FVSysID ShortCourse 7 Examples

Examples of Flight Vehicle System Identification
C-160: Aerodynamic Data Base
DO-328: Proof of Match
Phoenix: RLV
X-31A:
High Angle of Attack Modeling
Dr. Ravindra Jategaonkar
Rotorcraft:
High Bandwidth Models
AIAA Short Course: Flight Vehicle System Identification in Time Domain, Aug. 2006
Examples/1
This page is left intentionally blank.
Examples/2
General Concept of Aerodynamic Model Identification

High speed
regime
Landing
gear
Stall approach
and stall
Ramp door
Single
engine
Normal Flight
regime
Airdrop
Take-off
landing
Ground
effect
Ground
handling
Engine
Examples/3
Typical Flight Test Program for System Identification (I)

Test Case: C-160 Transall
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
Mach No.
S
16
0
KC
A
KC
A
14
0
12
0K
CA
S
KC
A
100
KC
A
FL 260
80
Altitude
FL 300
FL 160
5
19
A
KC
0
23
A
KC
7
27
A
KC
FL 80
FL 20
100
150
Elevator 3-2-1-1
Elevator pulse
Short Period
Phugoid
200
Bank angle
Level Turn Maneuver
250
300
True Airspeed (Kts)
Aileron/Spoiler
Rudder Doublet
Bank to Bank
Maneuver
Dutch Roll
Thrust Doublet
Examples/4
Typical Flight Test Program for System Identification (II)

Test Case: C-160 Transall
No
of Flights
Test Purpose
Flight
Hours
Check Flight Test Instrumentation
Envelope Expansion with Trailing Cone
1,5
Calibration of Airdata System
8,5
14
System Identification and Model Validation

(4 Altitudes, 5 Speeds, 37 Configurations)
42,5
Identification of Ground Effects
22 Stall Maneuvers with 5 Configurations
Ground and Taxi Tests
3,5
Noise Recording in Hangar, on Runway and in Flight
7,5
Special Tests: Load Drop, Takeoff and Landing on Unprepared

Runway and Runway with Snow
30
Flights with ~ 1000 Maneuvers and 37 configurations

4,5
3
78
Examples/5
C-160: High-Fidelity Simulator Data Base

Aerodynamic data base valid over
the entire operational envelope
- Nonlinear aerodynamics
- Interference and coupling effects
Identification of C-160 specific
operational characteristics
- Ramp door interference,
- air drop, etc.
Identification of dynamic stall
- Unsteady flow separation
Identification of
- Ground effect
- Landing and Take-off
- Failure states
Flight estimate of dihedral effect

-0.12
Landing
Flap
C l
-0.18
K = 40
K = 30
K = 20
-0.24
-6
K = 0
Point Identification
Multi-point Identification
0
6
Angle of Attack
deg
12
Point ID:
Single trim points
Multi-Point ID: Several trim conditions
Validation of flight estimated database

- FAA Level-D
Examples/6
Identification of Elevator Control Effectiveness

Test Case: Transall C-160
Effectiveness
Linear model
-6
Deflection
m/s2
Vertical
acceleration
-12
8
deg/s
pitchrate
Accounting for nonlinearity
0
-8
18
angleof
attack
-6
m/s2
Vertical
acceleration
deg
-12
8
deg/s
pitchrate
2
elevator
deflection
0
18
deg
angleof
attack
-18
0
10
time
20
30
deg
Examples/7
Identification of Downwash Lag: Speed Brakes (1)

Two-point aerodynamic model:
Consider longitudinal motion:
The lift and drag forces at the Wing and Tail are considered separately.
Knowing the forces the pitching moment can be computed readily:
force times lever arm
In a general case,
C L = C L 0 + C LW (t ) +
C m = Cm0
= lt / V
SH
C L H (t ) (t ) + i H + C L e e
S
lt S H
qc
C L H (t ) (t ) + i H + C L e e + C mq
W 2V
c S
Time required for the downwash to reach the Tail.
Other sources: Landing flaps; Direct-Lift-Control flaps;

Wing mounted engines, and Speed brakes
Examples/8

Flight tests: f = 0, 30, 60
f = 0
Test procedure:
Starting from horizontal level flight,
apply 40% (100%) of speed brakes, hold
for some time, then retract the brakes.
Basic aerodynamic model augmented
with incremental effects:
CLSB, CDSB, CmSB
For f = 0, speed brakes work primarily
in a classical sense as a drag inducing
device.
Flight measured
Estimated
Examples/9

For
f = 30 and 60,
time lag effect
increases
proportionally
f = 30
f = 60
Examples/10

Speed brakes consists of a lower and upper
flaps on each wing;
Deflected symmetrically.
Model augmentation:
Downwash with transit time effect
Angle of attack at the tail:
H = + i H ( t ) +
and C
CS
CS ( t CS ) +
SB
( t )
are known (basic aerodynamic model)
Estimate of linearly dependent on flap deflection.

SB
Examples/11

Augmented aero model
f = 30
f = 60
incremental effects:
CLSB, CDSB, CmSB
and
with transit time effect
SB
adequately characterizes
the Speed brake
characteristics.
Examples/12
Modeling of Landing Gear Effects (1)

Modeling and Experimental Aspects
Neglecting Landing Gear Effects

1.2
m/s 2
Important for simulation of

take-offs and landings
ax
Longitudinal and lateral-directional

maneuvers with gear down
.0
10
deg/s
0
8000 ft and 16000 ft

120, 140 and 160 kts
-8
13
deg
Basic aerodynamic model:

Discernible deviations in
- longitudinal motion
- lateral-directional motion variables
-7
5
deg
0
8
deg
0
-8
0
20
Time
40
60
Flight measurement (C-160 Transall)

Model identification
Examples/13
Modeling of Landing Gear Effects (2)

Accounting for Landing Gear Effects
Modeling of Aerodynamic Effects due to LG
1.2
m/s 2
Incremental aerodynamic modeling

Longitudinal motion:
Lift, drag and pitching moment coeff.
CLLG , CDLG , CmLG
Lateral-Directional motion:
- Increased weathercock stability CnLG
- Sideforce due to sideslip CYLG
ax
.0
10
deg/s
0
-8
13
deg
0
-7
5
deg
0
8
deg
0
-8
0
20
Time
40
60
Flight measurement (C-160 Transall)

Model identification
Examples/14
C-160: Load Drop (4.6 t)

Neglecing Variations in Aircraft Mass
Characteristics
-8
m/s2
m/s2
-13
5
deg/s
-13
5
deg/s
-5
-5
8
deg
6
deg
-2
8
2
deg/s
2
8
Verticalacceleration
Pitch
rate
Pitch
attitude
Pitch
acceleration
Accounting for Variations in the

Aircraft Mass Characteristics
CGlocation
-8
deg/s2
-16
-16
50
%
50
%
20
20
0
Measurement
Simulation
10
Time(sec)
15
10 Time(sec) 15
Examples/15
Examples/16
Do-328: Stand-alone versus Integrated Models

Aircraft
Motion
Variables
Reversible
Flight Control
Pilot Input
Dynamics
Control
Surface
Deflect.
Control
Surface
Deflect.
Rigid Body
Dynamics
Aircraft
Motion
Variables
Forces
Rigid-body stand-alone
Flight controls stand-alone
Reversible
Flight Control
Dynamics
Pilot
Input
Forces
Control
Surface
Deflect.
Rigid Body
Dynamics
Aircraft
Motion
Variables
Integrated model
measured data
simulated data
Examples/17
Validation Example 1: Steady Sideslip (DO 328)

Integrated Model: End-to-end Match
Rigid-body Stand-alone
12
deg
-12
18
deg
-18
4
deg/s
-4
2
deg/s
-2
20
deg
-20
r
0
25
time
50
12
deg
-12
18
deg
-18
4
deg/s
-4
2
deg/s
-2
20
deg
-20
0
25
time
50
Examples/18
Validation Example 2: Normal Landing (DO 328)

High activity task:
Landing characteristics reproduced in the

database conform to the airplane.
Single maneuver:
Complete sequence as a single time segment

(starting from 200 ft AGL, flare, touch down,
derotation, and initial ground roll)
FAA: Landing phase may be split into two
(approach and derotation after touch down)
Tolerances:
No closed-loop controller
3 kt on airspeed, 10 ft on altitude
1.5 deg on pitch attitude, 2.0 deg on bank
Ground effect:
Analytical function (tanh-approximation),

Continuous transition from in-flight regime to
on-ground
Wind:
Flight card noted wind

Wind components as the difference between
measured tracking speed provided by IRS and
the true airspeed transformed in earth-fixed
coordinate system.
Examples/19
Normal Landing
Expanded View (Touch down)
Complete Landing Phase

V
60
ft
130
kt
3 kt
90
250
ft
10 ft
h
10 ft
0
10
deg
0
8
deg
1.5 deg
2
5
deg
2 deg
1.5 deg
-5
5
deg
2 deg
-10
20
deg
-10
10
deg
-5
0
deg
-10
14
-5
0
10
Time (sec)
20
16
Time (sec)
18
Flight measured (DO 328)

Model identified
FAA AC 120-40C tolerances
Examples/20
Validation Example 3: Critical Engine Failure (DO 328)

150
kt
V
0
-50
300
ft
Engine failure during the critical phase of

take-off
h
0
-100
15
Response to rudder and aileron important
deg
Complete sequence as a single time

segment (stand-still, acceleration, rotation,
and climb to 200 ft)
0
-5
10
deg
No closed-loop controller
-5
30
Tolerances: 3 kt on airspeed
20 ft on altitude
1.5 deg on pitch attitude
2.0 deg on bank
deg
0
-15
10
deg
-20
4000
daN
FL ,FR
Flight measured
Model identified
left engine shut off
-2000
0
10
time
20
30
Examples/21
Examples/22
Experimental Aircraft X-31

What is X-31?
- First international X-System
- Technology Demonstrator
Goals
- Enhanced Maneuverability (up to 70)
- Tactical advantages through Flight
beyond the limits
New Technologies
- Thrust vector control
- Aerodynamic design
- Integrated Flight control system
Tasks
Thrust vector control
- Flight envelope expansion

- Development of Data base for
Simulation and FCS design
- Handling qualities evaluation
Dr.
Jategaonkar
FolieRavindra
Nr.23
Examples/23
Control Surfaces of the X-31A

Trailing
TrailingEdge
EdgeFlaps
Flaps(4)
(4)
30
30
80/sec
80/sec
Speed
SpeedBrakes
Brakes(2)
(2)
0
to
+46
0 to +46
20/sec
20/sec
Inlet
Inlet
0
0to
to-26
-26
20/sec
20/sec
Rudder
Rudder
30
30
80/sec
80/sec
Canard
Canard(2)
(2)
-70
to
+20
-70 to +20
60/sec
60/sec
Leading
LeadingEdge
EdgeFlaps
Flaps(2)
(2)
0
to
-40
0 to -40
25/sec
25/sec
Thrust
ThrustVectoring
Vectoring
Vanes
(3)
Vanes (3)
-60
-60bis
bis+35
+35
60/sec
60/sec
Examples/24
Flight Test Program

1.4
Longitudinal motion
Longitudinal motion
High Angle of Attack
Supersonic
Landing configuration
Data conditioning
Seperate Surface Excitation
Mach number
1.2
1
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0
-10
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
Angle of Attack, deg
Examples/25
Challenges of Flight in Post-Stall Regime

Basic aircraft is highly unstable;
Resulting from aerodynamic design.
Motion variables and controls are highly correlated;
Resulting from integrated flight control system.
Controller Suppresses the oscillatory and transient motion;
Reduces drastically the information content.
Post-Stall Maneuver with large amplitudes;
Conventional model structures inappropriate for analysis.
Determination of Air-Flow variables extremely critical;
However, necessary for Stabilization of Flight systems.
Examples/26
Identification of controlled unstable aircraft

Measured
Control inputs
Identification
Identification
in
in open
open loop
loop
Measured
Response
Noise
Pilot
Controller
Controller
Unstable
Unstable
Aircraft
Aircraft
Problems
- Increased Modeling effort for closed loop system
- Numerical Problems in identification of open loop plant
- Feedback of measured variables introduce input noise (stochastic system)
Parameter estimation methods

- Equation error method with optional Data-Partitioning
- Filter error method for problems with Measurement and Process noise
- Extended Kalman filter
Examples/27
Realization of Separate Surface excitation (1)

FTB
Flutter test box
Control commands
FCC Redundancy
Management Signals
Pilot
inputs
FCC
Flight Control
Computer
Aerodynamic
Control surfaces
Thrust vector
X-31
Aircraft
dynamic
States
Sensors
Examples/28
Realization of Separate Surface excitation (2)

FTB
Flutter test box
Pilot
Trigger
Signal
Signal generator
generator
Control commands
FCC Redundancy
Management Signals
Pilot
inputs
FCC
Flight Control
Computer
Aerodynamic
Control surfaces
Thrust vector
X-31
Aircraft
dynamic
States
Sensors
Examples/29
Correlated Inputs (1)

X-31A:
Pilot Input and
Separate Surface
Excitation
pitch command
can
pilot input
pitch doublet
deg
PID command
TE
separate surface excitation (SSE)
2.5
deg
-2.5
0
35
angle of attack
deg
20
-15
canard 3211
deg
canard
-45
20
20
TV deflection in pitch deg

sym. trailing edge flaps
deg
elevator 3211
-20
0
10
15
time
20
-20
25
Examples/30
Correlated Inputs (2)

X-31A:
Canard
Effectiveness
can
Pilot Input
0.6
Cmcan
TE
Separate Surface Excitation
Single maneuver
Data partitioning
Windtunnel
Estimated
Windtunnel
predicted
0.4
0.2
-0.2
20
40
60
80
20
60
40
80
Examples/31
PID with Pilot Input -- Single Maneuver (1)

correlated state and
control variables
Derivatives that cannot be identified

independently from pilot input maneuvers
, C , e and ,
C m , C m C , C m e and C m ,
a , r and as well as p and r
C n a , C n r and C n as well as Clp and Clr
Roll Doublet
roll
command
relatively large standard

deviations and uncertainties
-1
5
angle of
sideslip
use fixed values from the X-31

database for some parameters
deg
-5
diff. trailing
edge defl.
combined roll/yaw-damping
20
deg
TV-deflection
in yaw
-20
with
20
roll rate
deg/s
* p = C + C r p
Clp
lp
lr p
r
= tan
p
for the velocity vector roll
yaw rate
-20
0
time
Examples/32
PID with Pilot Input (2)

Bank-to-bank maneuver at 54 angle of attack: LS and Filter error methods
1 0
d e g
1 0
d e g
0
- 5
5 0
d e g
p
r
- 5 0
2 0
d e g
d a
d r
- 2 0
2 0
d e g
- 5 0
5 0
d e g
0
- 1 0
0 .5
0
n y
- 1
.0 5
l
- 1 0 0
5 0
d e g /s 2
0
- .2
- 0 .5
1 0 0
d e g /s 2
- .0 5
.2
C n
- 5 0
0 .5
C y
- 5 0
5 0
d e g /s
0
- 5
5 0
d e g /s
r
0
1 0
tim e ( s )
2 0
0
- 5 0
0
1 0
tim
e ( s )
2 0
Examples/33
PID with Pilot Input (3)

Estimates of aerodynamic derivatives: LS and Filter error methods
/ra d
D ih e d r a l E ffe c t
S id e fo r c e d u e to s id e s lip
/ra d
A n g le o f a tta c k
d e g
/ra d
d e g
C o m b in e d y a w d a m p in g
A ile r o n E ffe c tiv e n e s s
/ra d
d e g
d e g
Examples/34
X-31 Database Update (1)

Dihedral Effect
Pilot Input
Single Surface Excitation (SSE)
0
1/rad
-0.1
Cl
-0.2
original data set

single maneuver
data partitioning
PID2 update
-0.3
original data set

flutter test box
PID2 update
-0.4
0
20
40
60
angle of attack, deg

80
20
40
60
80
angle of attack, deg
Examples/35
X-31 Database Update (2)

Directional Stability
0 .3
1 /ra d
0 .2
C n b
0 .1
P E r e s d t i i mc t ea
Id e n tifie
I d P e p r n e r e t d i d f ii i e c c
D a ta s e t
0 .8
M a c h
dt e d
d
d t t ee
u
dQ d T
p d a te
1 .2
Examples/36
Phoenix: Reusable orbital glider (1)

Reference
Mission:
Towed to establish
initial conditions
touch
down
release Phoenix
from helicopter
lift-off
Flight phases
upon release:
1) Acquisition
2) Approach
3) Flare
4) Alignment
5) Derotation
6) Rollout
ground track
altitude
Launch at
40m/s EAS
acquisition
dive
RLV
approach
path -23o
Phoenix free
flight profile
118m/s
flare
510m
touch down
71m/s
runway
6.6km
2.65km
45m x 2100m
Examples/37

Overview and goals
Phoenix:
Flight test vehicle developed and tested within German
ASTRA program
Experimental steps towards the development of next
generation space transportation systems
Primary Objectives:
To demonstrate un-powered automatic landing of RLV
configuration
Secondary Objectives:
To generate flight validated database and representative
models (vehicle + subsystems) as developmental tool for
future applications
Examples/38

Phoenix Configuration
Typical characteristics of RLV configurations (Phoenix):
Low L/D -- causes steep approach path (= 5.5)
Low achievable CL -- high landing velocity (=71 m/s)
Small wing span
-- high roll sensitivity
Aft CG position
-- statically unstable configuration
(time to double < 0.5 s)
Overall length
Span
Overall height
Mass
CG position
=
=
=
=
=
7.8 m (including noseboom)

3.84 m
2.56 m (retracted landing gear)
1200 kg
70 % of bare fuselage length
Examples/39

Aerodynamic Database
Wind-tunnel tests:
DNW German-Dutch wind tunnel
Test program:
171 quasi-static polar curves,
25 dynamic polar with
rapid control deflections
29 polar curves in ground effect
Scaled models
and
full scale flight vehicle
Examples/40

Wind-tunnel testing in August 2003
Pre-flight checks: April 2004
calibration of flow angles:

p d
p d
=
+ korr
+ offset
K qc
qc
0.8
deg
quadratic or piecewise linear

Accuracy:
AoA and AoS: < 0.5
Horizontal velocity: 0.5 m/s
0.6
Alpha-error
after linear calibration
-error nonlinear:
0.4
0.2
0
-0.2
-0.4
-0.6
-10
40 m/s
70 m/s
100 m/s
-5
alpha
10
15
20 deg
25
Examples/41

Free flights:
Maiden flight on 8-May-2004
Repeat flight on 13-May-2004
3rd flight with Offset on 16-May-2004
Configuration:
Delta Wing, relatively low wing span
3 controls (flaperons and rudder)
Body flap and speed brake
1200 Kg
7m long
3,48 m span
Highly dynamic behavior
High bandwidth control loops
Video free flight 1:

Examples/42

Aerodynamic Database
Verification and Update -- Principle
p_dot, q_dot, r_dot
Measured
AX, AY,
AZ,
p, q, r,
pdyn
Measured
dero, delo,
dari, deli,
dr, dbf,
dsb,
p, q, r,
al, be
AX_cg, AY_cg, AZ_cg

X, Y, Z, L_cg, M_cg, N_cg
Flight
CX, CY, CZ
CLX, CMY, CNZ
X, Y, Z, L_ac, M_ac, N_ac
Windtunnel Database
(V31.txt)
WT-Prediction
CX, CY, CZ
CLX, CMY, CNZ
SysID
Corrections
Examples/43

Flight derived and WT predicted aero coefficients
0.03
CX
CX
ZA03
ZA06
0.01
ZA05
ZA06
ZA05
ZA03
ZA06
ZA05
ZA03
ZA06
ZA05
ZA03
ZA06
ZA05
ZA03
ZA06
ZA05
ZA03
ZA06
ZA05
0
dCX
-0.01
-0.03
-0.02
-0.06
0.03
ZA03
ZA06
0.02
ZA05
0.015
CY
CY
ZA03
0.01
dCY
0
-0.015
0
-0.01
-0.03
-0.02
ZA03
ZA06
0.1
ZA05
0.05
CZ
CZ
dCZ
-0.25
0
-0.05
-0.5
4
x 10
-0.1
-3
ZA03
ZA06
ZA05
2
CLX
CLX
dCLX
-2
-3
-4
x 10
0
-1
x 10
-2
-3
ZA03
ZA06
ZA05
x 10
-3
CMY
CMY
dCMY
-6
0
-2
-12
4
x 10
-4
-3
ZA03
ZA06
ZA05
2
CNZ
CNZ
x 10
-3
1
dCNZ
0
-2
0
-1
-4
0
50
100
t in s
150
-2
0
50
100
150
t in s
Examples/44

Flight derived and WT predicted longitudinal force coefficient
0.03
ff-n1
ff-n2
ff-n3
ff-n1
ff-n2
ff-n3
0.02
0.01
flight measurements
flight measurements
flight measurements
wind-tunnel
wind-tunnel
wind-tunnel
Total CX
Pre-flight ADB
-0.01
-0.02
-0.03
Flight data
-0.04
-0.05
0.05
0.1
0.15
Angle of attack (rad)
0.2
0.25
Examples/45

Flight derived and WT predicted vertical force coefficient
0
ff-n1
ff-n2
ff-n3
ff-n1
ff-n2
ff-n3
-0.05
-0.1
flight measurements
flight measurements
flight measurements
wind-tunnel
wind-tunnel
wind-tunnel
-0.15
Total CZ
-0.2
Rough order of
discrepancies:
Pre-flight ADB CZ: 9-10%
-0.25
-0.3
Cm: < 3%
-0.35
CD: ~10% Nonlinear

Flight-derived
-0.4
-0.45
-0.5
0.05
0.1
0.15
0.2
0.25
Examples/46

Aero model update (In-Air)
CZ = CZ 0 + CZ + CZ q
CX = CX 0 + CX + CX q
q
Lref V
q
Lref V
+ CZ bf bf
+ CX sb sb
CMY = CM 0 + CM + CM e e + CM sb sb
12 Parameters CZ(), CX() and Cm() are estimated to
reduce the deviations between flight measurements and
WT-predictions.
Examples/47

Flight derived and updated database aero coefficients
0.03
CX
CX
ZA03
ZA06
0.01
ZA05
ZA03
ZA06
ZA05
ZA03
ZA06
ZA05
ZA03
ZA06
ZA05
ZA03
ZA06
ZA05
ZA03
ZA06
ZA05
ZA03
ZA06
ZA05
0
dCX
-0.03
-0.01
-0.06
-0.02
0.03
ZA03
ZA06
0.02
ZA05
0.015
CY
CY
0.01
dCY
0
-0.01
-0.015
-0.02
-0.03
0
ZA03
ZA06
0.1
ZA05
0.05
CZ
CZ
-0.25
dCZ
0
-0.05
-0.5
4
x 10
-0.1
-3
ZA03
ZA06
ZA05
dCLX
0
-1
-2
-4
-3
2
CLX
CLX
x 10
x 10
-2
-3
ZA03
ZA06
x 10
-3
ZA05
2
CMY
CMY
dCMY
-6
0
-2
-12
4
x 10
-4
-3
ZA03
ZA06
ZA05
-3
2
CNZ
CNZ
x 10
dCNZ
0
-1
-2
-2
-4
0
50
100
150
50
in s
AIAA Short Course: Flight Vehicle System Identification in Time Domain, Aug. t 2006
100
150
Examples/48

Flight derived and Updated database
vertical force coefficient
0
ff-n1
ff-n2
ff-n3
ff-n1
ff-n2
ff-n3
-0.05
-0.1
flight measurements
flight measurements
flight measurements
wind-tunnel + Updates
-0.15
Total CZ
-0.2
-0.25
-0.3
-0.35
-0.4
-0.45
-0.5
0.05
0.1
0.15
0.2
0.25
Examples/49

Flight derived and Updated database (Continued)
0.03
ff-n1
ff-n2
ff-n3
0.02
0.01
Delta CZ versus AoA

without and with update
Delta CZ
0
-0.01
-0.02
-0.03
-0.04
0.03
ff-n1
ff-n2
ff-n3
-0.05
0.02
-0.06
0.05
0.1
0.15
0.2
0.25
0.01
Important Inferences:
- component due to pitch rate in lift and
drag is not adequately accounted for.
Delta CZ
- lift generated in flight is higher
0
-0.01
-0.02
-0.03
- basic longitudinal force coefficient for

clean configuration underestimated,
-0.04
- impact of speedbrakes overestimated.
-0.06
-0.05
0.05
0.1
0.15
0.2
0.25
Examples/50

Flight derived and WT predicted In-Air + Landing Gear
0.01
ff-n1
ff-n2
ff-n3
In-Air
Landing Gear
0.005
Delta CX
-0.005
-0.01
-0.015
0.05
0.1
0.15
0.2
0.25
Examples/51

Aero model update: In-Air + Landing Gear-Effects)
CX = CX 0 + CX + CX q
CZ = CZ 0 + CZ + CZ q
q
Lref V
q
Lref V
+ CX s b sb + CX LG LG
+ CZ b f bf + CZLG LG
CMY = CM 0 + CM + CM e e + CM s b sb + CM LG LG
In-Air updates fixed from initial 50 s maneuver
Examples/52

Aero model update (In-Air + Landing Gear-Effects)
0.01
ff-n1
ff-n2
ff-n3
Delta CX
0.005
Delta CX versus AoA

without and with update
-0.005
0.01
-0.01
0.05
0.1
0.15
0.005
0.2
Delta CX
-0.015
0
Landing Gear
Aero effect
0.25
-0.005
-0.01
-0.015
0
ff-n1
ff-n2
ff-n3
0.05
0.1
0.15
0.2
0.25
Examples/53
Examples/54
Rotorcraft Modeling (1)

High Fidelity Simulation
State Space Models
Integrated Approach to Rotorcraft Modeling and Simulation

SID Models
SIM & SID Models
Derivative models
Advanced integrated
approach
Linear/NL aerodynamic
Generic model
Extensive flight data

for point-model ID
and validation
Augmented with
parametric submodels
Stability & Control

analysis and
control system design
Flight data for submodel ID and global

model validation
System Identification
System Simulation &

Identification
Classical SID approach
Nonlinear aerodynamic
SIM Models
Classical SIM approach
Generic models based on
modular elements
Nonlinear aerodynamic
Flight data only for
model validation
Simulation, performance
And vehicle design
System Simulation
Examples/55

SID: based on classical 6 DOF motion
rigid-body, small excursions: linear model
large excursions NL derivatives
States:
Inputs:
Outputs:
x = [u v w p q r ]T
u = [ lon lat ped col ]T

y = [a x a y a z u v w p q r p& q& r&]T
Example:
EC-135,
60 kts forward speed
Examples/56

SID: based on classical 6 DOF motion
Example: EC-135, 60 kts forward speed
- Gauss-Newton method
- concatenate several dynamic multistep inputs as well as frequency
sweeps with longitudinal, lateral, collective, and pedal inputs
~
N = N0 + Nu u + Nv v + Nw w + N p p + Nq q + Nr r
+ N lon lon + N lat lat + N ped ped + N col col
+ N v v + N r r + N ped ped + N ped ped
+ N lon lon + N lon lon
1st and 2nd row: linear derivatives
3rd and 4th row: a and b dependencies
weathercock stability parameter Cn (NV) for +/-ve side slipping
Examples/57

SID:
classical 6 DOF motion
Example: EC-135,
60 kts forward speed
0.3
rad/s
-0.5
0.3
rad/s
0
-0.3
0.3
Model predictive capability:

- Pedal and lateral inputs
- low-frequency models
- Flying qualities investigations
rad/s
0
-0.3
0.2
rad
0
-0.2
0.3
rad
0
-0.3
75
%
lat,
ped
35
0
10
20
time
30
40
Examples/58

High bandwidth models:
In-flight simulation: Explicit Model Following Control Design:
Based on feed forward regulation, for more accurate mode control
Model
Inversion
Model of
Helicopter
Dynamics
System
Identification
Model
Validation
Required
Response
Pilot
Command
Model
Control
Law
Model of -1
Helicopter
Dynamics
Feedforward
Controller
Input
PIController
Analysis
of Flight
Test Data
Actual
Helicopter
Dynamics
Helicopter
Response
Feedback
Response Error
Examples/59

High bandwidth models:
Extension of 6DOF model through additional time delay:
- easier to deal with; no difficulties in parameter estimation
- not suitable for model following control:
(inversion of time delay amounts to time lead not realizable
Extension of 6h rotor degrees of freedom:
1) implicit first-order approximation of the main rotor
2) explicit equations for the rotor degrees of freedom
Basic equation for roll response can be written as:
p& = L p p + L p control
Eq. 12.45
step input results in a step response in the roll acceleration
Examples/60

High bandwidth models -- implicit first-order approximation
First order approximation of main rotor:
based on high correlation between the flapping motion of the rotor tip
path plane (lateral and longitudinal flapping) and the body-fixed
rotational (roll and pitch) accelerations.
Correlation between roll acceleration and lateral flapping
(rigid rotors and high hinge offset):
Eq. 12.46
p& = Lb1 b1
L b
1
&
control
b1 =
b1 p +
Eq. 12.47
where b1 is the lateral flapping, control the control input at the blade root,
and b a flapping time constant.
This coupled differential equation indicates that a step into the control input
leads to a first order response of the rotor itself coupled with the body response
driven by the rotor flapping.
Examples/61

High bandwidth models -- implicit first-order approximation
Differentiating (12.46), substituting (12.47) and then using again (12.46)
leads to a second order differential equation for rotor/body motion:
Lb1 L b
1
&
&p& = Lb1 b1 =
control
p& Lb1 p +
Eq. 12.48
Which can be equivalently formulated as:

~
~
~
( p&& ) = L p& p& + L p p + L + L p control
Eq. 12.49
~
where L() denote the new set of lateral system parameters.
Thus, either the two first order equations (12.46) and (12.47) are now used to
model the roll motion and lateral flapping, or depending on the application in
the control system design the equivalent second order equation (in roll rate p),
Eq. (12.49), can be used for system identification.
Examples/62

High bandwidth models -- implicit first-order approximation:
The derivatives appearing in Eq. (12.49) are not the same as those in the
classical rolling motion equation of the rigid-body motion.
L p Lb1 L b
Lp
1
~
~
~
L p& = , L p =
= Lb1 , L p =
=
Thus, when we use Eq. (12.49) for parameter estimation purposes, the classical
parameters gets scaled through the flapping time constant and the flapping
effects appear indirectly through these scaled parameters.
Incorporation of these second order models in the parameter estimation is little
tricky, because the estimation programs require models postulated as first order
differential equations. This is elegantly done by treating p& and q& as the state
variables, leading to a state vector given by:
x = [u v w p p& q q& r ]T
compared to that for pure rigid-body: x = [u v w p q r ]T
Examples/63

Extended model formulation: Summary
Conventional first order
Extended second order
- rigid body only -
- rigid body & first order rotor-
p& = Lp p + L (t )
p& = Lbb
b + L (t )
&
p
b=
Equivalent second order rigid body
&&
p = L% p& p& + L% p p + L% (t )
Examples/64

High bandwidth models -- implicit first-order approximation :
The main advantage of this approach is that the extended model implicitly
represents dynamics of the rotor degrees of freedom as a first order system.
Together with the 8th order state vector of the rigid-body motion defined
earlier, above approximation of the rotor coupling in the pitch and roll leads to
a 10th order model, covering a wider frequency range. As rotor dynamics are
implicitly modeled, the time delays are significantly reduced to the pure
influence of the actuator dynamics.
High bandwidth models -- Explicit rotor degrees of freedom:

Considering the blade flapping motions in terms of the tip path plane
variables, the states of the rigid-body motion are extended by:
x = [a b a a& b& a& ]T
a
where a1 and b1 denote the longitudinal and lateral flapping, and a0

the coning motion, each of which is modeled as a second order system,
leading to an extended model with nine degrees of freedom.
Examples/65

Extended Model Structure Approach
State Matrix
.
u
.
v
.
w
.
p
.
q
.
r
.
Control
Matrix
States
u
v
FUSELAGE
w
p
rigid body
body/rotor
coupling
.
.
a
Controls
TR
ROTOR
a1
b
1
.
.
.
rotor / body
coupling
a1
rotor
b
1
.
.
.
Examples/66

BO 105 Time Histories (Linear Simulation and Flight Data)
10
lateral %
stick
-10
Control Input
6 DoF Rigid Body
9 DoF Rigid Body + Rotor
0.3
roll rad/s
rate
roll
rate
0.3
rad/s
-0.3
-0.3
2.0
roll
rad/s 2
acc.
2.0
-2.0
roll rad/s2
acc.
0
time
s 10
Flight Data
6 DoF Rigid Body
9 DoF Rigid Body + Rotor
-2.0
.015
lateral rad/s
flapping
- .015
time
s 10
Examples/67

BO 105 Time Histories - Quality Control
6 DoF Rigid Body Roll Acceleration
9 DoF Rigid Body/Rotor Roll Acceleration
Examples/68

BO 105 model validation in frequency domain
Magnitude
Generic
NL model
Rigid-body 6 DOF
dB
0
9 DOF with
rotor dynamics
Boundaries of
unnoticable dynamics
-10
45
deg
Phase
Ratio of roll rate responses
10
9 DOF with
rotor dynamics
Rigid-body 6 DOF
Generic
NL model
-90
0.3
Frequency
rad/s 10
Examples/69

Rotor Wake Modeling
Accurate Prediction of Off-axis Response
- At hover and at low speeds;
a long standing problem
- asymmetrical vortex compression
and dilation act on the induced
velocity field.
Pure Hover
- Gyroscopic behavior leads to

strong cross- coupling effects
due to wake distortion
- Complex models based on geometrically
prescribed or free wake formulation
with discrete vortices; or equivalent
vortex ring/sheet formulation.
- Simpler models based on local
phenomenon -- Parametric extensions
for the dynamics of the inflow
Pitching motion in Hover
Examples/70

Rotor Wake Modeling
Parametric extension of Pitt and Peters dynamic wake model:
1
=c
M & + L
144424443
1 1
&
K p ( p s )
L
+
K q ( q &c )
Theoretical estimates of
wake distortion parameters:
Pitt & Peters Inflow dynamics
1444444444424444444444
3
Inflow + Wake distortion dynamics
M : Apparent mass matrix associated with the

acceleration terms from momentum theory
L : gain matrix, (= [0, s, c]T) the inflow ratio
describing the first harmonic terms
c (= [cT, c1, cm]T): rotor load coefficients wrt rotor thrust
and aerodynamic pitch and roll moment,
: main rotor rotation speed

Kp and Kq: The wake distortion parameters for
longitudinal and lateral distribution of the
induced velocity.
The last term on the RHS is the parametric term that

feeds back the total roll and pitch rates of the rotor
tip path plane wrt to the surrounding air to the
induced velocity distribution over the rotor disk.
Estimate Kp and Kq
( = V H / R )
.
VH: forward speed in m/s,

: main rotor rotation speed in rad/s,
R: rotor radius in meter
Examples/71

Flight case #1
PitchRate
Rotor Wake Modeling:
Simulation fidelity with

Theoretical and flight
Identified WD parameters:
with theoretical
WD-parameters
0
with flight
identified WD
parameters
-20
-30
RollRate
Hover:
Flight case #2
20
deg/s
30
20
deg/s
0
Longitudinal
Input
-20
2
deg
0
LateralInput
-3
4
deg
2
0
-1
20
25
time
30
35
Examples/72

Hover:
Off axis response without (i.e. inflow dynamics only) and with flight
identified WD parameters
20
deg/s
Pitch
Rate
Inflow Dynamics
20
deg/s
10
Inflow and Wake

Distortion
10
0
-10
-10
Flight Data
Simulation
-20
60
64
time
68
-20
60
64
68
time
Examples/73
classical issue often faced in

modeling applying system
identification methods:
estimated parameters do not represent
the wake distortion phenomenon which
mainly occurs at hover and at low
speeds, rather they account for some
other unmodeled effects, for example
those resulting from rigid blade
formulation as assumed in the present
investigations.
PitchRate
0
without PWD
-10
RollRate
Estimates do not conform to the

wake prediction theory (they
should be roughly zero).
Flight case #2
with PWD
20
deg/s
0
-20
-40
-1
deg
Longitudinal
Input
Kp = 1.1; Kq = 1.6
Flight case #1
15
deg/s
-3
-5
LateralInput

Forward speed of 40 m/s:
4
deg
2
0
0
time
10
Examples/74
References (1)
Jategaonkar, R. V.,
Flight Vehicle System Identification: A Time Domain Methodology,
Volume 216, AIAA Progress in Astronautics and Aeronautics Series
Published by AIAA Reston, VA, Aug. 2006, ISBN: 1-56347-836-6
http://www.aiaa.org/content.cfm?pageid=360&id=1447
Hamel, P. G., and Jategaonkar, R. V., Evolution of Flight Vehicle System Identification,
Journal of Aircraft, Vol. 33, No. 1, 1996, pp. 9-28.
Hamel, P. G. and Jategaonkar, R. V., The Role of System Identification for Flight Vehicle Applications Revisited, RTO-MP-11, March 1999, Paper No. 2.
Jategaonkar, R. V., Fischenberg, D., and von Gruenhagen, W.,
Aerodynamic Modeling and System Identification from Flight Data Recent Applications at DLR,
Journal of Aircraft, Vol. 41, No. 4, 2004, pp. 681-691.
Jategaonkar, R. V., Mnnich, W., Fischenberg, D., and Krag, B. Identification of Speed Brake, Air-Drop,
and Landing Gear Effects from Flight Data, Journal of Aircraft, Vol. 34, No. 2, March-April 1997,
pp 174-180.
Jategaonkar, R. V., Mnnich, W., Fischenberg, D., and Krag, B. Identification of C-160 Simulator Data Base
from Flight Data, Proceedings, 10th IFAC Symposium on System Identification, Copenhagen, Denmark,
July 1994, pp. 3.67-3.74.
Jategaonkar, R.V., Mnnich, W., Identification of DO-328 Aerodynamic Database for a Level D Flight
Simulator, AIAA 97-3729, 1997.
Mnnich, W., Jategaonkar, R.V., Database Development for Level D Simulators - Lessons Learned,
RTO SCI Symposium on System Identification for Integrated Aircraft Development and Flight Testing,
May 5-7, 1998, Madrid, Spain, Paper 14.
Examples/75
References (1)
N.N., Airplane Simulator Qualification, FAA Advisory Circular, AC 120-40C, Interim Version, Jan. 1995.
N.N., Joint Aviation Requirements - Aeroplane Flight Simulators, JAR-STD 1A, Westward Digital Ltd.,
Cheltenham, England, April 1997.
Jategaonkar, R. V., Behr, R., Gockel, W., and Zorn, C., Data Analysis of Phoenix RLV Demonstrator Flight
Test, AIAA Paper 2005-6129, Aug. 2005.
Rohlf, D., Plaetschke, E., Weiss, S., X-31A System Identification Applied to Post Stall Flight - Aerodynamics
and Thrust Vectoring, AGARD CP-548, March 1994, Paper 14.
Weiss, S., Friehmelt, H., Plaetschke, E., and Rohlf, D., X-31A System Identification using Single Surface
Excitation at High Angles of Attack, Journal of Aircraft, Vol. 33, No. 3, May-June 1996, pp. 485-490.
Rohlf, D., Direct Update of a Global Simulator Model with Increments via System Identification,
RTO SCI Symposium on System Identification for Integrated Aircraft Development and
Flight Testing, May 5-7, 1998, Madrid, Spain, Paper 28.
Tischler, M.B., System Identification Methods for Aircraft Flight Control Development and Validation,
NASA TM 110369, Oct. 1995.
Kaletka, J., von Grnhagen, W., System Identification of Mathematical Models for the Design of a Model
Following Control System, Vertica, Pergamon Press, Oxford, Vol. 13, No. 2, 1989, pp. 213-228.
Anon, Rotorcraft System Identification, AGARD, AR280, Sept. 1991.
Hamel, P.G., Kaletka, J., Rotorcraft System Identification - An Overview of AGARD FVP Working Group 18,
AGARD CP-552, 1995, Paper 18.
N.N., Helicopter Simulator Qualification, FAA Advisory Circular, AC 120-63, Oct. 1994.
Rohlfs, M., von Grnhagen, W., Kaletka, J., Nonlinear Rotorcraft Modeling and Identification,
RTO SCI Symposium on System Identification for Integrated Aircraft Development and
Flight Testing, May 5-7, 1998, Madrid, Spain, Paper 23.
Examples/76

FVSysID ShortCourse 7 Examples

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

FVSysID ShortCourse 7 Examples

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Examples of Flight Vehicle System Identification

C-160: Aerodynamic Data Base

DO-328: Proof of Match

This page is left intentionally blank.

Dr. Ravindra Jategaonkar

General Concept of Aerodynamic Model Identification

Dr. Ravindra Jategaonkar

Typical Flight Test Program for System Identification (I)

Dr. Ravindra Jategaonkar

Level Turn Maneuver

True Airspeed (Kts)

Typical Flight Test Program for System Identification (II)

Check Flight Test Instrumentation

Envelope Expansion with Trailing Cone

Calibration of Airdata System

System Identification and Model Validation

Identification of Ground Effects

22 Stall Maneuvers with 5 Configurations

Ground and Taxi Tests

Noise Recording in Hangar, on Runway and in Flight

Special Tests: Load Drop, Takeoff and Landing on Unprepared

Flights with ~ 1000 Maneuvers and 37 configurations

C-160: High-Fidelity Simulator Data Base

Flight estimate of dihedral effect

Validation of flight estimated database

Identification of Elevator Control Effectiveness

Accounting for nonlinearity

Identification of Downwash Lag: Speed Brakes (1)

Time required for the downwash to reach the Tail.

Other sources: Landing flaps; Direct-Lift-Control flaps;

Identification of Downwash Lag: Speed Brakes (2)

Identification of Downwash Lag: Speed Brakes (3)

Dr. Ravindra Jategaonkar

Identification of Downwash Lag: Speed Brakes (4)

are known (basic aerodynamic model)

Estimate of linearly dependent on flap deflection.

Dr. Ravindra Jategaonkar

Identification of Downwash Lag: Speed Brakes (5)

Augmented aero model

Dr. Ravindra Jategaonkar

Modeling of Landing Gear Effects (1)

Neglecting Landing Gear Effects

Important for simulation of

Longitudinal and lateral-directional

8000 ft and 16000 ft

Basic aerodynamic model:

Flight measurement (C-160 Transall)

Modeling of Landing Gear Effects (2)

Modeling of Aerodynamic Effects due to LG

Incremental aerodynamic modeling

Flight measurement (C-160 Transall)

Dr. Ravindra Jategaonkar

C-160: Load Drop (4.6 t)

Accounting for Variations in the

This page is left intentionally blank.

Dr. Ravindra Jategaonkar

Do-328: Stand-alone versus Integrated Models

Flight controls stand-alone

Validation Example 1: Steady Sideslip (DO 328)

Dr. Ravindra Jategaonkar

Validation Example 2: Normal Landing (DO 328)

Landing characteristics reproduced in the

Complete sequence as a single time segment

Analytical function (tanh-approximation),