NASA Technical Memorandum 110369 USAATCOM Technical Report 95-A-007

System Identification Methods for

Aircraft Flight Control Development
and Validation

Mark B. Tischler, Aeroflightdynamics Directorate, U.S. Army ATCOM, Ames Research Center,
Moffett Field, California

October 1995

National Aeronautics and US Army

Space Administration Aviation and Troop Command
Ames Research Center Aeroflightdynamics Directorate
Moffett Field, CA 94035-1000 Moffett Field, CA 94035-1000
NASA Technical Memorandum 110369 USAATCOM Technical Report 95-A-007

System Identification Methods for

Aircraft Flight Control Development
and Validation

Mark B. Tischler

October 1995

National Aeronautics and US Army

Space Administration Aviation and Troop Command
Ames Research Center Aeroflightdynamics Directorate
Moffett Field, CA 94035-1000 Moffett Field, CA 94035-1000
 System Identification Methods for Aircraft Flight Control Development and
Validation

MARK B. T ISCHLER
Aeroflightdynamics Directorate, U.S. Army ATCOM
Ames Research Center

Summary Schrage in a comprehensive report dedicated to this topic

(Anon. 1991). An excellent historical summary and
System-identification methods compose a mathematical overview of system identification is given by Hamel
model, or series of models, from measurements of inputs (1995). System identification has been widely utilized in
and outputs of dynamic systems. The extracted models recent aircraft programs including many of those
allow the characterization of the response of the overall described in a recent volume on aircraft flight control
aircraft or component subsystem behavior, such as actua- (Anon. 1994). Common applications for flight-control
tors and on-board signal processing algorithms. This system development include: definition of system
paper discusses the use of frequency-domain system- requirements, specification and analysis of handling
identification methods for the development and integra- qualities, evaluation of proposed control-law concepts,
tion of aircraft flight-control systems. The extraction and validation and improvement of complex simulation
analysis of models of varying complexity from nonpara- models, validation of subsystem components and devel-
metric frequency-responses to transfer-functions and opment facilities, and flight-test optimization of control
high-order state-space representations is illustrated using laws.
the Comprehensive Identification from FrEquency
Responses (CIFER® ) system-identification facility. Frequency-domain identification approaches are espe-
Results are presented for test data of numerous flight and cially well suited to the development and validation of
simulation programs at the Ames Research Center includ- flight-control systems. Feedback stability and noise
ing rotorcraft, fixed-wing aircraft, advanced short takeoff amplification properties are determined from the broken-
and vertical landing (ASTOVL), vertical/short takeoff and loop frequency response, and characterized by metrics
landing (V/STOL), tiltrotor aircraft, and rotor experiments such as crossover frequency, and associated gain and
in the wind tunnel. Excellent system characterization and phase margins. Command tracking performance is deter-
dynamic response prediction is achieved for this wide mined from the closed-loop frequency-response, and
class of systems. Examples illustrate the role of system- characterized metrics such as bandwidth and time-delay,
identification technology in providing an integrated flow and equivalent system eigenvalues. Frequency-domain
of dynamic response data around the entire life-cycle of identification approaches allow the direct and rapid
aircraft development from initial specifications, through (including real-time) identification of these frequency
simulation and bench testing, and into flight-test
optimization.

Specifications
1. Introduction
Flight test Design
System identification is a procedure for accurately charac-
terizing the dynamic response behavior of a complete air-
craft, subsystem, or individual component from measured
data. This key technology for modern fly-by-wire flight-
control system development and integration provides a
unified flow of information regarding system performance Development Simulation
around the entire life cycle from specification and design
through development and flight test (fig. 1). A similar
“roadmap” for application of system-identification meth- Figure 1. Road map for fly-by-wire flight-control system
ods to rotorcraft development was previously proposed by development and integration.
responses and metrics, without the need to first identify a torate (AFDD), the NASA and Sterling Software. Many
parametric (state-space) model structure such as is of the flight applications have been to rotorcraft, which
required in applying time-domain methods. Careful pose an especially difficult challenge to system identifica-
tracking of the broken-loop and end-to-end closed-loop tion (Tischler 1990). The dynamics of these aircraft are
frequency-response behavior from the preliminary design highly coupled, and unstable. Additionally, the rotorcraft
studies through detailed design and simulation and into dynamics include lightly-damped fuselage and rotor
flight test provides an important “paper trail” for docu- modes. Vibration and low excitation signal content, espe-
menting system performance and solving problems that cially near hover, results in typically low signal-to-noise
may appear in the later phases of development. ratios. Experience in developing and applying system-
identification methods to the rotorcraft problem has pro-
The availability of comprehensive and reliable computa-
duced a set of tools that has proven highly reliable for the
tional tools has substantially enhanced the acceptability of
broad scope of applications reviewed in this paper. The
frequency-domain techniques in the flight-control and
first section presents a summary of the frequency-domain
flight-test community. Benefits from applying these tech-
approach and the Comprehensive Identification from
niques include the reduction of flight-test time required
FrEquency Responses (CIFER ®) comprehensive analysis
for control system optimization and handling-qualities
facility. The remainder of the paper is organized into five
evaluation, especially for complex control-law architec-
sections following the flight-control development
tures, and improvements in the final system performance.
flowchart of figure 1 from specifications and design
Frequency-domain methods offer a transparent under-
through flight-test optimization. Each section illustrates
standing of component and end-to-end response character-
important techniques with examples based on fixed and
istics that can be critical in solving system integration
rotary-wing projects at the Ames Research Center.
problems.
This paper reviews frequency-domain system-
identification methods for development and integration of 2. Overview of AFDD/NASA System-
aircraft flight-control systems. These methods were Identification Techniques
developed under a long-term research activity at the Ames
The AFDD/NASA frequency-domain system identifica-
Research Center by the Army Aeroflightdynamics Direc-
tion procedure is shown in figure 2, and in reviewed in

Data Compatibility Multi-variable

Frequency Aircraft & Spectral
Sweep Inputs
State Estimation Analysis

Conditioned
Transfer-Function Frequency-Responses
Modeling &
Partial Coherences

+
Freq.-Response
Identification
Algorithm Identification
Criterion –

Mathematical Model
Initial Values Stability and Control Derivatives
and Time Delays
Sensitivity Analysis
&
Dissimilar flight Model Structure
data not used in Verification Determination
identification

APPLICATIONS: FCS design, Handling-Qualities, Simulation validation

Figure 2. Frequency-domain system identification procedure.

2
this section. Details of the procedure are found in Tischler determination procedure simplifies the model to a mini-
and Cauffman (1992). System-identification methods and mum set of reliable parameters that accurately character-
requirements for specific application to high-bandwidth izes the MIMO frequency-response database. Finally, the
rotorcraft flight-control system design are given by identified state-space model is validated by comparing
Tischler (1990). predicted time responses with the actual flight responses
for test inputs not used in the identification procedure.
Aircraft or subsystem component dynamics are excited by
a pilot-generated or computer-generated frequency-sweep The frequency-domain system-identification procedure is
input. The dynamic responses are generally measured by incorporated in a sophisticated interactive computational
dedicated sensors, and the data are either recorded on- facility known as CIFER ®–Comprehensive Identification
board or telemetered to the ground for processing. from FrEquency Responses. Integrated data-basing and
Kalman filtering techniques (or simple numerical integra- extensive user-oriented utilities are distinctive features of
tion) are used to check data compatibility and eliminate CIFER® for organizing and analyzing the large amounts
spurious instrumentation system biases, scale factors, and of data which are generated for flight-test identification
drop-outs. Here, unmeasured signals may be estimated projects. A screen-driven interface is tied to the database
from the available measured states. for rapid user interaction. Previous program set-ups and
analysis results are retrieved by simply referencing case
The foundation of the AFDD/NASA approach is the high-
names. Then, changes can be easily made by moving the
quality extraction of a complete multi-input/multi-output
cursor around on the user screens and modifying the
(MIMO) frequency-response database. These responses
default or previously saved program parameter values.
fully characterize the linearized coupled characteristics of
The changes are then updated in the database with a single
the system without a priori assumptions. Advanced multi-
key stroke. Utilities are available for quick inspection,
variable spectral analysis using the Chirp-Z transform and
searching, plotting, or tabulated output of the contents of
composite optimal window techniques have been devel-
the database. Extensive analysis modules within CIFER ®
oped and exercised over many flight applications. These
support: 1) rapid identification of transfer-function mod-
methods provide significant improvement in identification
els; 2) signal spectral analysis; 3) handling qualities and
quality relative to standard fast Fourier transform (FFT)
classical servo-loop analysis; and 4) time and frequency-
methods. The frequency-response database directly
domain comparisons of identification and simulation
supports important flight-control system applications
model predictions with flight data. Aircraft applications of
includ ing: handling-qualities analysis and specification
CIFER® have included the full life-cycle of flight-control
compliance testing, simulation validation, and servo-loop
system development depicted in figure 1. The Deutsche
stability analysis.
Forschungsanstalt für Luft- und Raumfahrt (DLR) Insti-
Transfer-function fitting is a rapid procedure for extract- tute for Flight Mechanics (Braunschweig, Germany) has
ing simple single-input/single-output parametric models also developed and widely applied excellent methods for
of specific frequency-responses pairs. These transfer- frequency-domain system identification. Applications to
function models define the lower-order equivalent sys- flight-mechanics and flight-control studies at the DLR
tems (LOES) of the fixed wing handling-qualities specifi- include rotorcraft, transport aircraft, and high-
cations (MIL-STD-1797) and directly support root-locus performance aircraft (Kaletka and von Grunhagen 1989,
techniques for flight-control system design. Kaletka and Fu 1993).
Accurate MIMO state-space models are often needed to
support multivariable control-law design, simulation 3. Design Specifications and Specification
model validation and improvement, and validation of
aerodynamic theory or wind tunnel results. Here, sophisti-
Acceptance Testing
cated nonlinear search algorithms are used to extract a Formulating design specifications is the starting point for
general state-space model that matches the complete flight-control system development, while validating the
MIMO input/output frequency-response database. A sig- achievement of these design goals is the concluding step
nificant advantage of identifying parametric models from in the process (fig. 1). Dynamic models of expected sys-
frequency responses is the capability to individually tem behavior are determined in the design process using
define the appropriate frequency range for each response system identification and are tracked and updated
pair based on the associated coherence function—a valu- throughout the aircraft development and flight testing.
able accuracy and linearity metric. The coherence func- This documentation provides an important “paper trail”
tion is also useful for automatically selecting error that minimizes flight-control development time and
weighting in the cost function independent of the model reduces the need for costly flight-test tuning. This section
structure. A methodical and integrated model structure presents system-identification methods for defining and

3
verifying design specifications. Flight test examples illus- for validating aircraft flight performance for highly-
trate the analysis of handling qualities and servo-loop sta- augmented flight-control systems. The modern U.S. fixed-
bility characteristics. wing specification (MIL-STD-1797; Anon. 1987) and
rotorcraft specification (ADS-33C; Anon. 1989) are based
Early handling-qualities specifications for fixed-wing air-
on extensive frequency-domain system-identification
craft (MIL-F-8785A, Anon. 1954), and for rotary-wing
analyses of flight-test and simulation responses. Numer-
aircraft (MIL-H-8501A, Anon. 1961) were based on sim-
ous examples from these and comparable European
ple dynamic modeling concepts and time-domain metrics.
handling-qualities specifications are presented in the
These specifications were suitable to aircraft in which
aircraft control volume (Anon. 1994) and in the refer-
stability augmentation systems (SAS) did not significantly
ences of this paper. Two common handling-quality spec-
alter the character of the (classical) bare-airframe flight-
ifications are the bandwidth/phase-delay criteria and the
mechanics responses. Compliance testing techniques
LOES criteria. The former is checked directly from
depended on standard step and doublet inputs long used in
frequency-response identification, and the latter is
the flight-test community, with little requirement for
checked from a transfer function fit of the frequency-
sophisticated post-flight-data processing.
response result. An illustration of flight-test and handling-
Modern fly-by-wire aircraft employ high-bandwidth digi- qualities analyses based on these specifications is now
tal flight-control systems to achieve greatly increased presented.
agility and disturbance rejection across a significantly
The Advanced Digital Optical Control System (ADOCS)
widened operational flight envelope as compared with the
demonstrator (fig. 3), developed by Boeing’s Helicopters
older generation of aircraft. The flight control includes
Division under contract to the U.S. Army, was a UH-60A
complex feedback and feedforward shaping and advanced
helicopter highly modified with redundant processors,
control moment devices that profoundly alter the bare-
instrumentation, and side-stick controllers (Glusman et al.
airframe characteristics and invalidate the classical stabil-
1987). The overall program objective of the ADOCS was
ity and control modeling concepts and testing methods.
to provide the technology base for the engineering devel-
For example, modern combat aircraft achieve independent
opment of an advanced battlefield-compatible flight-con-
pitch pointing and flightpath control with direct lift
trol system that: 1) enhanced aircraft mission capability;
devices and vectored thrust, rather than the coupled
2) improved handling qualities; and 3) decreased pilot
attitude-path response to elevator for conventional air-
workload. System identification flight tests and analyses
craft. This capability greatly enhances weapon pointing
using CIFER ® were conducted to document the response
and air-to-air combat maneuvering. Another common fea-
characteristics and to compare handling-qualities charac-
ture of advanced aircraft is side-stick controllers which
teristics with the (proposed at that time) ADS-33 design
reduce weight, space, and cockpit complexity compared
specifications (Hoh et al. 1988). Aircraft excitation was
to standard center-sticks. Classical static stick-stability
achieved via piloted frequency sweeps using the side-stick
testing is an invalid method for determining speed stabil-
controller as shown in figure 4. Real-time telemetry of
ity since the side-sticks possess automatic trimming at
pilot inputs and aircraft responses ensured that pre-
neutral stick position and feedback loops provide the
established aircraft flight limits were not exceeded.
required stability independent of the trim gradient.
The ADOCS frequency response for pitch response due to
A new concern that arises for modern fly-by-wire aircraft
longitudinal input is shown in figure 5, along with the
is the potential for the accumulation of effective time
delays due to digital flight-control computations, flight-
control system filters, and fly-by-wire actuators. Actuator
rate-limiting can also contribute large equivalent time
delays in modern aircraft (Buchholz et al. 1995). Exces-
sive delays have been repeatedly cited as a key cause for
handling-quality problems and stability-loop margin
degradation in modern aircraft, yet equivalent time delay
can not be reliably measured using the standard testing
techniques. Clearly the dynamics modeling concepts,
specifications, and testing techniques must be appropriate
to the unique characteristics of modern highly-augmented
aircraft.
System identification provides an accurate, rapid, and Figure 3. Advanced digital optical control system (ADOCS)
reliable approach for defining design specifications and demonstrator.

4
 50
determination of bandwidth and phase delay as required
by the ADS-33 specification. The value of the coherence
25
function (fig. 5) is consistently above 0.8 for the fre-
δLON (%)

0 quency range of 0.2–8 rad/sec indicating excellent identi-

fication. At higher frequencies, the coherence drops,
–25 which reflects the intentionally reduced piloted inputs.
The pitch bandwidth and phase delay values obtained
–50
from the hover identification results are shown on the
ADS-33 specification boundary in figure 6. Level I (satis-
20
factory) handling qualities for moderate pilot-gain tasks
such as the helicopter “bob-up” are predicted, which is
q (deg/sec)

consistent with the Cooper-Harper pilot rating dis played

0 next to the data symbol. A good correlation of pilot rating
and the predicted handling qualities result was also indi-
cated in pitch for the 80 kt flight condition.
–20 Transfer-function (LOES) models of the key on-axes
0 25 50 75 100 125
Time (sec) responses were generated from single-input/single-output
fits of the identified ADOCS frequency responses. The
Figure 4. Longitudinal side-stick frequency-sweep in hover; LOES pitch response in hover is:
(a) pitch input, (b) pitch rate.
θ − 0.876 (s + 0.229) e −0.238s
= (1)
Φ2ω +180°
δ LON s [0.539, 1.82]
τp = – 57.3 180
x 2ω180
The response is dominated by a well-damped second-
0 ωBW = ωGM order mode with a frequency of 1.8 rad/sec. The LOES
handling-qualities specification boundaries of figure 7
6 dB
θ/–δLON (dB)

–20 have been established based on system-identification

analyses of an extensive flight-test and simulation data
base (Hoh and Ashkenas 1979). The ADOCS characteris-
–40
tics are seen to lie well within the Level I region. A sec-
(a) ond important characteristic of the LOES pitch response is
–60

ω135
0 .4

ω180 HOVER
θ/–δLON (deg)

–100
80 knots
45 deg .3
–200 2ω180 LEVEL 2 LEVEL 1
τp (sec)

(b)
–300 .2 2
θ

3
1.0

.1
q
LON

.6
δ
γ2

0 1 2 3 4 5
(c) ωBW (rad/sec)
.2
θ
0.1 1 10
Frequency (rad/sec) Figure 6. Handling-qualities correlation of ADOCS small
amplitude pitch response in hover and 80 kt; average pilot
Figure 5. Identification of ADOCS pitch-rate response in
ratings are shown next to the data.
hover.

5
 6 5-5.5 3-3.5 2.5 3-3.5 2.5-3.5 3.5
3 2.0 3.0 2.5
quency range, with larger gain margins required for the
structural elastic modes (table 1). Figure 8 shows the bro-

25
ζ = 0.

0.35
ken servo-loop frequency response of a large single-rotor

ζ=
7 3.5-4 2-3 2.5
2-3
2.5-3 3.5
helicopter as obtained by computer-generated frequency-
2 6 5.5 3.0 2.25-3 2.25-3 2.75-3.5 3.5 sweep flight-test procedures. The rigid-body response
ωn (rad/sec)

ADOCS
4.5-5 3.5
1.82-1.96
2.5-3 2.5-3 2.5-3
Flight
2-2.5
Test 2.5-3 3.0
crossover frequency is 2.0 rad/sec with an associated
ω BW

3.5 3.5-4 2.5-3 2.0 2.5-3 3.5-4 4-4.25 phase margin of 28 deg. This margin is slightly below the
=2

3.5-4
4.5-5 2-4 2.5-3 3 2-2.5 2.5-3 3.0
recommended specification value. The gain margin is
1 2.5-4 2.5-3
4.5-5 4.5-5
3
2-2.5 2.0 2.5-3
3 3
3.5
3
checked at each crossing of the 180 deg (±n360) phase
2.5-3 2.5-3
3-4
2-2.5 line as shown in the figure. The critical margin is the min-
ω BW

imum value (GM5 ), which is 15 dB at a frequency of

=1

2.5
2.5-3 4-4.5 2 3 3-3.5 3 2-3 3 2.5-3 23.5 rad/sec. This frequency corresponds to the first verti-
0
4-4.5
1 2
2.5-3
43 5 6 7 cal bending mode for the tail boom of this aircraft.
2ζnωn (sec–1) Reference to table 1 indicates this gain margin to be well
10 within accepted design specifications. The coherence
High stress task
Low stress task function of figure 8 shows excellent identification accu-
racy for this flight test across the broad frequency range of
8 NT-33
interest (1–30 rad/sec). Sharp drops (“holes”) or peaks in
F-8 data the coherence function reflect structural anti-nodes and
Pilot rating

6 Fixed base nodes respectively. Examples of fixed-wing programs

simulation of
NT-33 data
4
Table 1. MIL-F-9490D gain and phase margin requirements (dB, deg)
F-8 data from Caldwell (1994)
2
Airspeed Below Vo min At At
Vo min to Limit Speed 1.15 * VL
Mode Freq. Hz Vo max VL
0 .05 .10 .15 .20 .25 .30
Equivalent time delay, τe (sec) fM < 0.06 GM = 6dB GM = ± 4.5 GM = ± 3.0 GM = 0.0
No Phase PM = ± 30 PM = ± 20 PM = 0.0
Reqt. Stable
Figure 7. Correlation of ADOCS LOES pitch response with 0.06 ≤ fM < 1st ASE below GM = ± 6.0 GM = ± 4.5 at
Vo min PM = ± 45 PM = ± 30 Nominal
handling-qualities data. Phase
1st ASE < fM GM = ± 8.0 GM = ± 6.0 and
PM = ± 60 PM = ± 45 Gain
the relatively large equivalent time delay, τ = 238 msec.
Handling-qualities experience indicates that the equiva-
lent time delay should not greatly exceed τ = 120 msec,
thereby suggesting ADOCS handling-qualities degrada- Stability-loop: AVCS-output/servo-command input
20
tion for “high-gain” tasks. Comparable levels of equiva-
Magnitude

GM1 GM2 GM3 GM4

0
lent time delay in the roll axis were considered to be a key GM5
contributor to pilot-induced oscillations (PIO) for “high- –20 ωc = 2.0 rad/sec
gain” piloting tasks such as slope landing (Tischler et al. –40
1991). Additional examples of handling-qualities analyses –100
using lower-order equivalent-system modeling are pre-
Phase

sented in the 1994 volume (Anon. 1994). –300 PM = 28 deg

The stability characteristics of aircraft rigid-body and –500

structural dynamics may be greatly affected by the feed- 10
Coherence

back loops of the flight-control system. Feedback may

degrade the flutter margin stability at the same time it .6
improves the rigid-body stability and handling qualities.
Military specification 9490D (Anon. 1975) defines mini- .2
1 10 40
mum levels of control system gain and phase margin as Frequency (rad/sec)
determined from a broken servo-loop frequency-response
analysis. The specifications are given as a function of fre- Figure 8. Rotorcraft servo-elastic stability margin testing.

6
using frequency-domain system identification for elastic Even when the simulation architecture allows for the
mode stability-margin evaluation include the X-29 direct extraction of higher-order linear models using clas-
(Clarke et al. 1994) and EAP (Caldwell 1994) aircraft. sical numerical perturbation methods, the assumption of
independent perturbations results in incorrect phasing of
the state variables within the multidimensional look-up
4. Design
tables. For example, the look-up table for aerodynamic
The design process establishes control system loop archi- pitching moment may depend both on angle of attack and
tecture and associated control-law parameters that achieve pitch rate, so C mq = f(α). Thus, the correct determination
desired handling-qualities and servo-loop stability specifi- of phugoid dynamics depends on maintaining representa-
cations. During the conceptual design phase, system-
tive phasing of q and α within the linearization process.
identification procedures are applied to simple linear-
Selection of perturbation size can also strongly influence
design models to establish a baseline description of the
proposed control system approaches and an initial check the linearization results. These effects can significantly
of specification compliance. At the detailed design stage, degrade the predictive accuracy of the extracted linear
system-identification methods can extract highly-accurate model. Much more accurate linear models are obtained by
linear-control system design models from complex simu- simulating piloted frequency-sweep inputs and extracting
lation models or wind-tunnel data. These applications of state-space models using system identification just as if
system identification in the design process are illustrated from flight-test data.
in this section.
Engelland extracted accurate stability and control
Conceptual control-system design studies are commonly derivative models of a conceptual A/STOVL air-
based on simple stability and control derivative descrip- craft from a complex nonlinear off-line simulation
tions and transfer function of the airframe dynamics as (Engelland et al. 1990) to support control-system
obtained from first-principles aerodynamic theory. design studies. The excitation input consisted of
Control-law architectures are conceived and the initial computer-generated frequency sweeps and white
system is modeled in a computer-aided design (CAD) noise. In a procedure described by Ballin and Dalang-
environment such as MATLAB ® (1992). System identifi- Secretan (1991), artificial feedback control loops
cation provides LOES models which are very useful in were included to keep the aircraft flight condition
characterizing the end-to-end system dynamics and near the reference trim point during the inputs. Start-
delays, and for an initial check against the design specifi- ing from the perturbation derivative results CIFER ®
cations. Flight-control system design parameters are then was used to identify a more accurate 6 DOF bare-
adjusted until the identified LOES characteristics satisfy airframe model. The perturbation and CIFER® deriva-
the design requirements. In the F-15 S/MTD demonstrator tives are compared in table 2. Longitudinal-frequency
project, a numerical optimization design tool was devel- responses of the two linear models are compared with
oped to automatically adjust control-law parameters to the complete simulation responses in figure 9 for a
meet LOES specifications (Moorhouse and Citurs 1994). flight condition of 120 knots. The linear model
obtained using system identification is seen to be
Detailed flight-control design efforts are based on very
much more accurate than the numerical perturbation
complex high-order and nonlinear-simulation models.
model for the high-frequency (3.0–20 rad/sec) pitch-rate
Force and moment descriptions are developed for each of
response q/δ θ , and for the low-frequency (0.1–1.0 rad/sec)
the aircraft elements such as the wings, propulsion sys-
longitudinal-acceleration response ax /δθ . The models
tem, and flight-control systems based on wind tunnel
are essentially identical in the mid-frequency range.
look-up tables, component bench-test data, and analytical
A time domain comparison of the two-linear models
theory. The simulation of multiple rigid-body systems, or
with the nonlinear-simulation response is shown in
flexible bodies involves sets of dynamic equations of
figure 10 for a small (1 deg) pitch-doublet input. The
motion linked by constraint conditions. In many simula-
system-identification model is seen to track the non-
tions these sets of equations are numerically integrated in
linear behavior much more closely than the numerical
serial form to reduce the complexity of deriving a fully-
perturbation model. The improvements are most notice-
coupled multibody simulation. The distributed or serial
able for the long-term response (low-frequency)
nature of these complex simulations thus may preclude
behavior, which is consistent with the frequency-
the extraction of an integrated high-order linear model of
the fully-coupled system as is needed for accurate control- response comparison of figure 9.
design studies.

7
 Table 2. Comparison of ASTOVL perturbation derivatives and Nonlinear simulation
CIFER® results Perturbation linear model
CIFER linear model
Derivative Perturb. Value CIFER Value C.R. (%) Insens. (%) 2.0 δΘ 119 u
Xu –0.03471 –0.03602 –5.662 2.289

Pitch control (deg)

Long. vel. (ft/sec)

Xw 0.03958 0.02852 6.910 2.840 1.0 118
Xw• 6.764E-04 6.764E-04 — —
Xq 0.2451 0.2451 — — 0 117
XPCD –7.690E-03 –8.303E-03 –7.504 3.584
XPLA 0.02270 0.02229 3.731 1.835 –1.0 116
XΘ –0.5150 –0.5586 –2.353 1.005
N
Zu –0.04596 –0.03312 –13.62 4.579 –2.0 115
.02 q 11.0 w
Zw –0.3704 –0.2817 –4.386 1.377

Pitch rate (rad/sec)

Zw• –0.01023 –0.01023 — —

Vert. vel. (ft/sec)

.01 10.0
Zq –3.754 –3.754 — —
ZPCD 0.1389 0.1551 5.571 2.698
0 9.0
ZPLA –0.3800 –0.3305 –2.254 1.016
ZΘ –0.01724 –0.03055 –4.646 2.242 8.0
N –.01
Mu 1.661E-04 –1.059E-03 –6.016 1.745
Mw 1.222E-03 3.715E-03 5.263 1.283 –.02 7.0
Mw• –1.286E-03 –1.286E-03 — — 1.0 ax –32.0 az

Long. accel. (ft/sec2)

Vert. accel. (ft/sec2)

Mq –0.4971 –0.6852 –5.561 1.873
MPCD 0.02494 0.02818 2.517 0.9822 .08 –32.2
MPLA 4.993E-04 4.993E-04 — —
MΘ 2.502E-04 4.953E-04 10.16 4.257 .06 –32.4
N
Perturbation value used.
.04 –32.6

.02 –32.8
Nonlinear simulation 0 2.5 5.0 7.5 10 0 2.5 5.0 7.5 10
Perturbation linear model
CIFER linear model
Time (sec) Time (sec)
q ax
δΘ 40 δ
Magnitude (dB)

–40 Θ Figure 10. Time-domain comparison of perturbation and

Magnitude (dB)

0
–60 identification models with nonlinear simulation of ASTOVL
–80 –40 aircraft.
–100 –80

0 –100 frequencies where the dynamic responses are larger, and

Phase (deg)
Phase (deg)

–100 –200
correct phasing of the representative motion variables for
entry into the multidimensional look-up tables is impor-
–200 –300 tant. A cursory time-domain comparison of the numerical
1.0 1.0 perturbation results with the nonlinear-simulation
response would suggest the presence of strong nonlineari-
Coherence

ties in the A/STOVL aircraft dynamics. However, the

Coherence

0.6 0.6
very close agreement of the system-identification model
with the nonlinear simulation shows that the method of
0.2 0.2
0.1 1.0 10 20 0.1 1.0 10 20 linear model extraction is much more important in this
Frequency (rad/sec) Frequency (rad/sec)
case than the nonlinear characteristics of the simulation.
Figure 9. Frequency-response comparison of perturbation Success in achieving maximum control-system perfor-
and identification models with nonlinear ASTOVL mance and robustness in flight depends heavily on the
simulation. predictive accuracy of the linear-design models. The sys-
tem identification approach provides highly-accurate
design models for design at specific flight conditions, but
These results show that system identification provides an it is clearly more time intensive than the simple numerical
A/STOVL linear model that will be much more accurate
perturbation method. This is not a practical approach for
than models extracted using numerical perturbation meth-
ods. The improvement obtained by “flying” the checking control system behavior at the tens or hundreds
frequency-sweep input is especially apparent at low of off-nominal conditions.

8
 –10
5. Simulation
The detailed implementation of the control-system design –20
is evaluated in comprehensive real-time piloted simulation

Magnitude (dB)
trials. System-identification techniques are exercised to
validate the real-time math model implementation of non- –30

linear digital control laws. Also, these techniques are used

to document simulator motion and visual systems. Once –40
flight-test data are available, system identification pro- φ/δa math model
vides an important tool for validating and updating the φc/δa DGI response
–50
simulation math models. This section illustrates system-
identification techniques for validating simulation math
models and simulator validation using XV-15 tilt-rotor 180
(airplane mode) and UH-60A helicopter results. A com-
panion frequency-domain format is proposed for specify- 90
ing simulation model fidelity for the on-axis responses.
0

Phase (deg)
Finally, an analysis based on an A/STOVL piloted simula-
tion study illustrates the use of system identification for –90
determining actuator authority requirements.
–180
Direct frequency-response comparison of the end-to-end
performance of the complex simulation model with the –270
conceptual design models and specifications constitutes
–360
an important “dynamic check” which often exposes unex- .1 1 10 20
pected processing delays such as in the numerical integra- Frequency (rad/sec)

tion procedures, or errors in the digital (Z-plane)

implementation of control laws. This technique is also Figure 11. Validation of DIG-1 visual-system response.
useful in exposing degradation in control system perfor-
mance due to high-order structural or other hardware Math model p/δlat
Motion follow up
dynamics modeled in the advanced design simulation 10
Magnitude (dB)

model that may not have been taken into account in the
conceptual studies.
–30
Simulator visual and motion systems should track the
math-model response as accurately as possible to ensure –70
that the pilot’s cueing environment is correct and that the 200
Phase (deg)

handling-qualities evaluation obtained in the simulator 0

reflect what may be expected in flight. Nonlinear com- –200
pensation algorithms have been developed by McFarland
–400
(1988) that offset visual system delays, thereby minimiz-
–600
ing the mismatch between the simulator visual system 0.1 1 10 30
response and the math model. In work reported by Frequency (rad/sec)
Atencio (1993) and illustrated in figure 11, there is nearly
perfect agreement of the DIG-1 visual system image (with Figure 12. Documentation of VMS motion follow-up for
McFarland compensation) and the UH-60A helicopter UH-60A roll response in hover.
simulation math model. Math-model commands to the
simulator motion drive are attenuated using wash-out 1–10 rad/sec frequency range, the simulator motion drive
logic. The wash-out parameters are selected to preserve response follows the math model, although the motion is
the dynamic behavior in the frequency range of most con- less than one-to-one as seen by the vertical shift in the
cern to the pilot (e.g., 1–10 rad/sec for pitch and roll magnitude curves. The motion drive wash-out logic is
tasks), while accommodating the restricted motion envi- designed to minimize phase distortions in this frequency
ronment of the simulator. Figure 12 from Atencio (1993) range as can be seen in the figure. At low frequencies the
compares the (washed-out) cab roll-motion to stick input large motion is washed-out, and considerable errors are
with the math-model response for the UH-60A simulation encountered in the magnitude and phase response as
in the Ames Vertical Motion Simulator (VMS). In the

9
expected. At high frequency, the motion drive is unable to
follow rapid commands to the aircraft model, resulting in
larger phase lags of the motion follow-up as seen in the
figure.
Once flight-test data are available, system-identification
tools are exercised to validate and update the simulation
math models. The direct comparison of frequency-
response behavior provides a clear picture of model
fidelity as a function of frequency. This is critical for val-
idating piloted simulations since the requirements on pilot
cueing accuracy are also frequency dependent. The sepa-
rate display of the magnitude and phase responses allows (a)
the sources of simulation discrepancies to be more easily
determined. For example, an excessive time delay ( τ) in
the simulation math model or hardware causes a linear
phase shift with frequency (φ = –τω). Scaling errors in the
simulation model appear as a clear vertical shift (in dB) in
the magnitude curve. These effects are all combined in the
time-domain and therefore are not easily discernible in the
traditional time-response comparison methods for valida-
tion. Further, the procedure of overlaying time histories is
often not very accurate since the flight responses rarely
begin in a trim quiescent condition.
Tischler (1987) conducted an extensive flight-test pro-
gram and simulation math-model validation study on the (b)

XV-15 tilt-rotor aircraft shown in figure 13. This tilt-rotor

math model is based on comprehensive look-up tables of Figure 13. XV-15 tilt-rotor aircraft; (a) hover configuration,
full-scale wind-tunnel test data, and detailed theoretical (b) cruise configuration.
models of the rotor-system behavior and rotor-on-airframe
aerodynamic interference effects. Figure 14 compares the
0
flight and simulation roll responses for a flight condition
of 170 kts. Excellent dynamic response fidelity is seen in –20
p/δa (dB)

the close match of the simulation prediction and the

–40
measured flight response. Figure 15 replots these results Flight data
in terms of magnitude and phase errors as a function of –60 Simulation model
frequency. Here 0 dB magnitude and 0 deg phase indicate
–80
perfect tracking of the flight and simulation results. Also
shown in the figure are math model mismatch boundaries –100
proposed herein for the highest fidelity training simula-
p/δa (deg)

tions (FAA Level D). These boundaries correspond to the –200

LOES mismatch criteria from the fixed-wing handling-
qualities criteria (Hoh et al. 1982). The XV-15 simulation –300
math model complies with the proposed Level D (high-
fidelity) criteria. This result is consistent with the very –400
0.2 1.0 10
favorable pilot comparison of simulator and flight behav- Frequency (rad/sec)
ior (Churchill and Dugan 1982). The same approach of
mismatch boundaries in the frequency-domain has also Figure 14. XV-15 tilt-rotor simulation model validation for
been independently proposed and applied by DLR 170 kts.
researchers to detect the effects of unnoticeable dynamics
in the case of helicopters (Hamel and Jategaonkar 1995),
and for evaluating the fidelity of in-flight simulation Direct comparisons of stability and control derivatives
(Buchholz et al. 1995). identified from flight tests with values identified from
simulation math models can be used to derive correction

10
 Flight data Commands
30
Pitch
Proposal Level D fidelity criteria

Power spectral magnitude (dB)

20 Roll
Total thrust
10
Error (dB)

0
0
–10

–20

200
–30
100
0.1 1.0 10 20
Error (deg)

Frequency (rad/sec)
0
Figure 16. Power spectra of ASTOVL propulsion system
–100 commands.
–200
0.1 1.0 10
Frequency (rad/sec) bandwidth (workload) and handling qualities. This study
included an interesting comparison of pilot workload for
Figure 15. Tilt-rotor math model error functions and pro- the simulation and flight-test environments (Blanken and
posed fidelity criteria for Level D simulators. Pausder 1994).

factors for significantly improving the model fidelity. For 6. Development

example,
At the development stage, flight-control system hardware
L corrected = f ( nonlin. sim. eqns) and software components and subsystems undergo bench
+ [( L p ) flight − ( L p )sim ] p testing to verify that the performance characteristics meet
the design specifications. Sophisticated flight-control
+ [( L δ lat ) flight − ( L δ lat )sim ] δ lat + ... development facilities (DF) or “hot-benches” allow the
(2) test of prototype flight software and hardware integrated
with the simulated aircraft dynamics. In helicopter devel-
Identification tools provide a systematic and accurate opment, model or full-scale rotors are dynamically tested
approach to determine these correction factors which are in the wind tunnel and the responses are validated against
routinely used by the simulator industry to improve design requirements and comprehensive analysis models.
dynamic fidelity. This section presents system-identification techniques to
Comprehensive simulation studies are often used to define support development stage validation. Examples are
flight-control system hardware requirements such as actu- drawn from the NASA VSRA project, helicopter actuator
ator and sensor filter bandwidths. Franklin et al. (1991) tests, and the Sikorsky Bearingless Main Rotor (SBMR)
used CIFER® to determine actuator bandwidth require- full-scale rotor wind-tunnel tests.
ments for a conceptual A/STOVL aircraft. The spectral An extensive development facility has been used in the
characteristics of the stabilization and command augmen- NASA vertical/short takeoff and landing (V/STOL) sys-
tation system (SCAS) commands to the aircraft control tems research aircraft (VSRA) project, which equipped a
surfaces were obtained for ensemble analyses of simulated YAV-8B Harrier aircraft with a fly-by-wire research
flight tasks, and are shown in figure 16. The results indi- flight-control system (Foster et al. 1987) (fig. 17). The
cate a SCAS command signal bandwidth (frequency at overall flight-control goals of the VSRA program are to
–3dB amplitude) of about 4 rad/sec in pitch and roll, with assess critical technology elements for advanced short
a significantly lower command bandwidth for the thrust takeoff/vertical landing (STOVL) aircraft, including: inte-
(vertical) axis. Actuator hardware response bandwidths grated flight/propulsion control, advanced control and
should be 5–10 times the respective SCAS command display laws, and reaction-controlled bleed-flow require-
bandwidths to avoid introducing significant phase lag in ments. The role of the DF has been for verification of
the control loops (Franklin et al. 1991). Similar analysis control-law flight software, system software, and safety
techniques were used by Blanken to determine the effect monitoring. Actual flight computers and flight hardware
of control-system design on changes in pilot control

11
 20 Actuator test response
Identified model [ζ = 0.74, ωn = 42.2 rad/sec]

Magnitude (dB)
0

–20

–40

Figure 17. NASA V/STOL system research aircraft 200

(VSRA).

Phase (dB)
0
were included in the DF to validate flight systems during
the final development stage. The aircraft dynamics are
simulated by the VSRA math model, with inputs from a –200
test console or a rudimentary pilot-cockpit station.
1.0
CIFER® was exercised extensively to validate broken-
loop and end-to-end closed-loop frequency responses of

Coherence
the DF flight systems against the design models and theo-
0.6
retical analyses. Signal processing and conditioning algo-
rithms and digital timing were also verified during DF
testing.
0.2
Actuator system dynamics comprise an important compo- 0.1 1.0 10 40
Frequency (rad/sec)
nent of the overall high-frequency phase lag in modern
flight-control systems. Therefore, flight-control system Figure 18. Helicopter actuator response identification and
stability margins and overall closed-loop performance and modeling.
handling qualities can be significantly degraded if the
actuator dynamics do not meet the design specifications.
System-identification bench testing of aircraft actuators has also been effective in extracting dynamic response
ensures that expected performance is achieved and that model of subscaled or full-scale rotor systems from
costly modifications can be avoided at the flight-test dynamic wind-tunnel test data. The control response
stage. Frequency-response identification and transfer- dynamics of the SBMR were determined in a joint
function modeling from a typical helicopter actuator test NASA/Sikorsky test in the Ames 40- by 80-Foot Subsonic
are shown in figure 18. Excellent coherence is achieved Wind Tunnel (fig. 19) (Tischler et al. 1994). Computer-
over a broad frequency range (0.2–40 rad/sec) using a generated frequency-sweep excitation signals to the
computer-generated frequency-sweep excitation. The SBMR swashplate actuator were carefully designed to
actuator dynamics are well characterized by the damped ensure adequate identification within the limitations of the
second-order response obtained by CIFER ® (fig. 18). rotor and wind-tunnel stand. Rotor blade and hub moment
These component system results are used to update simu- frequency responses were then extracted using CIFER®
lation math models and to optimize flight-control system and were compared to comprehensive simulation models
gains prior to first flight. of the SBMR. CIFER ® was also used to extract the
rotor’s physical parameters based on a linearized 14 DOF
Structural analysis programs such as NASA structural
analytical formulation of the SBMR dynamics (Tischler
analysis (NASTRAN) are rarely able to accurately predict
et al. 1994).
the flexible response beyond the first elastic modes of a
new aircraft. Therefore, structurally-scaled models or full- Figure 20 shows the identified on-axis roll moment
scale structural test vehicles are evaluated in special rigs response to a lateral stick input. The simulation math
to verify the elastic characteristics and make final adjust- model and 14 DOF identified model agree closely with
ments to the structural compensation (e.g., notch filters) in measured responses. The off-axis pitching moment to
the control system prior to first flight. Automated lateral stick input is shown in figure 21. Here, the simula-
test/analysis facilities excite the individual structural tion model phase response deviates significantly from
modes of the aircraft with shakers and then use system- both the measured response and identified parametric
identification methods to determine model characteristics. model, indicating a poor prediction of rotor cross-
For modern rotorcraft development, system identification coupling.

12
 130 MY/δlat Wind tunnel extracted
GENHEL simulation

Magnitude (dB)
Identified parametric model

90

50

100

Phase (deg)
–100

–300

1.0

Figure 19. Sikorsky Bearingless Main Rotor (SBMR) test in

Coherence
NASA Ames 40- by 80-Foot Subsonic Wind Tunnel. 0.6

130 MX/δlat
0.2
Magnitude (dB)

0.6 1.0 10 30
Frequency (rad/sec)
90
Wind tunnel extracted
GENHEL simulation Figure 21. SBMR pitching-moment response to lateral -
Identified parametric model
cyclic-stick input (40 kts).
50

100
Table 3. Comparison of SBMR identified parameters with GENHEL values
Phase (deg)

Rotor Parameter Symbol Units GENHEL Identified

value value
–100 Lock number1 γ ND 7.46 7.82
Lift-curve slope a 1/rad 5.73 5.33
Blade inertia1 Ib slug-ft2 552.81 489.8
–300 Blade 1st mass moment1 Sb slug-ft 38.76 48.78
Blade weight mbg lbs 115 142.68
1.0 Flapping frequency υβ per rev 1.081 1.080
Effective hinge-offset e ND 0.097 0.095
Lag frequency υζ per rev 0.699 0.697
Coherence

Lag damper Cζ ft-lb-sec/rad 372 473.29

0.6 Collective-lag/shaft freq. υζ per rev — 0.474
0
Collective-lag/shaft damping Cζ• ft-lb-sec/rad — 1631.49
0
Trim coning angle βΤ rad 0.0768 0.0654
Pitch-flap coupling KP rad/rad 0 0
0.2 β
Pitch-lag coupling KPζ rad/rad –0.0225 –0.184
0.6 1.0 10 30
Control phase angle ∆SP deg –14.0 –23.4
Frequency (rad/sec)

IMPORTANT NOTE:
Figure 20. SBMR roll-moment response to lateral-stick 1Mass moment parameters and Lock number are referenced to the hub
input (40-kts flight condition). center and not to the hinge-axis.

The key identified physical parameters of the rotor system important difference between the identified model and the
are compared with the GenHel simulation values in GenHel simulation is the control-phase angle. This
table 3 (both are updated from the earlier results of parameter has a known geometric value of –14 deg in the
Tischler et al. 1994). Many of the important rotor parame- wind-tunnel tests, but the identified value needed to cap-
ters such as Lock number, blade inertia, and effective ture the measured off-axis response of figure 21 is
hinge off-set compare very favorably, and reflect the good –23.4 deg. This discrepancy in control phasing indicates a
on-axis response prediction of the simulation model. The fundamental problem in the aerodynamic modeling of the

13
rotor. Follow-on analysis of these results have yielded a altitude flight condition, the ground station pilot executed
new approach for correcting the simulation math model real-time switching commands to adjust the Pathfinder
and improvements in the identification methods for free- control law gains.
flight results (Takahashi et al. 1995). Accurate cross-
Theoretical analyses of the XV-15 tilt-rotor aircraft
coupling prediction is especially important for the design
(fig. 13) predicted that the reduction of whirl mode flutter
of decoupling compensators in modern rotorcraft flight-
stability margins with increasing flight speed would limit
control systems. Corrections to the flight-control laws
the aircraft’s usable flight envelope. An extensive flight-
prior to final flight software installation and vehicle test-
test program was conducted to verify the expected mar-
ing reduces development flight-test costs and improves
gins. Early testing using the traditional dwell-delay
the final performance of the system.
method proved time-consuming and resulted in consider-
able data scatter. Acree and Tischler (1993) conducted
7. Flight Testing automated frequency-sweep tests using wing flaperon
excitation and subsequently analyzed the data using the
The flight-test program for flight-control and handling- CIFER® identification tools. The frequency-domain test
qualities validation and optimization has a significant technique proved to be much more time-efficient, and the
impact on the overall development schedule and cost for results showed both a reduction in the scatter at specific
modern fly-by-wire aircraft. System identification pro- conditions and an improvement in consistency across
vides a critical technology for tracking aircraft dynamic flight conditions.
response performance into flight, solving problems that
arise in flight tests, and rapidly optimizing control system Automated frequency-sweep flight testing was also con-
parameters. This section presents system-identification ducted on the VSRA YAV-8B aircraft (Foster et al. 1987)
methods for control system flight testing. Flight data (fig. 17) to determine the locations of the (open-loop) first
results are presented for the VSRA and UH-60A Rotor- and second structural wing-bending modes, and to verify
craft Aircraft Systems Concept Airborne Laboratory actuator and sensor processing dynamics. The parametric
(RASCAL) projects. model shown in figure 22 was obtained from CIFER ®,
and includes the rigid-body response and second-order
Flight test verification of aero-servo-elastic stability representations of the two structural modes. Notch filters,
margins is an important concern for modern fly-by-wire included to avoid coupling of the flight-control and aeroe-
aircraft, where dynamic coupling of the high-gain flight lastic dynamics, and control-law gains were subsequently
control system with light-weight structural dynamics can updated based on these identification results. Piloted
degrade flutter stability. Flutter margin verification using frequency-sweep flight testing was also conducted in the
system identification has been adopted by British VSRA program to document the final stability margins
Aerospace in the development of a series of fly-by-wire and closed-loop response for a number of flight condi-
high-performance aircraft, as described by Caldwell tions. The broken-loop pitch response for 120 knots as
(1994). Near real-time system identification was obtained from CIFER® is shown in figure 23. The figure
employed during the X-29 aircraft flight testing (Clarke shows that the dynamics are conditionally stable, with a
et al. 1994) for on-line verification of stability margins in minimum crossover frequency of 1 rad/sec required for
a highly-efficient flight envelope expansion program. closed-loop vehicle stability. The nominal crossover fre-
Piloted frequency sweeps were used to excite the vehicle quency of 4 rad/sec yields a phase margin of 40 deg
structural modes at each test condition, and the tele- (acceptable). A gain margin of about 8 dB is indicated
metered data were then analyzed using high-speed array over the broad frequency range 15–30 rad/sec were the
processing computers. Once the stability margins were phase curve has a nearly constant value of about
verified, the pilot was cleared to proceed to the next flight –180 deg.
condition, avoiding the normally time-consuming test
technique of clearing one flutter test point per flight. In a The identified closed-loop response dynamics are shown
similar application of near real-time identification in figure 24. In the frequency range of 0.3–5 rad/sec the
technqiues, CIFER® was used to support flight tests of response is accurately modeled by a well-damped second-
the “Pathfinder,” a large high-altitude solar Unmanned order system:
Air Vehicle (UAV) (Dornheim 1995). Servoloop stability
margins were extracted based on telemetered data from
computer-generated frequency-sweep tests, and then θ 6.35 e −0.048s
= (3)
compared with simulation predictions. When the CIFER ® θ com [0.953, 2.47]
results indicated a loss of stability margins at a high

14
 YAV-8B Aeroelastic Identification (120 Kts) 20

Magnitude (dB)
10
sLδ
p K1s2 K2s2
= a + + +… 0
δa (s–Lp) [s2+2ζ1ω1s+ω12] [s2+2ζ2ω2s+ω22] ωc
GM
–10

–20
Rigid-body First Structural Second Structural Higher
Mode Mode Modes –100

CIFER Results

Phase (deg)
PM
[ζ1 = 0.049;ω1 = 19.4 Hz]
–200
[ζ2 = 0.031;ω2 = 30.1 Hz] ωc
min
–20
Magnitude (dB)

p/δa
–40
–300
–60
1.0
–80

Coherence
–100
0.6
0
Phase (deg)

–200
0.2
0.1 1.0 10 30
–400
Frequency (rad/sec)
1.0
Figure 23. VSRA broken-loop pitch response (120 kts).
Coherence

0.8
0.6
0.4 Flight data
20 Identified model [ζ = 0.95, ωn = 2.47]
0.2
10 40
θ/θcom (dB)

Frequency (Hz) 0

Figure 22. YAV-8B aero-elastic wing-bending identification

–20
(120 kts).

–40
These dynamics closely match the design response of:
100
θ 4.0
= (4) 0
θ com [1.0, 2.0]
θ/θcom (deg)

–100
The small equivalent time delay of τ = 48 msec reflects
the VSRA high-bandwidth fly-by-wire actuators and rapid –200
digital calculations, and suggests no time-delay related
handling-qualities problems. –300
0.1 1.0 6.0
In some applications, simulation math models are not suf- Frequency (rad/sec)
ficiently accurate for control-law design prior to first
flight. For example, the current state-of-the-art of rotor- Figure 24. VSRA closed-loop pitch response (120 kts).
craft flight dynamics simulation yields a fair prediction of
the on-axis characteristics, but usually an inadequate pre- of stability margins and decoupling controller gains.
diction of the cross-coupling response as in the baseline Initial flight tests with the SCAS-OFF or with reduced
simulation result of figure 21, often not even correct in control system gains can be conducted to identify new
sign (Curtiss 1992). Rotorcraft math models are still use- aircraft dynamics or to update the simulation for final
ful for initial simulation and control-law development control-law parameter selection. The DLR developed a
efforts, but are less satisfactory for the final determination high-bandwidth flight-control system for the Bo-105

15
 0
variable-stability aircraft (ATTHeS) based directly on p
bare-airframe state-space models extracted from flight δa
data using frequency-domain system identification (von

Magnitude (dB)
Grunhagen et al. 1994). This direct use of flight-identified
state-space models for control-law design represents the –20
most sophisticated and demanding application of system-
identification tools.
An approach similar to that of the DLR has been adopted
by the AFDD/NASA in the development of an advanced –40
fly-by-wire flight-control system for the RASCAL
UH-60A helicopter (Takahashi et al. 1995), which uses 90 Flight
results
the same airframe as the ADOCS demonstrator (fig. 3).
Extensive theoretical studies of combat rotorcraft control- Sim model A
law concepts for application to RASCAL have been con-

Phase (deg)
Identified
ducted by Takahaski (1994) and Cheng et al. (1995) based –90 model
on UH-60A simulation math models. At the same time,
Fletcher (1995) has conducted UH-60A flight tests and
comprehensive frequency-domain identification studies to Sim model B
extract high-order state-space models of the aircraft for
hover and cruise flight conditions. These efforts were –270
0.1 1.0 10 20
brought together in the RASCAL control-law study Frequency (rad/sec)
described in Takahashi et al. (1995). Figures 25 and 26
compare two flight-mechanics-simulation math models Figure 25. UH-60A on-axis roll-rate response to lateral
(“A” and “B”) used for the control-law designs with the stick (hover); comparison of simulation and identified state-
bare-airframe flight-test data. The on-axis roll response space model with flight data.
agreement between the math models and the flight-test
data is reasonable at mid-frequency (0.8–10 rad/sec), but
is inadequate beyond 10 rad/sec due to errors in the pre- 0
diction of the in-plane rotor response. Large errors are p

also seen at low frequency. The simulation models show δe

poor predictive capability for the cross-coupling response
Magnitude (dB)

–20
of roll rate to longitudinal stick input, with large phase
errors in the critical frequency range of 1–10 rad/sec
(fig. 26). While the simulation models were sufficient for –40
the preliminary flight-control and simulation studies, they
are clearly inadequate for selecting final flight gains—
especially for the response decoupling parameters. –60

The identified higher-order linear model is compared with 100 Sim model A
the flight data and the simulation models in Figures 25
and 26. Significant improvement in the on-axis prediction
is seen for both the high-frequency (rotor response) and
Phase (deg)

–100
lower-frequency dynamics. The identified model also Flight data
Sim model B
tracks the off-axis magnitude and phase very closely,
showing clear improvement compared to the two simula- –300
Identified model
tion models. The excellent predictive capability of the
identified model is also seen in the time response compar-
ison of figure 27. –500
0.1 1.0 10 20
Frequency (rad/sec)
The identified state-space model was then substituted into
the model-following control system block diagram in
Figure 26. UH-60A off-axis roll-rate response to longitu-
place of the original simulation model (“A”) response to
dinal stick (hover); comparison of simulation and identified
check the expected flight characteristics. Figure 28 shows
state-space model with flight data.
The identified state-space model was then substituted into

16
 16.5 the model-following control system block diagram in
place of the original simulation model (“A”) response to
δe (inches)

15.5 check the expected flight characteristics. Figure 28 shows

that the design phase margin is significantly degraded
when the identified model is incorporated. Further, the
14.5 level of closed-loop cross-coupling (fig. 29) increases by
10 20 dB (a factor of 10) in the critical handling-qualities
Flight data
frequency range of 1–10 rad/sec. The control-system
q (deg/sec)

0 design parameters were then retuned for the identified

identification model model response. Figure 28 shows that the original design
crossover frequency, phase margin, and gain margin are
–10 recovered. Also, the cross-coupling level for the retuned
10 system closely tracks the coupling levels for the original
control-system design (fig. 29).
p (deg/sec)

ID model

Magnitude (dB)
40 + design gains
–10
φ/θco
10 20
θ/θoc
0
Θ (deg)

Design model
0 –20
ID model + adjusted gains
–40
1.0 10 100
–10 Frequency (rad/sec)
10
Figure 29. RASCAL UH-60A coupling response of roll-rate
due to longitudinal input for hover.
Φ (deg)

The full exploitation of system-identification tools early

–10
2.5 3.5 4.5 5.5 6.5 7.5 8.5 in the flight-test development and control system opti-
Time (sec)
mization effort has been illustrated for the Bo-105
(ATTHeS) and UH-60A (RASCAL) programs. This
Figure 27. Time response comparison of UH-60A identi-
approach will significantly reduce flight-test development
fication model and flight data.
time for new aircraft, and will expedite the optimization
of flight-control system performance and handling
qualities.
20 ID model
Magnitude (dB)

+ design gains
0
–6 dB Design 8. Concluding Remarks
ID model model
–20
+ adjusted gains 1. System identification is a full life-cycle technology that
supports aircraft flight-control system development from
–40
design specification through flight-test optimization. Sig-
–100
nificant reductions in development time and costs are real-
135°
Phase (deg)

ized by tracking open and closed-loop dynamic response

180° characteristics through the development process.
–200

2. Frequency-domain system-identification methods are

–300 well suited to aircraft flight-control development since
1.0 10 100 many current design specifications, design and analysis
Frequency (rad/sec)
techniques, and acceptance flight-test techniques are
Figure 28. RASCAL UH-60A broken-loop roll response in based in the frequency domain.
hover.

17
3. Reliable computational tools for system identification Buchholz, J. J.; Bauschat, J. M.; Hahn, K. U.; and
are available and have been successfully employed in Pausder, H. J.: ATTAS & ATTHeS In-Flight
many recent aircraft programs. Simulators: Recent Application Experiences and
Future Programs, AGARD Flight Vehicle Integration
4. System identification is especially effective in provid-
Panel Symposium “Simulation: Where are the
ing a transparent and integrated understanding of
Challenges,” Braunschweig, Germany, 1995.
handling-qualities characteristics and system stability.
Considerable improvements in system performance are Caldwell, B. D.: The FCS-Structural Coupling Problem
facilitated by the rapid availability of accurate end-to-end and its Solution. AGARD-CP-560, Paper 16, 1994.
and subsystem dynamic models.
Cheng, R. P.; Tischler, M. B.; and Biezad, D. J.:
Rotorcraft Flight Control Design Using Quantitative
9. References Feedback Theory, Symposium on Quantitative
Feedback Theory, 2-4 August, Purdue University,
Acree, C. W., Jr.; and Tischler, M. B.: Determining West Lafayette, Ind., 1995.
XV-15 Aeroelastic Modes from Flight Data with
Frequency-Domain Methods. NASA Technical Churchill, G. B.; and Dugan, D. C.: Simulation of the
Paper 3330, ATCOM Technical Report 93-A004, XV-15 Tilt Rotor Research Aircraft. NASA
1993. TM-84222, 1982.

Anon.: Military Specification, Flying Qualities of Piloted Clarke, R.; Burken, J. J.; Bosworth, J. T.; and Bauer, J. E.:
Airplanes, MIL-F-8785 (ASG), 1954. X-29 Flight Control System: Lessons Learned.
International J. Contr., vol. 59, no. 1, 1994,
Anon: Helicopter Flying and Ground Handling Qualities; pp. 199–219.
General Requirements for MIL-H-8501A, 1961.
Curtiss, H. C., Jr.: On the Calculation of the Response of
Anon.: Military Specification, Flight Control Systems- Helicopter to Control Inputs. 18th European
General Specification for Design, Installation, and Rotorcraft Forum, Avignon, France, 1992.
Test of Piloted Aircraft, MIL-F-9490D (USAF),
1975. Dornheim, Michael A.: Aviation Week and Space Tech.,
Sept. 18, 1995, p. 67.
Anon.: Military Standard, Flying Qualities of Piloted
Vehicles, MIL-STD-1797 (USAF), 1987. Engelland, S. A.; Franklin, J. A.; and McNeill, W. E.:
Simulation Model of a Mixed-Flow Remote-Lift
Anon.: Aeronautical Design Standard, Handling Qualities STOVL Aircraft. NASA TM-102262, 1990.
Requirements for Military Rotorcraft, ADS-33C
(AVSCOM), 1989. Fletcher, J. W.: Identification of UH-60A Stability
Derivative Models in Hover from Flight Test Data. J.
Anon.: Rotorcraft System Identification. AGARD Amer. Hel. Soc., vol. 40, no. 1, 1995.
AR 280, 1991.
Foster, J. D.; Moralez, E, III; Franklin, J. A.; and
Anon.: International J. Control: Special Issue. Aircraft Schroeder, J. A.: Integrated Control and Display
Flight Control, vol. 59, no. 1, 1994. Research for Transition and Vertical Flight on the
Atencio, A.: Fidelity Assessment of a UH-60A Simulation NASA V/STOL Research Aircraft (VSRA). NASA
on the NASA Ames Vertical Motion Simulator. TM-100029, 1987.
NASA TM-104016, 1993. Franklin, J. A.; Stortz, M. W.; Engelland, S. A.; Hardy,
Ballin, M. G.; and Dalang-Secretan, M. A.: Validation of G. H.; and Martin, J. L.: Moving Base Simulation
the Dynamic Response of a Blade-Element UH-60A Evaluation of Control System Concepts and Design
Simulation Model in Hovering Flight. J. Amer. Hel. Criteria for STOVL Aircraft. NASA TM-103843,
Soc., vol. 36, no. 4, 1991, pp. 77–88. 1991.

Blanken C. L.; and Pausder, H. -J.: Investigation of the Glusman, S. I.; Dabundo, C.; and Landis, K. H.: Evalua-
Effects of Bandwidth and Time Delay on Helicopter tion of ADOCS Demonstrator Handling Qualities.
Roll-Axis Handling Qualities. J. Amer. Hel. Soc., Proceedings of the 43rd Annual National Forum of
vol. 39, no. 3, 1994, pp. 24–33. the American Helicopter Society, Washington, D.C.,
1987.

18
Hamel, P. G.; and Jategaonkar, R. V.: The Evolution of Takahashi, M. D.: Rotor-State Feedback in the Design of
Flight Vehicle System Identification. AGARD Flight Control Laws for a Hovering Helicopter. J.
Structures and Materials Panel Specialists’ Meeting Amer. Hel. Soc., vol. 39, no. 1, 1994, pp. 50–62.
on Advanced Aeroservoelastic Testing and Data
Takahashi, M. D.; Fletcher, J. W.; and Tischler, M. B.:
Analysis, Rotterdam, The Netherlands, 1995.
Development of a Model Following Control Law for
Hoh, R. H.; and Ashkenas, I. L.: Development of VTOL Inflight Simulation Using Analytical and Identified
Flying Qualities Criteria for Low Speed and Hover. Models. American Helicopter Society, 51th Annual
Systems Technology, Inc., Hawthorne, Calif., Forum, Fort Worth, Tex., 1995.
TR-1116-1, 1979.
Tischler, M. B.: Frequency-Response Identification of
Hoh, R. H.; Mitchell, D. G.; Ashkenas, I. L.; Klein, R. H.; XV-15 Tilt-Rotor Aircraft Dynamics. NASA
Heffley, R. K.; and Hodgkinson, J.: Proposed MIL TM-89428, 1987.
Standard and Handbook-Flying Qualities of Air
Tischler, M. B.: System Identification Requirements for
Vehicles. AFWAL-TR-82-3081, vol. 2, 1982.
High-Bandwidth Rotorcraft Flight Control System
Hoh, R. H.; Mitchell, D. G.; Aponso, B. L.; Key, D. L.; Design. J. Guid., Contr., and Dyn., vol. 13, no. 5,
and Blanken, C. L.: Proposed Specification for 1990, pp. 835–841.
Handling Qualities of Military Rotorcraft. Vol. 1—
Tischler, M. B.; and Cauffman, M. G.: Frequency-
Requirements. U.S. Army Aviation Systems
Response Method for Rotorcraft System
Command, TR 87-A-4, 1988.
Identification: Flight Applications to BO 105
Kaletka, J.; and Fu, K. -H.: Frequency-Domain Identifica- Coupled Rotor/Fuselage Dynamics. J. Amer. Hel.
tion of Unstable Systems Using X-31 Aircraft Flight Soc., vol. 37, no. 3, 1992, pp. 3–17.
Test Data. AIAA-93-3635, AIAA Atmospheric Flight
Tischler, M. B.; Driscoll, J. T.; Cauffman, M. G.; and
Mechanics Conference, Monterey, Calif., 1993.
Freedman, C. J.: Study of Bearingless Main Rotor
Kaletka, J.; and von Grunhagen, W.: Identification of Dynamics from Frequency-Response Wind Tunnel
Mathematical Derivative Models for the Design of a Test Data. American Helicopter Society Aero-
Model Following Control System. 45th Annual mechanics Specialists Conference, San Francisco,
Forum of the American Helicopter Society, Boston, Calif., 1994.
Mass., 1989.
Tischler, M. B.; Fletcher, J. W.; Morris, P. M.; and
MATLAB® : High-Performance Numeric Computation Tucker, G. E.: Flying Quality Analysis and Flight
and Visualization Software. The Math Works, Inc., Evaluation of a Highly Augmented Combat
Reference Guide, 1992. Rotorcraft. J. Guid., Contr., and Dyn., vol. 14, no. 5,
1991, pp. 954–963.
McFarland, R. E.: Transport Delay Compensation for
Computer-Generated Imagery Systems. NASA von Grunhagen, W.; Bouwer, G.; Pausder, H. -J.,
TM-100084, 1988. Henschel, F.; and Kaletka, J.: A High Bandwidth
Control System for a Helicopter In-Flight Simulator.
Moorhouse, D. J.; and Citurs, K. D.: The Control System
International J. Contr., vol. 59, no. 1, 1994,
Design Methodology of the STOL and Maneuver
pp. 239–261.
Technology Demonstrator. International J. Contr.,
vol. 59, no. 1, 1994, pp. 221–238.

19
 Form Approved
REPORT DOCUMENTATION PAGE OMB No. 0704-0188
Public reporting burden for this collection of information is estimated to average 1 hour per response, including the time for reviewing instructions, searching existing data sources,
gathering and maintaining the data needed, and completing and reviewing the collection of information. Send comments regarding this burden estimate or any other aspect of this
collection of information, including suggestions for reducing this burden, to Washington Headquarters Services, Directorate for information Operations and Reports, 1215 Jefferson
Davis Highway, Suite 1204, Arlington, VA 22202-4302, and to the Office of Management and Budget, Paperwork Reduction Project (0704-0188), Washington, DC 20503.
1. AGENCY USE ONLY (Leave blank) 2. REPORT DATE 3. REPORT TYPE AND DATES COVERED
October 1995 Technical Memorandum
4. TITLE AND SUBTITLE 5. FUNDING NUMBERS

System Identification Methods for Aircraft Flight Control

Development and Validation
6. AUTHOR(S) 505-59-36

Mark B. Tischler

7. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION NAME(S) AND ADDRESS(ES) 8. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION

REPORT NUMBER

Aeroflightdynamics Directorate, U.S. Army ATCOM,

Ames Research Center, Moffett Field, CA 94035-1000 A-950097

9. SPONSORING/MONITORING AGENCY NAME(S) AND ADDRESS(ES) 10. SPONSORING/MONITORING

AGENCY REPORT NUMBER

National Aeronautics and Space Administration

Washington, DC 20546-0001 and U.S. Army Aviation and Troop NASA TM-110369
Command, St. Louis, MO 63120-1798 USAATCOM TR-95-A-007

11. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES

Point of Contact: Mark B. Tischler, Ames Research Center, MS 211-2,

Moffett Field, CA 94035-1000; (415) 604-5563
12a. DISTRIBUTION/AVAILABILITY STATEMENT 12b. DISTRIBUTION CODE

Unclassified-Unlimited
Subject Category – 08

13. ABSTRACT (Maximum 200 words)

System-identification methods compose a mathematical model, or series of models, from measurements of

inputs and outputs of dynamic systems. The extracted models allow the characterization of the response of the
overall aircraft or component subsystem behavior, such as actuators and on-board signal processing algorithms.
This paper discusses the use of frequency-domain system-identification methods for the development and
integration of aircraft flight-control systems. The extraction and analysis of models of varying complexity from
nonparametric frequency-responses to transfer-functions and high-order state-space representations is illustrated
using the Comprehensive Identification from FrEquency Responses (CIFER®) system-identification facility.
Results are presented for test data of numerous flight and simulation programs at the Ames Research Center
including rotorcraft, fixed-wing aircraft, advanced short takeoff and vertical landing (ASTOVL), vertical/short
takeoff and landing (V/STOL), tiltrotor aircraft, and rotor experiments in the wind tunnel. Excellent system
characterization and dynamic response prediction is achieved for this wide class of systems. Examples illustrate
the role of system-identification technology in providing an integrated flow of dynamic response data around the
entire life-cycle of aircraft development from initial specifications, through simulation and bench testing, and into
flight-test optimization.
14. SUBJECT TERMS 15. NUMBER OF PAGES

System identification, Flight control, Flight test 22

16. PRICE CODE
A03
17. SECURITY CLASSIFICATION 18. SECURITY CLASSIFICATION 19. SECURITY CLASSIFICATION 20. LIMITATION OF ABSTRACT
OF REPORT OF THIS PAGE OF ABSTRACT

Unclassified Unclassified
NSN 7540-01-280-5500 Standard Form 298 (Rev. 2-89)
Prescribed by ANSI Std. Z39-18
298-102
View publication stats