FVSysID ShortCourse 3 Measurements

Measurements for Flight Vehicle System Identification
Measurements
Maneuver
Input
Optimized
Input
Actual
Response
FlightVehicle
Data Collection
& Compatibility
Methods
APrioriValues,
lower/upper
bounds
Estimation
Algorithm/
Optimization
Models
Model
Structure
Mathematical
Model/
Simulation
Identification
Criteria
Response
Error
Parameter
Adjustments
ModelResponse
Identification Phase
Complementary
Model
Flight Data
Validation
Dr. Ravindra Jategaonkar
Validation Phase
AIAA Short Course: Flight Vehicle System Identification in Time Domain, Aug. 2006
Measurements/1
This page is left intentionally blank.
Measurements/2
General Aspects
Parameters
Control surface deflections
- Potentiometers, LVDT
Linear accelerometers
Data Consistency
Calibration errors
Flight path reconstruction
- Accelerometers, INS
Angular rates
- Rate Gyros, INS
strap-down platform
Attitude angles
- INS
Engine parameters
Current trends
Flush airdata sensing system
- multi-hole probes
GPS/DGPS
- position, attitude, wind
Pilot forces
- force transducer
Air data
- flow angles - vanes
- Airspeed
- Pressure sensors
Measurements/3
Kinematic Consistency Checking

General Approach, sensor model and estimation algorithm
- Toensurethatthemeasurementsare
consistentanderrorfree.
- Inertialmeasurements(accelerationsand
angularratesarehighlyaccurate.
- Kinematic equationswithnouncertainties;
Accurateinformationaboutaircraftstate;
- Meanstocalibrateparameterswithlower
accuracy(angleofattack&sideslip).
Kinematic Equations
LinearAccelerations
Rotationalrates
ax,a y,az,p,q,r
Velocitycomponents
(u,v,w)
Attitudeangles
Sensor calibration model

Scale factor and bias
pd m = K
pd m = K
pdyn nb + pd
pdyn nb + pd
Time delay
pd m( t ) = K pdyn ( t q )nb( t ) + pd
Parameter estimation
- Output error method for nonlinear systems
- Bounded-Variable Gauss-Newton algorithm
- Multiple experiment evaluation
Initialconditions:u 0,v0,w0,p0,q0,r0
Scalefactors:K p,Kq,K r
Bias: ax,ay,az,p,q,r
K , pd , K , pd , , , q
Measurements/4
Data Compatibility Check - Equations (1)

Kinematic Equations:
u& = qw + rv g sin + a x
v& = ru + pw + g cos sin + a y

& = pv + qu + g cos sin + a y
w
& = p + q sin tan + r cos tan
& = q cos r sin
& = q sin sec + r cos sec
h& = u sin v cos sin w cos sin
u ( 0) = u 0
v ( 0) = v 0
w ( 0) = w 0
(0) = 0
( 0) = 0
( 0) = 0
h ( 0) = h 0
Kinematic equations are exact in terms of motion variables:

(u, v , w) ( , , ) ( x g , y g , h ) ( p, q, r ) ( a x , a y , a z )
No modeling errors (as in the case of aerodynamic models).
- First three triples are state variables.

- Assuming measurements of last two triples, kinematic equations
provide complete information for state estimation (FPR).
- Initial conditions are estimated as unknowns
Measurements/5

Introduce measurement bias errors in linear accelerations
and angular rates:
State Equations:
u&
= ( q q) w + ( r r )v g sin + ( a x a x )
u (0) = u0
v&
= ( r r )u + ( p p ) w + g cos sin + ( a y a y )
v (0) = v0
w& = ( p p )v + ( q q)u + g cos sin + ( a y a y )
w(0) = w0
&
= ( p p ) + ( q q ) sin tan + ( r r ) cos tan
( 0) = 0
&
= ( q q) cos ( r r ) sin
( 0) = 0
&
= ( q q) sin sec + ( r r ) cos sec
( 0) = 0
h&
= u sin v cos sin w cos sin
h (0) = h0
Input variables: Linearaccelerations(referredtoCG): a x , a y , a z

p , q, r
Angularrates
Measurements/6

Introduce sensor models: Scale factor and bias corrections
(Simplified models)
Observation Equations :
AoA and AoS (Vane)
AoA and AoS (5-Hole probe)
m
m
pd ,m
Vm
m
m
m
hm
=
=
=
=
=
K local +
K local +
V
K +
K +
pd ,m
pdyn,m
= K pdyn local + pd
= K pdyn local + pd
2
= 12 Vlocal
= K +
= h + K h local + K h local
Accountfortimedelays:e.g. m = K (t ) +
Measurements/7
Flight Path Reconstruction Techniques (1)

Two types of algorithms:
1) Extended Kalman Filter
2) Output Error Method
depending upon the assumptions we make regarding the noise in
the input variables ( a x , a y , a z , p, q, r, p& , q& , r&)
Deterministic Approach
Accounts for measurement noise in output variables only.
The state estimation problem reduces to simple numerical integration.
x& (t ) = f [ x (t ), u (t ), ] ,
x (t 0 ) = x 0
y (t ) = g[ x (t ), ]
z (t k ) = y (t k ) + v (t k )
x = [ u v w h ]T
u = [a x a y a z p q r ]T
y = [V h ]T
The unknown parameters are:

= [ a x a y a z p q r K K , ]T
x 0 = [ u 0 v 0 w 0 0 0 0 h 0 ]T
Apply output error method

Measurements/8
Flight Path Reconstruction Techniques (2)

Stochastic Approach
Accounts of measurement noise in both input and output variables.
x& (t ) = f [ x (t ), u m (t ) w(t ), ],
y (t ) = g[ x (t ), ]
z (t k ) = y (t k ) + v (t k )
x (t 0 ) = x 0
w(t ) noise in the measured inputs

u = [a x a y a z p q r ]T
v(t k ) noise in the observation variables

y = [V h ]T
Note:
The noise w(t ) in this context is not the same as the atmospheric turbulence
Presence of input noise makes system stochastic:
Simple numerical integration not possible (due to nonmeasurable input noise).
Needs state estimator (Extended Kalman filter)
EKF will be addressed later
Another approach: EBM (Estimation-Before-Modeling)
For details see Ref. 1.
Measurements/9
FPR Identifiability of Sensor model

Scale factor and bias may be correlated:
Due to differences in order of
magnitude between the trim
(nominal) value and bias error.
Small variations in scale factor
(usually one) multiplied by the
large trim value (e.g. V or )
appearing on the right hand
sides) can compensate for small
zero shifts without affecting
the match significantly.
20
deg
0
-5
300
kt
V
100
0.3
g
ax
0
-0.1
0
g
az
-2
0
400
time
800
1200
1600
To avoid correlation:
1) Combination of dynamic maneuvers are different trim points and of
dynamic and quasi-steady maneuvers
2) Reformulate the observation equation: m = K ( 0 ) + 0 +
Measurements/10
Consistency Checking of Control Inputs

Kinematic consistency checking provides an a-posteriori means to verify
recorded data and to estimate instrument errors pertaining to the aircraft
motion variables.
It is an off-line procedure which can be applied after flight testing.
Besides these motion variables, aerodynamic model identification also needs
the measurements of control surface deflections.
The errors of the measurements of control surface deflections!!!
Unfortunately, there is no way to check the accuracy of these measurements,
because there are no kinematic relations between them and other variables.
This is a fundamental problem, for which there is no easy solution.
Hence, calibration of these independent inputs needs great care and
considerable effort is spent on laboratory and in-situ calibration of these
measurements, and on re-verification at regular intervals.
Measurements/11
Data Compatibility Check: Examples (1)

Example 1: Demonstration of the procedure
Three dynamic maneuvers:
- an elevator input maneuver exciting the short period motion (25 s),
- an aileron input maneuver resulting in bank-to-bank motion (30 s)
- a rudder input maneuver leading to Dutch roll motion (30 s).
The flight maneuvers under seemingly steady atmospheric conditions,

- turbulence is considered negligible.
States: x = [u, v, w, , , , h]
Outputs: y = [V , NB , NB , , , , h]
Inputs: u = [a x , a y , a z , p, q, r , p& , q& , r&]

Unknown parameters: = [ a x a y a z p q r ]T
Apply Output error method.

To start with all parameters set to zero.
Measurements/12

2
ax
(m/s 2)
Input variables:
ay
(m/s 2)
-2
5
0
az
(m/s 2)
-5
0
-10
p
(/s)
-20
50
0
0
-10
10
r
(/s)
Run the test case:

/FVSysID/chapter04/
test_case = 22
niter_max = 0
q
(/s)
-50
10
0
-10
10
20
30
40
50
Time in sec
60
70
80
90
Measurements/13

V
(m/s)
140
120
()
Match for iter=0
100
10
()
-10
5
0
()
-5
50
0
()
-50
10
0
()
-10
20
10
4
0 x 10
h
(ft)
1.7
1.6
1.5
10
20
30
40
50
Time in sec
60
70
80
90
Measurements/14

V
(m/s)
135
130
()
125
6
()
Run the test case:

/FVSysID/chapter04/
test_case = 22
niter_max = 10
0
-3
5
0
-5
()
40
0
()
()
-40
10
0
-5
20
10
h
(ft)
0 x 10
1.65
1.6
1.55
10
20
30
40
50
Time in sec
60
70
80
90
Measurements/15

Example 2: Rotational rates and attitude angles (special case)
Kinematic Equation
Rotationalrates
p,q,r
Attitudeangles
0.4
rad
0
-0.6
0
Initialconditions: p0,q0,r0
Scalefactors:Kp,Kq,Kr
Bias:p,q,r
Bankangle
20
+ve error
40
sec
Rotational rates and bank angle compatible

0.6
rad
Nonlinear scale factor

errors in pitch attitude
time
Pitch attitude
0
-0.4
0
20
0.6
rad
time
40
sec
40
sec
Pitch attitude
-ve error
-0.4
0
20
time
Measurements/16

Reconstruction unreliable due to lack of
40
m/s
u
Kinematic Equations
LinearAccelerations
Rotationalrates
ax,ay,az,p,q,r
Velocitycomponents
(u,v,w)
Attitudeangles
20
10
m/s
v
0
-5
8
m/s
w 0
Initialconditions:u0,v0,w0,p0,q0,r0
Scalefactors:Kp,Kq,Kr
Bias:ax,ay,az,p,q,r
-8
0
Trueairspeed- measured
40
60
time
80
100
sec
100
sec
Engineering judgement
45
m/s
20
0
20
40
m/s
u
20
40
60
time
80
100
sec
20
10
m/s
v
0
Measurement of and necessary for

reliable results
Identified models subject to uncertainties
-5
8
m/s
w 0
-8
20
40
time
60
80
Measurements/17

Location of Flow Sensors: ATD VFW-614 (1)
Measurements/18

15
deg
Maneuver1
Maneuver2
Maneuver3
Angles of Attack
AoA1
0
13
deg
AoA2
-2
20
deg
AoA3
5
100
200
Time
300
400
Flightmeasured
Estimated
Measurements/19

Cross Plot of Measured Angles-of-Attack
30
AOA3 Versus AOA1
AoA3
AoA2
20
AoA1
AOA1VersusAOA1
10
AOA2VersusAOA1
0
-5
-5
10
15
20
deg
25
AoA1
Measurements/20

Flow Interference Effects due to Pitot Tube Wakes
14.5 to17.5 to21 bandfrom Pitot #2
14.5 to17.5 to21 bandfrom Pitot #3
PositionofPitot #2
for Flight No.V3320
PositionofPitot #2
for Flight Nos.V3321,
3322and3323
Measurements/21
Influence of Position on Angle-of-Attack

Measured angle of attack may contain
components due to angle of sideslip
10
Angle
of
Sideslip
deg
0
-10
30
Angle
of
attack
aoa1
+ F1N min( , 0) + F1P max( , 0)
Neglecting the influence due to AoS

m _1 = K1 tan1 uaoa1 + 1
w
aoa1
0
-10
2.4
Asymmetric influence due to AoS

m _1 = K1 tan1 uaoa1 + 1
deg
Prediction deg
error on
0
AoA
-2.4
0
200
Time
400
600
400
600
2.4
Prediction
error on
AoA
deg
0
-2.4
0
200
Time
Measurements/22
Calibration of Angle of Attack: ATTAS VFW-614

Calibration of Angle of Attack
Flow Angle Sensors
Flight Log
4
deg
Flight log
2
Flap
FLog =1.153+FLog
0
IN(-6)
SP(1)
5
14
35
-1
120
160
200
240
kt
4
deg
RMP =1.407+RMP
2
Flap
Vane
IN(-6)
SP(1)
5
14
35
0
-1
120
Vane
200
160
240 kt
CAS
Measurements/23
Calibration of 5 Hole Probe

Rosemount Flow Angle Sensor
P2
P
Angleof attack:
Pt
P Angleof sideslip:
2
Flow sensors
P P
= 1 2
qc K
P P2
= 1
qc K
Flight log
Dynamicpressure: qc = Pt Ps
Linear sensitivity per degree

0.08
0.06
5 Hole Probe
K
0.04
0.02
0
0.4 0.6
1.0
2.0
Mach number
Measurements/24
Calibration of static pressure ports

Position Error
Altitude and airspeed derived from
static and total pressure
Measurement in free stream air
Distorted flow field around an a/c
Pitot static system:
- location of pressure ports
- speed
- altitude
Commonly adopted procedures to
calibrate static pressure ports:
- Trailing cone
- Tower Fly-By
Static pressure field varies along

the length of aircraft
Measurements/25

Determination of Position Error: Tower Fly-By procedure
Simple and accurate procedure
- fly the a/c past an observation tower
- record geometrical position, camera
- onboard data: static pressure, AGL...
- Ambient conditions, QNH
330m
Tower;
Camera
Flight tests with ATTAS

- Test matrix: 16 fly-bys, 4 flap positions
- speed range from 120 to 240 KIAS
109m
NN(Sealevel)
Measurements/26

Determination of Position Error: Tower Fly-By results
Altitude determination
Static pressure
- simple geometrical procedure

- two independent cameras
- Radio altimeter
- computational procedure (h, P0, T0)

- Pstat time records from two sources
Flight tests results:
Flight tests results:

- Fairly good agreement
- minor deviations
variations in flight path above runway
different time points of exposure
- Good agreement between derived

and measured basis static pressure.
- Discrepancies in static pressure
measured by 5-Hole probe.
1004
1,SP
-6,IN
120-190Kt
140-240Kt
5 Flaps
145-240Kt
Altitude,ft
160
140
120
1,SP
140-240Kt
-6,IN
5 Flaps
145-240Kt
130-210KIAS
Aircraftbasis
Radioaltitude
5Holeprobe
130-210KIAS
Staticpressure,hPa
180
14
14
120-190Kt
1000
996
Altitude,Camera1
Altitude,Camera2
Radioaltimeter
100
0
Towerfly-by,Dr. Ravindra Jategaonkar
12
16
992
12
16
Towerfly-by,-
Measurements/27

Position Error at Noseboom
- difference in 5-hole probe measured static pressure and that derived from fly-bys
- function of airspeed (covers four flap configuration, speed from 120 to 240 KIAS)
- ATTAS noseboom 1.35 times fuselage diameter
- empirical rule: noseboom length 2.5 to 3 time fuselage diameter
Position error,(Pa)
800
600
400
200
100
150
250
kts
250
Trueairspeed
Measurements/28
Estimation of Time Delays

5000
PA
PDALFA
0
3000
PA
PDBETA 0
-3000
20
40
60
Time delay accounted for
time
Time delay neglected
5000
PA
PDALFA
0
3000
PA
PDBETA 0
-3000
20
40
60
time
Measurements/29
Dynamic Maneuvers - Overview
Measurements/30
Curve Fits for Steady State Sideslip Maneuvers
time
Measurements/31
Noseboom Mounted 5 Hole Probe

Flight Validation ATTAS VFW-614
0.08
Flight Validation C-160
0.084
ATTAS
0.06
0.077
Scale
factor
K
0.04
0.070
0.02
0
0.4 0.6
1.0
2.0
Machnumber
Calibration factors independent of configuration
0.063
20
Flap
40
deg
60
Calibration factors configuration dependent
Measurements/32
Flush Air Data System

2
Noseboom not always possible

influences the flow
incompatible with radar
12
Flush Air Data System
11
pressure ports on the a/c nose

10
measurement of the pressure distribution
determination of the airflow parameters via suitable methods
redundancy concepts and failure detection
FADS for VECTOR (X-31 follow on project)

12 pressure ports
optimized for high angle of attack
wind tunnel measurements and preliminary flight test data
Measurements/33
References
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
Etkin, B., Dynamics of Atmospheric Flight, John Wiley & Sons, Inc. New York, 1972.
Evans, R. J., Goodwin, G. C., Feik, R. A., Martin, C., and Lozano-Leal, R, Aircraft Flight Data Compatibility
Checking Using Maximum Likelihood and Extended Kalman Filter Estimation, Proceedings, 7th IFAC
Symposium on Identification and System Parameter Estimation, York, UK, July 1985, pp. 487-492.
Jategaonkar, R. V., Identification of the Aerodynamic Model of the DLR Research Aircraft ATTAS from
Flight Test Data, DLR-FB 90-40, July 1990.
Keskar, D. A. and Klein, V., Determination of Instrumentation Errors from Measured Data Using Maximum
Likelihood Method, AIAA 80-1602, 1980.
Klein, V. and Schiess, J. R., Compatibility Check of Measured Aircraft Responses using Kinematic Equations
and Extended Kalman Filter, NASA TN D-8514, Aug. 1977.
Maine, R. E. and Iliff, K. W., Identification of Dynamic Systems - Applications to Aircraft. Part 1:
The Output Error Approach, AGARD AG-300, Vol. 3, Pt. 1, Dec. 1986.
McRuer, D., Ashkenas, I., and Graham, D., Aircraft Dynamics and Automatic Control, Princeton University
Press, Princeton, NJ, 1973.
Mulder, J. A., Jonkers, H. L., Horsten, J. J., Breeman, J. H., and Simon, J. L., Analysis of Aircraft Performance,
Stability and Control Measurements, AGARD LS-104, Nov. 1979, Paper No. 5.
Parameswaran, V., Jategaonkar, R. V. and Press, M., Calibration of Five-Hole Probe from Dynamic and Tower
Fly-By Maneuvers, Journal of Aircraft, Vol. 42, No. 1, 2005, pp. 80-86.
Measurements/34

FVSysID ShortCourse 3 Measurements

Diunggah oleh

Informasi Dokumen

Hak Cipta

Format Tersedia

Bagikan dokumen Ini

Bagikan atau Tanam Dokumen

Opsi Berbagi

Apakah menurut Anda dokumen ini bermanfaat?

Apakah konten ini tidak pantas?

Hak Cipta:

Format Tersedia

FVSysID ShortCourse 3 Measurements

Diunggah oleh

Hak Cipta:

Format Tersedia

Measurements for Flight Vehicle System Identification

This page is left intentionally blank.

Dr. Ravindra Jategaonkar

Dr. Ravindra Jategaonkar

Kinematic Consistency Checking

Sensor calibration model

Data Compatibility Check - Equations (1)

v& = ru + pw + g cos sin + a y

Kinematic equations are exact in terms of motion variables:

- First three triples are state variables.

Data Compatibility Check - Equations (2)

w& = ( p p )v + ( q q)u + g cos sin + ( a y a y )

= ( p p ) + ( q q ) sin tan + ( r r ) cos tan

= ( q q) sin sec + ( r r ) cos sec

= u sin v cos sin w cos sin

Input variables: Linearaccelerations(referredtoCG): a x , a y , a z

Data Compatibility Check - Equations (3)

AoA and AoS (Vane)

AoA and AoS (5-Hole probe)

Flight Path Reconstruction Techniques (1)

The unknown parameters are:

Apply output error method

Flight Path Reconstruction Techniques (2)

w(t ) noise in the measured inputs

v(t k ) noise in the observation variables

FPR Identifiability of Sensor model

Consistency Checking of Control Inputs

Data Compatibility Check: Examples (1)

The flight maneuvers under seemingly steady atmospheric conditions,

Inputs: u = [a x , a y , a z , p, q, r , p& , q& , r&]

Apply Output error method.

Dr. Ravindra Jategaonkar

Data Compatibility Check: Examples (2)

Run the test case:

Dr. Ravindra Jategaonkar

Data Compatibility Check: Examples (3)

Match for iter=0

Dr. Ravindra Jategaonkar

Data Compatibility Check: Examples (4)

Run the test case:

Dr. Ravindra Jategaonkar

Data Compatibility Check: Examples (5)

Rotational rates and bank angle compatible

Nonlinear scale factor

Dr. Ravindra Jategaonkar

Data Compatibility Check: Examples (6)

Measurement of and necessary for

Data Compatibility Check: Examples (7)

Dr. Ravindra Jategaonkar

Data Compatibility Check: Examples (8)

Data Compatibility Check: Examples (9)

AOA3 Versus AOA1

Data Compatibility Check: Examples (10)

14.5 to17.5 to21 bandfrom Pitot #3

Dr. Ravindra Jategaonkar

Influence of Position on Angle-of-Attack

Neglecting the influence due to AoS

Dr. Ravindra Jategaonkar

Asymmetric influence due to AoS

Calibration of Angle of Attack: ATTAS VFW-614

Flow Angle Sensors

Dr. Ravindra Jategaonkar

Calibration of 5 Hole Probe

Linear sensitivity per degree