Sunteți pe pagina 1din 49

MATHEMATICAL MODELS FOR CONTROL OF

AIRCRAFT AND SATELLITES

THOR I. FOSSEN
Professor of Guidance, Navigation and Control
Centre for Autonomous Marine Operations and Systems
Department of Engineering Cybernetics
Norwegian University of Science and Technology

April 2013
3rd edition

Copyright c 1998-2013 Department of Engineering Cybernetics, NTNU.


1st edition published February 1998.
2nd edition published January 2011.
3rd edition published April 2013.

Contents
Figures

iii

1 Introduction

2 Aircraft Modeling
2.1 Denition of Aircraft State-Space Vectors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
2.2 Body-Fixed Coordinate Systems for Aircraft . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
2.2.1 Rotation matrices for wind and stability axes . . . . . . . . . . . . .

3
3
4
5

2.3 Aircraft Equations of Motion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .


2.3.1 Kinematic equations for translation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
2.3.2 Kinematic equations for attitude . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

6
6
7

2.3.3 Rigid-body kinetics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .


2.3.4 Sensors and measurement systems . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
2.4 Perturbation Theory (Linear Theory) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
2.4.1 Denition of nominal and perturbation values . . . . . . . .
2.4.2 Linearization of the rigid-body kinetics . . . . . . . . . . . .
2.4.3 Linear state-space model based using wind and stability axes
2.5 Decoupling in Longitudinal and Lateral Modes . . . . . . . . . . . .
2.5.1 Longitudinal equations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
2.5.2

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

7
8
8
9
9
11
12
13

Lateral equations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

13

2.6 Aerodynamic Forces and Moments . . . . . . . . . . .


2.6.1 Longitudinal aerodynamic forces and moments .
2.6.2 Lateral aerodynamic forces and moments . . . .
2.7 Propeller Thrust . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
2.8 Aerodynamic Coe cients . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
2.8.1 Aerodynamic forces and moments . . . . . . . .
2.8.2 Drag coe cient . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
2.8.3 Lift coe cient . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
2.8.4 Sideforce coe cient . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
2.8.5 Rolling moment coe cient . . . . . . . . . . . .
2.8.6 Pitching moment coe cient . . . . . . . . . . .
2.8.7 Yawing moment coe cient . . . . . . . . . . . .
2.8.8 Equations of motion including aerodynamic coe
2.9 Standard Aircraft Maneuvers . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
i

. . . .
. . . .
. . . .
. . . .
. . . .
. . . .
. . . .
. . . .
. . . .
. . . .
. . . .
. . . .
cients
. . . .

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

14
16
16
17
18
19
20
21
21
21
22
23
23
23

ii

CONTENTS
2.9.1 Dynamic equation for coordinated turn
2.9.2 Dynamic equation for altitude control .
2.10 Aircraft Stability Properties . . . . . . . . . .
2.10.1 Longitudinal stability analysis . . . . .
2.10.2 Lateral stability analysis . . . . . . . .
2.11 Design of ight control systems . . . . . . . .

(bank-to-turn)
. . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . .

.
.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.
.

24
25
26
27
28
29

3 Satellite Modeling
3.1 Attitude Model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
3.1.1 Eulers 2nd Axiom applied to satellites . . . . . . . .
3.1.2 Skew-symmetric representation of the satellite model
3.2 Actuator Dynamics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
3.3 Design of Satellite Attitude Control Systems . . . . . . . . .
3.3.1 Nonlinear quaternion set-point regulator . . . . . . .
3.3.2 PD-controller of Wen and Kreutz-Delago (1991) . . .

.
.
.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.
.
.

31
31
31
32
32
34
34
35

4 Matlab Simulation Models


4.1 Boeing-767 . . . . . . . . . .
4.1.1 Longitudinal model .
4.1.2 Lateral model . . . .
4.2 F-16 Fighter . . . . . . . . .
4.2.1 Longitudinal model .
4.3 F2B Bristol Fighter . . . . .
4.3.1 Lateral model . . . .
4.4 NTNU student cube-satellite

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

37
37
37
38
38
39
40
41
41

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

List of Figures
1.1 Sketch showing a modern ghter aircraft (Stevens and Lewis 1992). . . . . .

2.1 Denition of aircraft body axes, generalized velocities, forces, moments and
Euler angles (McLean 1990). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
2.2 Denition of stability and wind axes for an aircraft (Stevens and Lewis 1992).
2.3 Control inputs for conventional aircraft. Notice that the two ailerons can be
controlled by using one control input: A = 1=2( AL + AR ): . . . . . . . . .
2.4 Lift and drag as a function of angle of attack. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
2.5 Aircraft longitudinal eigenvalue conguration plotted in the complex plane. .

14
22
28

3.1 The NUTS CubeSat project at NTNU- Courtesy to http://nuts.cubesat.no/

31

4.1 Schematic drawing of the Bristol F.2B Fighter (McRuer et al 1973). . . . . .

40

iii

4
5

iv

LIST OF FIGURES

Chapter 1
Introduction
This booklet is a collection of lecture notes used in the course TTK4109 Guidance and Control of Vehicles, which is given at the Department of Engineering Cybernetics, NTNU. The
kinematic and kinetic equations of a marine craft (ships, high-speed craft and underwater
vehicles) can be modied to describe aircraft and satellites by minor adjustments of notation and assumptions. Consequently, the vectorial notation introduced in the two Wiley
textbooks:
Fossen, T. I. (1994). Guidance and Control of Ocean Vehicles
Fossen, T. I. (2011). Handbook of Marine Craft Hydrodynamics and Motion Control
is used to describe the aircraft and satellite equations of motion.

Figure 1.1: Sketch showing a modern ghter aircraft (Stevens and Lewis 1992).
The booklet is organized according to:
Chapter 2: Aircraft Modeling
Chapter 3: Satellite Modeling
Chapter 4: Matlab Simulation Models

CHAPTER 1. INTRODUCTION
Other useful references on ight control are:

Blakelock, J. H. (1991). Aircraft and Missiles (John Wiley & Sons Ltd.)
Etkin, B. and L. D. Reid (1996). Dynamics of Flight: Stability and Control (John
Wiley & Sons Ltd.)
Fortescue, P., G. Swinerd and J. Stark (2011). Spacecraft Systems Engineering (John
Wiley & Sons Ltd.)
Hughes, P. C. (1986). Spacecraft Attitude Dynamics (John Wiley & Sons Ltd.)
McLean, D. (1990). Automatic Flight Control Systems (Prentice Hall Inc.)
McRuer, D., D. Ashkenas and A. I. Graham (1973). Aircraft Dynamics and Automatic Control (Princeton University Press)
Nelson, R. C. (1998). Flight Stability and Automatic Control (McGraw-Hill Int.)
Roskam, J. (1999). Airplane Flight Dynamics and Automatic Flight Controls (Darcorporation)
Schmidt, D. K. (2012). Modern Flight Dynamics (McGraw-Hill Int.)
Stevens, B. L. and F. L. Lewis (2003). Aircraft Control and Simulation (John Wiley
& Sons Ltd.)
Information about the graduate coursesTTK4109 Guidance and Control of Vehicles and
TK8109 Advanced Topics in Guidance and Navigation are found on the Wiki-pages
URL: http://www.itk.ntnu.no/emner/ttk4190
URL: http://www.itk.ntnu.no/emner/tk8109

Thor I. Fossen
Trondheim 3 April 2013

Chapter 2
Aircraft Modeling
This chapter gives an introduction to aircraft modeling. The equations of motion are linearized using perturbation theory and the nal results are state-space models for the longitudinal and lateral motions. The models can be used for aircraft simulation and design of
ight control systems.

2.1

Denition of Aircraft State-Space Vectors

The aircraft generalized velocity vector is dened according to (see Figure 2.1):
2

6
6
6
:= 6
6
6
4

6
6
6
:= 6
6
6
4

3
longitudinal (forward) velocity
7 6 lateral (transverse) velocity
7
7 6
7
7 6 vertical velocity
7
7=6
7
7 6 roll rate
7
7 6
7
5 4 pitch rate
5
yaw rate
3 2
3
XE
Earth-xed x-position
7 6 Earth-xed y-position
7
YE
7 6
7
6
7
ZE ; h 7 6 Earth-xed z-position (axis downwards), altitude 7
7
7 = 6 roll angle
7
7 6
7
5 4 pitch angle
5
yaw angle

U
V
W
P
Q
R

Forces and moments are dened in a similar manner:


2
3
2
X
longitudinal force
6 transverse force
6 Y 7
7
6
6
6 Z 7
6
6
7 := 6 vertical force
6 L 7
6 roll moment
6
7
6
4 M 5
4 pitch moment
yaw moment
N

(2.1)

(2.2)

3
7
7
7
7
7
7
5

(2.3)

Comment 1: Notice that the capital letters L; M; N for the moments are dierent from
3

CHAPTER 2. AIRCRAFT MODELING

Figure 2.1: Denition of aircraft body axes, generalized velocities, forces, moments and Euler
angles (McLean 1990).
those used for marine craftthat is, K; M; N: The reason for this is that L is reserved as
length parameter for ships and underwater vehicles.
Comment 2: For aircraft it is common to use capital letters for the states U; V; W; etc.
while it is common to use small letters for marine craft.

2.2

Body-Fixed Coordinate Systems for Aircraft

For aircraft it is common to use the following body-xed coordinate systems:


BODY axes, superscript b
STABILITY axes, superscript s
WIND axes, superscript w
The axis systems are shown in Figure 2.2 where the angle of attack
are dened as:
W
U
V
sin( ) :=
VT

tan( ) :=

where
VT =

U2 + V 2 + W 2

and sideslip angle

(2.4)
(2.5)

(2.6)

2.2. BODY-FIXED COORDINATE SYSTEMS FOR AIRCRAFT

Figure 2.2: Denition of stability and wind axes for an aircraft (Stevens and Lewis 1992).
is the total speed of the aircraft. Aerodynamic eects are classied according to the Mach
number:
VT
(2.7)
M :=
a
where a = 340 m/s = 1224 km/h is the speed of sound in air at a temperature of 20o C on
the ocean surface. The following terminology is used for varying speed:
Subsonic speed
Transonic speed
Supersonic speed
Hypersonic speed

M < 1:0
0:8 M
1:0 M
5:0 M

1:2
5:0

An aircraft will break the sound barrier at M = 1:0 and this is clearly heard as a sharp
crack. If you y at low altitude and break the sound barrier, windows in building will break
due to pressure-induced waves.

2.2.1

Rotation matrices for wind and stability axes

The relationship between vectors expressed in dierent coordinate systems can be derived
using rotation matrices. The BODY axes are rst rotated a negative sideslip angle
about
the z-axis. The new coordinate system is then rotated a positive angle of attack about
the new y-axis such that the resulting x-axis points in the direction of the total speed VT .
The rst rotation denes the WIND axes while the second rotation denes the STABILITY

CHAPTER 2. AIRCRAFT MODELING

axes. This can be mathematically expressed as:


2
cos( )
pw = Rz; ps = 4 sin( )
0
2
cos( )
0
ps = Ry; pb = 4
sin( )
The rotation matrix becomes:

Rwb = Rz;

3
sin( ) 0
cos( ) 0 5 ps
0
1
3
0 sin( )
5 pb
1
0
0 cos( )

Ry;

(2.8)

(2.9)

(2.10)

Hence,
pw = Rwb pb
m
2
32
3
cos( ) sin( ) 0
cos( ) 0 sin( )
5 pb
0
1
0
pw = 4 sin( ) cos( ) 0 5 4
0
0
1
sin( ) 0 cos( )
m
2
3
cos( ) cos( ) sin( ) sin( ) cos( )
sin( ) sin( ) 5 pb
pw = 4 cos( ) sin( ) cos( )
sin( )
0
cos( )

(2.11)

(2.12)

(2.13)

This gives the following relationship between the velocities in body and wind axes:
2

3
U
>
vb = 4 V 5 = (Rwb )> vw = R>
y; Rz;
W

Consequently,

3 2
3
VT
VT cos( ) cos( )
4 0 5 = 4 VT sin( )
5
0
VT sin( ) cos( )

U = VT cos( ) cos( )
V = VT sin( )
W = VT sin( ) cos( )

2.3
2.3.1

(2.14)

(2.15)

Aircraft Equations of Motion


Kinematic equations for translation

The kinematic equations for translation and rotation of a body-xed coordinate system
BODY with respect to a local geographic coordinate system NED (North-East-Down) can
be expressed in terms or the Euler angles:
2
3
2
3
2
3
X_ E
U
U
4 Y_ E 5 = Rnb 4 V 5 = Rz; Ry; Rx; 4 V 5
(2.16)
_
W
W
ZE

2.3. AIRCRAFT EQUATIONS OF MOTION


Expanding this expression gives:
2
3
2
X_ E
c
s
4 Y_ E 5 = 4 s
c
0
0
Z_ E
m
3
2
_
XE
c c
4 Y_ E 5 = 4 s c
s
Z_ E
2

2.3.2

32
0
c
0 54 0
1
s

32
0 s
1 0
1 0 54 0 c
0 c
0 s

s c +c s s
c c +s s s
c s

32

3
U
54 V 5
W

0
s
c

s s +c c s
c s +s s c
c c

32

(2.17)

U
54 V 5
W

Kinematic equations for attitude

The attitude is given by:


2
3 2
3
2
3
2
3
_
0
0
P
> 4
4 Q 5 = 4 0 5 + R>
4 _ 5 + R>
0 5
x;
x; Ry;
_
R
0
0

which gives:

2.3.3

3 2
_
1 s t
4 _ 5=4 0
c
_
0 s =c
2

c t
s
c =c

32

3
P
54 Q 5;
R

6= 0

(2.18)

(2.19)

Rigid-body kinetics

The aircraft rigid-body kinetics can be expressed as (Fossen 1994, 2011):


m( _ 1 + 2
ICG _ 2 + 2 (ICG

1)

=
2) =

(2.20)
(2.21)

1
2

where 1 := [U; V; W ]T ; 2 := [P; Q; R]T ; 1 := [X; Y; Z]T and 2 := [L; M; N ]T : It is assumed that the coordinate system is located in the aircraft center of gravity (CG). The
resulting model is written:
MRB _ + CRB ( ) = RB
(2.22)
where
MRB =

mI3
O3

3
3

O3 3
ICG

CRB ( ) =

mS(
O3

2)
3

O3 3
S(ICG 2 )

(2.23)

The inertia tensor is dened as (assume that Ixy = Iyz = 0 which corresponds to xz plane
symmetry):
2
3
Ix
0
Ixz
Iy
0 5
ICG := 4 0
(2.24)
Ixz 0
Iz
The forces and moments acting on the aircraft can be expressed as:
RB

g( ) +

(2.25)

CHAPTER 2. AIRCRAFT MODELING

where is a generalized vector that includes aerodynamic and control forces. The gravitational force fG = [0 0 mg]T acts in the CG (origin of the body-xed coordinate system) and
this gives the following vector expressed in NED:
2
3
mg sin( )
6 mg cos( ) sin( ) 7
7
6
6 mg cos( ) cos( ) 7
fG
n >
7
g( ) = (Rb )
=6
(2.26)
6
7
O3 1
0
6
7
4
5
0
0

Hence, the aircraft model can be written in matrix form as:

(2.27)

MRB _ + CRB ( ) + g( ) =
or in component form:
m(U_ + QW RV + g sin( ))
m(V_ + U R W P g cos( ) sin( ))
_ + V P QU g cos( ) cos( ))
m(W
Ix P_ Ixz (R_ + P Q) + (Iz Iy )QR
Iy Q_ + Ixz (P 2 R2 ) + (Ix Iz )P R
Iz R_ Ixz P_ + (Iy Ix )P Q + Ixz QR

2.3.4

=
=
=
=
=
=

X
Y
Z
L
M
N

(2.28)

Sensors and measurement systems

It is common that aircraft sensor systems are equipped with three accelerometers. If the
accelerometers are located in the CG, the measurement equations take the following form:
X
= U_ + QW
m
Y
=
= V_ + U R
m
Z
_ +VP
=
=W
m

axCG =
ayCG
azCG

RV + g sin( )

(2.29)

WP

g cos( ) sin( )

(2.30)

QU

g cos( ) cos( )

(2.31)

In addition to these sensors, an aircraft is equipped with gyros, magnetometers and a sensor
for altitude h and wind speed VT : These sensors are used in inertial navigation systems (INS)
which again use a Kalman lter to compute estimates of U; V; W; P; Q and R as well as the
Euler angles , and : Other measurement systems that are used onboard aircraft are
global navigation satellite systems (GNSS), radar and sensors for angle of attack.

2.4

Perturbation Theory (Linear Theory)

The nonlinear equations of motion can be linearized by using perturbation theory. This is
illustrated below.

2.4. PERTURBATION THEORY (LINEAR THEORY)

2.4.1

Denition of nominal and perturbation values

According to linear theory it is possible to write the states as the sum of a nominal value
(usually constant) and a perturbation (deviation from the nominal value). Moreover,
Total state = Nominal value + Perturbation
The following denitions are made:
2
3 2
X0
6 Y0 7 6
6
7 6
6 Z0 7 6
6
7+6
:= 0 +
=6
7 6
L
0
6
7 6
4 M0 5 4
N0

X
Y
Z
L
M
N

7
7
7
7;
7
7
5

Similar, the angles are dened according to:


2
3
2
4

5 := 4

:=

0
0
0

6
6
6
=6
6
6
4

5+4

U0
V0
W0
P0
Q0
R0

7 6
7 6
7 6
7+6
7 6
7 6
5 4

3
5

u
v
w
p
q
r

3
7
7
7
7
7
7
5

(2.32)

(2.33)

Consequently, a linearized state-space model will consist of the following states u; v; w; p; q; r; ;


and :

2.4.2

Linearization of the rigid-body kinetics

The rigid-body kinetics can be linearized by using perturbation theory.


Equilibrium condition
If the aerodynamic forces and moments, velocities, angles and control inputs are expressed
as nominal values and perturbations = 0 + ; = 0 +
and = 0 + ; the aircraft
equilibrium point will satisfy (it is assumed that _ 0 = 0):
CRB (

0) 0

+ g(

0)

(2.34)

This can be expanded according to:


m(Q0 W0 R0 V0 + g sin( 0 ))
m(U0 R0 P0 W0 g cos( 0 ) sin( 0 ))
m(P0 V0 Q0 U0 g cos( 0 ) cos( 0 ))
(Iz Iy )Q0 R0 P0 Q0 Ixz
2
(P0 R02 )Ixz + (Ix Iz )P0 R0
(Iy Ix )P0 Q0 + Q0 R0 Ixz

=
=
=
=
=
=

X0
Y0
Z0
L0
M0
N0

(2.35)

10

CHAPTER 2. AIRCRAFT MODELING

Perturbed equations
The perturbed equationsthat is, the linearized equations of motion are usually derived by
a 1st-order Taylor series expansion about the nominal values. Alternatively, it is possible
to substitute (2.32) and (2.35) into (2.27) and neglect higher-order terms of the perturbed
states. This is illustrated for the rst degree of freedom (DOF):
Example 1 (Linearization of surge using perturbation theory)
m[U_ + QW

m[U_ 0 + u_ + (Q0 + q)(W0 + w)

RV + g sin( )] = X
+
(2.36)
(R0 + r)(V0 + v) + g sin( 0 + )] = X0 + X

This can be written:


sin(

+ ) = sin(

0 ) cos(

) + cos(

0 ) sin(

small

sin(

0)

+ cos(

(2.37)

0)

Since U_ 0 = 0 and
m(Q0 W0

R0 V0 + g sin(

0 ))

(2.38)

= X0

Equation (2.36) is reduced to:


m[u_ + Q0 w + W0 q + wq

R0 v

V0 r

vr + g cos(

0)

(2.39)

]= X

If it is assumed that the 2nd-order terms wq and vr are negligible, the linearized model
becomes:
m[u_ + Q0 w + W0 q R0 v V0 r + g cos( 0 ) ] = X
(2.40)

Linear state-space model for aircraft


If all DOFs are linearized, the following state-space model is obtained:
m[u_ + Q0 w + W0 q R0 v V0 r + g cos( 0 ) ]
m[v_ + U0 r + R0 u W0 p P0 w g cos( 0 ) cos( 0 ) + g sin( 0 ) sin( 0 ) ]
m[w_ + V0 p + P0 v U0 q Q0 u + g cos( 0 ) sin( 0 ) + g sin( 0 ) cos( 0 ) ]
Ix p_ Ixz r_ + (Iz Iy )(Q0 r + R0 q) Ixz (P0 q + Q0 p)
Iy q_ + (Ix Iz )(P0 r + R0 p) 2Ixz (R0 r + P0 p)
Iz r_ Ixz p_ + (Iy Ix )(P0 q + Q0 p) + Ixz (Q0 r + R0 q)

=
=
=
=
=
=

X
Y
Z
L (2.41)
M
N

This can be expressed in matrix form as:


MRB _ + NRB + G =

(2.42)

2.4. PERTURBATION THEORY (LINEAR THEORY)


where

MRB

6
6
6 0
= 6
6
6
4
2

NRB

6
6
6
= 6
6
6
4

6
6
6
G = 6
6
6
4

0
m
0
03

0
mR0
mQ0

03

03

0
0
m
3

03
Ix
0
Ixz

mR0 mQ0
0
P0
mP0
0

0
Iy
0

11

Ixz
0
Iz

7
7
7
7
7
7
5

0
W0
mV0
Ixz Q0
(Iz
(Ix Iz )R0
(Iy Ix )Q0 (Iy

mW0
mV0
0
U0
mU0
0
Iy )R0 Ixz P0
(Iz Iy )Q0
03 3
2Ixz P0
(Ix Iz )P0 2Ixz R0
Ix )P0 + Ixz R0
Ixz Q0
3
0
mg cos( 0 )
0
mg cos( 0 ) cos( 0 ) mg sin( 0 ) sin( 0 ) 0 7
7
mg cos( 0 ) sin( 0 ) mg sin( 0 ) cos( 0 ) 0 7
7
7
7
5
03 3

In addition to this, the kinematic equations must be linearized.

2.4.3

Linear state-space model based using wind and stability axes

An alternative state-space model is obtained by using and as states. If it is assumed


that and are small such that cos( ) 1 and sin( )
; Equation (2.15) can be written
as:
U = VT
U = VT
V = VT

W = VT
Furthermore, the state-space vector:
2
u
6
6
6
x=6
6 p
6
4 q
r

7 6
7 6
7 6
7=6
7 6
7 6
5 4

V
VT

W
VT

surge velocity
sideslip angle
angle of attack
roll rate
pitch rate
yaw rate

(2.43)

3
7
7
7
7
7
7
5

(2.44)

is chosen to describe motions in 6 DOF. The relationship between the body-xed velocity
vector:
= [u; v; w; p; q; r]T
(2.45)
and the new state-space vector x can be written as:
= Tx = diagf1; VT ; VT ; 1; 1; 1; 1gx

(2.46)

3
7
7
7
7
7
7
5

12

CHAPTER 2. AIRCRAFT MODELING

where VT > 0: If the total speed is VT = U0 = constant (linear theory), it is seen that:
_
_
V_ T

1
w_
VT
1
=
v_
VT
= 0
=

(2.47)
(2.48)
(2.49)

If nonlinear theory is applied, the following dierential equations are obtained:


_
_
V_ T

_
UW
W U_
U2 + W 2
V_ VT V V_ T
=
VT2 cos
_
U U_ + V V_ + W W
=
VT
=

(2.50)
(2.51)
(2.52)

In the linear case it is possible to transform the body-xed state-space model:


_ = F + Gu

(2.53)

x_ = Ax + Bu

(2.54)

to
where
A = T 1 FT;

B = T 1G

(2.55)

For V_ T 6= 0 this transformation is much more complicated. The linear state-space transformation is commonly used by aircraft manufactures. An example is the Boeing B-767 model
(see Chapter 4).

2.5

Decoupling in Longitudinal and Lateral Modes

For an aircraft it is common to assume that the longitudinal modes (DOFs 1, 3 and 5)
are decoupled from the lateral modes (DOFs 2, 4 and 6). The key assumption is that the
fuselage is slenderthat is, the length is much larger than the width and the height of the
aircraft. It is also assumed that the longitudinal velocity is much larger than the vertical
and transversal velocities.
In order to decouple the rigid-body kinetics (2.41) in longitudinal and lateral modes it
will be assumed that the states v; p; r and are negligible in the longitudinal channel while
u; w; q and are negligible when considering the lateral channel. This gives two sub-systems:

2.5. DECOUPLING IN LONGITUDINAL AND LATERAL MODES

2.5.1

13

Longitudinal equations

Kinetics:

m[w_

m[u_ + Q0 w + W0 q + g cos(
U0 q Q0 u + g sin( 0 ) cos(

32
3 2
m 0 0
u_
4 0 m 0 5 4 w_ 5 + 4
0 0 Iy
q_

0)

] =
0) ] =
Iy q_ =

32
0
mQ0 mW0
mQ0
0
mU0 5 4
0
0
0
2
3
mg cos( 0 )
4 mg sin( 0 ) cos( 0 ) 5
0

X
Z
M
3
u
w 5+
q
2

3
X
=4 Z 5
M

(2.56)

(2.57)

Kinematics:
_ =q

2.5.2

(2.58)

Lateral equations

Kinetics:

m[v_ + U0 r W0 p g cos( 0 ) cos( 0 ) ] =


Ix p_ Ixz r_ + (Iz Iy )Q0 r Ixz Q0 p =
Iz r_ Ixz p_ + (Iy Ix )Q0 p + Ixz Q0 r =
2

m
4 0
0

0
Ix
Ixz

Y
L
N

32 3 2
32 3
0
v_
0
mW0
mU0
v
5
4
5
4
5
4
Ixz
p_ + 0
Ixz Q0
(Iz Iy )Q0
p 5+
Iz
r_
0 (Iy Ix )Q0
Ixz Q0
r
2
3
2
3
mg cos( 0 ) cos( 0 )
Y
4
5 =4 L 5
0
0
N

(2.59)

(2.60)

Kinematics:
_
_

1 tan( 0 )
0 1= cos( 0 )

p
r

(2.61)

14

CHAPTER 2. AIRCRAFT MODELING

Figure 2.3: Control inputs for conventional aircraft. Notice that the two ailerons can be
controlled by using one control input: A = 1=2( AL + AR ):

2.6

Aerodynamic Forces and Moments

In the forthcoming sections, the following abbreviations and notation will be used to describe
the aerodynamic coe cients:
Xindex =

@X
@ index

Lindex =

@L
@ index

Yindex =

@Y
@ index

Mindex =

@M
@ index

Zindex =

@Z
@ index

Nindex =

@N
@ index

In order to illustrate how control surfaces inuence the aircraft, an aircraft equipped with
the following control inputs will be considered (see Figure 2.3):

2.6. AERODYNAMIC FORCES AND MOMENTS


T

Thrust

Elevator

Aileron

Flaps

Rudder

15

Jet/propeller
Control surfaces on the rear of the aircraft used for pitch and
altitude control
Hinged control surfaces attached to the trailing edge of the wing used
for roll/bank control
Hinged surfaces on the trailing edge of the wings used for braking
and bank-to-turn
Vertical control surface at the rear of the aircraft used for turning

A conventional aircraft has control surfaces such as ailerons A , elevators E , aps F and
rudders R . A positive deection of the control surfaces are to give a negative aerodynamic
moment on the aircraft. Some of the control surfaces, like the ailerons, deects simultaneously in an asymmetric manner. If an aircraft has two ailerons AL and AR , the aileron
deection is computed by:
1
(2.62)
AL )
A = ( AR
2
Other control surfaces, such as elevators, deect symmetrically. If an aircraft has two elevators EL and ER , the elevator deections become:
E

1
= (
2

ER

(2.63)

EL )

Linear theory
The number of aerodynamic coe cients is reduced if linear theory is assumed. The control
inputs and aerodynamic forces and moments can be written as:
=

MF _

NF

(2.64)

+ Bu

where MF is aerodynamic added mass, NF is aerodynamic damping and B is a matrix


describing the actuator conguration including the force coe cients. The actuator dynamics
is modeled by a 1st-order system:
u_ = T 1 (uc

(2.65)

u)

where uc is commanded input, u is the actual control input produced by the actuators and
T = diag{T1 ; T2 ; :::; Tr } is a diagonal matrix of positive time constants. Substitution of (2.64)
into the model (2.42) gives:
(MRB + MF ) _ + (NRB + NF ) + G
M_ + N + G

= Bu
m
= Bu

(2.66)

The matrices M and N are dened as M = MRB + MF and N = NRB + NF . The linearized
kinematics takes the following form:
_ =J
The resulting state-space models are:

+J

(2.67)

16

CHAPTER 2. AIRCRAFT MODELING

Linear state-space model with actuator dynamics


2 3 2
32 3 2
3
_
J
J
0
0
4 _ 5 = 4 M 1G
M 1 N M 1 B 5 4 5 + 4 0 5 uc
u_
0
0
T 1
u
T 1

(2.68)

Linear state-space model neglecting the actuator dynamics


_
_

2.6.1

J
M 1G

J
M 1N

0
M 1B

(2.69)

Longitudinal aerodynamic forces and moments

McLean [7] expresses the longitudinal forces and moments as:


32
3
32
3 2
3 2
u
u_
Xu Xw Xq
dX
Xu_ Xw_ Xq_
4 dZ 5 = 4 Zu_ Zw_ Zq_ 5 4 w_ 5 + 4 Zu Zw Zq 5 4 w 5 +
q
q_
Mq Mw Mq
Mu_ Mw_ Mq_
dM
3
2
32
XT XE XF
T
4 Z
Z E Z F 54 E 5
T
MT ME MF
F
2

(2.70)

which corresponds to the matrices MF ; NF and B in (2.64). If the aircraft cruise speed
U0 = constant, then T = 0: Altitude can be controlled by using the elevators E : Flaps F
can be used to reduce the speed during landing. The aps can also be used to turn harder
for instance by moving one ap while the other is kept at the zero position. This is common
in bank-to-turn maneuvers. For conventional aircraft the following aerodynamic coe cients
can be neglected:
Xu_ ; Xq ; Xw_ ; X E ; Zu_ ; Zw_ ; Mu_
(2.71)
Hence, the model for altitude control reduces to:
2
3 2
32
3 2
32
3 2
3
dX
0 0
Xq_
u_
X u Xw 0
u
XE
4 dZ 5 = 4 0 0
Zq_ 5 4 w_ 5 + 4 Zu Zw Zq 5 4 w 5 + 4 Z E 5
dM
0 Mw_ Mq_
q_
Mq Mw Mq
q
ME

(2.72)

If the actuator dynamics is important, aerodynamic coe cients such as X _ T ; X _ E ; ::: must
be included in the model.

2.6.2

Lateral aerodynamic forces and moments

The lateral model takes the form [7]:

2.7. PROPELLER THRUST

17

3 2
32 3 2
32 3 2
3
dY
Yv_ Yp_ Yr_
v_
Yv Yp Yr
v
YA YR
4 dL 5 = 4 Lv_ Lp_ Lr_ 5 4 p_ 5 + 4 Lv Lp Lr 5 4 p 5 + 4 L A L R 5
dN
Nv_ Np_ Nr_
r_
Nv Np Nr
r
NA NR

A
R

(2.73)
which corresponds to the matrices MF ; NF and B in (2.64). For conventional aircraft
the following aerodynamic coe cients can be neglected:
Yv_ ; Yp ; Yp_ ; Yr ; Yr_ ; Y

A;

(2.74)

Lv_ ; Lr_ ; Nv_ ; Nr_

This gives:
2

3 2
32 3 2
32 3 2
3
0
YR
dY
0 0
0
v_
Yv 0
0
v
4 dL 5 = 4 0 Lp_ 0 5 4 p_ 5 + 4 Lv Lp Lr 5 4 p 5 + 4 L
LR 5
A
dN
0 Np_ 0
r_
Nv Np Nr
r
NA NR

2.7

(2.75)

Propeller Thrust

The thrust from a propeller can be modeled as:


T = Kt n 2 D 4
where
T
Kt
n
D

(2.76)

Thrust force [N]


Thrust coe cient
Density of air [kg/m3 ]
Propeller angular velocity [rad/s]
Propeller diameter [m]

Assuming that the trust force acts in the horizontal plane of fbg, and parallel with the
xb -axis, it can be expressed in fbg as:
3 2
2
3
Xt
T
ftb = 4 Yt 5 = 4 0 5
(2.77)
Zt
0

If the line of action of the thrust is not directed through CO, it will in addition generate an
applied moment given by
2
3
Lt
mbt = 4 Mt 5 = rbt=b ftb = S(rbt=b )ftb
Nt
2
3
0
= 4 T rtz 5
(2.78)
T rty

18

CHAPTER 2. AIRCRAFT MODELING

where rbt=b = [rtx ; rty ; rtz ]> is the location of the propeller with respect to CO.
Sometimes the eects due to the rotating mass caused by the propeller must be considered
as an applied moment. This is because the equations of motion has been derived by assuming
that the aircraft is a rigid body with no internal moving parts. The applied moment due to
the rotating mass caused by the propeller is given by:
i

mbp =

d b
h
dt p

(2.79)

where hbp is the angular momentum of the rotating mass, and is given in fbg as:
2

Ip
b
4
0
hp =
0

3
5

(2.80)

where Ip is the inertia of the rotating mass and p is the angular velocity. Assuming the
angular velocity of the rotating mass is constant:
2
3
Lp
i
b
d
d
mbp = 4 Mp 5 = hbp = hbp + ! bb=n hbp
dt
dt
Np
= ! bb=n
2

hbp = S(! bb=n )hbp


3

0
4
Ip p R 5
=
Ip p Q

The total forces and moments due to thrust,


t

2.8

(2.81)

are:

ftb
S(rbt=g )ftb + S(! bb=n )hbp

(2.82)

Aerodynamic Coe cients

Dierent methods can be used to estimate the aerodynamic coe cients such as wind tunnel
experiments or system identication based on logged experimental data from the aircraft.
The aircraft equations of motion can be quite simple if the aircraft is not highly maneuverable. The more maneuverable aircraft, the more coe cients are needed to accurately
describe the aerodynamic forces and moments.
The aerodynamic coe cients are usually linear at small angles of angle of attack and
sideslip. The most important parameters used to describe an airfoil are:
b
c
c
S
AR = b2 =S

Wing span (tip to tip)


Wing chord (varies along span)
Mean aerodynamic chord
Total wing area
Aspect ratio

2.8. AERODYNAMIC COEFFICIENTS

19

Aircraft with delta-shaped wings often have a low-aspect ratio, AR. A low-aspect ratio
permits very high roll rates, but have a greatly reduced lift-over-drag. High lift-over-drag
gives an aircraft that has eective cruise performance, that is passenger jets.
The aerodynamic forces and moments are often proportional to the freestream mass
density, a , and the square of the freestream airspeed, VT . It is thus convenient to dene the
dynamic pressure, q, which is later used to calculate the aerodynamic forces and moments:
1
(2.83)
q = a VT2
2

2.8.1

Aerodynamic forces and moments

The aerodynamic forces and moments acting on an aircraft can be parametrized as:
2
3
2
3
Xa
CX
fab = 4 Ya 5 = qS 4 CY 5
(2.84)
Za
Cz
2
3
2
3
La
bCl
mba = 4 Ma 5 = qS 4 cCm 5
(2.85)
Na
bCn

where the aerodynamic coe cients CX and CZ often are replaced by expressions that are
functions of the drag coe cient CD and the lift coe cient CL (see Figure 2.4). Positive drag
and lift coe cients are directed along the xs and zs stability axes, respectively, such that:
2
3
2
3
CD
CX
4 0 5 = Rsb 4 0 5
CL
CZ
2
32
3
cos( ) 0 sin( )
CX
54 0 5
0
1
0
=4
(2.86)
sin( ) 0 cos( )
CZ

Hence, the aerodynamic forces can then be rewritten as:


3
2
3
2
2
0
Xa
fab = 4 Ya 5 = qS 4 CY 5 + qSRbs 4
0
Za
2
3
CD cos( ) + CL sin( )
5
CY
= qS 4
CD sin( ) CL cos( )

3
CD
0 5
CL
(2.87)

The generalized aerodynamic forces become:


a

fab
mba

(2.88)

The aerodynamic coe cients Ci , i = D; Y; L; l; m; n, are in general functions of angle of


attack , sideslip angle , Mach number M , altitude h, control surface deections S and
the thrust coe cient:
T
(2.89)
TC =
qSD

20

CHAPTER 2. AIRCRAFT MODELING

where SD is the area of the disc swept out by a propeller blade. Therefore, the aerodynamic
coe cients are functions:
Ci = Ci ( ; ; M; h; S ; TC )
(2.90)
where i = D; Y; L; l; m; n. Consequently, the aerodynamic coe cients may have complicated
dependences, which are hard to model with great accuracy. If the aircraft has restricted
ight modes, thts is restricted to low Mach numbers and small angles of attack and sideslip,
the aerodynamic coe cients may be greatly simplied. The complicated dependency may
then be broken into a sum of simpler linear terms.

2.8.2

Drag coe cient

The drag of an aircraft is one of the most important features to model. By reducing drag,
the fuel consumption is reduced, thus giving higher range, and in addition higher maximum
cruise speed. The total drag of an aircraft is usually taken as the sum of the following drag
components:
Parasite drag = friction drag + form drag
Induced drag (eect of wing-tip vortices)
Wave drag (eect of shock waves)
where
Friction drag also known as skin friction, describes the friction of the uid against the
surface of the aircraft. The friction drag is proportional to the area in contact with
the uid, also known as the wetted area.
Form drag is the pressure drag caused by ow separation at high alpha.
Induced Drag also known as vortex drag, is the pressure drag caused by the tip vortices
of a nite wing when it is producing lift.
Wave drag is the pressure drag caused if shock waves are present over the surface of the
aircraft. The wave drag becomes signicant at Mach numbers M > 0:4 for a ghter
aircraft, where the ow reaches supersonic speed.
The friction drag often varies parabolically with the lift coe cient, while the induced
drag can often be modeled as:
CL2
(2.91)
CDi =
eAR
where e is the e ciency factor, close to unity, and AR is the aspect ratio. The total drag of
an aircraft takes the form:
CD (CL ; M ) = k(M ) (CL

CLDM )2 + CDM (M )

(2.92)

2.8. AERODYNAMIC COEFFICIENTS

21

where k(M ) is a proportionality constant that varies with the Mach number. In addition,
the drag coe cient may be a function of the control surfaces and landing gear. A more
general equation for the drag coe cient is:
CD = CD ( ; ; M; h) +

CD (M;

E)

CD (M;

R)

CD (

F)

CD (gear) +

(2.93)

A linear approximation of this expressions is:


CD = CD0 + CD

2.8.3

+ CD

+ CD

+ CD

(2.94)

Lift coe cient

The lift coe cient, CL , is in general mainly determined by the fuselage, wings and their
interference eects. It is also a function of Mach and the angle of attack. The lift coe cient
is usually quite linear with a until near stall, where it drops sharply, and then may rise again
before falling to zero at large angles of attack (see Figure 2.4). A general equation for the
lift coe cient is given in
CL = CL ( ; ; M; TC ) +

CL (

F)

CLge (h)

(2.95)

where CLge (h) is the increment of lift due to ground eect. A typical simple linear model
structure for the lift coe cient is given in
CL = CL0 + CL

2.8.4

+ CL

(2.96)

Sideforce coe cient

The sideforce coe cient, CY , is in general mainly determined by sideslip and rudder deection. It is often quite linear in sideslip angle , and a positive sideslip will give a negative
sideforce. A typical expression for the sideforce coe cient is:
b
CYp ( ; M )P + CYr ( ; M )R
2VT
(2.97)
A typical simple linear model structure for the sideforce coe cient is given in
CY = CY ( ; ; M )+ CY R ( ; ; M;

R )+

C Y = C Y0 + C Y

2.8.5

CY A ( ; ; M;

+ CY

A )+

+ CY

(2.98)

Rolling moment coe cient

The rolling moment coe cient, Cl , is in general mainly determined by sideslip and by control
action of the ailerons and the rudder. It is often quite linear in sideslip angle and a positive
sideslip will give a negative rolling moment. A typical expression for the rolling moment
coe cient is:
Cl = Cl ( ; ; M )+ Cl A ( ; ; M;

A )+

Cl R ( ; ; M;

R )+

b
Clp ( ; M )P + Clr ( ; M )R
2VT
(2.99)

22

CHAPTER 2. AIRCRAFT MODELING

Figure 2.4: Lift and drag as a function of angle of attack.


A linear model for the rolling moment coe cient is:
Cl = Cl 0 + Cl

2.8.6

+ Cl

+ Cl

+ Clp

b
b
P + Cl r
R
2VT
2VT

(2.100)

Pitching moment coe cient

The pitching moment coe cient, Cm , is in general mainly determined by angle of attack
and by control action of the elevators. It may be quite linear in angle of attack, and
a positive angle of attack will give a negative pitching moment. A typical model for the
pitching moment coe cient is:
Cm = Cm ( ; M; h; F ; TC ) + Cm e ( ; M; h; E )
c
xR
+
Cmq ( ; M; h)Q + Cm _ ( ; M; h) _ +
CL
2VT
c
+ Cmth ru st ( T ; M; h) + Cmg e a r (h)

(2.101)

The term xcR CL is used to correct for any x-displacement of the aircraft CG from the aerodynamic data reference position. The second last term represents the eect of the engine thrust
vector not passing through the aircraft CG, while the last term represents the moment due
to the landing-gear doors and the landing gear. A linear model for the pitching moment
coe cient takes the form:
c
Cm = Cm0 + Cm + Cm e e + Cmq
Q
(2.102)
2VT

2.9. STANDARD AIRCRAFT MANEUVERS

2.8.7

23

Yawing moment coe cient

The yawing moment coe cient, Cn , is in general mainly determined by the sideslip angle
and by control action of the rudders. It is quite linear in sideslip for small angles of attack
, where a positive sideslip will give a positive yawing moment. A general equation for
the yawing moment coe cient is given by:
Cn = Cn ( ; ; M; TC ) + Cn R ( ; ; M; R ) +
b
+
Cnp ( ; M )P + Cnr ( ; M )R
2VT

Cn A ( ; ; M;

A)

(2.103)

A linear model for the yawing moment coe cient is gven by:
Cn = Cn0 + Cn

2.8.8

+ Cn

+ Cn

+ Cn p

b
b
P + Cnr
R
2VT
2VT

(2.104)

Equations of motion including aerodynamic coe cients

The resulting equations of motion including the aerodynamic coe cients are:
T
qS
+
CX
m
m
qS
V_ = W P U R + g cos( ) sin( ) +
CY
m
_ = U Q V P + g cos( ) cos( ) + qS CZ
W
m
Iz Iy
Ixz
qbS
Ixz _
R=
QR +
PQ +
Cl
Ix
Ix
Ix
Ix
Ix Iz
Ixz 2
T rtz
Ip
qSc
Q_ =
PR
(P
R2 ) +
+
Cm
pR +
Iy
Iy
Iy
Iy
Iy
T rty
Ixz _
Iy Ix
Ixz
Ip
qSb
P =
PQ
QR
Cn
pQ +
Iz
Iz
Iz
Iz
Iz
Iz
U_ = V R

P_

R_

2.9

WQ

g sin( ) +

Standard Aircraft Maneuvers

The nominal values depends on the aircraft maneuver. For instance:


1. Straight ight:

2. Symmetric ight:

= Q0 = R0 = 0
0

= V0 = 0

3. Flying with wings level:

= P0 = 0

Constant angular rate maneuvers can be classied according to:


1. Steady turn: R0 = constant
2. Steady pitching ight: Q0 = constant
3. Steady rolling/spinning ight: P0 = constant

(2.105)
(2.106)
(2.107)
(2.108)
(2.109)
(2.110)

24

2.9.1

CHAPTER 2. AIRCRAFT MODELING

Dynamic equation for coordinated turn (bank-to-turn)

A frequently used maneuver is coordinated turn where the acceleration in the y-direction is
zero ( _ = 0), sideslip = 0 and zero steady-state pitch and roll anglesthat is,

=
=

_ =0
0 = 0

(2.111)
(2.112)

Furthermore it is assumed that VT = U0 = constant. Since = _ = 0 and = V =U0 it


follows that V = V_ = 0: This implies that the external forces Y = 0: From (2.28) it is seen
that:
m[V_ + U R
m[(U0 + u)(R0 + r)

WP

g cos( ) sin( )] = Y
+
(W0 + w)(P0 + p) g cos( ) sin( )] = Y0

(2.113)
(2.114)

Assume that the longitudinal and lateral motions are decoupledthat is, u = w = q = = 0:
If perturbation theory is applied under the assumption that the 2nd-order terms ur = pw =
0;we get:
m(U0 R0 + U0 r W0 P0 W0 p g sin( )) = Y0
(2.115)
The equilibrium equation (2.35) gives the steady-state condition:
m(U0 R0

(2.116)

W0 P0 ) = Y0

Substitution of (2.116) into (2.115) gives:


m(U0 r

W0 p

or
r=

W0
g
p+
sin( )
U0
U0

The aircraft is often trimmed such that the angle of attack


that the yaw rate can be expressed as:
r=

(2.117)

g sin( )) = 0

g
sin( )
U0

small

g
U0

(2.118)
0

= W0 =U0 = 0. This implies

(2.119)

which is a very important result since it states that a roll angle angle dierent from zero
will induce a yaw rate r which again turns the aircraft (bank-to-turn). With other words, we
can use a moment in roll, for instance generated by the ailerons, to turn the aircraft. The
yaw angle is given by:
_ =r
(2.120)
An alternative method is of course to turn the aircraft by using the rear rudder to generate
a yaw moment. The bank-to-turn principle is used in many missile control systems since it
improves maneuverability, in particular in combination with a rudder controlled system.

2.9. STANDARD AIRCRAFT MANEUVERS

25

Example 2 (Augmented turning model using rear rudders)


Turning autopilots using the rudder R as control input is based on the lateral state-space
model. The dierential equation for is augmented on the lateral model as shown below:
2
3 2
32
3 2
3
v_
a11 a12 a13 a14 0
v
b11
6 p_ 7 6 a21 a22 a23 0 0 7 6 p 7 6 b21 7
6
7 6
76
7 6
7
6 r_ 7 = 6 a31 a32 a33 0 0 7 6 r 7 + 6 b31 7 R
(2.121)
6
7 6
76
7 6
7
4 _ 5 4 0
5 4 0 5
1
0
0 0 54
_
0
0
1
0 0
0

Example 3 (Augmented bank-to-turn model using ailerons)


Bank-to-turn autopilots are designed using the lateral state-space model with ailerons as
control inputs, for instance A = 1=2( AL + AR ). This is done by augmenting the bank-toturn equation (2.119) to the state-space model according to:
2
6
6
6
6
4

2.9.2

v_
p_
r_
_
_

7 6
7 6
7=6
7 6
5 4

a11 a12 a13 a14


a21 a22 a23 0
a31 a32 a33 0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0 Ug0

0
0
0
0
0

32
76
76
76
76
54

v
p
r

b11
b21
b31
0
0

7 6
7 6
7+6
7 6
5 4

3
7
7
7
7
5

(2.122)

Dynamic equation for altitude control

Aircraft altitude control systems are designed by considering the equation for the vertical
acceleration in the center of gravity expressed in NED coordinates; see (2.28). This gives:
_ +VP
azCG = W

QU

(2.123)

g cos( ) cos( )

_ 0 = 0,
If the acceleration is perturbed according to azCG = az0 + az and we assume that W
the following equilibrium condition is obtained:
az0 = V0 P0

Q0 U0

g cos(

0 ) cos(

(2.124)

0)

Equation (2.123) can be perturbed as:


az0 + az = w_ + (V0 + v)(P0 + p)

(Q0 + q)(U0 + u)

g cos(

+ ) cos(

+ ) (2.125)

Furthermore, assume that the altitude is changed by symmetric straight-line ight with
horizontal wings such that V0 = 0 = 0 = P0 = Q0 = 0: This gives:
az0 + az = w_ + vp

q(U0 + u)

g cos( ) cos( )

(2.126)

26

CHAPTER 2. AIRCRAFT MODELING

Assume that the 2nd-order terms vp and uq can be neglected and subtract the equilibrium
condition (2.124) from (2.126) such that:
az = w_

(2.127)

U0 q

Dierentiating the altitude twice with respect to time gives the relationship:
=
h

az = U0 q

(2.128)

w_

_
If we integrate this expression under the assumption that h(0)
= U0 (0)
h_ = U0

w(0) = 0, we get:
(2.129)

The ight path is dened as:


(2.130)

:=
where

= w=U0 : This gives the resulting dierential equation for altitude control:
h_ = U0

(2.131)

Example 4 (Augmented model for altitude control using ailerons)


An autopilot model for altitude control based on the longitudinal state-space model with
states u; w(alt. ); q and is obtained by augmenting the dierential equation for h to the
state-space model according to:
2
6
6
6
6
4

2.10

u_
w_
q_
_
h_

7 6
7 6
7+6
7 6
5 4

a11 a12 a13 a14


a21 a22 a23 a24
a31 a32 a33 0
0
0
1
0
0
1 0 U0

0
0
0
0
0

32
76
76
76
76
54

u
w
q
h

7 6
7 6
7+6
7 6
5 4

b11 b12
b21 b22
b31 b32
0
0
0
0

3
7
7
7
7
5

(2.132)

Aircraft Stability Properties

The aircraft stability properties can be investigated by computing the eigenvalues of the
system matrix A using:
det( I
For a matrix A of dimension n

A) = 0

n there is n solutions of :

(2.133)

2.10. AIRCRAFT STABILITY PROPERTIES

2.10.1

27

Longitudinal stability analysis

For conventional aircraft the characteristic equation is of 4th order. Moreover,


(

+2

ph ! ph

+ ! 2ph )(

+2

sp ! sp

+ ! 2sp ) = 0

(2.134)

where the subscripts ph and sp denote the following modi:


Phugoid mode
Short-period mode
The phugoid mode is observed as a long period oscillation with little damping. In some
cases the Phugoid mode can be unstable such that the oscillations increase with time. The
Phugoid mode is characterized by the natural frequency ! ph and relative damping ratio ph :
The short-period mode is a fast mode given by the natural frequency ! sp and relative
damping factor sp : The short-period mode is usually well damped.
Classication of eigenvalues
Conventional aircraft: Conventional aircraft have usually two complex conjugated
pairs of Phugoid and short-period types. For the B-767 model in Chapter 4, the
eigenvalues can be computed using damp.m in Matlab:
a = [
-0.0168
-0.0164
-0.0417
0

0.1121
-0.7771
-3.6595
0

damp(a)
Eigenvalue
-0.0064 + 0.0593i
-0.0064 - 0.0593i
-0.8678 + 1.9061i
-0.8678 - 1.9061i

0.0003
0.9945
-0.9544
1.0000

Damping
0.1070
0.1070
0.4143
0.4143

From this is seen that ! ph = 0:0596,

-0.5608
0.0015
0
0]

Freq. (rad/sec)
0.0596
0.0596
2.0943
2.0943
ph

= 0:1070; ! sp = 2:0943 and

sp

= 0:4143:

Tuck Mode: Supersonic aircraft may have a very large aerodynamic coe cient Mu :
This implies that the oscillatory Phugoid equation gives two real solutions where one
is positive (unstable) and one is negative (stable). This is referred to as the tuck mode
since the phenomenon is observed as a downwards pointing nose (tucking under) for
increasing speed.

28

CHAPTER 2. AIRCRAFT MODELING

Figure 2.5: Aircraft longitudinal eigenvalue conguration plotted in the complex plane.
A third oscillatory mode: For ghter aircraft the center of gravity is often located
behind the neutral point or the aerodynamic centerthat is, the point where the trim
moment Mw w is zero. When this happens, the aerodynamic coe cient Mw takes a
value such that the roots of the characteristic equation has four real solutions. When
the center of gravity is moved backwards one of the roots of the Phugoid and shortperiod modes become imaginary and they form a new complex conjugated pair. This
is usually referred to as the 3rd oscillatory mode. The locations of the eigenvalues are
illustrated in Figure 2.5.

2.10.2

Lateral stability analysis

The lateral characteristic equation is usually of 5th order:


5

( + e)( + f )(

+2

+
D !D

= 0
+
+ ! 2D ) = 0
0

(2.135)
(2.136)

where the term in the last equation corresponds to a pure integrator in rollthat is, _ = r.
The term ( + e) is the aircraft spiral/divergence mode. This is usually a very slow mode.
Spiral/divergence corresponds to horizontally leveled wings followed by roll and a diverging
spiral maneuver.
The term ( +f ) describes the subsidiary roll mode while the 2nd-order system is referred
to as Dutch roll. This is an oscillatory system with a small relative damping factor D : The
natural frequency in Dutch roll is denoted ! D :
If the lateral B-767 Matlab model in Chapter 4 is considered, the Matlab command
damp.m gives:

2.11. DESIGN OF FLIGHT CONTROL SYSTEMS

29

a = [
-0.1245 0.0350 0.0414 -0.9962
-15.2138 -2.0587 0.0032 0.6450
0 1.0000 0
0.0357
1.6447 -0.0447 -0.0022 -0.1416
damp(a)
Eigenvalue
-0.0143
-0.1121 + 1.4996i
-0.1121 - 1.4996i
-2.0863

Damping
1.0000
0.0745
0.0745
1.0000

Freq. (rad/sec)
0.0143
1.5038
1.5038
2.0863

In this example we only get four eigenvalues since the pure integrator in yaw is not
include in the system matrix. It is seen that the spiral mode is given by e = 0:0143 while
the subsidiary roll mode is given by f = 2:0863. Dutch roll is recognized by ! D = 0:0745
and D = 1:5038.

2.11

Design of ight control systems

A detailed introduction to design of ight control systems are given by [7], [11], [8] and [12].
The control system are based on linear design techniques using linearized models similar to
those discussed in the sections above.

30

CHAPTER 2. AIRCRAFT MODELING

Chapter 3
Satellite Modeling
When stabilizing satellites in geostationary orbits only the attitude of the satellite is of
interest since the position is given by the Earths rotation. Figure 3.1 shows the NUTS
CubeSat project at NTNU.

3.1
3.1.1

Attitude Model
Eulers 2nd Axiom applied to satellites

The rigid-body kinetics (2.21) gives:


ICG !_ + !

(ICG !) =

(3.1)

were ! = [p; q; r]> and ICG = I>


CG > 0 is the inertia tensor about the center of gravity given
by:
2
3
Ix
Ixy
Ixz
Iyz 5
ICG = 4 Ixy Iy
(3.2)
Ixz
Iyz
Iz
Both the Euler angles and quaternions can be used to represent attitude. Moreover,
q_ = Tq (q)!

(3.3)

Figure 3.1: The NUTS CubeSat project at NTNU- Courtesy to http://nuts.cubesat.no/


31

32

CHAPTER 3. SATELLITE MODELING


_ = T ( )!

(3.4)

where q = [ ; "1 ; "2 ; "3 ]> ; = [ ; ; ]> and


2
3
1 sin( ) tan( ) cos( ) tan( )
5;
cos( )
sin( )
T ( ) = 4 0
0 sin( )= cos( ) cos( )= cos( )
2
3
"1
"2
"3
16
"3 "2 7
6
7
Tq (q) =
"1 5
2 4 "3
"2 "1

cos( ) 6= 0

(3.5)

(3.6)

The satellite has three controllable moments = [ 1 ; 2 ; 3 ]> ; which can be generated using
dierent actuators. Magnetic actuators are described in Section 3.2.

3.1.2

Skew-symmetric representation of the satellite model

The dynamic model (3.1) can also be written:


ICG !_

(ICG !)

(3.7)

!=

where we have used the fact that a b = b a. Furthermore, it is possible to nd a


matrix S(!) such that S(!) = S> (!) is skew-symmetric. With other words:
(3.8)

ICG !_ + S(!)! =
The matrix S(!) must satisfy the condition:
S(!)!

(ICG !)

A matrix satisfying this condition is:


2
0
Iyz q Ixz p + Iz r
0
S(!) = 4 Iyz q + Ixz p Iz r
Iyz r Ixy p + Iy q Ixz r + Ixy q Ix p

3.2

(3.9)

3
Iyz r + Ixy p Iy q
Ixz r Ixy q + Ix p 5
0

(3.10)

Actuator Dynamics

Magnetic actuators are used to control the NUTS cube-satellite, which is a student satellite
project at NTNU. The magnetic actuators are cheap, solid-state and energy-e cient. Due
to variations of the magnetic eld for a moving satellite, modeling and control may be
challenging. An analogy could be an airplane moving through a various density atmospheres,
suddenly leaving you with limited control of either roll, pitch or yaw.
When applying an electrical current through the windings of the coils, a magnetic dipole
moment is generated. When this eld reacts with the magnetic eld surrounding the Earth,
a magnetic torque is generated, which makes the satellite move. Let the Earths magnetic

3.2. ACTUATOR DYNAMICS

33

eld in BODY coordinates be denoted by Bb = [Bx ; By ; Bz ]> while the magnetic eld mb =
[mx ; my ; mz ]> set up by the actuators is:
2

Nx Ax Vx
Rx
Ny Ay Vy
Ry
Nz Az Vz
Rz

6
mb = 4

= Kcoil V

where

and for n = x; y; z;

6
Kcoil = 4

N x Ax
Rx

0
0

0
N y Ay
Ry

0
0
N z Az
Rz

3
7
5

7
5;

(3.11)
(3.12)
2

3
Vx
V = 4 Vy 5
Vz

(3.13)

Nn is the number of turns with copper thread in the coil


An is the area of the coil
Vn is the voltage over the coil
Rn is the resistance of the coil
Then, the torque becomes:
= mb

Bb

= S( Bb )mb
where

0
b
4
Bz
S( B ) =
By

Bz
0
Bx

(3.14)
3
By
Bx 5
0

(3.15)

For control purposes, we usually assign , however, the satellite only accepts voltage signals
as input, and not torque. It is straightforward to nd the magnetic eld mb due to the
actuators:
mb =
Bb
(3.16)
In view of (3.13), one may nd the relation between voltages and the torque vector:
1
V = Kcoil

Bb

(3.17)

The matrix Kcoil , usually referred to as the control allocation matrix, is a constant matrix.
Note that Bb will change throughout the orbit.
According to (3.14), b always lies in the plane perpendicular to Bb . Suppose that d is
the torque that the controller produces. It is required that d lies in the plane perpendicular

34

CHAPTER 3. SATELLITE MODELING

to Bb . It implies that only represents the component of d that is perpendicular to Bb . To


2
avoid unnecessary use of electricity, the length of d is scaled down by 1= Bb . Accordingly,
mb =
+
=
Let

be the angle between

1
(
kBb k2

Bb )

1
(
kBb k2

Bb )

(3.18)

Bb

and Bb . The magnitude of

(3.19)
is given by:

1
b
sin( ) Bb
2 k dk B
b
kB k
= k d k sin( )

k k=

3.3

(3.20)

Design of Satellite Attitude Control Systems

Design of nonlinear trajectory-tracking control systems for Hamiltonian systems in the form
(3.8) is quite common in the literature. One example is the nonlinear and passive adaptive attitude control system of Slotine and Di Benedetto [10]. An alternative representation is proposed by Fossen [3], which simplies the representation of the regressor matrix.
Trajectory-tracking controllers require that the model parameters are known or estimated
using parameter adaptation. For set-point regulation is possible to derive controllers that
do not require model parameters. This is presented below.

3.3.1

Nonlinear quaternion set-point regulator

Consider the Lyapunov function candidate:


1
q)
V = ! > ICG ! + h(~
2

(3.21)

where h(~
q) is a positive denite function depending of the attitude error, for instance:
1 >
h(~
q) = q
~ Kp q
~;
2

q
~=q

(3.22)

qd

where qd = constant and Kp > 0 is a design matrix. This means that the desired attitude
must be specied as a unit quaternion, which usually is computed by specifying the desired
Euler angles and transforming these to a desired unit quaternion.
Dierentiation of V with respect to time gives:
V_

= ! T ICG !_ + q_ >

@h
@~
q
>

= ! > ( S(!)! + ) + ! > Tq (q)

@h
@~
q

(3.23)

3.3. DESIGN OF SATELLITE ATTITUDE CONTROL SYSTEMS

35

S> (!); it follows that:

Since S(!) =

! > S(!)! = 0 8!
This suggests that the control input

(3.24)

should be chosen as:

Kd !

Kd !

@h
@~
q
>
Tq (q)Kp q
~
T>
q (q)

(3.25)

where Kd > 0: such that


V_

+ T>
q (q)

= !>

! > Kd !

@h
@~
q
(3.26)

and stability and convergence follow from standard Lyapunov techniques, for instance by
using Barbalats lemma.

3.3.2

PD-controller of Wen and Kreutz-Delago (1991)

The classical PD-controller for satellite attitude regulation uses feedback from the imaginary
part ~
" = [~"1 ; ~"2 ; ~"3 ]> of the unit quaternion error q
~ = [~; ~"1 ; ~"2 ; ~"3 ]> where ~ denotes the
real part of the unit quaternion. The attitude error dynamics q
~ can be described by unit
quaternions according to:
1
"
~_ = ! >~
2
1
~"_ =
~!
2

(3.27)
1
!
2

(3.28)

~
"

The following PD-controller is proposed by Wen and Kreutz-Delgado [13]:


= kp ~
"

(3.29)

kd !

where kp > 0 and kd > 0 are the controller gains. Notice that the control law does not
depends on the model of the system, and it makes ! and ~
" asymptotically converge to zero
and hence ~ converges to zero. Consider the following scalar function:
V = (kp + ckd ) (~

1
1)2 + ~
"> ~
" + ! > ICG !
2

c"> ICG !

(3.30)

One may show that there exists a su ciently small c > 0 such that V > 0 for all ~ 6= 1,
~
" 6= 0, and ! 6= 0. In fact, V is bounded from below as
V

(kp + ckd )(~

1)2 +

1
2

~
" !

2(kp + ckd ) c
c I

I
I

~
"
!

(3.31)

36

CHAPTER 3. SATELLITE MODELING

where I = kICG k and I = inf kvk=1 v> ICG v.


denite. We take the time derivative of V :
V_ = 2(kp + ckd ) (~

> 0 since the inertia matrix ICG is positive

1)~_ + ~
">~"_ + ! > ICG !_

c~"_ > ICG !

c~
"> ICG !_

It is straightforward to nd that (~ 1)~_ + ~


">~"_ = (1=2)! >~
" since ~
"> (!
! > ICG !_ = ! > (
! ICG !) = ! > . Moreover, we can nd that
c~"_ > ICG !

>

c~
" ICG !_ =

1
!
2

1
~!
2

~
"

>

ICG !

c~
"> (

(3.32)
~
") = 0. Also,

ICG !)

(3.33)

Thus, together with the control law ((3.29)), the time derivative will be
V_ =

kd2 k!k2

ckp k~
"k 2
~
" !

>

ckp
0
0 kd 2c

1
~!
2

1
!
2
~
"
!

~
"

>

ICG !

c~
"> ( !

>

ICG !)
(3.34)

V_
0; then, from Barbalats lemma, it follows that ~
" ! 0 and ! ! 0 as time tends to
innity.
As explained by (3.11)(3.13), the input signal is voltage V of the coil. Thus, we need
to nd the relation between and V. In practical situations, scaling is also required so as
to avoid unnecessary electricity load. Therefore, one may derive the following input signal:
1
V = Kcoil
Bb
kp
1
"
=
2 Kcoil ~
b
kB k

Bb

kd
1
2 Kcoil !
b
kB k

Bb

(3.35)

Chapter 4
Matlab Simulation Models
4.1

Boeing-767

The longitudinal and lateral B-767 state-space models are given


are:
2
3
2
u (ft/s)
(deg)
6 (deg) 7
6 p (deg/s)
7
6
xlang = 6
4 q (deg/s) 5 ; xlat = 4 (deg/s)
(deg)
r (deg)
ulang =

E
T

(deg)
(%)

; ulat =

Equilibrium point:
Speed
Altitude
Mass
Mach-number

4.1.1

VT = 890 ft/s = 980 km/h


h = 35 000 ft
m = 184 000 lbs
M = 0.8

Longitudinal model

a = [ -0.0168
-0.0164
-0.0417
0

0.1121
-0.7771
-3.6595
0

b = [ -0.0243
-0.0634
-3.6942
0

0.0519
-0.0005
0.0243
0
];

0.0003
0.9945
-0.9544
1.0000

-0.5608
0.0015
0
0];

37

(deg)
(deg)

below. The state vectors


3
7
7
5

(4.1)

(4.2)

38

CHAPTER 4. MATLAB SIMULATION MODELS

Eigenvalues:
lam = [
-0.8678
-0.8678
-0.0064
-0.0064

4.1.2

+
+
-

1.9061i
1.9061i
0.0593i
0.0593i];

Lateral model

a = [
-0.1245
-15.2138
0
1.6447

0.0350
-2.0587
1.0000
-0.0447

b = [
-0.0049
-4.0379
0
-0.0568

0.0237
0.9613
0
-1.2168];

0.0414
0.0032
0
-0.0022

-0.9962
0.6458
0.0357
-0.1416];

Eigenvalues:
lam = [
-0.1121 + 1.4996i
-0.1121 - 1.4996i
-2.0863
-0.0143];

4.2

F-16 Fighter

The lateral model of the F-16 ghter aircraft is based on [11], pages 370371. The state
vectors are:
3
2
(ft/s)
6 (ft/s) 7
2
3
6
7
r
(deg)
w
6 p (rad/s) 7
6
7
6 p (deg=s) 7
uA (rad)
7
7
6
xlat = 6
(4.3)
6 r (rad) 7 ; ulat = uR (rad) ; ylat = 4 (deg) 5
6 A (rad) 7
6
7
(deg)
4 R (rad) 5
rw (rad)
Equilibrium point:

Speed
VT = 502 ft/s = 552 km/h
Mach-number M = 0.45

4.2. F-16 FIGHTER

4.2.1

39

Longitudinal model

a = [
-0.3220
0
-30.6492
8.5396
0
0
0

0.0640
0
0
0
0
0
0

0.0364
1
-3.6784
-0.0254
0
0
0

-0.9917
-0.0037
0.6646
-0.4764
0
0
57.2958

0.0003
0
-0.7333
-0.0319
-20.2
0
0

0.0008
0
0.1315
-0.0620
0
-20.2
0

0
0
0
0

0
0
0
0

0
0
0
0
0
0
-1 ];

b = [
0
0
0
0
20.2
0
0

0
0
0
0
0
20.2
0 ];

c= [
0
0
57.2958
0

0
0
0
57.2958

0
57.2958
0
0

57.2958
0
0
0

Eigenvalues:
lam = [
-1.0000
-0.4224+ 3.0633i
-0.4224- 3.0633i
-0.0167
-3.6152
-20.2000
-20.2000
];
Notice that the last two eigenvalues correspond to the actuator states.

-1
0
0
0 ];

40

CHAPTER 4. MATLAB SIMULATION MODELS

Figure 4.1: Schematic drawing of the Bristol F.2B Fighter (McRuer et al 1973).

4.3

F2B Bristol Fighter

The lateral model of the F2B Bristol ghter aircraft is given below [8]. This is a British
aircraft from World War I (see Figure 4.1). The aircraft model is for = 0 (coordinated
turn). The state-space vector is:
2
3
p (deg/s)
6 r (deg/s) 7
7
xlat = 6
(4.4)
4 (deg) 5 ; ulat = [ A (deg)]
(deg)

where the dynamics for

satises the bank-to-turn equation:

9:81
_ = g =
= 0: 233
U0
138 0:3048
Equilibrium point:
Speed
VT = 138 ft/s = 151.4 km/h
Altitude
h = 6 000 ft
Mach-number M = 0.126

(4.5)

4.4. NTNU STUDENT CUBE-SATELLITE

4.3.1

41

Lateral model

a = [
-7.1700
2.0600
-0.4360
-0.3410
1.0000
0
0
0
b = [
26.1000
-1.6600
0
0];

0
0
0
0.2330

0
0
0
0];

Eigenvalues:
lam = [
0
0
-0.4752
-7.0358];

4.4

NTNU student cube-satellite

The NTNU student cube-satellite shown in Figure 3.1 has the following inertia matrix:
I_CG = diag{[0.0108,0.0113,0.0048]};

% kg m^2

42

CHAPTER 4. MATLAB SIMULATION MODELS

Bibliography
[1] Blakelock, J. H. (1991). Aircraft and Missiles (John Wiley & Sons Ltd.)
[2] Etkin, B. and L. D. Reid (1996). Dynamics of Flight: Stability and Control (John
Wiley & Sons Ltd.)
[3] Fossen, T. I. (1993). Comments on Hamiltonian Adaptive Control of Spacecraft,
IEEE Transactions on Automatic Control, TAC-38(5):671672.
[4] Fossen, T. I. (1994). Guidance and Control of Ocean Vehicles (John Wiley & Sons
Ltd.)
[5] Fossen, T. I. (2011). Handbook of Marine Craft Hydrodynamics and Motion Control.
(John Wiley & Sons Ltd.)
[6] Hughes, P. C. (1986). Spacecraft Attitude Dynamics (John Wiley & Sons Ltd.)
[7] McLean, D. (1990). Automatic Flight Control Systems (Prentice Hall Inc.)
[8] McRuer, D., D. Ashkenas og A. I. Graham (1973). Aircraft Dynamics and
Automatic Control. (Princeton University Press, New Jersey 1973).
[9] Nelson R. C. (1998). Flight Stability and Automatic Control (McGraw-Hill Int.)
[10] Slotine, J. J. E. og M. D. Di Benedetto (1990). Hamiltonian Adaptive Control
of Spacecraft, IEEE Transactions on Automatic Control, TAC-35(7):848852.
[11] Stevens, B. L. og F. L. Lewis (1992). Aircraft Control and Simulation (John Wiley
& Sons Ltd.)
[12] Roskam, J. (1999). Airplane Flight Dynamics and Automatic Flight Controls (Darcorporation)
[13] Wen, J. T.-Y. and K. Kreutz-Delgado (1991). The Attitude Control Problem.
IEEE Transactions on Automatic Control, Vol. 36, No. 10. October 1991.

43