AbstractThis paper presents a comparative assessment Pitch is controlled by the rear part of the tail plane's
based on time response specification performance between horizontal stabilizer being hinged to create an elevator. By
modern and intelligent controller for a pitch control system moving the elevator control backwards the pilot moves the
of an aircraft system. The dynamic modeling of pitch elevator up (a position of negative camber) and the
control system is considered on the design an autopilot that downwards force on the horizontal tail is increased. The
controls the pitch angle of an aircraft. It begins with a angle of attack on the wings increased so the nose is
derivation of suitable mathematical model to describe the pitched up and lift is generally increased. In micro-lights
dynamics of an aircraft. To study the effectiveness of the and hang gliders the pitch action is reversed and the pitch
controllers, the Linear Quadratic Controller (LQR) and control system is much simpler, so when the pilot moves
Fuzzy Logic Controller (FLC) is developed for controlling the elevator control backwards it produces a nose-down
the pitch angle of an aircraft system. Simulation results for pitch and the angle of attack on the wing is reduced. The
the response of pitch controller are presented in time pitch angle of an aircraft is controlled by adjusting the
domain. Finally, the performances of pitch control systems angle and therefore the lift force of the rear elevator. The
are investigated and analyzed based on common criteria of aerodynamic forces (lift and drug) as well as the aircrafts
steps response in order to identify which control strategy inertia are taken into account. This is a third order,
delivers better performance with respect to the desired pitch nonlinear system which is linearized about the operating
angle and pitch rate. It is found from simulation, LQR point.
controller give the best performance compared to fuzzy This work presents investigation into the development
logic controller. of pitch control schemes for pitch angle and pitch rate of
an aircraft systems. Pitch control systems with full state
KeywordsAircraft; Flight control; Autopilot; Longitudinal feedback controller are investigated. A modern controller
dynamic; LQR; Fuzzy logic. (LQR) and intelligent fuzzy logic controller (FLC) is
developed for control the pitch of an aircraft systems.
I. INTRODUCTION Performance of both control strategy with respect to the
Todays aircraft designs rely heavily on automatic pitch angle and pitch rate is examined. Comparison of
control system to monitor and control many of aircrafts both control schemes to the system performance of
subsystem. The development of automatic control system aircraft system is presented and discussed
has played an important role in the growth of civil and
military aviation. Modern aircraft include a variety of II. MODELLING OF A PITCH CONTROL
automatic control system that aids the flight crew in Flight control system has been designed using
navigation, flight management and augmenting the mathematical models of the aircraft linearized at various
stability characteristic of the airplane. For this situation an flight condition parameters varied with the flight
autopilot is designed that control the pitch of aircraft that operating conditions [9]. This work is developed to
can be used by the flight crew to lessen their workload control the pitch angle of an aircraft for pitch control in
during cruising and help them land their aircraft during order to stabilize the system when the airplane is nose up
adverse weather condition in the real situation [1]. The and nose down. The pitch control system considered in
autopilot is an element within the flight control system. It this work is shown in Fig. 1 where Xb, Yb and Zb represent
is a pilot relief mechanism that assists in maintaining an the aerodynamics force components. , and e represent
attitude, heading, altitude or flying to navigation or the orientation of aircraft (pitch angle), orientation of
landing references [2]. Designing an autopilot requires aircraft (roll angle) in the earth-axis system and elevator
control system theory background and knowledge of deflection angle.
stability derivatives at different altitudes and Mach
numbers for a given airplane [3]. Lot of works has been
done in the past to control the pitch of an aircraft for the
purpose of flight stability and yet this research still
remains an open issue in the present and future works [4],
[5], [6], [7] and [8].
Components
Longitudinal
Derivatives X-Force Z-Force Pitching
(S-1) (F-1) Moment (FT-1)
Rolling
Xu = -0.045 Zu = -0.369 Mu = 0
velocities
Xw = 0.036 Zw = -2.02 Mw = -0.05
Yawing
velocities X w = 0 Z w = 0 M w = -0.051
X = 0 Z = -355.42 M = -8.8
Angle of
attack
X = 0 Z = 0 M = -0.8976
Elevator
Xe = 0 Ze = -28.15 Me = -11.874
deflection
u = uo + u v = vo + v w = wo + w
p = po + p q = qo + q r = ro + r
X = X o + X M = M o + MY Z = Zo + Z
Figure 2. Definition of force, moments and velocity in body fixed
coordinate. = o +
390
For convenience, the reference flight condition is (LQR) and Fuzzy Logic Controller (FLC). Furthermore, a
assumed to be symmetric and the propulsive forces are few of design specification have to be set to investigate
assumed to remain constant. This implies that, the performance of both control strategies. In this work,
v0 = p0 = q0 = r0 = 0 = 0 = w0 = 0 . After linearization four considerations have to be met which are rising time
the (4), (5) and (6) are obtained. less than 3 second, settling time less than 5 second,
percentage of overshot less than 10% and steady state
error less than 2% for controlling the pitch angle of 0.2
d (4) radian (11.5 degree).
X u u X w w + ( g cos o ) = X e e
dt
A. LQR Controller
d d (5)
Zu u + (1 Z w ) Z w w (uo + Z q ) g sin0 = Ze e LQR is a method in modern control theory that used
dt dt state-space approach to analyze such a system. Using
d d2 d state space methods it is relatively simple to work with a
M u u M w + M w w + 2 M q = M e e (6) multi-output system. The system can be stabilized using
dt dt dt
full-state feedback system. The configuration of this
control system is shown in Fig. 3.
By manipulating the (4), (5), (6) and substituting the
parameters values of the longitudinal stability derivatives,
the following transfer function for the change in the pitch
rate to the change in elevator deflection angle is shown as
(7) obtained.
y = [0 0 1] q + [0] (14)
III. METHODOLOGY
In this section, two control schemes are proposed and
describe in detail which is Linear Quadratic Regulator
Figure 4. Block diagram of the system with matrix, K and gain
Nbar.
391
TABLE II.
B. Fuzzy Logic Controller RULES FOR THE FUZZY CONTROLLER
In this work, fuzzy logic controller has been applied for Error, e Delta error. de Delta u, du
stabilization of the pitch control system. FLC is conceived 1 N N N
as a better method for sorting and handling data but has 2 N Z N
proven to be an excellent choice for many control system 3 N P N
applications because of non-linearity, complex 4 Z N N
mathematical computation and real-time computation 5 Z Z Z
need. It can be built into anything from small, hand-held 6 Z P P
7 P N P
products to large computerized process control systems. It 8 P Z P
uses an imprecise but very descriptive language to deal 9 P P P
with input data more like a human operator. It is very
robust and forgiving of operator and data input and often
works when first implemented with little or no tuning.
Based on these properties, fuzzy logic controller plays the Since there are a total of three fuzzy variables (two
best to fit the requirements in such cases. FLC inputs and one output), and each fuzzy variable has three
incorporates a simple rule-based If X and Y then Z membership functions, the fuzzy controller for pitch
approach to solving control problem rather than control of an aircraft has a total of nine membership
attempting to model a system mathematically. functions. Each membership function is constrained to be
Fig. 5 shows the overall closed-loop system for FLC triangular so each membership function has three
with the pitch control of an aircraft. The inputs to the parameters (a modal point and two half-width).
fuzzy controller are the error (e) which measures the In this study, the triangular and trap membership
system performance and the rate at which the error function are chosen for each fuzzy set. Fig. 6, Fig. 7 and
changes (e), whereas the output is the change of the Fig. 8 shows the fuzzy set of the input error and error
control signal (u). From the Fig. 5, the error (e) is and the output output1.
computed by comparing the reference point (desired
angle) with the plant output. The change of error (e) is
generated by the derivation of the error. The error and
change of error is fed to the fuzzy controller through a
multiplexer.
392
0.25
Reference
0.2
pitch angle between LQR and fuzzy logic controller is Time (sec)
shown in Table III quantitatively. By referring to the Fig. Figure 10. Pitch angle response with fuzzy logic controller.
9 and Table III, the results clearly demonstrate that LQR
controller has the fastest response with the settling time
of 0.3655 second and rising time of 0.1335 second. For For comparison of controller performance, the
the percent of overshoot (%OS), LQR has 4.35% which response for pitch control of an aircraft system using
is met the desired requirement of controller design. LQR and fuzzy logic controller are shown with overall
Furthermore the LQR controller tends to produce very response of both controllers in Fig. 11 and the bar graphs
small steady state error (Ess) and it is within the limit that in Fig. 12. The results clearly shows that LQR controller
is 0.01%. This can be indicating that LQR controller can has the best performance as compared to fuzzy logic
handle the effect of disturbances in the system. controller in term of rising time (Tr) that is 0.1335 second,
Fig. 10 shows the closed loop system response of the settling time (Ts) that is 0.3655 second and percent of
pitch angle, with fuzzy logic controller. Two inputs steady state error (Ess) about 0.01%. The results also show
have been applied to fuzzy logic controller which is the the LQR controller is good in eliminating the error from the
error (e) that computed by comparing the reference point system which is almost tend to the zero value. However, for
(desired angle) with the plant output and the change of the percent of overshoot (%OS) fuzzy logic controller have
error (e) which generated by the derivation of the error. the best range which is 0%. Therefore, from the result
The fuzzy logic controller provides good performance in obtained in Fig. 11 and Fig. 12, it can be concluded that
term of percent overshoot that is 0%. As depicted from the LQR controller provide higher ability in controlling
Fig. 10, it can be observed that the pitch angle follows the the pitch angle as compared to the fuzzy logic controller.
reference value respectively. This controller is able to
give a good response without produce any overshoot. The
response is comparatively fast that give the settling time TABLE III.
SUMMARY OF PERFORMANCE CHARACTERISTIC FOR PITCH ANGLE
(Ts) about 2.002 second and rise time (Tr) about 1.03
second. The results also demonstrated that the artificial Response Pitch angle
fuzzy logic controller can eliminate the effect of characteristic LQR Fuzzy Logic
disturbances in the system up to 0.5%. Rising Time
0.1335s 1.03s
(Tr)
Settling Time
0.3655s 2.002s
(Ts)
0.25
Reference
Pitch angle-LQR
Percent Overshoot
4.35 0
(%OS)
0.2
Steady-state Error
0.01 0.5
0.15
(ess) (%)
Pitch angle (radian)
0.1
0.05
0.25
0.2
-0.05 Reference
0 1 2 3 4 5 6
LQR
Time (sec)
FLC
0.15
0.1
0.05
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Time (sec)
Figure 11. Pitch angle response with LQR and fuzzy logic
controller.
393
[8] Hamid R. Berenji, Sujit Saraf, Ping-Wei Chang, and Steven R.
Swanson, Pitch Control of the Space Shuttle Training Aircraft,
IEEE Transaction on Control System Technology, Vol 9, No 3,
2001.
[9] Ekprasit Promtun, Sridhar Seshagiri, Sliding Mode Control of
Pitch Rate of an F-16 Aircraft, International Journal on Applied
Science, Engineering and Technology, Vol 5, No 5.
V. CONCLUSION
The validated model of pitch control of an aircraft is
very helpful in developing the control strategy for actual
system. Pitch control of an aircraft is a system which
requires a pitch controller to maintain the angle at it
desired value. This can be achieved by reducing the error
signal which is the difference between the output angle
the desired angle.
Two controllers, LQR and fuzzy logic are successfully
designed and presented. Based on the result and the
analysis, a conclusion has been made that, the control
approach of LQR and fuzzy logic is capable of controlling
the pitch angle of the aircraft system for value of 0.2
radian (11.5degree). Simulation and analysis results show
that, LQR controller relatively give the better performance
compared to fuzzy logic controller in controlling the pitch
angle of an aircraft system. For further research, effort can
be devoted through adding another element that make up
the control system, following by develop more advanced
and robustness control techniques. Beside, the proposed
control algorithm can be implements to real plant for
validating of theoretical result.
REFERENCES
[1] R.C. Nelson, Flight Stability and Automatic Control, McGraw
Hill, Second Edition, 1998.
[2] Thomas J. Redling, Integrated Flight Control System; A New
Paradigm for an Old Art, IEEE Aerospace and Electronic
Systems Society (AESS) Systems Magazine, 2001.
[3] B. Stojiljkovic, L. Vasov, C. Mitrovic, D. Cvetkovic, The
Application of the Root Locus Method for the Design of Pitch
Controller of an F-104A Aircraft, Journal of Mechanical
Engineering, Vol 55, 2009.
[4] Pavle Boskoski, Biljana Mileva, Stojche Deskoski, Auto Landing
Using Fuzzy Logic, 6th International PhD Workshop on Systems
and Control, Slovenia, 2005.
[5] D. Choe, Y. Lee, S. Cho, Nonlinear Pitch Autopilot Design with
Local Lines Linear System Analysis, International Conference
on Automatic Control and Systems Engineering, Cairo, Egypt,
2005.
[6] Robert S. Eick, A Reconfiguration Scheme for Flight Control
Adaptation to Fixed Position Actuator Failures, Ph. D Theses,
University of Florida, 2003.
[7] D. G. Bates, R. Kureemun and I. Postlethwaite, Quantifying the
Robustness of Flight Control Systems Using Nichols Exclusion
Regions and the Structured Singular Value, Proc InstnMech
Engrs, Vol 215, Part I, 2001.
394