FVSysID ShortCourse 2 Maneuvers

Maneuvers for Flight Vehicle System Identification
Maneuver
Input
Optimized
Input
Actual
Response
FlightVehicle
Measurements
DataCollection
&Compatibility
Methods
APrioriValues,
lower/upper
bounds
Estimation
Algorithm/
Optimization
Models
Model
Structure
Mathematical
Model/
Simulation
Identification
Criteria
Response
Error
Parameter
Adjustments
ModelResponse
Identification Phase
Model
Complementary
Flight Data
Validation
Dr. Ravindra Jategaonkar
Validation Phase
AIAA Short Course: Flight Vehicle System Identification in Time Domain, Aug. 2006
Maneuvers/1
This page is left intentionally blank.
Maneuvers/2
Fundamentals of Data Gathering

The process of performing experiments and
recording system inputs and outputs
If it is not in the data, it cannot be modeled
Basics:
1) Define the scope of flight testing
2) Define the suitable sequence of flight maneuvers to be performed
at each test point
3) Choose an adequate form of the inputs to excite the aircraft
motion in some optimum sense Optimal Input Design
Maneuvers/3
Classification
1) Flight Testing for performance evaluation
2) Flight Testing for system identification
- FT for aircraft certification first category
- FT for aerodynamic database development 2nd category
- A large number required in each category
- Some are common to both; some are characteristically different
- Proof-of-Match maneuvers
- Required to demonstrate fidelity of aerodynamic databases
- JAA / FAA
- About 100 120 test cases (ATG: Acceptance Test Guide).
Maneuvers/4
Flight Testing for Performance Evaluation

1) Acceleration - deceleration
2) Pushover Pullup (Roller coater)
- Primarily to determine lift and drag characteristic
3) Windup turn
- To determine the gradient of Stick force per g (design criterion)
4) Climb / sawtooth climb,

- To determine the best climb rate
5) Bank-to-bank roll
- To determine the maximum roll capability
6) Steady sideslip,
- To determine the gradient of the rudder deflection
7) Landing and takeoffs

Maneuvers/5
Flight Testing for System Identification

Short period maneuver
Phugoid maneuver
Pushover-pullup (Roller coaster)
Level turn
Thrust variation
Bank-to-bank roll
Dutch roll maneuver
Steady heading steady sideslip
+ windup turn,
+ acceleration-deceleration,
+ flybys, landings
Maneuvers/6
Optimal Input Design

Two Approaches:
a) Based on the estimation error criterion
b) Based on spectral behavior of the model
Approach a): Rigorous, involved, and theoretical

Approach b): Engineering approach, easy to practice
Guiding Principle:
... the optimum input in a given case is that which best excites the
frequency range of interest, and hence the harmonic control of the
input should be examined before the test ...
(Milliken, 1951)
Maneuvers/7
Optimal Input design (2)

Dynamic motion:
- Excite different natural frequencies (modes of motion)
- Preferably one control input at a time
(While moving the stick, many pilots are trained to maintain
AoA through throttle variation)
Independent control inputs:

- Manual or computerized inputs
Excitation level (input amplitude):
- Sufficient excitation to result in individual
components greater than the measurement accuracy +-
- Resulting response negligible (within measurement accuracy),
but the individual components large enough
- Large amplitudes may result in nonlinear response behavior.
Maneuvers/8
Input Design by Estimation Error Analysis

Statistical properties of the parameter estimates:
bias and covariance matrix of the estimates.
The maximum likelihood (ML) estimation is based on maximization
of p(z|), the conditional density function of the measurements z
for a given parameter vector .
2 L( z | )
Fisher Information matrix: F ij = E ,
i
j
L ( z | ) = ln( p ( z | ))
Indicator of information content

The ML estimation: Bias free and efficient in a statistical sense
Inverse of F provides a good approximation to error
covariance matrix P
Maneuvers/9
Input Design by Estimation Error Analysis (2)

Estimation error covariance matrix:
N y (t ) T
1
k
P F 1
R
k =1
y (t k )

Thus, the parameter error covariance matrix, P, depends upon:

1) response sensitivity.
2) number of data points N, (depends on the length of the record),
3) weighting matrix R, (depends on the measurement noise)
Response y and response gradient y / obtained from a-priori model
At this stage the parameters are known and kept fixed.
Information content in F mainly determined by response gradients.
Maneuvers/10

Proper tuning of input shape will result in optimal excitation of the
modes of a system defined by the a-priori model
leads to maximization of information matrix
In other words, minimizes the error covariance matrix P.
such inputs lead to parameter estimates having lowest
statistical errors
Different measures, all based on Fisher information matrix:
1)
min {det( P )} uopt (t )

u(t )
Which is same as maximizing determinant of F :

D-optimal: overall measure,
reduces redundancy
leads to better identifiability of individual parameters
Maneuvers/11

The other criteria are the sum or product of the diagonal elements of
the matrix P:
2) min {tr ( P)} u opt (t )
u (t )
min
P
ii u opt (t )
3) u (t )
i
They minimize the standard deviations

(square root of the diagonal elements of P).
Criterion 2) is called A-optimal:
A for average
It is not scale invariant
Define input space to be searched, and perform optimization.
Maneuvers/12

6
d e g
M e h ra in p u t
0
@
e
-9
tim e
-9
1 6
D U T in p u t
0
1 2
d e g
tim e
1 2
1 6
- Combine integer multiples of basic freuqnecy

- Summation of sine functions
Not suitable to be flown manually.
Needs on board computer implementation
Maneuvers/13
Design of Multistep Input Signals (1)

Two step procedure:
- determine the range of frequencies needed for accurate estimation
- design multistep input to cover these frequencies
Range of frequencies:
- Synthesize contributions due to each parameter
- make use of Bode diagram to determine the frequencies
which must be included in the input signal
Example:
u& X u
& Z / U
= u 0
q& M u
&
0
Xq
Z / U 0
M
0
Mq
1
g
0
0
u
X e

Z
+ e
q
M e e

Maneuvers/14

0
- 9.80665
- 0.0091 9.43
- 0.0022 - 0.867
1
0
A=
0
- 3.49 - 2.04
0
0
0
1
0
B = = [0 - 0.11 - 5.09 0]T
Now, for each equation, the frequency response magnitudes

of the various terms in that equation are plotted as a function
of the input signal frequency.
Consider, pitching moment equation:
compute the frequency response magnitudes for each of the terms
Mu M M q
M e as well as for the total pitch acceleration q&
with respect to the elevator input e

Maneuvers/15

In other words, it amounts to computing the magnitudes:
~
~
~( )
~
~
M
M
q
M u u ( )
M ( )
q& ( )
e e ( )
q
,
,
,
,
~
~
~
~
~
e ( )
e ( )
e ( )
e ( )
e ( )
where ~ denotes the Fourier transform.
The individual components for q& q and e are computed
from the output equations:
y = C [u q ]T + D e
by defining the observation matrices C and D as:
1) For q& : C q& = [0 3.49 2.04 0] D q& = [5.09]
2) For :
C = [0 3.49 0 0]
D = [0]
3) For q:
C q = [0 0 2.04 0]
D q = [0]
4) For e : C e = [0 0 0 0]
D e = [5.09]
Maneuvers/16

Bode magnitude plot of the pitching moment equation terms:
At any given frequency,
a large magnitude of any
particular term compared
to the other contributions
suggests a dominant
influence of that derivative,
which indicates good
information content
necessary for estimation
of the parameter.
Optimum frequency ranges for determination of
M, Mq
Me
40
db
20
Me
Mqq/e
Magnitude
0
-20
M/e
q/e
-40
-60
-80
0.01
0.1
10
rad/s
100
Conversely, the derivative

cannot be accurately estimated,
if the contribution is small.
Frequency
Rule of thumb: a derivative is considered identifiable when its term

has a magnitude of at least 10% of the largest terms magnitude
Maneuvers/17

Regions of Identifiability
Xu
X
Zu
Z
Ze
M
Mq
Me
0.01
0.1
rad/s
10
Frequency
Phugoid
Short period
Xu, X
Zu, Z
X
Z, Ze
M, Mq, Me
100
Maneuvers/18

The two regions surround the natural frequencies of
Phugoid and Short period motion
Logical conclusion: System excited at its natural modes exhibit
dominant dynamic motion.
Basis for designing multistep input:
1) Optimum range of frequencies covers a range below and
above the natural frequencies
2) Eigen-frequencies based on a-priori model are subjected to
uncertainties
3) Eigen frequency changes with flight condition.
Bandwidth of 1:10 desirable.

Maneuvers/19

Multistep input signal of arbitrary shape can be synthesized by a
suitable combination of pulse inputs
V1
V2 V3
V6
V4
V5
V7
t duration of each pulse

Vi amplitudes
The power (or energy) spectrum:
N 1
1 cos N 2
Vi + 2 cos j
( ) = 2 t
2
i =1
j =1
2
normalized frequency = t
Vi Vi + j
i =1
N j
Total duration T = N t
Maneuvers/20

Energy spectrum of pulse inputs:
0.3
u
t
0.2
Energy
t=1.2 s
0.1
t=0.8 s
t=0.4 s
0
0
rad/s
12
frequency
Maneuvers/21

Energy spectrum of doublet inputs:
1.2
1.0
1.0
t=1.2 s
E/t2
Energy
0.6
0.2
1
0
4
frequency
t DBLT
2 .3
t=
1.2 s
0.8 s
0.6 s
1:3
t=0.6 s
0
0.6
0.4
t=0.8 s
0.2
t
t
0.4
(t)mid
0.8
0.8
rad/s
12
2
2
Normalized frequency, t
2
1
period of oscillatio n
2 . 7 n 2 .7
Maneuvers/22

Energy spectrum of 3211, doublet and pulse inputs
1.
Step
Energy spectrum
(t)mid
(t)2/3
Doublet
-1.
1.
3211 Signal
-1.
1. 0.8
1 : 10
1:3
Bandwidth
0 1
t 3211
1 .6
t3211
2.1
-1.
1.
n
n
Modified
3211 Signal -1.
2 3
2
Normalized frequency, t
1.1
-1.2
period of oscillation
2 n 4
1
period of oscillation
3
-1.1
7t
Maneuvers/23

Multistep inputs:
- Time step for 3211 input is somewhat smaller than that for
the doublet
- 3211 provides good excitation of short period mode
- 1123 input has same spectrum 3211 input
- Phugoid is excited by long duration pulse
- Dutch roll is lightly damped;
Doublet input provides adequate excitation
Maneuvers/24
Practical Aspects of Input Signals (1)

Multistep inputs:
- Onboard generated computer inputs
- Step changes within single t
May lead to excitation of structural modes
Large accelerations (at off CG locations, e.g. cockpit)
- Pilot applied inputs
- Simple counting procedure (21,22,22; 21,22; 21; 21)
- Audio/optical cueing (series of beeps, track displayed signal)
- Extremely sharp changes are automatically filtered out
10
230 200
150 kts
deg/s
Exact time step

r 0
and shape is not
that critical,
Use rule of thumb -106
deg
for t
Speed period Doublet

(kts) (s)
2t (s)
260
150
200
230
260
r 0
-6
0
10
time
20
4.7
3.7
3.3
2.8
3.6
3.9
3.9
3.1
s
30
Maneuvers/25
Practical Aspects of Input Signals (2)
3-2-1-1 Elevator
Multistep Input
t 1s
Elevator
2 11
2 11
Small Input
11
Elevator Pulse
for Phugoid
1 Oscillation Period Excitation
10s
Rudder
Small Input
11
20% Thrust
Variation
10s
10s
Aileron/Spoiler
Bank to Bank
maneuver
Level Turn with

60 Bank and
Elevator Doublets
20 s
15 s
Rudder pulses
For steady
sideslips
30 Bank Angle
Elevator
10 Bank Angle
Rudder
Ailerons only
Bank Angle
Aileron/Spoiler
Rudder Doublet
for Dutch Roll
Excitation
t 1s
Thrust
Elevator
Typical manual inputs
Elevator pull
and push for
Roller-coaster
20 s
Maneuvers/26
Practical Aspects of Flight Testing

Typical flight test program for system identification
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
Mach No.
KC
AS
AS
KC
16
0
14
0
12
0K
CA
S
10
0K
CA
S
FL 260
80
KC
AS
Altitude
FL 300
5
19
KC
AS
0
23
AS
KC
C
7K
7
2
FL 160
AS
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
Maneuvers/27
Practical Aspects of Flight Testing (2)

Important Aspects:
Flight testing is costly; optimize the test procedure and maneuver sequence
Define the specific goals of flight testing
- System identification
- dynamic maneuvers: small, medium and large amplitude
- linear or nonlinear model identification
- global model or point-models at selected trim conditions
- configuration changes
- flight (trim) conditions: angle of attack, sideslip angle, Mach, altitude, ...
- special effects
- repetition of dynamic maneuvers
- influence of atmospheric conditions
- Model verification
On-site preliminary verification of recorded data to insure adequacy for
off-line analysis
Maneuvers/28

20
Dynamic maneuvers
deg/s
Aerodynamic database:
- Lateral-directional motion
Identified from bank-to-bank
and Dutch roll maneuvers.
- Multi run analysis
Example:
- validation of Dutch roll
- Rudder doublets
- three maneuvers with different
input amplitudes
- Beta variations up to +- 10
Observation:
The model response matches with
flight measurement of p, r, .
Match for bank angle does not show
any particular discrepancies.
0
-20
20
deg/s
0
-20
15
deg
0
-10
15
deg
r 0
-10
1.5
deg
aL
0
aR
-1.0
time
sec
80
Maneuvers/29

5
sideslip maneuvers
Combined motion:
in yaw (due to directional stability)
and roll (due to dihedral effect)
Beta-Sweep:
- slowly scan from 0 to
max to 0 to max to 0
- 30 to 50 seconds
Steady state sideslip:
- 0 to +4, hold for ~15 sec;
increase to 8, hold for 15 sec
- repeat for ve sideslip angles
-5
10
0
-10
10
0
-10
10
In both cases try to keep wings level.

Observation:
Some discernible discrepancies in the
match for Bank angle.
0
-10
4
deg
aL 0
aR
-4
25
50
time
75
sec
100
Maneuvers/30

sideslip maneuvers
Asymmetric configuration:
Beta sweeps and steady sideslip
maneuvers provide additional
information directional stability,
lateral-directional control, coupling
effects.
Database update:
-Nonlinearity in aileron effectiveness
for small deflections.
-Pitching moment nonlinear function
of sideslip angle.
5
deg/s
-5
10
deg/s
0
-10
10
deg
0
-10
10
deg
0
-10
Flat Yaw Maneuver?

- Banked turn: classical, looks elegant
- Yaw-only turn, bank 0
4
deg
aL 0
aR
-4
25
50
time
75
sec
100
Maneuvers/31

Downwash Lag Effects - Pitch Damping Derivatives
Special Flight Test Techniques
Modeling: Two Complementary Approaches
Two point aerodynamic model
conventional elevator input maneuver

12
deg/s
- wingandtailaremodeledseparately
Pitchrate
-dot
q
-dot
- physicallymorerealistic
- automaticallyaccountsforqand-doteffects
-12
- nonlinearmodelwithtimedelay
- necessarilyrequiresNLestimationprogram
Conventional approach - Taylor series

- simplificationbasedonlinearization
- linearparameterestimationprogramadequate
- generallytotalpitchdampingCmq +Cm
- Cmq andCm separationrequirespecialtests
independent component of dot

through gravity term
s 40
Large bank angle maneuver with elevator input

12
deg/s
q
-dot
-12
75
deg
-75
0
& = qS C + q + g (cos cos cos + sin sin)
V
mV L
20
time
BankAngle
20
time
40
ATTAS VFW-614
Maneuvers/32
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
Maneuvers/33
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
Angle of Attack, deg
80
20
60
40
Angle of Attack, deg
80
Maneuvers/34
Flight Test Instrumentation and Measurement (1)

A typical set of measurements for aerodynamic model extraction
1) Control surface deflections -- essential, input to the aero model
2) Linear accelerations -- three axes; provide very good information
3) Angular rates -- three axes; provide very good information
4) Attitude angles -- primarily useful in the data compatibility check
Also, for Aero-model ID using output error method
5) Air data -- very useful in the parameter estimation

6) Static pressure,
7) Engine parameters
8) Pilot forces and inceptor positions (Hinge-moment database)
9) Angular accelerations -- Recommended
10) Signal-to-noise ratio -- 10:1
- noise around system frequencies critical
Maneuvers/35
Flight Test Instrumentation and Measurement (2)

Three levels of signals: acceleration, rate, attitude angle
1.2
12
Sqq(f)
Sqq(f)
S(f)
8
4
0.12
0.04
0
9
deg/s
-35
-9
0.8
frequency
1.2
1.6
Hz
q&
-2.5
0
0.4
2.5
deg
q-dot
q&
0.08
0
35
deg/s2
time
10
Maneuvers/36
Current Trends
Current Trends
Manual Multi step Inputs
Computerized Control Inputs

1. 0.8
1.1
Computerized Control Inputs

Design techniques robust to
inaccurate a priori model
Optimal Input Design by
Dynamic Programming
- nonlinearmodels
- actuatordynamics
- feedbackcontrol
Separate Surface Excitation
- unstableaircraft
-1.
-1.2
0 t
-1.1
3t 5 t 7 t
Time
DLR Improved 3211 Input Signal

10
5
0
-5
NASA LaRC Input Signal
Hypersonic flight vehicles

- multiaxisorthogonalphase
optimizedsweeps
Maneuvers/37
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
Gates, R. J., Bowers, A. H., and Howard, R. M., A Comparison of Flight Input Techniques for Parameter
Estimation of Highly Augmented Aircraft, AIAA Atmospheric Flight Mechanics, Conference, San Diego,
CA, Aug. 11-13, 1996, Paper No. AIAA 96-3363.
Gupta, N. K. and Hall W. E. Jr., Input Design for Identification of Aircraft Stability and Control Derivatives,
NASA CR-2493, Feb. 1975.
Hamel, P. G. and Jategaonkar, R. V., Evolution of Flight Vehicle System Identification, Journal of Aircraft,
Vol. 33, No. 1, Jan.-Feb. 1996, pp. 9-28.
Koehler, R. and Wilhelm, K., Auslegung von Eingangssignalen fr die Kennwertermittlung,
DFVLR-IB 154-77/40, Dec. 1977.
Morelli, E. A. and Klein, V., Optimal Input Design for Aircraft Parameter Estimation using Dynamic
Programming, AIAA Atmospheric Flight Mechanics Conference, Portland, OR, Aug. 20-22, 1990,
Paper No. AIAA 90-2801.
Morelli, E. A., Flight Test Validation of Optimal Input Design and Comparison to Conventional Inputs,
AIAA Atmospheric Flight Mechanics Conference, New Orleans, LA, Aug. 11-13, 1997,
Paper No. AIAA 97-3711.
Mulder, J. A., Sridhar, J. K., and Breeman, J. H., Identification of Dynamic Systems: Applications to Aircraft.
Part 2: Nonlinear Analysis and Manoeuvre Design, AGRAD AG-300, Vol. 3, Pt. 2, May 1994.
Plaetschke, E. and Schulz, G., Practical Input Signal Design, AGARD LS-104, Nov. 1979, Paper No. 3.
Maneuvers/38
References (2)
Stepner, D. E. and Mehra, R. K., Maximum Likelihood Identification and Optimal Input Design for
Identifying Aircraft Stability and Control Derivatives, NASA CR- 2200, March 1973.
Stepner, D. E. and Mehra, R. K., Maximum Likelihood Identification and Optimal Input Design for
Identifying Aircraft Stability and Control Derivatives, NASA CR- 2200, March 1973.
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.
Maneuvers/39
This page is left intentionally blank.
Maneuvers/40

FVSysID ShortCourse 2 Maneuvers

Enviado por

Dados do documento

Direitos autorais

Formatos disponíveis

Compartilhar este documento

Compartilhar ou incorporar documento

Opções de compartilhamento

Você considera este documento útil?

Este conteúdo é inapropriado?

Direitos autorais:

Formatos disponíveis

FVSysID ShortCourse 2 Maneuvers

Enviado por

Direitos autorais:

Formatos disponíveis

Maneuvers for Flight Vehicle System Identification

This page is left intentionally blank.

Dr. Ravindra Jategaonkar

Fundamentals of Data Gathering

If it is not in the data, it cannot be modeled

Dr. Ravindra Jategaonkar

Dr. Ravindra Jategaonkar

Flight Testing for Performance Evaluation

4) Climb / sawtooth climb,

7) Landing and takeoffs

Flight Testing for System Identification

Optimal Input Design

Approach a): Rigorous, involved, and theoretical

Optimal Input design (2)

Independent control inputs:

Input Design by Estimation Error Analysis

Indicator of information content

Input Design by Estimation Error Analysis (2)

Thus, the parameter error covariance matrix, P, depends upon:

Input Design by Estimation Error Analysis (3)

min {det( P )} uopt (t )

Which is same as maximizing determinant of F :

Input Design by Estimation Error Analysis (4)

They minimize the standard deviations

Input Design by Estimation Error Analysis (5)

- Combine integer multiples of basic freuqnecy

Design of Multistep Input Signals (1)

Dr. Ravindra Jategaonkar

Design of Multistep Input Signals (2)

B = = [0 - 0.11 - 5.09 0]T

Now, for each equation, the frequency response magnitudes

M e as well as for the total pitch acceleration q&

with respect to the elevator input e

Design of Multistep Input Signals (3)

Design of Multistep Input Signals (4)

Optimum frequency ranges for determination of

Conversely, the derivative

Rule of thumb: a derivative is considered identifiable when its term

Design of Multistep Input Signals (5)

Dr. Ravindra Jategaonkar

Design of Multistep Input Signals (6)

Bandwidth of 1:10 desirable.

Design of Multistep Input Signals (7)

t duration of each pulse

Design of Multistep Input Signals (8)

Dr. Ravindra Jategaonkar

Design of Multistep Input Signals (9)

Design of Multistep Input Signals (10)

Dr. Ravindra Jategaonkar

Design of Multistep Input Signals (11)

Dr. Ravindra Jategaonkar

Practical Aspects of Input Signals (1)

Exact time step

Speed period Doublet

Practical Aspects of Input Signals (2)

Level Turn with

Dr. Ravindra Jategaonkar

Typical manual inputs

Practical Aspects of Flight Testing

Dr. Ravindra Jategaonkar

Level Turn Maneuver

True Airspeed (Kts)

Practical Aspects of Flight Testing (2)

Practical Aspects of Flight Testing (3)