International Conference on Computing, Control, Networking, Electronics and Embedded Systems Engineering, 2015

Longitudinal Command Stability Augmentation

System Design for Unstable Aircraft Using Flying
and Handling Qualities Specifications
#
S.Mansor 1, * Yasser. A. M. Nogoud 1,2 Raheeg Alamin 2
1
Department of Aeronautical, Automotive and Ocean 2
Department of Aeronautical Engineering College of
Engineering Faculty of Mechanical Engineering Engineering
Universiti Teknologi Malaysia, 81310 UTM Sudan University of Science and Technology
Johor, Malaysia Khartoum, Sudan
#
[email protected] [email protected]
*
[email protected]

Abstract—This paper demonstrates a practical approach in For a particular flight regime, it would be possible to design
designing a longitudinal command stability augmentation system the aircraft to possess desirable flying and handling quality.
for unstable combat aircraft. The unaugmented aircraft is However, for an aircraft that will fly throughout an extended
originally unstable configuration in order to gain fast response flight envelope, the stability will be vary significantly, owing
for agility. The flight control system was designed in compliance primarily to change in the aircraft configuration (lowering of
with MIL-F-8785C and Gibson Criterion for the corresponding flaps and landing gear), or Mach and Reynolds number effects
flight case. The design case study is based on pitch rate command on the stability. The flying and handling quality also changes
control system using I controller. The design evaluation is based throughout the flight envelop. To possess desirable flying and
on time response analysis of simulated results using Matlab and handling quality for the entire operational envelop, the
Simulink. The pole-placement method was used to determine the command and stability augmentation system is usually
augmented feedback gain. Second order actuator dynamics
introduced to the aircraft. Strict requirements for military
model was introduced to see its effect on overall design. This
design case study offers a better understanding, an easier and
aircraft have been documented in the military specifications
practical approach implementation based on aircraft longitudinal MIL-F-8785C [1], which set out requirements for control
pitch rate command. system in order to achieve adequate de-coupling, stability and
maneuverability. Automatic controls have been used to
Keywords: stability augmentation system, I controller, pole- improve aircraft handling qualities [2, 3] .
placement, unstable aircraft, flight control Improving stability by changing the aircraft configuration
(such as horizontal tail volume ratio) will normally result in
decrease of aircraft maneuverability. Increase in stability
I. INTRODUCTION means increase in the difficulty of changing the initial
In recent years, the analysis and synthesis of flight control condition of the aircraft. This is certainly not favorable to
system design using state-space (multivariable modern control) combat aircraft which need high maneuverability for air-to-air
has been established. The command and stability augmentation combat, ground attack and other missions.
system (CSAS) is a closed loop system which provides The main task of this paper is to present a practical
artificial control to the aircraft. The aim is to reduce pilot’s approach in designing a longitudinal command and stability
work load of control and stabilize the aircraft. It is essential augmentation system for unstable combat aircraft. The aim is
feature for unstable combat aircraft due to two factors: 1) The to comply the aircraft characteristics to MIL-F-8785C and
combat aircrafts have an extended flight envelop, 2) They need Gibson Criterion for the corresponding level.
high maneuverability.
The inherent stability of an airplane depends upon the
aerodynamics stability derivatives. The magnitude of the II. MATHEMATICAL EQUATION OF AIRCRAFT MOTION
derivatives affect both the damping and natural frequency of
the aircraft on both longitudinal and lateral motion. The
The aircraft model used in this work is canard control
derivatives are depend on the aerodynamic and geometry
aircraft with geometry and aerodynamic data as reported in [4].
characteristic of the aircraft.
The mathematical model used in this work was derived
from a simplified generic linear aircraft model [5].

‹,(((
 Let (u, w, q, ș) be the state vector where u is velocity, w is U=180 km/h U=270 km/h U=360 km/h U=450 km/h
normal velocity, q is pitch rate and ș is pitch angle. The
detailed assumptions and simplifications in force and moments 0.25 Imaginary axis

calculations are discussed in Cook [5]. The nonlinear equations Phugoid

0.2
short period
of motions of the aircraft longitudinal dynamic as: 0.15

ଵ 0.1
—ሶ ൌ ሺ ୅୶ ൅ ୘୶ ሻ െ “™ ൅ ”˜ െ ‰•‹Ʌ
୫ 0.05
ଵ
™ሶ ൌ ሺ ୅୸ ൅ ୘୸ ሻ െ ’˜ ൅ “— ൅ ‰ ‘•Ʌ (1) 0
୫ -4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3
ͳ -0.05 Real axis
“ሶ ൌ ሺ୅ ൅ ୘ ሻ െ ’”ሺ ୶ െ ୸ ሻ െ ሺ’ଶ െ ” ଶ ሻ ୶୷ -0.1
୷
Ʌሶ ൌ “ -0.15
Phugoid
-0.2

The force and moment components contributed by each -0.25

subsystem of the aircraft are calculated and transformed to the Fig. 1. Open loop pole zero map for different speed
aircraft centre of gravity. The nonlinear model is linearized
about the trim condition at straight and level flight at various The longitudinal dynamics has short period and phugoid
speed conditions using analytical methods[6] .The linearized mode with poles at -1.96, 1.33 and 0.00151±0.185i,
model for longitudinal dynamics can be written in the state respectively, at 270 km/h. these poles locations show that the
space form as: poles of the short period and phugoid modes are unstable. The
pole locations for the other flight conditions are shown in Fig
šሶ ൌ š ൅ — 1. From Fig 1, shows that phugoid mode is marginally stable
ሺʹሻ but short period mode is always unstable and its instability
› ൌ š ൅ — increases with increase in forward speed condition. This clearly
indicates the need for stability augmentation system (SAS).
Where,š ൌ ሾ—ǡ ™ǡ “ǡ Ʌሿ୘ and— ൌ ሾɄୣ ሿ. The A and B are The purpose of a SAS is to provide satisfactory natural
system matrices as shown in (3) and are calculated at different frequency and damping ratio for the short period mode to
speed conditions. The linear models are derived at 180, 270, stabilize the aircraft.
360 and 450 km/hr. The actuator dynamic is second order
model and added to the linear system. The natural frequency
and damping ratio for the elevator actuator are 30 rad/s and 0.7 III. HANDLING QUALITIES AND CONTROL DESIGN
respectively. The actuator drives the input signal to the control
surface. Flying and handing qualities play a significant and
—ሶ š୳ š୵ š୯  š஘ — š஗ necessary role in control system design for manned aircraft
™ሶ œ୳ œ୵ œ୯ œ஘ ™ œ஗ [7]. Cook describes: “The flying and handing qualities are
൦ “ሶ ൪ ൌ ൦  ሾɄ ሿ
୳ ୵ ୯ ஘ ൪ ቎ “ ቏ ൅ ൦஗ ൪ ୣ  ሺ͵ሻ properties that govern the ease and precision with which it
Ʌሶ Ͳ Ͳ ͳ Ͳ Ʌ Ͳ responds to pilot commands in the execution of the flight
task”[5]. In order to ensure the accomplishment of desired
mission safely and successfully with the minimum amount of
A. Longitudinal dynamics workload for the pilot, the control system needs to satisfy the
corresponding specification and standards. The automatic flight
The A, B, C and D matrices for straight and level flight control system design begins by determining the design goals
condition at 270km/hr of forward speed are given below: from the relevant handling qualities specification. The handling
qualities specifications widely applied in industry are military
flying qualities specifications MIL-SPEC-8785C [1], Military
ͲǤͲͳʹͷ ͵Ǥ͹ͷ Ͳ െͻǤͺͳ Standard MIL-STD-1787B [8]. It is customary to rate handling
ሾሿ ൌ ൦ െ͵Ǥ͵ͳ‡ െ ͵ െͲǤͷͷͺ ͲǤͻͺͻ Ͳ qualities in terms of Cooper and Harper [9] levels.
൪
െͲǤͲͲͲ͸ ʹǤ͸Ͷ͹ͷ െͲǤͲ͹ͺͳ Ͳ
Ͳ Ͳ ͳ Ͳ
Ͳ ͳ Ͳ Ͳ Ͳ Ͳ A. Control Anticipation Parameter (CAP) Criterion
ሾሿ ൌ ൦ െ͸ǤͲͺ‡ െ ͵ Ͳ ͳ Ͳ Ͳ Ͳ
൪ ሾሿ ൌ ൦ ൪ǡሾሿ ൌ ൦ ൪
ͳǤ͸ͷʹ Ͳ Ͳ ͳ Ͳ Ͳ
The CAP criterion was developed to predict the precision
Ͳ Ͳ Ͳ Ͳ ͳ Ͳ
 that a pilot could expect in controlling an aircraft’s flight path.
Nevertheless, it is required to obtain a lower order equivalent
system to apply this criterion for highly augmented aircraft.
Although the normal acceleration response is determined by
the aerodynamic property, the CAP criterion aims to assess the
transient peak magnitude of angular pitching acceleration
which is mainly decided by the short period dynamics after the


pitch control input. Therefore, it is significant and universally used to evaluate acceptability of the short period mode feature
according to aerodynamic properties and the different transient response of the system and to cancel the poles due to
operating conditions[10]. The formal definition of CAP is the integral feedback. The command path pre-filter has been added
amount of instantaneous angular pitching acceleration per unit to reduced the over shoot of the system. The actuator model
of steady state normal acceleration. In (4) the value of CAP is used in this work represent by a second order system.
given in terms of second order like parameters and which is
currently in use. Since only an angle of attack and pitch rate are used for
feedback, a reduced order system is used. In this way the short
“ሶ ሺͲሻ ɘଶ୬ୱ ɘଶ୬ୱ Ǥ‰Ǥ ஘ଶ period dynamic are used and the phugoid dynamics are
 ൌ ൌ ൌ ሺͶሻ eliminated from PRCAH system design process. Thus, the
୸ ሺλሻ ஑ 
reduced order system dynamics with inclusion of actuator and

controller dynamics are presented in (5).
CAP is evaluated graphically by parameters Ȧns and NĮ as
shown in Fig. 5, using reduced second order aircraft model for
the step response of short period (SPO) mode. Ƚሶ െͲǤͷͷͺ ͲǤͻͺͻ െͲǤͲͲ͸ͳ Ͳ Ͳ Ƚ
‫“ ۍ‬ሶ ‫ۍ ې‬
‫ ێ‬Ʉሶ ‫ʹ ێ ۑ‬Ǥ͸Ͷ͹ͷ െͲǤͲ͹ͺͳ ͳǤ͸ͷʹ Ͳ Ͳ‫ې “ ۍ ې‬
‫ۑ ێۑ‬
‫ۑ ێ‬ൌ‫Ͳ ێ‬ Ͳ Ͳ ͳ Ͳ‫ ێ ۑ‬Ʉ ‫ ۑ‬൅
B. Gibson’s Dropback Criterion ‫ێ‬ሶ஗ ‫Ͳ ێ ۑ‬ Ͳ െͻͲͲ െͶʹ Ͳ‫ێ ۑ‬஗ ‫ۑ‬
‫ ۏ‬ɂሶ ‫Ͳ ۏ ے‬ ͳ Ͳ Ͳ Ͳ‫ ۏ ے‬ɂ ‫ے‬
The Gibson’s Dropback criterion aims to design a Ͳ Ͳ
command and stability augmentation system (CSAS) which ‫ې Ͳ ۍ‬ ‫ېͲۍ‬
‫ێ‬ ‫ۑ‬ ‫ۑ ێ‬
could give an aircraft with satisfactory handing qualities. This ‫ ۑ Ͳ ێ‬ୢ ൅ ‫ ۑ Ͳ ێ‬ሾ“ୢ ሿ ሺͷሻ
ሾɄ ሿ
criterion is described as limiting values with pitch rate ‫ۑͲͲͻێ‬ ‫ۑͲێ‬
overshoot ratio qm/qs versus the ratio of attitude Dropback to ‫ے Ͳ ۏ‬ ‫ۏ‬െͳ‫ے‬
steady pitch rate (¨șpeak/qs), which are shown in Fig. 2. Here,
criterion mappings are related to qualitative descriptions of the
response such as abruptness, sluggishness, and bobbling. (5) is the form of (6). The control law used in this flight
Negative Dropback is an indication of sluggishness, while control system is as given in (7). Substitute (7) in (6) and
large positive values of Dropback indicate abrupt and bobbling rearranging, results the closed loop state (8), where KT = [kĮ kq
tendencies[11]. kȘ kVȘ ki] and M= [km].

4
šሶ ൌ š ൅ Ʉୢ ൅ “ୢ     ሺ͸ሻ
Continuous Ʉୢ ൌ െš ൅ “ୢ     ሺ͹ሻ
3.5
bobbling šሶ ൌ ሺ െ ሻš ൅ ሺ ൅ ሻ“ୢ    ሺͺሻ
3

2.5
The values of the gains vector, K, calculated using the pole
qmax/qss

satisfactory

placement method to create the stability of the system. The

response

2 Sluggish Abrupt

1.5
response bobble closed loop characteristic equation has a short period damping
tendency
ratio and natural frequency selected according to design
1 requirement to meet level 1 flying handling quality of MIL-
0.5 SPEC-8785C. The actuator dynamics are kept equal, and, and
the integrator zero is given a convenient value to be favorable
0
-0.6 -0.4 -0.2 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 to the pilot. The time constant 1/6 second (f § 1Hz) is
DB/qss [sec] satisfactory.
Fig. 2. The boundaries of Dropback Criterion [11] The command path pre-filter is the last part to be designed
and it remains as the means for fine tuning the command
response characteristics for good handling, essentially by phase
adjustment, as shown in (9). Where Tș2actual is the inverse of
IV. CONTROL LAW DESIGN
actual pitch rate transfer function zero and Tș2desierd is the
replacement of Tș2actual. The value of Tș2desierd is obtained by
Flight control system (FCS) design is an important problem using the Gibson drop back criterion [11], which leads to the
for any aircraft. In this paper the design of a pitch rate requirement that to meet satisfactory region of the Gibson drop
command/attitude hold (PRCAH) flight control system is back criteria.
considered. The structure of the PRCAH system is shown in
Fig. (3). The inner loop feedback of angle of attack kĮ and pitch
rate kq is necessary to stabilize the aircraft. To ensure zero ஘ଶ ୢୣୱ୧ୣ୰ୢ  ൅ ͳ
 ሺ•ሻ ൌ ሺͻሻ
steady state error of PRCAH system a I controller has been ஘ଶ ୟୡ୲୳ୟ୪  ൅ ͳ
added. In addition to the I controller the feed forward gain km 
as suggested by Cook [3] has been added to improve the


 km

q
qcom Pre-filter + I controller + + Actuator ɻ Aircraft
qd Dynamics dynamics ɲ
PF ki/s + -
-

[kɲ kq]


Fig. 3. Pitch rate command/attitude hold flight control system

huge overshoot in the step response even though there is

adequate short period damping. This overshoot is due to a
V. SIMULATION RESULT AND DISCUSSION numerator zero in the (q/qc) transfer function and can be reduce
it by a pre-filter as shown in red graph.
The super augmentation system are designed to follow rate
kq kɲ ki km
command and attitude hold for an unstable (canard control)
combat aircraft. The procedures for obtaining gains are 25

described. 20

15
1. Select the design parameters Control anticipation

gains value, K
10
Parameter, CAP, short-term mode damping ratio, ȗSP 5
and Gibson Dropback criterion DB/qs=0. 0
2. Determine the gains [kĮ kq ki km] and Tș2desierd. 0 100 200 300 400 500 600
-5
3. Study the closed loop response in time domain
-10
characteristics.
-15
4. Use the MIL-SPEC-8785C and Gibson drop back Speed,U [km/hr]

criteria to decide on the suitability of the gains.

5. If the results are not suitable, choose different CAP Fig. 4. gains scheduling with respect to airspeed
and ȗSP.
6. Repeat this process for different operation condition
(flight cases). 2.5
SAS+ PI controller
7. Using the linear interpolation, gains for intermediate SAS+PI+Feed Forward
operation conditions are obtained. 2 Super Augmentaion System

1.5
A. longitudinal dynamics
q,[°/s]

The controller structure for the super augmentation system

with reduced order short period mode is shown in Fig. 3. The 0.5

super augmentation system has K= [kĮ, kq, ki, km]. After

obtaining the gains at all the 6 flight conditions for the design 0
0 2 4 6 8 10
parameters CAP=1 and ȗ=0.7 and DB/qs=0, the gains are Time (seconds)
required to be scheduled with respect to speed as shown in Fig.
4. Fig. 5. Response to 1 deg/sec Pitch rate command/attitude hold system

The step response of the pitch rate to pitch rate demand

(q/qc) transfer function at speed of 360 km/hr is shown in Fig.
5. Three graphs are illustrated. Blue graph represent the B. Super augmented aircraft Flying and Handing Qualities
response with stability augmentation system SAS in the Assessment
feedback path and the I controller. The response is well
damped with zero steady state error. The settling time and rise The longitudinal flying and handling qualities presented in
time are 2.64sec and 0.234sec respectively. To improve the section III were used to assess the super augmented aircraft
settling time and rise time the feed forward gain was flying and handling qualities. The super augmented was
introduced. The response is plotted in green graph. The assessed for the takeoff, climb, descent, approach and landing
response has improved with respect to rise time and settling flight mission tasks. From MIL-F-8785C [1] these tasks are
time, but there is a problem with overshoot. Clearly there is a


classified as Category C, precisions non-aggressive, and A unit step pitch rate demand is applied and then removed
Category B, non-precision non-aggressive, mission tasks. For after 10 seconds. The corresponding pitch angle, ș and flight
each mission task, variability in flight conditions was assumed path angle, Ȗ responses are shown. These Gibson Dropback
to be due to changes in speed. Thus, the criteria were applied parameters are summarized in Table 1
for range of speed values (180 km/hr to 720 km/hr)
representative of flight conditions for each mission task. Using the definition presented in section III, the values of
pitch rate overshoot ratio, (qmax/qs), and the ratio of the attitude
Dropback to steady state pitch rate, (¨șpeak/qs) were calculated.
The result is presented in Fig.8.
• Control Anticipation Parameter (CAP) Criterion
Fig.8 shows the assessment of The Gibson Dropback
criteria for the closed loop transfer function with the Pitch rate
As the super augmentation system engaged, the specific command/attitude hold flight control system in place for all
damping and natural frequency of the short period mode are combinations of speed. Also shown Gibson Dropback
improved as Fig. 6 shows. It can be seen that the damping assessment for the for the closed loop transfer function with the
ratio, ȗSP and natural frequency, ȦnSP are satisfactory with the SAS and I controller case and one with the SAS, I and feed
MIL-F-8785C specifications constraints. The load factor (NĮ) forward for speed of 100m/s. It can be seen that the system
and short period frequency (ȦnSP ) comparison can be seen in falls within the boundaries of satisfactory performance when
Fig. 6(a). Using this criterion for the range of speed less than the super augmentation system is functional, while the system
540 km/hr appear in the Level 1 category while the range of with the SAS and I controller and system with the SAS, I
speed greater than 540 km/hr appears in the Level 2 category. controller and feed forward are falls within the Abrupt Bobble
Investigating Control Anticipation Parameter, CAP vs. tendency region. As shown in Fig. 8 for all combinations of
damping ratio ȗSP , as seen in Fig. 6(b). From these Fig it can speed, the augmented combat aircraft is assessed as satisfactory
be seen that the range of speed are set to be correlated so that response. This result was expected, since the requirement for
for the range of speed less than 540 km/hr has a predicted zero pitch attitudes Dropback was used in the flight control
handling quality requirement (HQR) of level 1, the speed of system design. Although not precisely zero, the actual pitch
720 km/hr has a predicted HQR of level 2. attitude Dropback is nevertheless very small. On the other hand
Increase of speed increase the overshoot ratio.
Fig.7 represents the application of Gibson pitch attitude
Dropback criteria on the close loop transfer function.

100
100
180
180 270 360 450 540 720
270
360
450
540
720
short period undamped natural frequancy wsp (rad/s)

short period undamped natural frequancy wsp (rad/s)

10 10

1 1
Level 2

Flight phase catogry B Flight phase catogry C

0.1 0.1
1 Na (1/rad) 10 100 Na (1/rad)
1 10 100

(a) Natural Frequency Criterion (Ȧn)


 100 100

180 270 360 450 540 720 CAT C

180
10 10
270
CAT B 360
450

CAP

CAP
1 1 540
720
level 1

0.1 level 2
0.1
level3

0.01
0.01
0.1 1 10 0.1 1 10
short period mode damping ratio, ɺ short period mode damping ratio, ɺ

(b) Damping Ratio Criterion (ȗSP ).

Fig. 6. CAP criterion assessments of augmented Combat Aircraft

12
VI. CONCLUSION
10 The performance of a super augmentation system designed
for an unstable combat Aircraft in longitudinal axis is assessed
8 flight path angle,γ [ °] with respect to the CAP criterion and Gibson drop back
pitch angle, θ [°] requirements. A canard combat aircraft with conventional
q,[°/s], θ[ °], γ [°]

6
Pitch rate,q [ °/s] mechanical control is used for the simulation study. For the
Pitch rate demand,qd
4 simulation study, a linearized aircraft model at straight and
level flight condition is considered. The simulation results
2 shows the super augmentation system in longitudinal axis
meets the requirements of the level 1 handling qualities for the
0
range of speed up to 540 km/hr. Speed Greater than 540 km/hr
-2
may require and adaptive control to meet the level 1
0 5 10 15 20 requirement.
Time [sec]

Fig. 7. Gibson Dropback assessment- Time response plots [U=100m/s]

50 75 100 125 150 200 PI PI+FF 2
TABLE I. GIBSON DROPBACK ASSESSMENT PARAMETERS WITH SUPER 4
AUGMENTATION SYSTEM
3.5 Region of Continuous 1.5
satisfactory bobbling
3
response
U[km/hr] 1
50 75 100 125 150 200 2.5 0 0.2
qmax/qss

Parameter 2 Sluggish
Pitch attitude response
Abrupt
Dropback, DB [ o ] 0.048 0.068 0.079 0.023 0.032 0.039 1.5 bobble
Pitch rate Peak, tendency
1
qmax [o/s] 1.203 1.216 1.255 1.247 1.382 1.720
Steady pitch rate, 0.5
qss [o/s] 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000
0
Pitch over shoot
-0.6 -0.4 -0.2 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2
ratio, qmax/qss [-] 1.203 1.216 1.255 1.247 1.382 1.720 DB/qss [sec]

Fig. 8. Gibson Dropback handling qualities assessment


 REFERENCES

[1] Anonymous, "Flying qualities of piloted airplanes," United States

Department of Defense, 1980.
[2] N. U. Rahman, J. F. Whidborne, and A. K. Cooke, "Longitudinal control
system design and handling qualities assessment of a blended wing body
aircraft," in Applied Sciences and Technology (IBCAST), 2009 6th
International Bhurban Conference on, 2009, pp. 177-186.
[3] H. V. de Castro, "Flying and handling qualities of a fly-by-wire blended-
wing-body civil tranSPort aircraft," 2003.
[4] M. V. Cook, "On the design of command and stability augmentation
systems for advanced technology aeroplanes," Transactions of the
Institute of Measurement and Control, vol. 21, pp. 85-98, 1999.
[5] M. V. Cook, Flight dynamics principles: a linear systems approach to
aircraft stability and control: Butterworth-Heinemann, 2012.
[6] B. L. Stevens and F. L. Lewis, "Aircraft control and simulation," 2003.
[7] E. J. Field, K. F. Rossitto, and J. Hodgkinson, "Flying qualities
applications of frequency responses identified from flight data," Journal
of Aircraft, vol. 41, pp. 711-720, Jul-Aug 2004.
[8] R. H. Hoh and D. G. Mitchell, "Handling-qualities specification-a
functional requirement for the flight control system," Advances in
aircraft flight control, pp. 3-33, 1996.
[9] G. E. Cooper and R. P. Harper Jr, "The use of pilot rating in the
evaluation of aircraft handling qualities," DTIC Document1969.
[10] D. A. Kivioja, "Comparison of the Control Anticipation Parameter and
the Bandwidth Criterion During the Landing Task," DTIC
Document1996.
[11] J. C. Gibson, Development of a methodology for excellence in handling
qualities design for fly by wire aircraft: Delft University Press Delft,
1999.