全部 标题 作者
关键词 摘要

OALib Journal期刊
ISSN: 2333-9721
费用:99美元

查看量下载量

相关文章

更多...

A Model Matching STR Controller for High Performance Aircraft

DOI: 10.1155/2013/651617

Full-Text   Cite this paper   Add to My Lib

Abstract:

This paper presents a development, as well as an investigation of a Model Matching Controller (MMC) design based on the Self-Tuning Regulator (STR) framework for high performance aircraft with direct application to an F-16 aircraft flight control system. In combination with the Recursive Least Squares (RLS) identification, the MMC is developed and investigated for effectiveness on a detailed model of the aircraft. The popular robust Quantitative Feedback Theory (QFT) controller is also outlined and used to represent a baseline controller, for performance comparison during four simulated test flight maneuvers. In each of the four maneuvers, the proposed MMC provided consistently stable and satisfactory performance, including the challenging pull-up and pushover maneuvers. The baseline stationary controller has been found to become unstable in two of the four maneuvers tested. It also performs satisfactorily-to-arguably poorly in the remaining two as compared to the MMC. Simulation results presented in this investigation support a clear argument that the proposed MMC provides superior performance in the realm of automatic flight control. 1. Introduction Challenges in automatic flight control are predominant over those in many systems due to the uncertainties that are involved in the aircraft itself, as well as its surroundings [1–5]. Nonlinearities are found in the dynamics of the plane and the actuators that control it. In addition, atmospheric conditions can always be given credit to the uncertainties in flight control. An aircraft’s velocity, altitude, and orientation are all factors that decide how the plane will perform. Differences in these factors along with varying atmospheric conditions throughout the flight envelope can result in a less than optimum, or even unstable system. For the purpose of stability and control, the ability to cope with these different conditions cannot be compromised. Current methods of flight control include dynamic inversion, gain scheduling, and QFT, among others [6–12]. These are stationary controllers, in which they incorporate a design that does not adapt to the many changes that an aircraft can encounter. Beyond the design phase, their behavior is fixed. For these reasons, the focus of most designs is robustness. This can prove successful, but maneuverability of the aircraft is usually sacrificed to some extent. The flight envelope may even be bounded by the restrictions of the controller itself. Additionally, the aircraft and its surroundings are modeled only in the design phase. The drawback to a design whose

References

[1]  S. Kamalasadan and A. A. Ghandakly, “Multiple fuzzy reference model adaptive controller design for pitch-rate tracking,” IEEE Transactions on Instrumentation and Measurement, vol. 56, no. 5, pp. 1797–1808, 2007.
[2]  S. Kamalasadan and A. A. Ghandakly, “A neural network parallel adaptive controller for fighter aircraft pitch-rate tracking,” IEEE Transactions on Instrumentation and Measurement, vol. 60, no. 1, pp. 258–267, 2011.
[3]  S. E. Talole, A. Ghosh, and S. B. Phadke, “Proportional navigation guidance using predictive and time delay control,” Control Engineering Practice, vol. 14, no. 12, pp. 1445–1453, 2006.
[4]  M. Pachter, P. R. Chandler, and L. Smith, “Maneuvering flight control,” Journal of Guidance, Control, and Dynamics, vol. 21, no. 3, pp. 368–374, 1998.
[5]  R. Bhattacharya, G. J. Balas, M. A. Kaya, and A. Packard, “Nonlinear receding horizon control of an F-16 aircraft,” Journal of Guidance, Control, and Dynamics, vol. 25, no. 5, pp. 924–931, 2002.
[6]  T. Wagner and J. Valasek, “Digital autoland control laws using quantitative feedback theory and direct digital design,” Journal of Guidance, Control, and Dynamics, vol. 30, no. 5, pp. 1399–1413, 2007.
[7]  I. Fialho, G. J. Balas, A. K. Packard, J. Renfrow, and C. Mullaney, “Gain-scheduled lateral control of the F-14 aircraft during powered approach landing,” Journal of Guidance, Control, and Dynamics, vol. 23, no. 3, pp. 450–458, 2000.
[8]  S. A. Snell and P. W. Stout, “Robust longitudinal control design using dynamic inversion and quantitative feedback theory,” Journal of Guidance, Control, and Dynamics, vol. 20, no. 5, pp. 933–940, 1997.
[9]  C.-H. Lee, M.-G. Seo, M.-J. Tahk, J.-I. Lee, and B.-E. Jun, “Missile acceleration controller design using pi and time-delay adaptive feedback linearization methodology,” Proceedings of the Institution of Mechanical Engineers G, vol. 226, no. 8, pp. 882–897, 2012.
[10]  C. H. Lee, T. H. Kim, and M. J. Tahk, “Missile autopilot design for agile turn using time delay control with nonlinear observer,” International Journal of Aeronautical and Space Science and Technology, vol. 12, no. 3, pp. 266–273, 2011.
[11]  L. Bruyere, A. Tsourdos, and B. A. White, “Robust augmented lateral acceleration flight control design for a quasi-linear parameter-varying missile,” Proceedings of the Institution of Mechanical Engineers G, vol. 219, no. 2, pp. 171–181, 2005.
[12]  Q. Wang and R. F. Stengel, “Robust nonlinear control of a hypersonic aircraft,” Journal of Guidance, Control, and Dynamics, vol. 23, no. 4, pp. 577–585, 2000.
[13]  W. Gonsalves, A multi-input multi-output self tuning regulator for nonlinear high performance aircraft control [M.S. thesis], ECE Department, California State University, Chico, Calif, USA, 2010.
[14]  B. C. Kuo, Automatic Control Systems, Prentice Hall, 7th edition, 1995.

Full-Text

comments powered by Disqus

Contact Us

service@oalib.com

QQ:3279437679

WhatsApp +8615387084133

WeChat 1538708413