propriété d’ArianeGroup SAS. Il ne doit pas être utilisé à d'autres fins que celles pour lesquelles il a été remis. Il ne peut être ni reproduit, ni
divulgué à des tiers (en tout ou partie) sans l'accord préalable et écrit d’ArianeGroup SAS. ArianeGroup SAS – Tous droits réservés. This document and the information it contains are
property of ArianeGroup SAS. It shall not be used for any purpose other than those for which it was supplied. It shall not be reproduced or disclosed (in whole or in part) to any third party
without ArianeGroup SAS prior written consent. ArianeGroup SAS – All rights reserved.
- 2 -
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1. INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................................... 3
2. RIGID LAUNCHER MODELS ....................................................................................... 4
2.1 TIME DOMAIN SIMULATION MODEL (RIGID LAUNCHER) .......................................................... 4
2.2 SYNTHESIS MODEL (RIGID LAUNCHER) ..................................................................................... 6
3. AUGMENTED SYSTEM ................................................................................................ 7
3.1 WEIGHTS ......................................................................................................................................... 7
3.2 AUGMENTED MODEL ..................................................................................................................... 8
4. FIRST H CONTROLLER SYNTHESIS AND ASSESSMENT ..................................... 9
4.1 H CONTROLLER SYNTHESIS ...................................................................................................... 9
4.2 FREQUENCY DOMAIN ASSESSMENT (RIGID LAUNCHER)........................................................ 9
4.3 TIME DOMAIN SIMULATION (RIGID LAUNCHER) ........................................................................ 9
5. CONTROLLER SETTINGS ......................................................................................... 11
5.1 H RIGID MOTION CONTROLLER – SENSITIVITY STUDY ........................................................ 11

5.1.1 Description of the study ..................................................................................................... 11
5.1.2 Study of W2 – gain k2 ........................................................................................................ 12
5.1.3 Study of W2 – pulsation a2 and b2 .................................................................................... 12
5.1.4 Study of W3 ....................................................................................................................... 12
5.2 H RIGID MOTION CONTROLLER SETTINGS ............................................................................ 13
5.2.1 Controller settings .............................................................................................................. 13
6. FLEXIBLE LAUNCHER CONTROL [OPTIONAL]...................................................... 14
6.1 FLEXIBLE LAUNCHER MODELS .................................................................................................. 14

6.1.1 Time domain simulation model (flexible launcher) ............................................................ 14
6.1.2 Frequency domain assessment model (flexible launcher) ................................................ 15
6.2 FREQUENTIAL DOMAIN ASSESSMENT ..................................................................................... 16
6.3 TIME DOMAIN SIMULATION ......................................................................................................... 16
6.4 FLEXIBLE MOTION FILTER SETTINGS ....................................................................................... 16

6.4.1 Filtering needs ................................................................................................................... 16
6.4.2 Frequency domain assessment ......................................................................................... 16
6.4.3 Time domain simulation ..................................................................................................... 17
6.4.4 Controller filter robustness study [Optional] ....................................................................... 17
- 3 -
1. INTRODUCTION
The purpose of this work is to synthesize and assess an Hcontroller for a space launcher. The H de-
sign is applied on the controller of a heavy launcher of an ARIANE 5 class, during its atmospheric as-
cent trajectory.
The system is considered to be stationary. In fact this approach is always legitimate locally, in a close
enough vicinity of every flight point, because the launcher parameters (thrust, aerodynamic coefficient,
mass, …) vary slowly relative to the controller response time. The data used for this workshop are simi-
lar to the characteristics of an ARIANE5 launcher trajectory, close to the dynamic pressure peak.
Both rigid body motion and flexible modes must be controlled. The controller is then composed of a “rig-
id motion” Hcontroller, in series with a filter on the commanded thrust deflection (which allows to con-
trol the flexible modes).
To simplify the problem, a rigid launcher is first considered. And the impacts of the bending modes are
studied at the end, to understand the whole topic of launcher control. More precisely:
 In chapter 2, several launcher models are built and assessed. They will be used later to synthesize
the Hcontroller, to perform the frequency assessment of the closed-loop system (with Bode or
Nichols plots) and to make time simulations of the controlled launcher. Models are built for rigid
launcher.
 In chapter 3, augmented system are built and used to synthesize the Hcontroller. The weights of
the Hcriterion are also studied. Note that a set of weights is also provided there, which serves as a
first guess for the subsequent studies.
 In chapter 4, first Hsynthesis is performed, based on the preliminary settings of the chapter 3. Con-
troller frequency domain and time domain performance are performed with the rigid launcher model.
 In chapter 5, the Hcontroller for a rigid launcher is fine-tuned, by combining a sensitivity study rela-
tive to the criterion weights with frequency-domain and time-domain assessments based on the rigid
launcher model. To analyze the controller robustness uncertainties can be added on several launch-
er parameters (optional topic).
 In chapter 6, the impacts of the bending modes and the way to control them are studied. Flexible
launcher models are built to assess the behavior of the full controller (Hcontroller + filter) on the real
flexible launcher. We assess the controller (obtain in chapter 5) frequency domain and time domain
performance with the flexible launcher model. Then, a filter on the commanded deflection is tuned in
order to control the flexible launcher. Finally, the performance and the robustness of the full control-
ler (Hcontroller + filter) with the flexible launcher model are assessed.
- 4 -
2. RIGID LAUNCHER MODELS
The purpose of this first part is to build the various launcher models that are used for Hsynthesis, for
frequency domain assessment, and for time domain simulation. (Hypothesis for the models are the
same as in the presentation).
2.1 TIME DOMAIN SIMULATION MODEL (RIGID LAUNCHER)
The goal of this first part is to build the rigid launcher model that will allow runing simplified time do-
main simulations. A linear state-space model is used, which describes the small angular and positional
motions of the launcher about its commanded trajectory. This model includes the launcher dynamics
and a second order actuator model. The equation is:
 Δθ   0 A6 A3 0 K 1  Δθ   0 B1 K1 
      
 Δθ   1 0 0 0 0  Δθ   0 0 0   ΔβC 
d       
Δz  0 A1 A2 0 K 2  Δz    0 B2 K 2    ΔW  (1)
dt       
 Δβ R   0 0 0  2ξ 0 ω0  ω02  Δβ R   ω 02 0 0   ΔβFZ 

      
 Δβ R   0 0 0 1 0  ΔβR   0 0 0 
where Δθ is the attitude angle error, Δz is the lateral position error of the launcher (resolved in launch-
er body axes), ΔβR is the actual thrust deflection, ΔβC is the commanded thrust deflection (which is
elaborated by the controller), ΔW is the wind amplitude, assuming horizontal wind, and ΔβFZ is an un-
wanted thrust deflection offset. The notation is illustrated on FIGURE 1.
xC
w
xL
θ vR
α Repère lanceur
v zL
zC
G
xT Repère terrestre
PS
porté par le lanceur
PC
T
rG β
zT
Repère terrestre
FIGURE 1 – Notations
- 5 -
 Open the tutorial program file: TD_Hoo_Control_Launcher_student.m, and fill the corre-
sponding state-space matrix.
 Make a rigid launcher model under SIMULINK (see file: rigid_launcher_OL.mdl).
The rigid launcher model must have 3 inputs: the commanded deflection ΔβC and the two disturbances
(wind ΔW and thrust offset ΔβFZ). On output, the model yields the full launcher state vector (attitude er-
ror Δθ and its derivative, derivative of lateral position error Δz, actual thrust deflection ΔβR and its de-
rivative), together with the launcher angle-of-attack, which is given by the equation (we use the worst
case cos θ = 1 for the wind, we consider a vertical ascent trajectory) :
Δz  ΔW
Δα  Δθ  (2)
VR
And the « deflection integral » Cβ , which is obviously a measure of the sum of the deflection incre-
ments of the launcher actuators. It is roughly proportional to the actual fluid consumption of the actua-
tors. Cβ defined as followed:
 Δβ t dt
t
C β t   R (3)
0
NOTE: The actuators of ARIANE 5 do not recycle their fluid, which means that the launcher must
make its whole flight with a limited onboard fluid quantity. The deflection integral is then a key parame-
ter to assess controller performance.
The numerical values of the state-space model are given in TABLE1. The launcher true airspeed is VR
= 325,34 m/s. The worst wind case is chosen, that is cos θ = 1.
TABLE 1 – Rigid launcher numerical data
PARAMETER VALUE
A1 -31,6
A2 -0,0467
A3 0,005
A6 1,631
ξ0 0,63
ω0 23,9
B1 -0,005
B2 0,0467
K1 -2,514
K2 -15,6893
NOTE –
Those values correspond to angles in RADIANS (not degrees), and similarly angular rates in rad/s
(not deg/s). The lateral position error and wind are in m/s.
 Simulate the launcher response to a thrust deflection step input (amplitude 1°, duration 1s).
Check that the uncontrolled launcher is naturally unstable. What it the divergence time? Use
the program file: plot_rigid_launcher_simu.m.
- 6 -
2.2 SYNTHESIS MODEL (RIGID LAUNCHER)
The synthesis model will be used for the H controller synthesis and for preliminary frequency as-
sessments. It is a SISO (Single Input, Single Output) model. It is obtained by removing the disturb-
ances (wind and thrust deflection offset) from the full rigid model input, and y keeping the attitude error
Δθ as the only output. From the equation (1), the state-space model is then:
 Δθ   0 A6 A3 0 K 1  Δθ   0 
      
 Δθ   1 0 0 0 0  Δθ   0 
d     
Δz  0 A1 A2 0 K 2  Δz    0   ΔβC (4)
dt       
 ΔβR   0 0 0  2ξ 0 ω0  ω02  Δβ R   ω02 
      
 ΔβR   0 0 0 1 0  ΔβR   0 
The only input is the commanded thrust deflection ΔβC. Besides, the attitude measurement is consid-
ered as perfect (the measurement bandwidth is considered eventually much larger than the controller
bandwidth). The model single output is therefore:
 Δθ 
 
 Δθ 
 
y  Δθ  0 1 0 0 0    Δz  (5)
 Δβ R 
 
 ΔβR 
 Build this synthesis model with SIMULINK, using numerical data of TABLE1.
 Name this model: rigid_launcher_syn.mdl.
 Compute the eigenvalues of the rigid launcher transfer function G(s), which is defined as:
Δθ s 
Gs   (6)
ΔβC s 
Check that the uncontrolled (open-loop) launcher is naturally unstable.
 What link can be done between the eigenvalues and the launcher behavior?
- 7 -
3. AUGMENTED SYSTEM
3.1 WEIGHTS
The augmented system that we use for H synthesis is plotted on FIGURE2 (it is the system P(s),
which corresponds to everything inside the dotted box).
It has two input disturbances w1 and w2 and two weighted output errors z1 and z2. The command u is
the commanded thrust deflection that is output of the controller K, while the output measurement e is
the error between the pitch angle that is commanded by the launcher guidance algorithms and the ac-
tual pitch angle. Note that w2 and z2 correspond to launcher input, while w& and z1 are output dis-
turbances and errors.
w1 Ps 
w2 W3 s 
W2 s  z2
W1 s  z1
u e
+
Gs  +
-
+
K s 
FIGURE 2 – Augmented system for H synthesis
This augmented system has three weighting filters. The output errors z1 and z2 are related to the dis-
turbances w1 and w2 through:
 z1  T11 T12  w1 
      (7)
 z2  T21 T22  w 2 
 Give the expression of the transfer functions T11, T12, T21, T22 in function of the launcher
transfer function G, the controller transfer function K, and the three weighting functions W1,
W2 et W3.
- 8 -
For the first controller tuning, the weights W1 and W2 are first-order filters. The weight W3 is simply a
constant (a2 = b2). The associated transfer functions are :
 s  a1
W1 s   k1
 s  b1
 s  a2
W2 s   k 2 (8)
 s  b2

W3 s   k 3

 Plot a Bode diagram of the “inverse” transfer functions 1/W1, 1/W2, 1/W1W3 and 1/W2W3,
using the coefficients given in TABLE3. Comment quickly the results (low / intermediate / high
frequency behavior).
TABLE2 – Weights coefficients
COEFFICIENT VALUE
k1 0,33
a1 3,14
b1 0,0628
k2 0,08
a2 22,0
b2 22,0
k3 0,7
NOTE –
For those preliminary settings, a2 = b2. Therefore the weight W2 is a constant. For the fine-tuning of
the H.controller, this weight will be a true first-order.
3.2 AUGMENTED MODEL
 Build the full augmented model with SIMULINK, by connecting the weights of the previous
paragraph and the launcher synthesis model of §2.2. Be careful of the order of the input and
output
 Name this model: augmented_model.mdl
- 9 -
4. FIRST H CONTROLLER SYNTHESIS AND ASSESSMENT
4.1 H CONTROLLER SYNTHESIS
 Use MATLAB to synthesize a H controller with the previous augmented system. Note the
value of γ at the end of the γ – iteration process.
 Compute the eigenvalues of the controller transfer function K(s). Obtain its Bode plot and
comment (low and high frequency contents).
 Plot Bode diagrams of the augmented system transfer functions and compare with the Bode
diagrams of the corresponding weights (see TABLE3 - magnitude only!). Comment the results.
TABLE3 –H transfers and associated weights
Plot the magnitude of … …with the magnitude of …
1 γ
1  KG W1
G γ
1  KG W1W3
K γ
1  KG W2
KG γ
1  KG W2W3
4.2 FREQUENCY DOMAIN ASSESSMENT (RIGID LAUNCHER)
 Plot the Bode and Nichols diagram of the Open Loop of the rigid launcher (rigid synthesis
model) controlled with the H controller, and compare with the equivalent diagram obtain with-
out controller.
 Note the gain, phase, and delay margins. Compute the eigenvalues of the closed-loop sys-
tem, and check the stability of the controlled rigid launcher. Comments.
NOTE –
The Nichols plots should intersect the -180° axis twice. We therefore obtain two gain margins, a low
frequency (LF) margin and a high frequency (HF) margin. From a physical standpoint, the LF margin is
associated with the launcher dynamics, while the HF margin is associated with the actuator phase lag.
 Check that statement on the Nichols plot
4.3 TIME DOMAIN SIMULATION (RIGID LAUNCHER)
 Use SIMULINK to simulate the time domain behavior of the controlled rigid launcher. Use the
H controller of the §4.1 and the time domain simulation model of the §2.1 (rigid launcher).
The model is given: rigid_launcher_CL.mdl.
- 10 -
 Simulate the two following cases:
 Zero guidance input, no wind, constant thrust deflection offset = 0,1°,
 Zero guidance input, no thrust deflection offset, wind gradient + gust profile. The associated wind
profile is given in TABLE4, and is plotted on FIGURE3.
In both cases, plug an additive measurement noise on pitch angle measurement. Use a Gaussian
white noise generator, with zero mean and standard deviation σ = 0,022°.
TABLE4 – Wind profile
TIME (s) / t0 ΔW (m/s)

0,00 0,0
4,50 0,0
23,71 -12,5
26,81 -10,5
40,50 7,0
44,01 18,0
44,11 27,9
44,90 28,3
45,00 18,6
126,68 50,1
FIGURE 3 – Wind profile for simulations
The simulations should run from t = t0 à t = t0+100 s where t0 is te given flight instant (since we as-
sume that the system is stationary, we can in fact use t0 = 0).
 Plot the disturbances, the launcher states, the deflection integral and the angle-of-attack (in
deg and deg/s). Check that the launcher is actually stable. Comments on time behavior?
- 11 -
5. CONTROLLER SETTINGS
The purpose of this part is to find settings for the controller that meets a predefined set of control stabil-
ity, performance and robustness requirements. The H controller settings are obtained by adjusting pa-
rameters a1,…,k3 of the augmented system weighting filters. Before starting, a sensitivity study will be
performed by altering those parameters one by one, using the values of TABLE2 as the initial setting.
NOTE –
The optimal value of γ at the end of the γ – iteration process depends upon the values of the weighting
parameters, and should therefor vary from trial to trial. Try to figure out a way to keep γ close to 1 if you
can.
5.1 H RIGID MOTION CONTROLLER – SENSITIVITY STUDY
5.1.1 Description of the study
 For each sensitivity study (§5.1.2 and §5.1.4), report in a synthesis-table the results of the fol-
lowing points, and analyze the impact of the settings on frequency and time domain perfor-
mances :
Case Case Case

#1 #2 #3
H-infini synthesis information
The value of γ at the end of the γ – iteration

process
The resulting controller gain,

(comparison in high frequencies)
Stability margins of the controlled launcher
LF gain margin
HF gain margin
phase/ delay gain margin
time domain response of the controlled launcher, when submitted:

(use pertinent simulations)
- to a thrust deflection offset
- to a wind gradient + gust profile
maximum attitude angle
maximum angle-of-attack
maximum thrust deflection
deflection integral
drift
- 12 -
 For each sensitivity study (§5.1.2 and §5.1.4), plots the following figures:
 Transfer functions of TABLE3,
 Nichols plot of the controlled rigid launcher,
 The controller gain in high frequency.
NOTE –
As for a sensitivity study, the studied gains can be multiply by 2 in the first simulation and divided by 2 in
the second one.
5.1.2 Study of W2 – gain k2
Synthesize various controllers by varying the value of the gain k2 about the value of TABLE2.
For each controller, perform frequency domain and time domain assessments as in §4.2 and
§4.3 (using the models of the rigid launcher).
 Study the impact of a variation of k2 upon the different criterion defined in §5.1.1.
 Comments the results with regards to the theory
5.1.3 Study of W2 – pulsation a2 and b2
Set the k2 coefficients back to its initial values of TABLE2.
To study the impact of a2 and b2, the same LF-gain of the W2 transfer function must be kept.
So the gain k2.a2/b2 must stay constant.
Perform the same study as above, this time with the a2, b2 and k2 coefficients. Study the case
where a2>b2 and a2<b2. Keep the “nominal” case for the comparison (see initial coefficients
in TABLE3)
 Study the impact of a variation of these pulsations upon the different criterion defined in §5.1.1.
5.1.4 Study of W3
Set the a2, b2 and k2 coefficients back to their initial values of TABLE2.
Then perform the same sensitivity study as above, but this time with the gain k3 of the weight
W3.
 Study the impact of a variation of these pulsations upon the different criterion defined in §5.1.1.
- 13 -
5.2 H RIGID MOTION CONTROLLER SETTINGS
5.2.1 Controller settings
 Using the results of the previous sensitivity studies, try to find settings for the H controller that
meets the following requirements for the controlled rigid launcher:
 Frequency domain requirements : LF gain margin greater than 5dB, HF gain margin great-
er than 9 dB, phase margin greater than 25°,
 Time domain requirements : maximum angle-of-attack = 5° and maximum deflection inte-

gral = 150° in response to the wind gradient + gust profile of TABLE4,
 While minimizing the effect of thrust deflection offsets on the time domain behavior of the
launcher.
- 14 -
6. FLEXIBLE LAUNCHER CONTROL [OPTIONAL]

6.1 FLEXIBLE LAUNCHER MODELS
6.1.1 Time domain simulation model (flexible launcher)
The time domain simulation model of the flexible launcher is obtained by appending a flexible
mode to the previous rigid model. The state-space model of the launcher is therefore altered.
Neglecting aero-elasticity effects, the flexible mode is described by
(9)
where Δq is the modal coordinate, ξq is the mode damping ratio, ωq is its frequency and ΔβR
is the actual thrust deflection. The Aq term, which quantifies how the thrust deflection drives
the flexible motion, depends upon the launcher thrust, the mode frequency, and the local
modal shape at the nozzle location. We assume that all of those modal parameters are locally
constant. The flexible launcher state-space model is then
(10)
where ΔβC is the commanded thrust deflection, ΔW is the wind amplitude, and ΔβFZ is the
thrust deflection offset. Besides, the measured pitch angle error ΔθM is now
(11)
where dh/dx(xC) is the slope of the modal shape at the IMU (Inertial Measurement Unit) loca-
tion.
This model must have 3 inputs: the commanded thrust deflection ΔβC and the two disturb-
ances (wind ΔW and thrust offset ΔβFZ). On output, the model yields the full launcher state
vector (pitch angle error Δθ and its derivative, derivative of lateral position error Δz, actual
thrust deflection ΔβR and its derivative), together with the launcher angle-of-attack Δα, the de-
flection integral Cβ, and the measured pitch angle error ΔθM, which are given by (2), (3) and
(11), respectively.
TABLE1 gives numerical data for the rigid mode. TABLE5 gives numerical data for the flexible
modes.
- 15 -
TABLE 5 – Flexible mode numerical data
PARAMETRE VALEUR
ωq 23,88
ξq 0,005
Aq -10572
Dh/dx(xc) -5,46.10-4
6.1.2 Frequency domain assessment model (flexible launcher)
The frequency domain assessment model is used to compute the Nichols plots of the con-
trolled flexible launcher, in order to assess the launcher stability and the associated frequency
margins. Once again it is a SISO (Single Input, Single Output) model, which is obtained by
removing the disturbances (wind and thrust deflection offset) from the input of the full flexible
model, and by keeping the measured pitch angle error ΔθM as the only output.
From (10) we have:
(12)
The only input is again the commanded thrust deflection ΔβC. Besides, we also assume that
the IMU has sufficient bandwidth, so the model single output is:
(13)
 Build this synthesis model with SIMULINK, using the numerical data of TALE 1 and TABLE5.
Name the model: flexible_launcher_syn.mdl
 Obtain a Bode plot of the flexible launcher transfer function GS(s), which is defined as
(14)
 Calculate its poles. Compare the transfer functions G(s) and GS(s), respectively between rigid
launcher and flexible launcher (use both Bode plots and poles). Comment the results.
- 16 -
6.2 FREQUENTIAL DOMAIN ASSESSMENT
 Obtain the Bode and the Nichols plot of the controlled flexible launcher, with the H∞ controller
of §4.1 and the flexible model of §6.1.2. Superpose the Nichols plots of the rigid and flexible
launcher.
 Is the flexible launcher still stable with the rigid motion controller? Confirm your results by
computing the poles of the controlled (closed-loop) flexible launcher.
6.3 TIME DOMAIN SIMULATION
 Use SIMULINK to simulate the time domain behavior of the controlled flexible launcher. Use
the H∞ controller of §4.1 and the time domain simulation model of §6.1.1 (flexible launcher).
Plot the launcher state, angle-of-attack and pitch angle measurement in response to the wind
profile of §4.3 (gradient + gust). Name the SIMULINK model flexible_launcher_CL.mdl and
complete the program file: plot_flexible_launcher_simu_TBC.m.
 Are your results consistent with the Nichols plot?
6.4 FLEXIBLE MOTION FILTER SETTINGS
6.4.1 Filtering needs
In order to control the flexibility effects, we now synthesize a filter that will be plugged in series
with the H rigid motion controller (so that it filters the commanded thrust deflection). We’ll
study 3 options: a second-order lowpass filter, a fourth-order lowpass filter and a fourth-order
band-stop filter. These elliptical filtere are synthesized with MATLAB “ellip” command.
 Synthesize two lowpass filters and one band-stop filter with the data of TABLE6 (the notation
of this TABLE6 are those of MATLAB’s manual. Note that with n=2 the resulting band-stop fil-
ter has order 2x2=4).
 Obtain the Bode plots of these filters. Justify the bandwidth and attenuation requirements, us-
ing Nichols plot of the flexible launcher and the H rigid motion controller system.
TABLE6 – Filter settings
Parameter Lowpass, order 2 Lowpass, order 4 Band-stop

Order n=2 n=4 n=2
Passband ripple Rp = 0,5 dB Rp = 0,5 dB Rp = 0,5 dB
Stopband attenuation Rs = 20 dB Rs = 20 dB Rs = 25 dB
Edge frequencies wn = 6 wn = 20 wn = [20 30]
6.4.2 Frequency domain assessment
 For each filter, insert the filter between the H rigid motion controller and the flexible launcher
model. Obtain the associated Nichols plot for the controlled flexible launcher.
 Show that the flexible launcher is stable when the output of the rigid motion controller is fil-
tered. Confirm your results by computing the poles of the closed-loop system.
 Compute the stability margins for each filter configuration. Compare with the results without fil-
ter. Comments?
- 17 -
6.4.3 Time domain simulation
 Use SIMULINK to simulate the time domain behavior of the controlled flexible launcher. Use
the H controller of §5.2, the filters of §6.4.1, and the time domain simulation model of §6.1
(flexible launcher). Name the model: flexible_launcher_CL_filter.mdl
 Simulate the two following cases:
 Zero guidance input, no wind, constant thrust deflection offset = 0,1°,
 Zero guidance input, no thrust deflection offset, wind gradient + gust profile. The associated wind
profile is given in TABLE4, and is plotted on FIGURE3.
In both cases, plug an additive measurement noise on pitch angle measurement. Use a Gaussian
white noise generator, with zero mean and standard deviation σ = 0,022°.
 For each simulation, plot the disturbances, the launcher states, the deflection integral and the
angle-of-attack. Check that the launcher is actually stable.
 Compare the results of the lowpass and band-stop cases with the simulation of the §6.3.
Comments. Which filter allows obtaining best results?
 Compare the band-stop case results with the rigid motion simulations of §5.2.1. Assess the fil-
tering effect on the time domain performance of the controller. Comments?
6.4.4 Controller filter robustness study [Optional]
Study the robustness of your controller to uncertainties on the parameters of the launcher flexible
mode. To do so, build simulation and assessment models with ±10% uncertainties on the frequency
ωq, damping ratio ξq and local IMU slope dh/dx(xC) of the flexible mode. Perform frequency assess-
ments (as in §6.4.2) and time simulations (as in §6.4.3) with your controller connected to those uncer-
tain models.
Find the worst cases for the modal data. If needed, modify your filter settings to increase the controller
robustness to those model uncertainties.

Workshop Hinfini Launcher Control MASTERS ENG 2021

Transféré par

Informations du document

Titre original

Copyright

Formats disponibles

Partager ce document

Partager ou intégrer le document

Options de partage

Avez-vous trouvé ce document utile ?

Ce contenu est-il inapproprié ?

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

Workshop Hinfini Launcher Control MASTERS ENG 2021

Transféré par

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

Control of Launcher

2. RIGID LAUNCHER MODELS ....................................................................................... 4

2.1 TIME DOMAIN SIMULATION MODEL (RIGID LAUNCHER) .......................................................... 4

2.2 SYNTHESIS MODEL (RIGID LAUNCHER) ..................................................................................... 6

3. AUGMENTED SYSTEM ................................................................................................ 7

3.1 WEIGHTS ......................................................................................................................................... 7

3.2 AUGMENTED MODEL ..................................................................................................................... 8

4. FIRST H CONTROLLER SYNTHESIS AND ASSESSMENT ..................................... 9

4.1 H CONTROLLER SYNTHESIS ...................................................................................................... 9

4.2 FREQUENCY DOMAIN ASSESSMENT (RIGID LAUNCHER)........................................................ 9

4.3 TIME DOMAIN SIMULATION (RIGID LAUNCHER) ........................................................................ 9

5. CONTROLLER SETTINGS ......................................................................................... 11

5.1 H RIGID MOTION CONTROLLER – SENSITIVITY STUDY ........................................................ 11

6. FLEXIBLE LAUNCHER CONTROL [OPTIONAL]...................................................... 14

6.1 FLEXIBLE LAUNCHER MODELS .................................................................................................. 14

6.3 TIME DOMAIN SIMULATION ......................................................................................................... 16

6.4 FLEXIBLE MOTION FILTER SETTINGS ....................................................................................... 16

2. RIGID LAUNCHER MODELS

2.1 TIME DOMAIN SIMULATION MODEL (RIGID LAUNCHER)

 Make a rigid launcher model under SIMULINK (see file: rigid_launcher_OL.mdl).

TABLE 1 – Rigid launcher numerical data

2.2 SYNTHESIS MODEL (RIGID LAUNCHER)

 Name this model: rigid_launcher_syn.mdl.

Check that the uncontrolled (open-loop) launcher is naturally unstable.

FIGURE 2 – Augmented system for H synthesis

TABLE2 – Weights coefficients

3.2 AUGMENTED MODEL

 Name this model: augmented_model.mdl

4. FIRST H CONTROLLER SYNTHESIS AND ASSESSMENT

4.1 H CONTROLLER SYNTHESIS

TABLE3 –H transfers and associated weights

Plot the magnitude of … …with the magnitude of …

4.2 FREQUENCY DOMAIN ASSESSMENT (RIGID LAUNCHER)

 Check that statement on the Nichols plot

4.3 TIME DOMAIN SIMULATION (RIGID LAUNCHER)

 Simulate the two following cases:

 Zero guidance input, no wind, constant thrust deflection offset = 0,1°,

TABLE4 – Wind profile

TIME (s) / t0 ΔW (m/s)

FIGURE 3 – Wind profile for simulations

5.1 H RIGID MOTION CONTROLLER – SENSITIVITY STUDY

5.1.1 Description of the study

Case Case Case

H-infini synthesis information

The value of γ at the end of the γ – iteration

The resulting controller gain,

Stability margins of the controlled launcher

phase/ delay gain margin

time domain response of the controlled launcher, when submitted:

maximum attitude angle

maximum thrust deflection

 Transfer functions of TABLE3,

 Nichols plot of the controlled rigid launcher,

 The controller gain in high frequency.

5.1.2 Study of W2 – gain k2

 Comments the results with regards to the theory

5.1.3 Study of W2 – pulsation a2 and b2

Set the k2 coefficients back to its initial values of TABLE2.

 Comments the results with regards to the theory

 Comments the results with regards to the theory

5.2 H RIGID MOTION CONTROLLER SETTINGS

5.2.1 Controller settings

 Time domain requirements : maximum angle-of-attack = 5° and maximum deflection inte-