HIRM Design Spec

GROUP FOR AERONAUTICAL RESEARCH AND TECHNOLOGY IN EUROPE
ORIGINAL: ENGLISH GARTEUR/TP-088-4

April 4, 1997
GARTEUR Open
Robust Flight Control Design Challenge

Problem Formulation and Manual:
the High Incidence Research Model (HIRM)
by
FM(AG08)
GARTEUR aims at stimulating and co-ordinating

co-operation between Research Establishments and Industry
in the areas of Aerodynamics, Flight Mechanics, Helicopters,
Structures & Materials and Propulsion Technology
GROUP FOR AERONAUTICAL RESEARCH AND TECHNOLOGY IN EUROPE
ORIGINAL: ENGLISH GARTEUR/TP-088-4

April 4, 1997
GARTEUR Open
Robust Flight Control Design Challenge

Problem Formulation and Manual:
the High Incidence Research Model (HIRM)
by
FM(AG08)
This report has been prepared under auspices of

the Responsables for Flight Mechanics, Systems
and Integration of the Group for Aeronautical
Research and Technology in EURope (GARTEUR)
Group of Resp. : FM-GoR Action Group : FM(AG08)

Report Resp. : E.A.M. Muir/ Version : 3
Project Man. : J.C. Terlouw/ Completed : April 4, 1997
Monitoring Resp. : J.T.M. van Doorn/ c GARTEUR 1997
Version: 3
i Date: April 4, 1997
GARTEUR/TP-088-4
List of authors
Chapter 1: Jan Terlouw1, Stefano Scala6
Chapter 2: Ewan Muir2, Dieter Moormann3
Chapter 3: Dieter Moormann
Chapter 4: Ewan Muir, Paul Lambrechts1
Chapter 5: Rick Hyde5
Chapter 6: Paul Lambrechts, Samir Bennani4
Appendix A: Dieter Moormann, Ewan Muir
Appendix B: Paul Lambrechts
Appendix C: Jan Schuring, Paul Lambrechts
Appendix D: Ewan Muir
Appendix E: Ewan Muir
Appendix F: Chris Fielding7, Robert Luckner8
1 NLR, Anthony Fokkerweg 2, 1059 CM Amsterdam, The Netherlands.

2 DRA, Bedford MK41 6AE, United Kingdom.
3 DLR, Postfach 1116, D-82230 Wessling, Germany.
4 TUD, Kluyverweg 1, 2629 HS Delft, The Netherlands.
5 CCL, Newton House, Cambridge Business Park, Cowley Road, Cambridge CB4 4WZ,
England.
6 CIRA, Via Maiorise 81043, Capua, Italy.
7 BAe-MA, Warton Aerodrome, Preston, PR4 1AX, United Kingdom.
8 Daimler-Benz Aerospace Airbus, PO Box 950109, D21111 Hamburg, Germany.
Version: 3
Date: April 4, 1997 ii
GARTEUR/TP-088-4
Summary
This document denes one of the two Robust Flight Control design challenges prepared
by GARTEUR Action Group FM(AG08). This design challenge consists of the imple-
mentation of a wide envelope ight control law for the High Incidence Research Model
(HIRM). A non-linear aircraft model is supplied for design and simulation. A realistic set
of design specications for performance and robustness is formulated. Although the set of
specications is limited, the problem formulation is representative of a real world control
law design.
A fully automated evaluation procedure is developed to be able to compare the perfor-
mance of the resulting controllers, irrespective of the methods used to design them. Design
challenge participants are expected to supply insight into the usefulness of their methods,
not only in the sense of controller performance, but also in the sense of controller com-
plexity and design time. The latter is considered to be of particular importance for the
aircraft industry.
Version: 3
iii Date: April 4, 1997
GARTEUR/TP-088-4
Distribution list
FM(AG08) Principal Persons
Ahmed S (UK) CCL 1 copy
Ambrosino G (IT) UNAP 1 copy
Bernussou J (FR) LAAS 1 copy
Cruz J de la (ES) UCM 1 copy
Delgado I (ES) INTA 1 copy
Dormido S (ES) UNED 1 copy
Duda H (DE) DLR 1 copy
Escande B (FR) ONERA 1 copy
Faleiro L (UK) LUT 1 copy
Fielding C (UK) BAe-MA 1 copy
Game G (UK) BAeDD 1 copy
Gautrey J (UK) CUN 1 copy
Helmersson A (SE) LiTH 1 copy
Joos H (DE) DLR 1 copy
Laidlaw D (UK) AVRO 1 copy
Luckner R (DE) DASA 1 copy
Maciejowski J (UK) UCAM 1 copy
Magni J (FR) ONERA 1 copy
Muir E (UK) DRA 1 copy
Postlethwaite I (UK) ULES 1 copy
Schram G (NL) DUT-EE 1 copy
Stahl-Gunnarsson K (SE) SMA 1 copy
Terlouw J (NL) NLR 1 copy
Tonon A (IT) ALN 1 copy
Vaart J van der (NL) DUT-AE 1 copy
Verde L (IT) CIRA 1 copy
Members of the Flight Mechanics, Systems and Integration Group of
Responsables
Brannstrom B (SE) FMV 1 copy
Doorn J van (NL) NLR 1 copy
England P (UK) DRA 1 copy
Mu~noz F (IT) INTA 1 copy
Rodlo R (DE) DLR 1 copy
Verbrugge R (FR) ONERA 1 copy
Version: 3
Date: April 4, 1997 iv
GARTEUR/TP-088-4
Members of the Executive Committee

Cheret J (FR) ONERA 1 copy
Coleman G (UK) DRA 1 copy
Gustafsson A (SE) FFA 1 copy
Haupt R (DE) DLR/PD-L 1 copy
Moreno Labata G (ES) INTA 1 copy
Sloo J (NL) NLR 1 copy
Secretary GARTEUR
Jonasson K (SE) FFA 1 copy
Version: 3
v Date: April 4, 1997
GARTEUR/TP-088-4
Contents
List of gures viii

List of tables ix
List of symbols and abbreviations x
1 Introduction 1
1.1 Objectives of GARTEUR Action Group FM(AG08) . . . . . . . . . . . 1
1.2 Objectives of subproject FM(AG08)-3 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
1.3 Contents of this document . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2 Description of the HIRM model 5
2.1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
2.2 Block diagram of the system . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
2.3 Aircraft dynamics model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
2.3.1 Nomenclature: Inputs, States, Outputs, Parameters . . . . . . . 7
2.3.2 Rigid body Equations of motion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
2.3.2.1 Translational movement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
2.3.2.2 Rotational motion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
2.3.3 Coordinate transformation (Body-Fixed , Vehicle-Carried) . . . 12
2.3.4 Airspeed calculation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
2.3.5 Aerodynamics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
2.3.6 Engine model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
2.3.7 Atmosphere . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
2.3.8 Gravity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
2.4 Actuator models . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
2.4.1 Available motivators . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
2.4.2 Nomenclature: Inputs, States, Outputs, Parameters . . . . . . . 18
2.4.3 Taileron actuator . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
2.4.4 Rudder actuator . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
2.4.5 Canard actuator . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
2.5 Sensor models . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
2.5.1 Available sensors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
2.5.2 Sensor dynamics and signal conditioning . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
2.5.3 Simplied sensor dynamics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
2.5.4 Sensor noise . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
2.5.5 Measurement errors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
2.6 Stick characteristics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
2.7 Atmospheric turbulence models . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
Version: 3
Date: April 4, 1997 vi
GARTEUR/TP-088-4
3 Aircraft physical modelling leading to automatic code generation 25

3.1 Object modelling . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
3.2 Hierarchical object structure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27
3.2.1 Object: Body6DOF . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29
3.2.2 Object: TrafoBV (Coordinate transformation: body-xed , vehicle
carried) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30
3.2.3 Object: Aerodynamics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31
3.2.3.1 Object: Airspeed (calculation of airspeed) . . . . . . . 32
3.2.3.2 Object: Aero Equations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32
3.2.4 Object: HIRM Engine . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34
3.2.5 Object: Atmosphere . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37
3.2.6 Object: Gravity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37
3.3 Code generation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38
3.4 Conclusion and outlook . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38
4 Control problem denition 40
4.1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40
4.2 Control strategy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40
4.2.1 Pilot commands . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40
4.2.2 Requirements of the control system . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40
4.3 Robustness considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41
4.3.1 Design envelope . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41
4.3.2 Modelling errors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41
4.3.3 Measurement errors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42
4.3.4 Hardware implementation considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42
4.4 Robustness requirements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42
4.5 Performance requirements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43
4.6 Scheduling considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45
5 Evaluation criteria 51
5.1 Robustness criteria . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51
5.1.1 Nominal ight Nichols plot . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51
5.1.2 Multivariable uncertainty at nominal ight condition . . . . . . . 52
5.1.3 Robustness to parametric uncertainty . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 52
5.1.4 Robustness at the ight envelope limit . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 52
5.2 Performance criteria . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 52
5.2.1 Disturbance rejection . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 52
5.2.2 Gibson criteria . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 52
5.2.3 Assessment manoeuvres . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 53
5.3 Physical considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 54
5.3.1 Airframe loading and departure prevention . . . . . . . . . . . . 54
Version: 3
vii Date: April 4, 1997
GARTEUR/TP-088-4
5.3.2 Structural coupling . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 54

5.4 Control activity criteria . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 55
5.4.1 Max roll rate and pitch rate . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 55
5.4.2 Control activity due to noise and turbulence . . . . . . . . . . . 55
6 Design entry document layout 56
6.1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 56
6.2 Standard presentation format layout . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 57
6.3 Required contents of the design report . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 59
6.4 Final remarks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 62
References 63
A The HIRM model and design environment software description 65
A.1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 65
A.2 HIRM model in Matlab/Simulink . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 65
A.2.1 Installation of C-Code version of HIRM . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 65
A.2.1.1 Installed les . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 66
A.2.2 Installation of Fortran Code version of HIRM . . . . . . . . . . . 67
A.2.2.1 Installed les . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 68
A.2.3 Use . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 69
B The standard design challenge entry document layout 71
B.1 Installation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 71
B.2 The rst test . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 71
B.3 The use of .STY les . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 71
C The automated evaluation software 73
C.1 Installation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 73
C.1.1 Installed les . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 73
C.2 Use of the evaluation software . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 73
C.3 Incorporation of results into the framework document . . . . . . . . . . 74
C.4 Use with your own controller . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 74
D Linear and non-linear model check case and comparison 76
D.1 Matrices for check case . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 76
D.2 Time responses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 77
E Key HIRM aerodynamic characteristics 82
F Evaluation Questionnaire 84
Version: 3
Date: April 4, 1997 viii
GARTEUR/TP-088-4
List of gures
2.1 HIRM conguration. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
2.2 Simulink block diagram of HIRM aircraft system . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
2.3 Dynamics objects of HIRM aircraft model inside block hirmex of Fig. 2.2 7
2.4 Coordinate transformation body xed , vehicle carried . . . . . . . . . 12
2.5 Engine model. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
2.6 Sensor hardware assumptions. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
3.1 Object diagram of HIRM . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
3.2 Aircraft model library . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
3.3 Structure of aircraft physical model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28
3.4 HIRM Engine Dynamics model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35
3.5 Control block library . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35
3.6 Aircraft Gravity Model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38
3.7 From system conguration to symbolic model or simulation model . . . 39
4.1 Closed loop system showing point for analysis. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43
4.2 Gain and phase osets excluding tolerances . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46
4.3 Gain and phase osets including tolerances . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46
4.4 Gain and phase exclusion zones on Nichols plot for single loop analysis
frequency response excluding tolerances. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47
4.5 Gain and phase exclusion zones on Nichols plot for single loop analysis
frequency response including tolerances. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47
4.6 Pitch/roll stick force to pitch attitude/roll angle frequency response crite-
rion. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48
4.7 Phase rate criterion. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48
4.8 Pitch stick force to pitch attitude frequency response criterion. . . . . . 49
4.9 Roll stick force to roll angle frequency response criterion. . . . . . . . . 49
4.10 Denition of dropback. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50
4.11 Sideslip requirements. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50
A.1 Simulink design model hirm des.m . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 69
D.1 Response to step in symmetric tailplane. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 78
D.2 Response to step in dierential tailplane. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 79
D.3 Response to step in symmetric canard. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 79
D.4 Response to step in dierential canard. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 80
D.5 Response to step in rudder. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 80
D.6 Response to step in throttle 1. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 81
E.1 Lift coecient versus angle of attack . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 82
E.2 Pitching moment coecient versus angle of attack . . . . . . . . . . . . 83
E.3 Yawing moment coecient versus sideslip . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 83
Version: 3
ix Date: April 4, 1997
GARTEUR/TP-088-4
List of tables
2.1 Aircraft model inputs denition . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
2.2 Aircraft model states denition . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
2.3 Aircraft model outputs denition . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
2.4 Aircraft model parameter denition . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
2.5 Parameter uncertainty denition . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
2.6 Relation between throttle and thrust . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
2.7 Actuator inputs denition . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
2.8 Actuator states denition . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
2.9 Stick characteristics. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
4.1 Matrix element corresponding to modelling error . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42
D.1 Amplitude of step and gure number for each response . . . . . . . . . . 77
D.2 Legends for graphs in gures D.1 to D.6 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 78
Version: 3
Date: April 4, 1997 x
GARTEUR/TP-088-4
List of symbols and abbreviations

Symbols
The symbols used are according to the nomenclature dened in the Communication Hand-
book [1].
Abbreviations
ALN Alenia Aeronautica
AVRO Avro International Aerospace
BAeDD MATRA - British Aerospace Defence Dynamics
BAe-MA British Aerospace Military Aircraft
CCL Cambridge Control
CERT Centre d'Etudes et de Recherches de Toulouse
CIRA Centro Italiano Ricerche Aerospaziali
CUN Craneld University
DASA Daimler-Benz Aerospace Airbus
DE Germany
DLR Deutsche Forschungsanstalt fur Luft- und Raumfahrt
DRA Defence Research Agency
DUT-AE Delft University of Technology, Department of
Aerospace Engineering
DUT-EE Delft University of Technology, Department of
Electrical Engineering
ES Spain
FFA The Aeronautical Research Institute of Sweden
FMAG Flight Mechanics Action Group
FM-GoR Flight Mechanics, Systems and Integration Group of Responsables
FMV Defense Material Administration
FR France
GARTEUR Group for Aeronautical Research and Technology in EURope
INTA Instituto Nacional de Tecnica Aerospacial
IT Italy
LAAS Laboratoire d'Analyse et d'Architecture des Systemes
LiTH Linkoping University
LUT Loughborough University
NL The Netherlands
NLR National Aerospace Laboratory
ONERA Oce National d'Etudes et de Recherches Aerospatiales
SE Sweden
Version: 3
xi Date: April 4, 1997
GARTEUR/TP-088-4
SMA Saab AB, Saab Military Aircraft

UCAM University of Cambridge
UCM Universidad Complutense Madrid
UK United Kingdom
ULES University of Leicester
UNAP Universita degli Studi di Napoli Federico II
UNED Universidad Nacional de Educacion a Distancia
Version: 3
Date: April 4, 1997 xii
GARTEUR/TP-088-4
Version: 3
1 Date: April 4, 1997
GARTEUR/TP-088-4
1 Introduction
1.1 Objectives of GARTEUR Action Group FM(AG08)
In this document a Robust Flight Control design benchmark problem is proposed. It has
been prepared by GARTEUR Action Group FM(AG08) on \Robust Flight Control (RFC)
in a Computational Aircraft Control Engineering Environment (CACEE)". The objectives
and activities of this Action Group will be discussed in the following. More details can
be found in the FM(AG08) Terms of Reference [2] and in the FM(AG08) Project Docu-
ment [3].
A theme of world-wide importance to aircraft manufacturing companies is the improve-

ment of techniques for computer-aided aircraft design integration, which goes beyond mere
functional integration of aircraft components and seeks to provide optimal performance
for the vehicle as a whole. In [4] the following observation is made:
The traditional process of systems integration is to make individually designed

subsystems work together on an aircraft, that is, to ensure compatibility and
minimise adverse interactions. The new goal is to carry out concurrent multi-
disciplinary designs of the highly interactive systems in order to maximise
aircraft performance, viewed in its broadest terms.
Achievement of this long term goal requires close collaboration between the major aero-
nautical disciplines: Aerodynamics; Structures; Propulsion; Guidance, Navigation and
Control. Bearing this in mind, the ight control engineering discipline should utilise and
elaborate controller analysis and design methodology suitable for multi-disciplinary con-
siderations. Robust control methodology has this potential and is therefore the main focus
of FM(AG08).
A major problem facing designers of Flight Control Systems (FCS) is uncertainty in char-
acterising not only the vehicle itself, but also the environment in which it must operate.
Gain scheduling is often necessary because of the variation of characteristics for which the
control laws must guarantee stability and performance. The design of gain scheduling is
time consuming for two reasons: the control laws must be designed at each design point,
and a great deal of assessment is required to ensure adequate stability and performance
at o-design points.
Recent advances in control theory research has given rise to a number of novel robust
control techniques [5, 6] specically developed for dealing with model uncertainties and
parameter variations. These new techniques oer potential benets to a control law de-
signer for modern aircraft in the following ways:
Version: 3
Date: April 4, 1997 2
GARTEUR/TP-088-4
Multivariable systems can be handled in a concise methodical framework, thus re-

moving the need for the sequential loop closure approach, and reducing the design
eort required.
Robust control laws which cover larger regions of the ight envelope around a design
point can be derived more eciently. This oers the potential for reducing the
number of design points required, simplifying the gain schedule, and reducing the
amount of assessment required at o-design points.
The main consequence of these benets is that a FCS design based on robust control
techniques yields a considerable reduction in the design eort required, and a potential
reduction in the time-to-market and design costs. Subproject FM(AG08)-3 (GARTEUR
Robust Flight Control Design) aims at demonstrating these advantages to the European
aeronautical industry.
1.2 Objectives of subproject FM(AG08)-3
Robust control theory has been well assessed in the literature, where a great number of
papers can be found dealing with the various aspects of robustness, parameter variations,
modelling uncertainty, unmodelled dynamics, etc. At the same time a wide variety of al-
gorithms implementing robust control techniques can be found in many technical reports
and general purpose software, such as Matlab/Simulink [7, 8] and MATRIXX [9].
However, robust control techniques are seldom used by European aircraft manufactur-
ers for the design of FCS. There are three main reasons for this:
The application of robust control theory to the aircraft control law design problem
has not been demonstrated. The techniques and algorithms associated with robust
control theory are clearly expressed but do not, in their current form, lend themselves
to direct FCS application.
There are a limited number of dedicated robust control design tools, while most
manufacturers have an extensive suite of classical control design tools that they
have developed over a period of several years.
There is no specic bibliographic source available on robust control techniques. Con-
sequently, a lot of time has to be spent in searching for appropriate references in a
variety of widely distributed libraries, journals and general purpose data-bases.
Subproject FM(AG08)-3 aims at removing these drawbacks and at demonstrating to Eu-
ropean aircraft manufacturers that a signicant improvement in the overall design process
is possible by using robust control techniques. In a greater detail, the aim is:
To identify and apply existing and new controller design methods to robust control
problems that are representative of operational industrial needs [10].
Version: 3
GARTEUR/TP-088-4
To introduce robust controller design and analysis methods into the control law
design cycle, in order to cope more eciently with uncertainty in the models used
and with operational changes that may occur.
To identify tools which can be used in conjunction with multi-disciplinary design
optimization to improve overall dynamic system performance.
To develop robust controller design procedures that interface with industrial require-
ments.
To achieve these objectives, FM(AG08) has opted for the following research approach.
Two robust ight control benchmark problems have been dened, which will be solved
by design teams from the European aeronautical industry, research establishments and
universities. A wide variety of modern and classical design methods will be applied. The
controllers that are designed in response to these problems will be compared and eval-
uated. It is proposed that a nal conference will be held in Toulouse (France) by the
end of 1996, where the controllers and the results of the comparisons will be presented.
However, it must be stated that the aim of these benchmark problems is not to produce an
optimal control law, but to demonstrate how robust ight control theory can be applied
to realistic problems and also to demonstrate the limitations of such techniques. It is also
intended that these benchmarks will raise the awareness and condence of the European
aeronautical industry in the use of robust control techniques.
The two benchmarks cover respectively an automatic landing control problem and a high
angle of attack enhanced manual control problem. This document is the manual for
the second problem, which will be referred to as the HIRM (High Incidence Research
Model) benchmark. The main objective of the HIRM design study is the design of a
control augmentation system for HIRM. The aim of the ight control system is to give
good handling qualities across the specied ight envelope and also provide robustness
to unmodelled plant dynamics, modelling uncertainties and variations in operating point
within the ight envelope. Acceptable noise and disturbance rejection must also be demon-
strated. The HIRM mathematical model represents an aircraft typical of modern combat
aircraft. The problem is wirtten to provide an aerospace control law benchmark, which
is both concise and bounded, with a set of representative design aims for both robustness
and handling qualities. At the same time, it contains most of the elements aecting the
implementation of control laws in real systems and which designers need to allow for.
1.3 Contents of this document
The structure of the document is as follows:
In chapter 2, a description of the HIRM model is given, in which analytical expres-
sions for all the variables of interest, states, inputs and outputs of the system, are
Version: 3
GARTEUR/TP-088-4
derived. A detailed description of the components of the model (aircraft, sensors,

actuators and engines, wind model) is included.
Chapter 3 provides a description of the HIRM modelling using Dymola, from which
Simulink representations were generated.
In chapter 4, the design problem is formulated.
In chapter 5, the criteria and procedure adopted for evaluation of the proposed design
are described.
In chapter 6, the standard layout of the document that will contain the design results
is given, with a description of the items to be addressed in each design document.
In appendix A, an installation procedure and user reference for the HIRM software
model in Matlab/Simulink is given, together with examples.
In appendix B, an installation procedure and user reference for the software for
writing the design document is given.
In appendix C, an installation procedure and user reference for the automated eval-
uation software is given, by which an auto-evaluation of the designed control law is
possible.
In appendix D, the time responses of the linear and non-linear HIRM models are
checked and compared for one ight condition.
Appendix E shows plots of the key aerodynamic characteristics of HIRM.
The questionnaire used by the reviewers to evaluate each of the design entries is
shown in Appendix F.
Version: 3
GARTEUR/TP-088-4
2 Description of the HIRM model

2.1 Introduction
The High Incidence Research Model (HIRM) is a mathematical model of a generic ghter
aircraft whose conguration is shown in Fig. 2.1. This mathematical model is based on
aerodynamic data obtained from wind tunnel tests and ight testing of an unpowered,
scaled drop model. The aerodynamics therefore contain degrees of non-linearity repre-
sentative of modern combat aircraft. The wind tunnel and drop models were originally
designed to investigate ight at high angles of attack which is why the dataset extends over
a wide angle of attack and sideslip range ( 50 to +120 , 50 ) but does not include
compressibility eects resulting from high subsonic speeds.
Fig.2.1 HIRM conguration.
The HIRM mathematical model used for this design study was derived by scaling up the
data obtained from the drop model to create an aircraft of F-18 proportions. Engine and
actuator models have been added to create a representative, non-linear simulation of a twin
engined, modern ghter aircraft. The aircraft is basically stable both longitudinally and
laterally. There are however combinations of angle of attack and control surface de ection
which cause the aircraft to be unstable longitudinally and/or laterally.
Version: 3
GARTEUR/TP-088-4
2.2 Block diagram of the system

The block diagram of the six degrees of freedom nonlinear High Incidence Research Model
(HIRM) including nonlinear actuator and sensor models is given in Fig. 2.2.
Each box in this block diagram will be described in detail. First of all, in x 2.3.1 the
nomenclature adopted throughout this document and in the HIRM software is presented.
In x 2.3 an analytical description of the aircraft dynamics is given. In x 2.4 the actuator
model dynamics are detailed. In x 2.5 the sensor model is described. The stick charac-
teristics assumed for the model are given in x 2.6. In x 2.7 the analytical models of wind
disturbances are presented.
Before starting a
simulation
symmetrical taileron (dtsc) load ini****.mat
0 of desired flight condition time
U0 in the workspace
differential taileron (dtdc) Clock Time
trim_inputs Double click here
0 to actuator for more information
symmetrical canard (dcsc) hirmsim
outputs for simulation
0
differential canard (dcdc) Mux +
+ hirmexa hirmexs hirmy
− Mux hirmex Demux
0 measured variables
Sum_inputs1 Actuator Mux Demux Sensor
rudder (drc) model HIRM model model
(16 states)
0 wind
nose suction (suctionc) wind_input
left engine throttle (thrott1c)
right engine throttle (thrott2c) CONTROLLER

Mux1
Fig.2.2 Simulink block diagram of HIRM aircraft system
2.3 Aircraft dynamics model

This section describes the HIRM dynamics model corresponding to the block hirmex in
Fig. 2.2. The dynamics objects are depicted in Fig. 2.3.
These objects are:
body describes the body dierential equations of motion (see x2.3.2).
two transformation objects describe the coordinate transformation between the
body-xed coordinates of the body object and the geodetic coordinates of the gravity
object, and between the body-xed coordinates of body and the geodetic coordinates
of wind, respectively (see x2.3.3).
calcairspeed describes the relationship between the inertial movement, the wind,
and the movement relative to the air (see x2.3.4).
aerodynamics describes the aerodynamic forces and moments (see x2.3.5).
Version: 3
GARTEUR/TP-088-4
atmosphereConst
( as a function of height )
control
aerodynamic
inputs
calcairspeed
(calculate airspeed)
outputs
engine_1
for system
body
analysis
Equations of motion
engine_2
for control
BodyFixed BodyFixed
Transfor- mation Transfor- mation

HIRM
Geodetic Geodetic
dynamics model
gravitationConst wind
( g = 9.81 m/s 2 )
wind
inputs
Fig.2.3 Dynamics objects of HIRM aircraft model inside block hirmex of Fig. 2.2
engine1 and engine2 describe the relevant engine behaviour (see x2.3.6).
atmosphere describes the atmosphere model (see x2.3.7).
gravity describes the gravitational in uence (see x2.3.8).
2.3.1 Nomenclature: Inputs, States, Outputs, Parameters
The following tables summarizes the adopted nomenclature used both for the formulation
of the problem and the naming of variables in the software. Additional information can
be found in Appendix A of this document and in Ref. [1].
The inputs are given in Table 2.1.
The state variables are given in Table 2.2.
The outputs are given in Table 2.3.
The parameters are detailed in Table 2.4.
Uncertainty is assumed in the aerodynamic parameters as detailed in Table 2.5. Note that
the magnitudes of these uncertainties can only be changed by editing the HIRM software
Version: 3
GARTEUR/TP-088-4
Symbol Alphanumeric Name Unit

TS DTS u(1) = symmetrical taileron de ection rad
TD DTD u(2) = dierential taileron de ection rad
CS DCS u(3) = symmetrical canard de ection rad
CD DCD u(4) = dierential canard de ection rad
R DR u(5) = rudder de ection rad
suction SUCTION u(6) = nose suction -
TH1 THROTTL1 u(7) = left engine throttle -
TH2 THROTTL2 u(8) = right engine throttle -
WXB WXB u(9) = longitud. wind (body-xed system) m/s
WY B WYB u(10) = lateral wind (body-xed system) m/s
WZB WZB u(11) = vertical wind (body-xed system) m/s
Table 2.1 Aircraft model inputs denition

u x(1) = longitudinal velocity m/sec
v x(2) = lateral velocity m/sec
w x(3) = normal velocity m/sec
p x(4) = roll rate rad/sec
q x(5) = pitch rate rad/sec
r x(6) = yaw rate rad/sec
x(7) = roll angle rad
x(8) = pitch angle rad
x(9) = heading angle rad
x x(10) = x-position of the center of gravity m
y x(11) = y-position of the center of gravity m
z x(12) = z-position of the center of gravity m
engine1F x(13) = rst state of engine 1 (thrust) N
engine1F 1 x(14) = second state of engine 1 (time deriv. of thrust) N/s
engine2F x(15) = rst state of engine 2 (thrust) N
engine2F 1 x(16) = second state of engine 2 (time deriv. of thrust) N/s
Table 2.2 Aircraft model states denition

Version: 3
GARTEUR/TP-088-4

Measured
p P y(1) = roll rate rad/s
q Q y(2) = pitch rate rad/s
r R y(3) = yaw rate rad/s
THETA y(4) = pitch attitude rad
PHI y(5) = roll angle rad
PSI y(6) = heading angle rad
anx ANX y(7) = x-accelerometer output in body axes m/s2
any ANY y(8) = y-accelerometer output in body axes m/s2
anz ANZ y(9) = z-accelerometer output in body axes m/s2
V V y(10) = total velocity (true airspeed) m/s
M M y(11) = Mach number -
h H y(12) = height m
ALPHA y(13) = angle of attack rad
BETA y(14) = sideslip rad
Simulation
GAMMA y(15) = ight path angle rad
Vg VG y(16) = total ground speed (magnitude) m/s
x X y(17) = position north m
y Y y(18) = position east m
Fp1 FP1 y(19) = thrust of engine1 N
Fp2 FP2 y(20) = thrust of engine2 N
Table 2.3 Aircraft model outputs denition

Version: 3
GARTEUR/TP-088-4
Symbol Alphanumeric Default Unit

Mass Parameters
m MASS mass 15296.0 kg
Ix Ix x-body axis moment of inertia 24549.0 kg m2
Ixy Ixy xy-body axis product of inertia 0.0 kg m2
Ixz Ixz xz-body axis product of inertia -3124.0 kg m2
Iy Iy y-body axis moment of inertia 163280.0 kg m2
Iyz Iyz yz-body axis product of inertia 0.0 kg m2
Iz Iz z-body axis moment of inertia 183110.0 kg m2
Engine Parameters
XATP 1 xatp1 x position of thrust point engine 1 -6.0 m
YATP 1 yatp1 y position of thrust point engine 1 -0.56 m
ZATP 1 zatp1 z position of thrust point engine 1 0.35 m
XATP 2 xatp2 x position of thrust point engine 2 -6.0 m
YATP 2 yatp2 y position of thrust point engine 2 0.56 m
ZATP 2 zatp2 z position of thrust point engine 2 0.35 m
idle idle idle thrust 10000.0 N
maxdry maxdry maximum dry thrust 47000.0 N
maxreheat maxreheat maximum reheat thrust 72000.0 N
Aerodynamic Parameters
c CBAR mean aerodynamic chord 3.511 m
S S wing planform area 37.16 m2
b b span 11.4 m
Table 2.4 Aircraft model parameter denition

and cannot be set within the Matlab workspace.
2.3.2 Rigid body Equations of motion
2.3.2.1 Translational movement
The equations for the translational movement in bodyxed coordinates are derived from
the force equation:
F = m ( aB + ! x VB )
Symbol Denition Bounds

Cmerr p(1) uncertainty in pitching moment 0:03
Clerr p(2) uncertainty in rolling moment 0:03
Cnerr p(3) uncertainty in yawing moment 0:03
err p(4) uncertainty in angle of attack 2
err p(5) uncertainty in angle of sideslip 2
Table 2.5 Parameter uncertainty denition

Version: 3
GARTEUR/TP-088-4
F is the sum of forces due to the engine, the aerodynamics and gravity, m is the mass of
the aircraft, VB is the airspeed and ! is the rotation rate in body-xed coordinates. The
acceleration aB (in body-xed system) is the time derivative of velocity:
2 3
6 u7
d V d
aB = dt = dt 4 v 75
B 6
w
and the velocity is the time derivative of the position vector expressed in the vehicle-carried
(earth) vertical frame:
2 3
6 x7
d X d
VV = dt = dt 4 y 75
V 6
z
Furthermore the following aircraft specic quantities are dened. The normal load factor
nz is dened by:
nz = agnz
where anz is the z body-axis accelerometer output at the Centre of Gravity.
The height h is the negative z coordinate in the vehicle-carried system:
h= z
The ight path angle is calculated from:
tan = p 2wV 2
uV + vV
given as a function of the speed components in vehicle-carried coordinates.
The track angle is given by:
tan = uvV :
V
2.3.2.2 Rotational motion
The equations for the rotational movement in body-xed coordinates are derived from the
moments equation:
M = I !_ + ! x I !
where M is the sum of moments w.r.t. the Centre of Gravity due to the engine and
the aerodynamics, ! is the rotational velocity, and !_ is the rotational acceleration in
body-xed system:
2 3 2 3
6 p_ 7 6 p7
6 7 d
!_ = 4 q_ 5 = dt 4 q 75
6
r_ r
Version: 3
GARTEUR/TP-088-4
The relation between the rotational velocities and the Euler Angles is:
2 _3 2 32 3
1 sin tan cos tan 77 66 p 77
d = 66 _ 77 = 66 0 cos sin 5 4 q 5
dt 4 _ 5 4
0 sin = cos cos = cos r
The aircraft inertia tensor I dened in the body frame is:
2 3
6 I x 0 Ixz 7
I = 64 0 Iy 0 75
Ixz 0 Iz
2.3.3 Coordinate transformation (Body-Fixed , Vehicle-Carried)
The rotations between the body-xed and the vehicle-carried coordinate systems are de-
picted in Fig. 2.4.
Fig.2.4 Coordinate transformation body xed , vehicle carried
To describe the orientation of the aircraft, a transformation using the three Euler angles ,
, and becomes necessary. For the transformation the vehicle-carried system is rotated
about the z -axis by the heading angle . The next rotation is done by the pitch angles
about k2 and nally by the roll angle about the xf -axis.
The transformation matrix between body-xed and vehicle-carried axis system results in:
2 3 2 3 2 3
6 1 0 0 7 6 cos 0 sin 7 6 cos sin 0 7
RBV = RVT B 64 0 cos sin 75 64 0 1 0 75 64 sin cos 0 75
0 sin cos sin 0 cos 0 0 1
Multiplying the three matrices yields:
2 3
6 cos cos sin cos sin 7
RBV = 64 cos sin sin sin cos sin sin sin + cos cos cos sin 75
cos sin cos + sin sin sin sin cos cos sin cos cos
Version: 3
GARTEUR/TP-088-4
For example, the transformation of velocities between vehicle-carried (index V) and body-
xed (index B) coordinates is:
VB = RBV VV
with
2 3 2 3
6 u7 6 uV 7
VB = 64 v 75 and VV = 64 vV 75
w wV
Similarly, the accelerations, rotational velocities, position, forces and moments can be
transformed between the coordinate systems.
2.3.4 Airspeed calculation
The vector airspeed Va (expressed in body axes) is the dierence between the inertial
velocity of the aircraft VB , and the wind velocity WB , expressed in body-xed coordinates:
Va = VB WB
with
2 3
6 ua 7
Va = 4 va 75 ;
6
wa
V is the total velocity:
q
V = (ua 2 + va 2 + wa 2 ) :
The angle of attack and the angle of sideslip are dened as:
tan = wu a
a
sin = vVa
The derivatives of and with respect to time are:

_ = aaz uua2 + waa2x wa
a a
2 2
_ = aay ( ua +2 wa 2) va2 ( apax u2a + a2 az wa )
( ua + va + wa ) ua + wa
where aax , aay , and aaz are the x,y,z-time derivatives of the airspeed in body-xed coor-
dinates (i.e. aax = dudta ).
Version: 3
GARTEUR/TP-088-4
2.3.5 Aerodynamics
The aerodynamic forces FxA , FyA , FzA are given in body-xed coordinates as functions of
the aerodynamic factor qS and the aerodynamic coecients CX , CY , CZ .
FxA = +qS CX
FyA = qS CY
FzA = +qS CZ
The aerodynamic moments LA , MA , NA are given in body-xed coordinates as functions
of the aerodynamic factor qS and the span b or the mean aerodynamic chord c and the
aerodynamic coecients Cl , Cm , Cn .
LA = qS b Cl
MA = qS c Cm
NA = qS b Cn
The dynamic pressure q is:
q = 21 V 2
with V the total airspeed.
The Mach-number M is the quotient of total airspeed V and local speed of sound a:
M = Va
In the following equations the aerodynamic force and moment coecients are given. Each
component has the form Cab (c; d). Its value is computed by linearly interpolating between
the values given in a look-up table as a function of the variables c and d.
CX = CXTS (; TS ) + CXCS (; TS ) CS
CY = CYR () R + CYCS (; ) (CS + ) + CYi (; ) + CYTS (; ) )(TS + 10 + )
20
180 20
+CYr () 2r Vb + CYCD (; CS ) CD + CYp () 2p Vb + CYTD (; TS ) TD + CYsu (; suction)
CZ = CZTS (; TS ) + CZCS (; TS ) CS + CZq (; CS ) 2q Vc
Cm = Cmh (; TS ) + CmCS (; TS ) CS + Cmq (; CS ) 2q Vc + Cmsu (; suction)
Cl = ClR () R + ClCS (; ) (CS + ) + ClTD (; TS ) TD + Cli (; )
) + C ()( + 10 ) r b
20
+ Clr () + ClrTS ()abs(TS + 20 180 lrCS CS 180 2 V
+Clp (; abs(p) 2 bV ) sign(p)

Version: 3
GARTEUR/TP-088-4
20 10 pb
+ ClpTS () abs(TS + 180 ) + (ClpCS () (CS + 180 ) 2 V
+ClTS (; ) )(TS + 10 + ) + C (; ) q c
180 20lq 2V
+ClCD (; CS ) CD + Clsu (; suction)
Cn = CnR () R + CnCS (; ) (CS + ) + CnTD (; TS ) TD + Cni (; )

20
+ Cnr (; TS ) + CnrCS ()abs(CS ) 2r Vb + Cnp (; abs(p) 2 bV ) sign(p)

20 10 pb
+ CnpTS () abs(TS + 180 ) + CnpCS () (CS + 180 ) 2 V
+CnTS (; ) )(TS + 10 + ) + C (; ) + C (; suction)
180 20 nCD CS CD nsu
The parameter is dened as:
20
(
= 010 20
180 > 20
20
Because of the step change in some coecients at 20 angle of attack, designers should
not evaluate their control laws at this value of .
2.3.6 Engine model
Each engine is modelled as shown in Fig. 2.5.
TH Throttle FE

- nonlinearity
- j-
+ 6

1+0:07958 s - Rate
limiter
- 1
s
FE 0
-
0
FE
-
-
Fig.2.5 Engine model.
The throttle position is bounded between 0 and 2 in the actuator model. The demanded
thrust FE is a function of the throttle position as specied below:
(
FE = IDLE + (MAXDRY IDLE ) TH TH 2 [0; 1]
MAXDRY + (MAXREHEAT MAXDRY ) (TH 1) TH 2 [1; 2]
The values of the IDLE, MAXDRY, and MAXREHEAT thrusts for each engine are shown
in Table 2.6. Note that the throttle setting is continuously variable between 0 and 2.
Version: 3
GARTEUR/TP-088-4
throttle TH demanded thrust FE thrust FE

0 IDLE 10000 N
1 MAXDRY 47000 N
2 MAXREHEAT 72000 N
Table 2.6 Relation between throttle and thrust
If the rate limit is ignored, the engine dynamics can be represented by a second order
transfer function with a damping of 1 and a natural frequency of 2.
The rate limit varies depending on whether the engine is in dry thrust or in reheat.
If the engine is in dry thrust ( 47 kN), the rate limit equals 12000 N/s.
If the engine is in reheat (> 47 kN), the rate limit equals 25000 N/s.
The sea level engine thrust FE 0 is scaled with density as follows:
FE = FE0 :
0
The engine setting angles are zero and so the thrust acts parallel to the aircraft x-body
axis. Therefore:
FEx = FE ; FEy = 0; FEz = 0
The position of the point of application of thrust of each engine w.r.t. center of gravity is
given by the parameters XATP , YATP , and ZATP . Their values are shown also in Table
2.4.
The moments about the aircraft centre of gravity produced by each engine are calculated
from:
LT = YATP FEz ZATP FEy
MT = ZATP FEx XATP FEz
NT = XATP FEy YATP FEx
2.3.7 Atmosphere
The atmospheric conditions are considered to be a function of height h:
= (h)
a = a(h)
and are calculated from the following equations:
= RpT
p
a = RT
Version: 3
GARTEUR/TP-088-4
where
T = T80 Tgrad h
< p0 TT R T
> g
h < 11000 m
grad
p = > 0
gh
: p0 exp R T (
h 11000 m
11000)
0
(
Tgrad = 0:0065 K=m h < 11000 m
0:0 K=m h 11000 m
(
T0 = 288:15 K h < 11000 m
216:65 K h 11000 m
(
p0 = 101325:0 Pa h < 11000 m
22632:0 Pa h 11000 m :
In the equations above, is the density of air, a the speed of sound in air, p the
static pressure, T the absolute temperature, Tgrad its rate of change w.r.t. height.
R = 287:05287m2 =s2 =K is the universal gas constant, g = 9:80665m=s2 the vertical
gravity acceleration at h=0, and = 1:4 is the specic heat ratio. The subscript 0 for
temperature and pressure represents the starting point for the interpolation, for heights
of either h = 0 m or h = 11000 m.
2.3.8 Gravity
Gravity is not considered to be a function of altitude:

Fg = m g
Constant gravity near the surface of the earth is taken as g = 9.80665 m/s2 . For constant
gravity there is only a component in z-direction of the geodetic system. All other forces
and the moments are zero.
2.4 Actuator models

2.4.1 Available motivators
The motivators available for use in controlling the aircraft are :
rudder
dierential canard
dierential taileron
symmetric canard
Nose suction is present in the software model but should not be used for this design problem.
Version: 3
GARTEUR/TP-088-4
symmetric taileron
engine throttle y.
2.4.2 Nomenclature: Inputs, States, Outputs, Parameters
The actuator inputs and states are listed in Tables 2.7 and 2.8 respectively. The actuators
outputs are the same as the rst eight model inputs shown in Table 2.1.

TSc DTSC u(1) = symm.taileron de ec.demand rad
TDc DTDC u(2) = di.taileron de ec.demand rad
CSc DCSC u(3) = sym.canard de ec.demand rad
CDc DCDC u(4) = di.canard de ec.demand rad
Rc DRC u(5) = rudder de ection demand rad
suctionc SUCTIONC u(6) = nose suction demand -
TH1 c THROTT1C u(7) = left engine throttle demand -
TH2 c THROTT2C u(8) = right engine throttle demand -
Table 2.7 Actuator inputs denition
2.4.3 Taileron actuator

The taileron consists out of a starboard taileron and a port taileron, which can be con-
trolled independently. The following transfer function is valid for both parts of the taileron.
The taileron actuator is modelled by the third order transfer function:
1
(1 + 0:026s)(1 + 0:007692s + 0:00005917s2 )
with a 80 =s rate limit.
De ection limits for starboard and port taileron are +10 to 40 . A positive de ection
is dened as trailing edge down.
The inputs of the taileron actuator model are the dierential tailplane demand TDd and
symmetrical tailplane demand TS d .
The relation between the dierential and symmetrical tailplane de ections and the
tailplane port Tp and starboard Ts de ections is given by the following equations:
Tp = TS + TD
Ts = TS TD
The above given transfer function is applied to the starboard and port taileron.
The outputs are the limited dierential and symmetrical tailplane de ections, which are
calculated from the limited starboard and port de ections.
y Note that identical throttle demands should be made to each engine
Version: 3
GARTEUR/TP-088-4
Name Unit
x(1) = rst state of starboard tailplane
actuator rad
x(2) = second state of starboard tailplane
actuator rad/sec
x(3) = third state of starboard tailplane
actuator rad/sec2
x(4) = rst state of port tailplane actuator
rad
x(5) = second state of port tailplane actuator
rad/sec
x(6) = third state of port tailplane actuator
rad/sec2
x(7) = rst state of starboard canard
actuator rad
x(8) = second state of starboard canard
actuator rad/sec
x(9) = rst state of port canard actuator
rad
x(10) = second state of port canard actuator
rad/sec
x(11) = rst state of rudder rad
x(12) = second state of rudder rad/sec
x(13) = state of nose suction -
Table 2.8 Actuator states denition

2.4.4 Rudder actuator
The rudder actuator is represented by a second order transfer function with a 80 =s rate
limit:
1
(1 + 0:0191401s + 0:000192367s2 ) :
De ection limits are 30 . A positive de ection is dened as trailing edge to port.
2.4.5 Canard actuator
The canard consists out of a starboard canard and a port canard, which can be controlled
independently. The following transfer function is valid for both parts of the canard.
The canard actuator is represented by a second order transfer function with a 80 =s rate
limit:
1
(1 + 0:0157333s + 0:00017778s2 ) :
De ection limits for starboard and port canard are +10 to 20 . A positive de ection is
dened as trailing edge down.
Version: 3
GARTEUR/TP-088-4
The inputs of the canard actuator model are the dierential canard demand CDd and
symmetrical canard demand CS d .
The relation between the dierential and symmetrical canard de ections and the canard
port Cp and starboard Cs de ections is given by the following equations:
Cp = CS + CD
Cs = CS CD
The above given transfer function is applied to the starboard and port canard.
The outputs are the limited dierential and symmetrical canard de ections, which are
calculated from the limited starboard and port de ections.
2.5 Sensor models
2.5.1 Available sensors
The following sensor information can be used:
Body axis angular rates, p, q and r.
Body axis attitudes, , and .
Body axis accelerations, ax , ay and az .
Airspeed.
Mach number.
Altitude.
Angles of attack and sideslip, and .
2.5.2 Sensor dynamics and signal conditioning
The linearized models of sensor dynamics and signal conditioning devices are given below.
Additional dynamics on the air data and attitude information should be modelled as a
combination of:
sensor dynamics + anti-aliasing lter + computational delay + a/d converter
Additional dynamics on the rate and acceleration information should be modelled as a

combination of:
sensor dynamics + averaging + computeational delay + a/d converter

Version: 3
GARTEUR/TP-088-4
Air Data and Attitudes

FCC
Sensors Sensor Anti-aliasing Compute D/A Actuators-
Dynamics Filter Conversion
Delay
Rates and Accelerations

Sensor FCC
Sensors Dynamics + Averaging Compute D/A Actuators-
Notch Filter Delay Conversion
Fig.2.6 Sensor hardware assumptions.
A block diagram of the series of subsystems is given in Fig. 2.6.

The transfer functions for the individual components are as follows (assuming a Flight
Control Computer (FCC) operating at 80Hz):
air data sensor dynamics:
1=(1 + 0:02s);
attitude sensor dynamics:
1=(1 + 0:0323s + 0:00104s2 );
anti-aliasing lter:
1=(1 + 0:00398s + 0:0000158s2 );
rate and acceleration sensors, combined sensor and notch lter:
(1 0:005346s + 0:0001903s2 )=(1 + 0:03082s + 0:0004942s2 );
averaging on rate and acceleration data:

(1 0:00208s)=(1 + 0:00417s);
compute delay:
(1 0:0062s)=(1 + 0:0062s);
D/A converter:
(1 0:00208s)=(1 + 0:00417s):
Version: 3
GARTEUR/TP-088-4
2.5.3 Simplied sensor dynamics

The sensor dynamics from x 2.5.2 can be approximated by the following transfer functions:
Rates and accelerations:
(1 0:0173s + 0:00019s2 )=(1 + 0:0401s + 0:000704s2 )
Air data:
(905:92 14:437s + 0:116s2 )=(908:77 + 29:573s + s2 )
Attitudes:
(7161:8 82:317s + 0:3417s2 )=(7162:3 + 190:85s + s2 ):
The above approximations can be used during the design phase, but the full sensor dy-
namics descriptions from x 2.5.2 should be used for control law analysis. Users should
note that the evaluation software uses only the sensor dynamics block (sensor dynamics
+ notch lters in the case of the accelerometers). This is done in order to reduce the
computation time associated with the fast dynamics of some of the sensor representations.
2.5.4 Sensor noise
The measurement noise is generated by passing pink noise of unit rms power through the
following lters and adding this to the feedback signal.
Noise characteristics for angular rates p, q, r, air speed, angle of attack and sideslip:
0:05 0:053s
1 + 0:0089s + 0:000041s2 1 + 0:053s :
Noise characteristics for linear accelerations ax, ay and az :
0:05 0:053s 1 + 0:0039s + 0:000078s2 !
1 + 0:011s + 0:000063s2 1 + 0:053s 1 + 0:0018s + 0:000078s2 :
It can be assumed that the altitude, Mach number and attitudes , and signals
are relatively noise free. However these signals should not be dierentiated around
the cross-over frequency it can be assumed that such a dierentiated signal is more
noisy than the corresponding rate measurement.
2.5.5 Measurement errors
The measurements listed in x 2.5.1 above can be assumed to be accurate except for the
following:
and : to within 2.
These errors are assumed constant during the period of a simulation.
Version: 3
GARTEUR/TP-088-4
2.6 Stick characteristics

The following stick characteristics should be used during the control law evaluation against
the performance criteria of x 4.5.
Inceptor De ection amplitude Stick forces

Longitudinal stick -72 to +120 mm 1.2 N/mm
Lateral stick -80 to +80 mm 0.5 N/mm
Table 2.9 Stick characteristics.
Control law designers will need to select an appropriate gain between stick de ection and
the demand in =s to their control law.
2.7 Atmospheric turbulence models
Since the design envelope in x 4.3.1 includes altitudes from 30 to 7000 m, atmospheric
turbulence models for both low and medium to high altitudes will be considered [11].
The use of Dryden spectral models is suggested because of their relatively simple applica-
tion. The spectra for the three turbulence components read:
ug (
) = u2 2L u (1 + (L1
)2 )
u
vg (
) = v2 2L v (11 + 12(Lv
)2
+ 4(L
)2 )2
v
wg (
) = w2 2Lw (11 + 12(Lw
)2
+ 4(L
)2 )2
w
where
is the spatial frequency in rad/m. The parameters are the scale lengths Lu , Lv ,
Lw and the standard deviations u , v , w . For low altitudes the scale lengths are dened
by:
9
Lu = 2 Lv = (0:177+0:h00274h) : =
; 3 < h < 300 m
12
Lw = h2
For medium to high altitudes the scale lengths are dened by:
Lu = 2 Lv = 2 Lw = 530 m h > 600 m
For the missing part from 300 to 600 m altitude linear interpolation is suggested:
Lu = 2 Lv = 2 Lw = 70 + 0:766 h 300 < h < 600 m
The turbulence standard deviations are generally dened in statistical terms. Common
indications with probability of exceedance are:
Version: 3
GARTEUR/TP-088-4
light 10 2
moderate 10 3
severe 10 5
For low altitude the standard deviations for the given statistics are dened by:
9
u
w
1
= wv = (0:177+0:00274 >
h) : >
w = 0:8 m=s light
04
>
=
> h < 300 m
w = 1:6 m=s moderate >
w = 2:3 m=s severe >
;
For medium to high altitudes the standard deviations for the three components are equal
to each other. The dependency from altitude for the given statistics is dened by:
light
= 1:55 m=s 600 h 2800 m
= 2:32 0:000274 h m=s 2800 < h < 5100 m
= 0:92 m=s h 5100 m
moderate
= 3:05 m=s 600 h 3400 m
= 3:84 0:000234 h m=s h > 3400 m
severe
= 3:04 + 0:00244 h m=s 600 < h < 1400 m
= 6:45 m=s 1400 h 5800 m
= 8:40 0:000336 h m=s h > 5800 m
For the missing part from 300 to 600 m altitude linear interpolation is suggested:
= 0:05 + 0:0025 h light
= 0:15 + 0:00483 h moderate
= 0:1 + 0:00733 h severe
Version: 3
GARTEUR/TP-088-4
3 Aircraft physical modelling leading to automatic code generation

Models of aircraft dynamics should be described in a notation close to the aircraft physics.
The most natural way of modelling physical systems is as physical objects and phenomena,
which are connected according to their physical energy ow interaction. This is dierent
from modelling via signal ows or input-output block diagrams as traditionally used for
controller modelling.
Simulink has been agreed upon as common basis for controller modelling and controlled
systems simulations for all participants of the Design Challenge. The Simulink aircraft
dynamic blocks for both RCAM and HIRMy aircraft models are generated automatically
from a physically set-up generic aircraft model library developed within the object oriented
modelling environment Dymola [12, 13].
3.1 Object modelling

An aircraft consists of a variety of dierent systems, which represent the interacting dis-
ciplines involved in aircraft engineering (e.g. ight mechanics, aerodynamics, propulsion).
As displayed in Fig. 3.1, an aircraft consists of a body (fuselage and wing), which is
powered by one or more engines and which has gravity acting on it. The aerodynamics
describes the eects of the air ow over the aircraft, which is in uenced by the surrounding
atmosphere and additional winds.
atmosphere
body6DOF
COG
u atmos
HIRM
engine1
aerodynamics
HIRM
g
engine2
Earth
HIRM gravity gust
Fig.3.1 Object diagram of HIRM
Each of these phenomena is most conveniently described as one physical object. All objects
are connected according to Fig. 3.1 to represent the interactions within an aircraft.
In order to make the understanding of the objects easy, each component is described in
RCAM data provided from CERT-ONERA/Aerospatiale (FR)
y HIRM data provided from DRA (UK)
Version: 3
GARTEUR/TP-088-4
its own coordinate system. Gravity, wind, and atmosphere are conveniently described
in an earth related coordinate system, aerodynamics in an wind coordinate system, and
engines in a system which is related to the body-xed coordinate system. Hence coordinate
transformations and an object to describe the relationship between velocity, wind, and
airspeed are needed in between all of these subsystems when they are connected. Therefore,
in addition to the basic aircraft components, coordinate transformations are also detailed
and handled as objects in the aircraft library, Fig. 3.2.
bodyfixed experimental airspeed u atmos

body6DOF bodyLong RCAM
kinetic
Trafo Trafo
air
COG COG
veh.carried bodyfixed wind aeroRCAM engine
HIRM const. gravity 1dim gravity const. 1D
Earth Earth
Engine wind gust atmosphere atmos1D
Fig.3.2 Aircraft model library
In the physical aircraft library, dierent representations of one component can be found.
There is a class Body with six degrees of freedom (Body6DOF) and a class with three
degrees of freedom (BodyLong), which can be used to generate a nonlinear simulation
model for the longitudinal axis only. There are also engine, atmospheric and gravity
models of dierent complexity.
The interconnection structure of an aircraft can be most easily understood in a graphical
view (Fig. 3.1). If a more complex gravity model acts on the aircraft, this object can
simply be taken from the aircraft library to replace the simple gravity object. In the same
way one or more engines can be added or removed from the aircraft or can be modied.
This is the most transparent user layer with no need to think about the structure of any
specic simulation code.
The objects which form the physical model contain equations (and not assignments as
common in programming or simulation languages). This makes the understanding and
the reuse much easier than looking at low level code, whose purpose is to be understood
by a computer. Once the objects are available in computer readable form the object
equations can be sorted automatically by a symbolic equation handler. This is a main
feature of Dymola.
Objects, formulated in that way do not necessarily have to represent causalities. This
allows one object to fulll dierent tasks. For example, the object which does the trans-
formations between the body-xed and the aerodynamic coordinate system, is used for the
transformation of the velocities from the body-xed system to the aerodynamic system,
Version: 3
GARTEUR/TP-088-4
as they are required within the aerodynamics. The same object is used for the transfor-
mation of the forces and moments from the aerodynamic to the body-xed system. When
connecting components as objects, only the relation between them is dened and not the
order, in which those equations are nally solved.
In Dymola, graphical syntax components are coupled by drawing a line between the dened
'coupling' points of the objects, which are called 'cuts'. These couplings represent either
energy or signal ow. For example, the cut bsystem (body-xed system) has the following
structure:
terminal v T b [3; 3]; r[3]; vb [3]; wb [3]; ab [3]; zb [3]; Fb [3]; Mb [3]
cut bsystem (v T b ; r; vb ; wb ; ab ; zb =Fb ; Mb )
The matrix v T b denes the orientation of the body-xed system with respect to the vehicle-
carried (Earth) system, the vector r is the aircraft's inertial position in the vehicle-carried
frame; the vectors vb and ab are the velocity and acceleration in the body-xed frame
and the vectors Fb and Mb are the forces and moments, also formulated in the body-xed
frame. In the same way there are cuts dened for the vehicle-carried system (vsystem)
and for the aerodynamic system (asystem).
This cut structure represents physical connections. When objects are connected, Dymola
adds equations for the cut variables. All quantities of the cut before the slash operator
(Across variables) are set equal when connected, as it is reasonable for positions, velocities
and accelerations, quantities after the slash operator (Through variables) are summed up
to zero, as it is reasonable for forces and moments. This principle is used for connecting
engines to the aircraft body for example. The engines have the same position, airspeed,
and accelerations than the aircrafts body, their forces and moments sum up with all the
other forces and moments acting on the aircraft. Because of that formulation it is easy
to add more engines to the aircraft just by adding another engine object to Fig. 3.1 and
connecting it to the aircraft's body.
This object-oriented equation-based form of describing physical systems helps to under-
stand the physical system and enables the user to modify the model most conveniently.
3.2 Hierarchical object structure
An important aspect in object oriented modelling of physical systems is the encapsulation
of objects. The internal implementation of details, e.g. of the aerodynamics, are not
visible, when viewing the HIRM object model as depicted in Fig. 3.1. By encapsulation,
the implementation of an object can be changed without aecting the functionality of the
whole model.
Fig. 3.3 demonstrates, how the HIRM model is structured. Here only the aerodynamics
model is extracted. In the same way details of the engine, gravity, wind, and atmospheric
models can be displayed.
Version: 3
GARTEUR/TP-088-4
atmosphere
body6DOF cut atmosphere
HIRM aero
cut
actuator
COG
equations
u atmos airspeed
cut
HIRM body kinetic
air
engine1 wind
aerodynamics
HIRM
cut wind (bodyfixed)
g
engine2
Earth
HIRM gravity gust
Fig.3.3 Structure of aircraft physical model

Extracting the aerodynamics results in the aerodynamics submodel, which consists of
the aerodynamic equations aero equations and the object airspeed, which describes
the relationship between the inertial movement, the wind, and the movement relative to
the air.
Using the graphical interface, 'double clicking' on aerodynamics displays the parameter
window of this object. This window allows the parameters to be modied. In the same
way, all of the other objects (body, engines) can be instantiated with their parameters.
The objects of HIRM model will be detailed in the following sections. Boxes in the
following subsections contain Dymola code in the form of equations.
Version: 3
GARTEUR/TP-088-4
3.2.1 Object: Body6DOF

The object Body6DOF describes the dierential equations of motion for a rigid body
with six degrees of freedom. The equations of this object are from x 2.3.2.
It contains the following model parameters, which are the HIRM mass and the moments
and products of inertia as detailed in x 2.3.2:
parameter mass = 15296.0 f mass / kg g,
Ix = 24549.0 f x-moment of inertia / kg*m^2 g,
Ixy = 0 f xy-product of inertia / kg*m^2 g,
Ixz = -3124.0 f xy-product of inertia / kg*m^2 g,
Iy = 163280.0 f y-moment of inertia / kg*m^2 g,
Iyz = 0 f yz-product of inertia / kg*m^2 g,
Iz = 183110.0 f z-moment of inertia / kg*m^2 g
Translational motion
The equations for the translational movement can be given by the force equation:
f translational equations of motion g
Fb = mass * ( ab + cross(wb,vb) )
ab = der(vb)
vv = der(r)
where Fb is the sum of forces due to the engine, the aerodynamics and gravity, formulated
in the body-xed coordinates, vb is the inertial velocity and wb is the rotation rate in
the same coordinate system. The acceleration ab is the time derivative of velocity vb; the
velocity vv is the time derivative of the position vector r expressed in the vehicle carried
(earth) frame.
Furthermore some aircraft specic quantities are dened:
f height g
h = -r(3)
f load factor, as it is used for HIRM g

f sum of all forces acting at the aircraft (Fb) minusg
f the gravity force (solved in body-xed system) g
f [n is normalized with the gravity force]g
n = 1/(mass*9.81) * [ Fb(1) + sin(theta)*mass*9.81 ;
Fb(2) - sin(phi)*cos(theta)*mass*9.81 ;
Fb(3) - cos(phi)*cos(theta)*mass*9.81 ]
f ight path angle g

gamma = atan2(-vv(3), sqrt(vv(1:2)'vv(1:2)))
f ight path heading angle g

xhi = atan2(vv(2), vv(1))
f ground speed / (m/s) g

vground = sqrt ( vv' * vv )
Version: 3
GARTEUR/TP-088-4
Rotational motion
The equations of motion for the rotational movement of a rigid body in the body-xed
axis system form the moment equation for Mb:
f rotational equations of motion g
Mb = I * zb + cross(wb,(I*wb))
f Tensor of inertia
I = [ Ix , -Ixy, Ixz ;
-Ixy, Iy , -Iyz ;
Ixz, -Iyz, Iz ]
f rotational acceleration z = time derivative of

f inertial rotation w / body-xed frame g
zb = der(wb)
f Time derivative of Euler Angles Phi g

der (Phi) = MPhid * wb
Phi = [phi, theta, psi]
MPhid = [1, sin(phi)*tan(theta), cos(phi)*tan(theta);
0, cos(phi) , -sin(phi) ;
0, sin(phi)/cos(theta), cos(phi)/cos(theta)]
where Mb is the sum of moments about the centre of gravity due to the engine and
aerodynamics, wb is the inertial rotational velocity in body-xed coordinates, and zb is
the inertial rotational acceleration in the body-axis system. Using the standard notation
[14, 15], the equations listed above are obtained.
The translational dierential equations of motion for an aircraft body are typically ex-
pressed partly in body axes (dynamics) and partly in the vehicle carried (Earth) frame
(kinematics). The same velocity is given in both coordinate systems as body-xed vb and
vehicle-carried vv. Therefore the object TrafoBV of Fig. 3.2, which includes all transfor-
mation equations between these coordinate systems, is inherited to the object body.
3.2.2 Object: TrafoBV (Coordinate transformation: body-xed , vehicle carried)
The rotations between the body-xed and the vehicle-carried coordinate system are dened
in the object TrafoBV. The equations are from x 2.3.3.
This object contains two cuts. The cut bsystem contains all of the kinematic quantities
of the body-xed system. bTv is a [3,3]-transformation matrix between the body-xed and
the vehicle-carried coordinate systems. The cut also contains the inertial position vector r,
the translational and rotational velocity, vb and wb respectively, and the translational and
rotational acceleration vector, ab and zb respectively (all given in the bodyxed coordinate
system), which are set equal when connected. Behind the slash, the cut contains the body-
xed forces and moments, Fb and Mb respectively, which are summed up when connected.
The cut for the vehicle-carried system cut vsystem is dened in the same way.
Version: 3
GARTEUR/TP-088-4
In Dymola-syntax the transformation equations are given as:
f cut of the body-xed reference frame g

cut bsystem ( bTv, r, vb, wb, ab, zb / Fb, Mb )
f cut of the vehicle carried reference frame g
cut vsystem ( vTv, r, vv, wv, av, zv / Fv, Mv )
f Transformation matrix between body-xed and vehicle carried frame

according to DIN 9300 g
bTv = [ cos(theta)*cos(psi),
cos(theta)*sin(psi),
-sin(theta);
sin(phi)*sin(theta)*cos(psi) - cos(phi)*sin(psi),
sin(phi)*sin(theta)*sin(psi) + cos(phi)*cos(psi),
sin(phi)*cos(theta);
cos(phi)*sin(theta)*cos(psi) + sin(phi)*sin(psi),
cos(phi)*sin(theta)*sin(psi) - sin(phi)*cos(psi),
cos(phi)*cos(theta) ]
f Transformation equations g
vb = bTv * vv f velocity vector g
wb = bTv * wv f rate vector g
ab = bTv * av f acceleration vector g
zb = bTv * zv f rotational acceleration vector g
Fb = bTv * Fv f force vector g
Mb = bTv * Mv f moment vector g
where bTv is the transformation matrix between body-xed and vehicle carried coordinate
system. It transforms all translational and rotational quantities between these two refer-
ence frames. Since this object contains equations (and not assignments), it can be used
to transform quantities from vehicle carried to body-xed coordinates and also to trans-
form from body-xed to vehicle carried coordinates. In the latter case, the transformation
matrix is inverted automatically.
3.2.3 Object: Aerodynamics
The object Aerodynamics describes the HIRM aerodynamics. As depicted in Fig. 3.3, it
consists of an object which denes the relation between inertial speed, airspeed and wind
(object Airspeed) and the aerodynamic equations (object Aero equations).
Version: 3
GARTEUR/TP-088-4
3.2.3.1 Object: Airspeed (calculation of airspeed)
The calculation of airspeed in Dymola -syntax is given by the following equation. The
equation for this object is from x 2.3.4.
vab = vb - vwb
The airspeed vab, solved in body-xed coordinates, contains the x-, y-, and z-components
of the aircraft's velocity relative to the surrounding air. The airspeed is the dierence
between the inertial velocity vb and the gust vwb, which are both also formulated in
body-xed coordinates.
3.2.3.2 Object: Aero Equations
The aerodynamics contain the following model parameters, which are detailed in Table 2.4.
The parameters cmerr, clerr, and cnerr are uncertainty parameters with the bounds given
in Table 2.5.
parameter cbar = 6.6 f generalized length / mg,

S = 260.0 f wing area / m^2 g,
b = 11.4 f wing span / m g,
cmerr = 0 f uncertainty in pitching moment g,
clerr = 0 f uncertainty in rolling moment g,
cnerr = 0 f uncertainty in yawing moment g
The equations in Aero Equations are from x 2.3.5.

Aerodynamic Forces
The aerodynamic forces are determined by means of aerodynamic coecients for drag,
side force, and lift (cX , cY , cZ ), which are functions of the airspeed V a, the angle of
attack alpha, the sideslip angle beta, the roll, pitch, and yaw rates (pb, qb, rb), and the
control surface de ections (dts, dtd, dcs, dcd, dr, suction). The aerodynamic coecients
contain functions of the form b (c; d). Their values are computed by linearly interpolating
between the values given in look-up tables of the variables c and d.
Version: 3
GARTEUR/TP-088-4
f Aerodynamic force coecients g

f drag coecient g
cX = cxh(alpha,dts) + cxsp(alpha,dts)*dcs
f lift coecient g
cZ = czh(alpha,dts) ->
+ czsp(alpha,dts)*dcs ->
+ czq(alpha,dcs)*qb*cbar/2/Va
f side force coecient g

cY = cyv(alpha)*dr + cysp(alpha,beta)*(dcs+dalpha20) ->
+ cyi(alpha,beta) ->
+ cyh(alpha,beta)*(dts+10*pi/180+dalpha20) ->
+ cyr(alpha)*rb*b/2/Va + cync(alpha,dcs)*dcd ->
+ cyp(alpha)*pb*b/2/Va + cydh(alpha,dts)*dtd ->
+ cysu(alpha,suction)
f and their necessary air data quantities g

Va = sqrt (vab'*vab) f airspeed g
alpha = atan2(vab(3), vab(1)) f angle of attack g
sin(beta) = vab(2) / Va f angle of sideslip g
M = Va / a f Mach - number g
f and the HIRM specic alpha correction term g
dalpha20 = if alpha > 20*pi/180 then 10*pi/180 ->
else 0
The aerodynamic forces are given in body-xed coordinates Fb as a function of aerody-
namic factors qS and the aerodynamic coecients cX , cY , cZ .
f Aerodynamic Forces g
f Forces in body-xed system g
Fb = qS * [ cX ;
-cY ;
cZ ]
f dynamic pressure times wing area g

qS = rho / 2.0 * Va * Va * S
Aerodynamic moments
The aerodynamic moments are determined by means of aerodynamic coecients for roll,
pitch, and yaw (cl, cm, cn), which are functions of the airspeed V a, the angle of attack
alpha, the sideslip angle beta, the roll, pitch, and yaw rates (pb, qb, rb), and the control
surface de ections (dts, dtd, dcs, dcd, dr, suction). The aerodynamic coecients contain
functions of the form b (c; d). Their values are computed by linearly interpolating between
the values given in look-up tables of the variables c and d.
Version: 3
GARTEUR/TP-088-4
f Aerodynamic moment coecients about centre of gravity g

f roll coecient g
cl = clv(alpha)*dr + clsp(alpha,beta)*(dcs+dalpha20) ->
+ cldh(alpha,dts)*dtd + cli(alpha,beta) ->
+ ( clr(alpha) + clrnt(alpha)*abs(dts+20*pi/180) ->
+ clrnc(alpha)*(dcs+10*pi/180) ) * rb*b/2/Va ->
+ clp(alpha,abs(pb)*b/2/Va) * sign(p) ->
+ ( clpnt(alpha)*abs(dts+20*pi/180) ->
+ clpnc(alpha)*(dcs+10*pi/180) ) * pb*b/2/Va ->
+ clh(alpha,beta)*(dts+10*pi/180+dalpha20) ->
+ clq(alpha,beta)*qb*cbar/2/Va ->
+ clnc(alpha,dcs)*dcd + clsu(alpha,suction) ->
+ clerr
f pitch coecient g
cm = cmh(alpha,dts) + cmsp(alpha,dts)*dcs ->
+ cmq(alpha,dcs)*qb*cbar/2/Va ->
+ cmsu(alpha,suction) ->
+ cmerr
f yaw coecient g
cn = cnv(alpha)*dr + cnsp(alpha,beta)*(dcs+dalpha20) ->
+ cndh(alpha,dts)*dtd + cni(alpha,beta) ->
+ ( cnr(alpha,dts) + cnrnc(alpha)*abs(dts) ) ->
* rb*b/2/Va ->
+ cnp(alpha,abs(pb)*b/2/Va) * sign(p) ->
+ ( cnpnt(alpha)*abs(dts+20*pi/180) ->
+ cnpnc(alpha)*(dcs+10*pi/180) ) * pb*b/2/Va ->
+ cnh(alpha,beta)*(dts+10*pi/180+dalpha20) ->
+ cnnc(alpha,dcs)*dcd + cnsu(alpha,suction) ->
+ cnerr
The aerodynamic moments Mb are given in body-xed coordinates as a function of the
dynamic pressure times wing area factor qS , the aerodynamic coecients cl, cm, cn, and
the generalized length cbar and span b.
f Aerodynamic moments g
Mb = qS * [ b * cl ;
cbar * cm ;
b * cn ]
3.2.4 Object: HIRM Engine
The HIRM Engine contains the following model parameters, which are detailed in Ta-
ble 2.4.
Version: 3
GARTEUR/TP-088-4
parameter xcge f engine x-pos with respect to centre of gravity / m g,

ycge f engine y-pos with respect to centre of gravity / m g,
zcge f engine z-pos with respect to centre of gravity / m g,
idle = 10000 f idle thrust / N g,
maxdry = 47000 f maximum dry thrust / N g,
maxreheat = 72000 f maximum reheat thrust / N g,
rlimit1 = 12000 f rate limit for thrust <= maxdry / N/s g,
rlimit2 = 25000 f rate limit for thrust > maxdry / N/s g,
xi = 0 f thrust longitudinal angle / rad g,
epsilon = 0 f thrust lateral angle / rad g
For zero thrust angles xi and epsilon, the x-component of force Fb is equal to the thrust.
The engine dynamics are detailed in Fig. 3.4 as a control block diagram:
ThrottleNonLin sum filter rateLimiter integrator
throttle pi rlimit1 1 Fe_0

throttle dFe
nonlinearity - 0.0796 s + 1 -rlimit1 S
Fig.3.4 HIRM Engine Dynamics model
For describing block diagrams a control block library is available, Fig. 3.5:
gain matrixMult integrator limIntegrator derivative
1 1
1
*M S
lim
S
s
PTone PTtwo PI PID transferFcn
b(s)
PT1 PT2 PI PID
a(s)
stateSpace sum sum2 sum3 product

+1
sx=Ax+Bu +1
y=Cx+Du - +1
+1
+1
*
bound deadZone bSwitch fixDelay varDelay
1 0 variable
-1
0
1
-1
1 2 3 1 2 3 1 2 3 1 2 3 1 2 3
InOut Multiplex Discrete Table Example

Library Library Library Library Library
Fig.3.5 Control block library

Version: 3
GARTEUR/TP-088-4
The throttle nonlinearity gives the relation between the demanded throttlee and the engine
thrust dFe:
dFe = if throttle < 1 then idle + ( maxdry - idle ) * throttle ->
else maxdry + (maxreheat - maxdry) * (throttle - 1)
If the rate limits on the engine thrusts are ignored, the engine dynamics are represented
by a second order transfer function with a damping of 1 and a natural frequency of 2.
The rate limits are also dependent on the engine thrust.
maxval = if derFe0c > 47000 then 25000 else 12000
minval = if derFe0c > 47000 then -25000 else -12000
w = if derFe0c < minval then minval else derFe0c

derFe0 = if derFe0c > maxval then maxval else w
Due to the geometric location of the engines (given by xcge, ycge, zcge) the engine thrust
also contributes to the moments Mb acting on the aircraft.
The equations for the HIRM Engine are from x 2.3.6.
f thrust calculation g
f Altitude correctiong
F = Fe * rho/1.2250
f transformation of the thrust vector to body-xed coordinates g

Fb = bTeng * [ F ;
0 ;
0 ]
f transformation matrix between engine and body xed coordinates g

bTeng = [cos(xi)*cos(epsilon), -sin(xi), cos(xi)*sin(epsilon);
sin(xi)*cos(epsilon), cos(xi), sin(xi)*sin(epsilon);
-sin(epsilon), 0 , cos(epsilon)]
f thrust moments due to locations of engines and centre of

gravity variations g
Mb = cross(cge,Fb)
f engine displacement vector from centre of gravity g

cge = [xcge ;
ycge ;
zcge ]
Note that the engine model also contains the parameters xi and epsilon, which dene a
longitudinal and lateral thrust angle respectively. Since the HIRM engine is aligned with
the x-body axis, these parameters are zero. Since zero parameters are removed in the
resulting code they do not in uence its eciency. However, their formal inclusion allows
a greater exibility in using the engine model also for non-zero parameter values as well.
Version: 3
GARTEUR/TP-088-4
3.2.5 Object: Atmosphere

The atmospheric parameters are considered to be a function of height. The data of the
HIRM atmosphere model come from x 2.3.7.
f equations for temperature calculation g

T = T0 - Tgrad * h
f equations for pressure calculation g

p / p0 = if h < 11000 then (T / T0)**(gn / R / Tgrad) ->
else exp(-(gn/R/T*(h-11000)))
f denition of local speed of sound g

a = sqrt(kapadot * R * T)
f denition of local speed of sound g

rho = p / R / T
f temperature starting point for extrapolation g

f for heights of either h = 0 m or h = 11 000 m g
T0 = if h < 11000 then 288.15 ->
else 216.65
f temperature rate of change w.r.t height g

Tgrad = if h < 11000 then 0.0065 ->
else 0.0
f pressure starting point for extrapolation g

f for heights of either h = 0 m or h = 11 000 m g
p0 = if h < 11000 then 101325.0 ->
else 22632.0
with rho as the density of air, p the static pressure, T the absolute temperature, and a as
the local speed of sound.
3.2.6 Object: Gravity
Gravity is most conveniently described in an earth related coordinate system. The forces
acting on an aircraft are best understood when given in the body-xed coordinate system.
Therefore the coordinate transformation between body-xed and vehicle carried coordinate
system as given in x 3.2.2 is needed to transform the general gravity model to an aircraft
gravity model.
Here gravity is considered not to be a function of altitude. The equations of the gravity
model are given in the vehicle carried reference system.
The gravitational constant near the surface of the earth is taken as g = 9.81 m/s2 . For
constant gravity, there is only a component in the z-direction of the geodetic system.
Version: 3
GARTEUR/TP-088-4
body frame
bodyfixed
Trafo
veh.carried
1dim gravity
Earth
Fig.3.6 Aircraft Gravity Model
The equations for this object are given in x 2.3.8.

parameter g = 9.81
Mv = [0,0,0]
Fv = [0,0,g*mass]
3.3 Code generation

From the graphical and textual model description Dymola generates ecient code for
dierent simulation environments.
Its symbolic equation handler generates a state space model from the parameter instan-
tiated equations of each object and from the equations derived from the interconnection
structure. The equations are sorted and solved according to the specied inputs and
outputs. Equations which are formulated in an object but not needed for the specied
conguration are removed automatically. The result is a mathematical model with a
minimum number of equations for the specied task.
As a next step, simulation code for dierent simulation environments (e.g. Simulink,
ACSL, ANDECS DSSIM) is generated automatically. The code for Simulink can be a m-
le or a cmex-le. Fortran or C code can be exported in the DSblock neutral simulation-
model format [16], to be used in any other simulation run-time environment capable of
importing Fortran or C models. This is targeted in particular at the ANDECS design
environment for control engineering [17].
3.4 Conclusion and outlook

It is most natural to model physical systems on a physical level in the form of equations.
For simulation purposes, simulation code can be generated automatically from physical
equations provided that a suitable software tool like Dymola is available. It has been
Version: 3
GARTEUR/TP-088-4
shown that aircraft dynamics code for Simulink is generated for common use in the Robust
Control Design Challenge. This is achieved by using a generic Dymola aircraft object
library.
graphical ’pick & drag’ system aggregation
physical description component class libraries
mathematical (symbolic)
system model
Matlab / Simulink
automatically generated S-function (cmex)
from physical system
objects aggregation &
class libraries
via neutral DSblock

Simulation - model
modelling environment
Dymola Fortran-, C-Code
symbolic linearisation LFT - model

via Maple automatically generated
.
[ x = A (p) x + B (p) u ] by PUM
Fig.3.7 From system conguration to symbolic model or simulation model
This approach to automatic code generation has the further advantage that not only can
ecient parameterized simulation code be obtained for dierent simulation and analysis
environments but a parameterized symbolic code can be produced as well. This can be
used as input for symbolic analysis tools such as PUM[18] (Matlab Toolbox for Parametric
Uncertainty Modelling) or PARADISE[19] (PArametric Robustness Analysis and Design
Interactive Software Environment).
Version: 3
GARTEUR/TP-088-4
4 Control problem denition

4.1 Introduction
Modern ghter aircraft are designed with either unstable or only marginally stable con-
gurations which necessitate control augmentation systems. The objective of the HIRM
design challenge is to design a control augmentation system which will track the demands
listed in x 4.2 with a response which is in keeping with the handling qualities listed in
x 4.5 across the ight envelope dened in x 4.3.1. They should also demonstrate good
disturbance rejection capabilities and insensitivity to sensor noise.
4.2 Control strategy

4.2.1 Pilot commands
The pilot commands should control the following responses:

lateral stick de ection should demand velocity vector roll rate. The velocity vector
roll is a roll performed at constant angle of attack and zero sideslip. The velocity
vector roll will therefore vary from a pure body-axis roll rate at 0 angle of attack
to pure body-axis yaw rate at 90 .
longitudinal stick de ection should demand pitch rate.
rudder pedal de ection should demand sideslip.
the throttle lever should control velocity vector air speed.
4.2.2 Requirements of the control system
The automatic control system should satisfy the following requirements:

The following cross-couplings should be minimised. Changes in air speed should
not cause pitch transients. Pitch transients due to rolling manoeuvres should be
minimised. Velocity vector rolls should cause minimal sideslip excursions.
The pitch rate demand system should limit at 10 and +30 angle of attack and
3g and +7g normal acceleration. Overshoots of 5 and 0:5g are allowable on angle
of attack and normal acceleration respectively. The overshoots must be washed out
and the aircraft should return to the limiting values within 2 seconds.
The control system must make use of the motivators in an ecient manner. For ex-
ample, the canards and tailerons must trim the aircraft in a manner which minimises
drag.
Version: 3
GARTEUR/TP-088-4
4.3 Robustness considerations

The control system should maintain its good ying qualities and robustness across the
ight envelope dened in x 4.3.1. In addition, it should demonstrate a tolerance to the
model uncertainties listed in x 4.3.2, the measurement errors given in x 4.3.3 and the
hardware implementation issues identied in x 4.3.4.
4.3.1 Design envelope
The design envelope for the HIRM control law is:
Mach 0:15 to 0:5,

Angle of attack 10 to 30 ,
Sideslip 10 ,
Altitude 100 to 20000 ft.
4.3.2 Modelling errors
For linear assessments, the control laws need to be robust to the following errors in the
aerodynamic moment derivatives:
Cmw 0:001
Clv 0:01
Cnv 0:002
Cmq ; Clp ; Clr ; Cnp ; Cnr 10%
CmTS ; CmCS ; ClTD ; ClCD ; ClRUDDER ; CnTD ; CnCD ; CnRUDDER 10%
The 16 states in the model ordered as in Table 2.2, and the 8 inputs are the rst 8 inputs
listed in Table 2.1, ordered as in the table. Therefore the modelling errors listed above
should be added to the elements of the A and B matrices as described in Table 4.1.
For non{linear assessments, the control laws need to be robust to the following errors in
the total moment coecients:
Cm 0:030
Cl 0:008
Cn 0:008
The engine, actuator and sensor models can be assumed to be correct and have zero
tolerances.
Version: 3
GARTEUR/TP-088-4
Error on coecient add to matrix element

Cmw A(5; 3)
Cmq A(5; 5)
Clv A(4; 2)
Clp A(4; 4)
Clr A(4; 6)
Cnv A(6; 2)
Cnp A(6; 4)
Cnr A(6; 6)
CmTS B (5; 1)
CmCS B (5; 3)
ClTD B (4; 2)
ClCD B (4; 4)
ClRUDDER B (4; 5)
CnTD B (6; 2)
CnCD B (6; 4)
CnRUDDER B (6; 5)
Table 4.1 Matrix element corresponding to modelling error

4.3.3 Measurement errors
Sensed values of angle of attack and sideslip may not be accurate. The control system
must be robust to the following measurement errors:
and 2
These errors should be considered as steady state osets in the measured signal and are
valid for all values of and . The other measurements listed in x 2.5.1 above can be
assumed to be accurate.
4.3.4 Hardware implementation considerations
The control laws must be designed to operate at 80Hz, the iteration rate of the ight
control computer (FCC). They can be designed by neglecting hardware implementation
issues, and should be robust to the dynamics of structural lters, D/A converters and
computational delay, which are given in x 2.5.2 above.
4.4 Robustness requirements

In the multi-loop case, the closed loop system should be able to withstand the application
of simultaneous and independent gain and phase osets at the input of each one of the
actuators as shown in Fig. 4.1 without becoming unstable (note that the closed loop system
shown in Fig. 4.1 is only an example and does not represent a mandated control system
Version: 3
GARTEUR/TP-088-4
structure). The corresponding perturbation matrix P will be of the form:

P = diag(K1 e |1 ; : : : ; K6 e |6 )
with Ki and i taking values in the regions shown in Fig. 4.2 (no tolerances) and Fig. 4.3
(tolerances applied).
Add additional gain and phase or

break for open loop analysis here
Pilot - Command
Path -

e ?
X
u
- Actuators - Plant -
demands Filtering +
- 6
Controller Sensors
u = actuator demands
e = error signal
Fig.4.1 Closed loop system showing point for analysis.
4.5 Performance requirements
1. For single loop analysis, the open loop Nichols plot of the frequency response between
each actuator demand u and the corresponding error signal e, obtained by breaking
the loop at the point shown in Fig. 4.1 while leaving the other loops closed, should
avoid the regions shown in Fig. 4.4 (no tolerances applied) and Fig. 4.5 (tolerances
applied). The tolerances are listed in x 4.3.2 and should be applied to the linearised
aircraft models. Note that when performing the frequency response, a gain of -1
needs to be included on the input or output to obtain the correct phase response.
These characteristics should be valid for each loop.
2. For tests 2 and 3, the results from non-linear frequency responses should be used.
These responses are obtained by supplying a sinusoidal input of increasing frequency
to the system. The frequency should increase logarithmically from 0.5 to 20 rad/s
over a 20 s period. Stick forces of 3.24 and 9.71 pounds (14.4 N, 12 mm and 43.2
Version: 3
GARTEUR/TP-088-4
N, 36 mm) should be used in pitch and 0.9 and 2.7 pounds (4 N, 8mm and 12 N,
24 mm) in roll. The time response of the pitch or roll attitude should be analysed
using a Fast Fourier Transform to obtain the gain and phase characteristics of the
response. The gain and phase can then be plotted in Figs. 4.6, 4.8, 4.9. To ensure
PIO resistance, the characteristics of the frequency response between stick force in
pounds (1 pound force = 4:448N) and pitch or bank attitude in degrees should meet
the following requirements.
The pitch and bank attitude absolute amplitude gains at 180 phase should be
< 16dB.
The magnitude of the average phase rate, _ average , dened as:
j_ average j = 2fc f fc ;
c
should lie either within the level 1 or level 1 boundaries shown in Fig. 4.7. The
example plot shown in Fig. 4.6 meets these criteria. The gain at -180 degrees of
phase is -21 dB thus meeting the rst requirement and the average phase rate
is:
j_ average j = 204 1( 180) = 12 =Hz
(Assuming that fc is 1 Hz and that the phase at 2 Hz is -204 in the example
shown).
Plotting these values of fc and _ average on Fig. 4.7 shows that this system is
level 1 .
3. This criterion complements the handling qualities metrics illustrated in Figs. 4.6
and 4.7 [20]. The non-linear frequency response from longitudinal stick force to
pitch attitude should lie within the level 1 boundary of Fig. 4.8. When plotting
the pitch frequency response, the response should be displaced vertically until the
curve crosses through the 0dB, 110 point. The non-linear frequency response from
lateral stick force to roll angle should lie within the region labelled as providing a
good response in Fig. 4.9. The frequency responses are non-linear and are between
the pilot demand and the aircraft pitch attitude or roll angle (i.e. the integral of the
velocity vector roll rate). For these criteria, the term open loop means that there is
no pilot closing the loop between aircraft response and pilot demand. The responses
should be obtained for diering stick forces: pitch stick forces of 3:24 and 9:71
pounds (14.4 N, 12 mm and 43.2 N, 36 mm) and roll stick forces of 0:9 and 2:7
pounds (4 N, 8 mm and 12 N, 24 mm) should be used.
4. The ratio of dropback db to steady state pitch rate qss should be:
0 < db=qss < 0:25s
for precision tracking. Dropback is dened in Fig. 4.10 [20].
Version: 3
GARTEUR/TP-088-4
5. The peak pitch acceleration in response to a step input should be achieved in

< 0:15s.
6. The roll mode time constant should be 0:4s.
7. The maximum roll acceleration in response to a step input should be < 600 =s2 .
8. The maximum roll rate should be approximately 70 =s.
9. Sideslip response requirements. The coupling in sideslip due to roll should be
minimised and not exceed 0:5 for < 15 and 2 for > 15 . The step response
to sideslip demand should lie within the boundaries shown in Fig. 4.11. The sideslip
response should also have an acceptable level of damping (> 0:5).
10. Speed control requirements. The speed response should have minimal overshoot
(< 3%). The time constant for small amplitude speed demands (< 1% throttle
travel) should be in the range 0:75 to 1:5 seconds. For large amplitude speed demands
maximum use should be made of the engine performance.
11. Avoidance of structural coupling. To avoid structural coupling the following
limitations should be observed:
The maximum high frequency (frequencies above 4 Hz) gain from pitch rate
(rads/s) to control surface de ection (rads) should be < 3:0.
The maximum high frequency (frequencies above 4 Hz) gain from normal ac-
celeration (`g') to control surface de ection (rads) should be < 0:09 rads/g.
12. Disturbance rejection. The control system should minimise the eect of atmo-
spheric disturbances on the aircraft's ight path. The eect of turbulence on the
aircraft should be assessed during straight and level ight.
4.6 Scheduling considerations
1. The amount of scheduling should be minimised.
2. Any scheduling must be against measurable aircraft states as dened in x 2.5.1 above.
3. If angle of attack is used for scheduling, any linear analysis must take into account
the implicit feedback which this generates.
Version: 3
GARTEUR/TP-088-4
-4.5 6
@
Gain oset (dB)
@
@
@@
-2.5
Phase
0 30 oset
- ()
+2.5
+4.5
Fig.4.2 Gain and phase osets excluding tolerances

6 Gain oset (dB)
-3.0 @
@@
@ @
-1.0 Phase
0 30 oset
- ()
+1.0
+3.0
Fig.4.3 Gain and phase osets including tolerances

Version: 3
GARTEUR/TP-088-4
6 6 Gain (dB)
@@
@
@@
3
Phase ( )
180 145 -
-3
-6
Fig.4.4 Gain and phase exclusion zones on Nichols plot for single loop analysis frequency
response excluding tolerances.
6 Gain (dB)
4.5 @@
@@
1.5 @
Phase ( )
180 145 -
-1.5
4.5
Fig.4.5 Gain and phase exclusion zones on Nichols plot for single loop analysis frequency
response including tolerances.
Version: 3
GARTEUR/TP-088-4
10
5
Gain: degrees attitude per pound stick force (dB)
f
-5 bw
-10
-15
-20
fc
-25
2f c
-30
-220 -200 -180 -160 -140 -120 -100
Phase (degrees)
Fig.4.6 Pitch/roll stick force to pitch attitude/roll angle frequency response criterion.
150
Level 2
Average phase rate (Degs/Hz)
100
Level 1
50
Level 1*
0
0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8
Frequency, fc, at -180 degrees phase (Hz)
Fig.4.7 Phase rate criterion.

Version: 3
GARTEUR/TP-088-4
20
(−100,18)
Relative open loop amplitude (dB) 15 (−80,15)
10 (−75,10)
(−100,6)
5
L1 (−75,4)
(−85,2)
0
(−150,−3) (−110,0)
−5
L1
−10
(−140,−12)
−180 −160 −140 −120 −100 −80 −60 −40
Open loop phase (degrees)
Fig.4.8 Pitch stick force to pitch attitude frequency response criterion.
0.25 db
25 0.5 db
20 1 db
−1 db
15
10 3 db
−3 db
6 db
Magnitude (dB)
5
Sluggish response
0 PIO activity −6 db
−5
−10 −12 db
Oscillation ratcheting
−15
Good response Quick jerkey response
−20 db
−20
−25
−350 −300 −250 −200 −150 −100 −50 0
Phase (degrees)
Fig.4.9 Roll stick force to roll angle frequency response criterion.

Version: 3
GARTEUR/TP-088-4
q (rad/s)
pitch attitude
qstat
qmax
dropback = db
db/qstat time (s)

time (s)
Fig.4.10 Denition of dropback.
Sideslip command requirement

2
1.8
1.6
1.4
Normalised sideslip angle
Upper boundary
1.2
0.8
Lower boundary
0.6
0.4
0.2
0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Time (seconds)
Fig.4.11 Sideslip requirements.

Version: 3
GARTEUR/TP-088-4
5 Evaluation criteria
The nal control law design should meet the requirements specied in Chapter 4 across
the ight envelope. For the purposes of verifying this, this chapter sets out a set of specic
evaluation criteria against which all entries to the design challenge should be measured.
The criteria have been divided into four sub-classes which are:
Robustness
Performance
Physical considerations
Control activity
These four groups are dealt with in the following four sections x 5.1-5.4. By the nature
of the requirements given which are based on MIL-Specication documents, most of the
evaluation criteria result in a response of pass or fail rather than some numerical value.
Most of the evaluation criteria are based on two particular ight conditions which are:
Flight condition 1: Mach 0:4, 10000 feet altitude, 8:67 degrees incidence and zero
sideslip.
Flight condition 2: Mach 0:24, 20000 feet altitude, 28:9 degrees incidence and zero
sideslip.
The rst ight condition can be thought of as a nominal ight condition, and the second
as an edge of the envelope condition likely to cause more stability and actuator limiting
problems. The robustness assessments in x 5.1 are based on linear analysis. The remaining
evaluations in x 5.2, x 5.3 and x 5.4 are based on non{linear responses and analysis. The
control laws should not be evaluated at 20 degrees angle of attack due to the step change
in aerodynamic coecients as detailed in x 2.3.5.
5.1 Robustness criteria
5.1.1 Nominal ight Nichols plot
For ight condition 1, plot the 6 Nichols plots obtained from breaking the closed-loop at
the 6 plant actuator demands. Given that nose suction is not used, and the engines are
only used in unison, the 6 actuators are symmetric and diential taileron, symmetric and
dierential canard, rudder, and symmetric engine. These correspond to the robustness
test described in Fig. 4.4. They should be plotted all on the same plot, and the exclusion
zone in Fig. 4.4 should be superimposed.
Report output: 1 gure, and a Pass/Fail result (Pass if the Nichols plots do not pass
through the exclusion region).
Version: 3
GARTEUR/TP-088-4
5.1.2 Multivariable uncertainty at nominal ight condition

For ight condition 1, the closed loop system should remain stable when the simultaneous
gain and phase osets described in x 4.4 and shown in Fig. 4.2 are added. It is suggested
that designers use identical values of gain and phase osets on each of the loops in order
to avoid testing a large number of dierent combinations. As a minimum, the gain and
phase osets at the 4 corners of the plot on Fig. 4.2 should be tested.
Report output: Pass/Fail.
5.1.3 Robustness to parametric uncertainty
Repeat the test in x 5.1.1 with the following perturbations added to the linear model
aerodynamic coecients as described in x 4.3.2:
Cmw 0:001
Clv 0:01
Cnv 0:002
Cmq ; Clp ; Cnr 10%
Clr ; Cnp +10%
CmTS ; CmCS ; ClTD ; ClCD ; ClRUDDER ; CnTD ; CnCD ; CnRUDDER 10%
Report output: one gure, and a Pass/Fail result.
5.1.4 Robustness at the ight envelope limit
Repeat the test in x 5.1.3, but at ight condition 2.
Report output: one gure, and a Pass/Fail result.
5.2 Performance criteria
5.2.1 Disturbance rejection
For the Dryden turbulence model given in x 2.7, the RMS variation of pitch rate, roll rate,
yaw rate and normal acceleration should be recorded for ight condition 1. Units should
be =s for the rates, and g for the acceleration. All RMS values should be relative to
the steady state-values corresponding when there is no turbulence. Moderate turbulence
levels should be used for this assessment.
Report output: four RMS values.
5.2.2 Gibson criteria

For ight conditions 1 and 2, the plots corresponding to Figs. 4.8 and 4.9 should be
constructed. Due to rate limiting and other non-linear eects, the frequency responses are
Version: 3
GARTEUR/TP-088-4
in practice a function of stick force. Hence the plots should be constructed using sinusoids
of 3:24 and 9:71 pounds force (14.4 N, 12 mm and 43.2 N, 36 mm) in pitch and 0:9
and 2:7 pounds force (4 N, 8 mm and 12 N, 24 mm) in roll. Two plots should be produced
corresponding to Figs. 4.8 and 4.9. All cases should be superimposed on these two plots.
Report output: two plots, 8 Pass/Fail responses (2 ight conditions 2 amplitudes for
both pitch are roll responses).
5.2.3 Assessment manoeuvres
The nonlinear response of the aircraft should be tested by applying the following step
inputs.
Manoeuvre Flight condition

1 Step inputs to pitch rate demand M = 0:2, h = 1000 ft
+5 =s at t = 2 seconds M = 0:3, h = 5000 ft
5 =s at t = 6 seconds M = 0:5, h = 15000 ft
2 Step inputs to roll rate demand M = 0:3, h = 5000 ft
+70 =s at t = 2 seconds M = 0:5, h = 15000 ft
70 =s at t = 4 seconds
3 Step inputs to sideslip demand M = 0:2, h = 1000 ft
+10 at t = 2 seconds M = 0:3, h = 5000 ft
10 at t = 6 seconds M = 0:5, h = 15000 ft
4 Step inputs to air speed demand M = 0:3, h = 5000 ft
+100 kn w.r.t. M = 0:3 at t = 2 seconds
5a Step input to pitch rate demand M = 0:5, h = 15000 ft
+10 =s followed by
5b Step input to velocity vector roll rate de- on 30 angle of attack limit
mand + maximum =s when aircraft on
30 limit. Roll through 360 . Followed
by
5c Step input to pitch rate demand 10 =s. when aircraft has completed 360 velocity
Followed by vector roll.
5d Step input to demand 0 =s pitch rate when aircraft has unloaded to resume
when aircraft has unloaded. straight and level ight approximately.
Responses showing the pitch rate, velocity vector roll rate, sideslip angle, angle of attack
and air speed should be plotted for all of the above responses. Normal acceleration should
be plotted if this reaches its positive or negative limiting value as dened in x 4.2.
Steps 5a to 5d follow on from each other, therefore only the ight condition at the start
of the manoeuvre is dened. The above series of manoeuvres should be repeated with the
Version: 3
GARTEUR/TP-088-4
following uncertainties and measurement errors:
Cm 0:030
Cl 0:008
Cn 0:008
in combination with a measurement error of 2 degrees on incidence and +2 degrees on
sideslip.
5.3 Physical considerations

5.3.1 Airframe loading and departure prevention
It should be recorded whether the following nine criteria (see Chapter 4) are satised:
Max normal acceleration < 7g
Max normal acceleration overshoot = 0:5g
Min normal acceleration > 3g
Max negative normal acceleration overshoot = 0:5g
Max incidence < 30
Max incidence overshoot < 5
Min incidence > 10
Max negative incidence overshoot < 5
Settling time < 2s following the manoeuvre
Report output: nine Pass/Fail responses corresponding to the nine above requirements.
5.3.2 Structural coupling
To avoid structural coupling the following limitations (as stated in x 4.5) should be ob-
served:
The maximum high frequency (frequencies above 4 Hz) gain from pitch rate (rads/s)
to control surface de ection (rads) should be < 3:0.
The maximum high frequency (frequencies above 4 Hz) gain from normal acceleration
(`g') to control surface de ection (rads) should be < 0:09 rads/g.
Report output: two Pass/Fail responses.
Version: 3
GARTEUR/TP-088-4
5.4 Control activity criteria

5.4.1 Max roll rate and pitch rate
For ight condition 2, the maximum roll and positive pitch rates obtainable should be
recorded (corresponding to full lateral and full longitudinal stick). For the pitch response,
time histories of the pitch and the symmetric canard and taileron should be given.
Report output: one set of plots, and two numbers corresponding to the maximum roll and
pitch rates respectively measured in degrees/s.
5.4.2 Control activity due to noise and turbulence
For ight condition 1, the RMS actuator demand activity due to the Dryden turbulence
model given in x 2.7 should be recorded for each of the six actuator demands n.b. the
supplied prerecorded sequences of turbulence data should be used. Note that these gures
should be relative to the steady-state values of the actuators when no turbulence is present.
Report output: six RMS actuator responses. The units should be degrees except for the
throttle servo which should be expressed as a percentage of full throttle demand.
The above should be repeated but in response to the sensor noise characteristics dened
in x 2.5.4.
Report output: six RMS actuator responses.
Version: 3
GARTEUR/TP-088-4
6 Design entry document layout

6.1 Introduction
The objective of this chapter is to provide guidelines to the participants on how to present
their results to the Action Group. It is intended that this will result in a uniform pre-
sentation of the results from each of the participants despite the use of a wide variety
of methodologies and will hence make comparisons much easier. The main aim of the
design challenge is not just to obtain `good' or even `excellent' controllers: as mentioned
before, the given design problem has already been solved for many similar aircraft. The
purpose of the design challenge is to obtain insight into the relative merits of several design
methodologies. Therefore, it is stressed that the contributions should be tutorial in nature:
this implies that it must be possible to retrace the applied procedure and independently
redesign the resulting controller(s). Furthermore, it is considered of great importance
that all necessary assumptions and design objectives are well motivated and related to
the general design specications given in Chapter 4. The suggested layout and structure
of the standard presentation format is intended to lter out the specic design aspects
relevant for each method, such that a clear idea about the performance of each design
method is obtained. The performance of a method will be assessed in terms of exibility,
applicability, generality, and eectiveness, thereby providing economic guidelines for the
industry and research institutes.
The automated evaluation procedure for the resulting controller as described in Chapter 5
is only a part of the nal evaluation of the reported design methodology. More specically,
the following aspects should be considered, with approximately equal weight to each of
the main items:
the tutorial value of the entry:
{ the general description of the method,
{ the set up of a controller architecture,
{ the motivation of assumptions made,
{ the motivation for the use of method specic design objectives,
{ the translation of general design specications into method specic design ob-
jectives,
{ the selection of weight functions and trade-o parameters,
{ the execution of the design cycle,
{ the method dependent analysis of results,
the (estimated) eort necessary for application of the methodology:
{ the complexity of the method,
Version: 3
GARTEUR/TP-088-4
{ the eort related to the setting up of the design cycle (modelling, controller
architecture, weight functions),
{ the eort related to the execution of the design cycle (numerical eort, degree
of automation),
{ the eort of performing a redesign after a major aircraft design change,
the complexity of the control solution:
{ the controller architecture (required measurement signals, reference signals,
modes, actuators and lters),
{ non-linearity of the controller (adaptive, gain scheduling),
{ (linear) order of the controller,
{ ease of implementation,
the behaviour of the controller as found by the automated evaluation procedure of
Chapter 5.
This implies for instance that information on duration of each design iteration and the
motivation for each relevant design action have to be reported. Furthermore, specic
problems should be pointed out and discussed.
The structure proposed for the standard document to be prepared by each design chal-
lenge contestant is aimed at accommodating all these aspects. The next section will give
a short overview of this structure, after which each element will be discussed in more
detail. Framework documents that accommodate this structure are available in LATEX and
WordPerfect. If necessary, the correct use of these documents is indicated.
6.2 Standard presentation format layout
In short, the standard presentation format will consist of a document with the following
structure:
Title, table of contents, list of gures, list of tables, list of symbols and abbreviations,
Summary,
Chapter 1: introduction,
Chapter 2: a tutorial review of the applied control design methodology:
{ introduction,
{ typical applications,
{ plant model requirements,
{ controller structure,
Version: 3
GARTEUR/TP-088-4
{ possible design objectives,

{ design cycle description,
{ a simple design example (optional),
Chapter 3: the selection of the controller architecture for the HIRM problem:
{ required measurement signals,
{ required actuator signals (control eectors),
{ required lters, (reference) models,
{ required reference signals,
Chapter 4: the translation of HIRM design criteria into method dependent objec-
tives, for instance (if applicable):
{ time domain criteria into frequency domain criteria,
{ time domain criteria into pole-zero criteria,
{ the denition of cost functions,
{ the setting up of an interconnection structure,
{ graphical methods,
{ non-linear specications into linear specications,
{ etc.
Chapter 5: the description of the design cycle:
{ required numerical tools for controller synthesis/analysis,
{ intermediate analysis,
{ design parameter adjustment strategy,
Chapter 6: analysis of the resulting controller in terms of the applied methodology,
for instance (if applicable):
{ closed loop frequency domain analysis,
{ open loop frequency domain analysis at actuators and sensors: gain and phase
margins, roll o actuator loop,
{ singular value or structured singular value analysis,
{ covariance response or RMS response of states and control signals to distur-
bances and gusts,
{ robust performance assessement,
{ time domain simulations: linear and non-linear,
Version: 3
GARTEUR/TP-088-4
Chapter 7: results of the automated evaluation procedure,

Chapter 8: conclusions,
References,
Appendices:
{ Appendix A: software used,
{ Appendix B: background information on the design team,
{ Appendix C: self-evaluation based on the evaluation questionnaire (see Ap-
pendix F),
{ Other additional information can be included in subsequent appendices.
In general, each of the aforementioned main items will give rise to a separate chapter: in
the following sections the possible contents of these chapters will be discussed.
6.3 Required contents of the design report
Title page and preamble
The available standard documents are self explanatory with respect to generation of title
page and preamble.
Summary
The summary should provide a short description of the applied methodology, the ob-
tained controller and some general comments on the achieved results.
Introduction (Chapter 1)
The introduction is mostly standard for all design challenge entries, it describes the frame-
work in which the design challenge was set up (i.e. GARTEUR action group FM-AG08)
as well as its overall objectives. The problem formulation should be adjusted to match the
presented design methodology; furthermore,it may be necessary to adjust the description
of the document's contents.
Tutorial review of the applied control design methodology (Chapter 2)

Explain the aim of your chosen method and its potentials; formulate objectives. You
might use a combination of methods for each specic objective, if so, explain why and
how. Does the method have some particular features, such as special analysis and syn-
thesis features. Does the method a priori take into account performance and robustness
Version: 3
GARTEUR/TP-088-4
specications, does it need gain scheduling and can it decouple interaction in loops and,
nally, can it handle feedforward or do you require to consider regulation and a feedfor-
ward loop separately. Is the controller robust in a linear sense, or in a non-linear sense.
Can you guarantee stability, think of non-linear controllers or adaptive controllers.
Selection of the controller architecture for the HIRM problem (Chapter 3)

Dene the control system architecture for the overall system. This means that a descrip-
tion has to be given of the subcomponents in your control system and that the arrangement
has to be reasoned. You might choose a uniform and reduced set of variables to command
inner loop variables for any selected mode. All this boils down to a functional description
of the control system.
Describe the controller structure you have adopted for the design task. For instance, this
could be a feedback controller in combination with a feedforward controller for which the
design could consist of either separate or simultaneous design of feedforward and feedback
loops. Important information on the feedback design is the choice of regulated variables,
the use of additional integrators, the use of full or partial state estimation, etc. When
considering feedforward design, subjects like performance features, ideal model response,
decoupling features and coordination can be discussed.
In the event that designers nd it possible to design a xed gain controller which covers the
limited ight envelope specied, they should document how the controller can be modied
to include gain scheduling.
Translation of the HIRM design criteria into method dependent objectives

(Chapter 4)
The HIRM design criteria are set up in method independent terms in Chapter 4. This
chapter should consider these requirements and provide a motivated procedure to ap-
proximate them by means of objectives that are of signicance for the proposed design
methodology. A discussion may be given with respect to the specic properties of the
possible design method dependent objectives and their potential to re ect the given re-
quirements: it is to be expected that some requirements allow a good representation, while
others are much harder to incorporate. Indicate your opinion on the application area of
the method.
Description of the design cycle (Chapter 5)

This chapter should consider the numerical tools and methods necessary to perform the
actual design cycle. A description should be given of the necessary actions that are to be
taken for each iteration. An important aspect is, for instance, whether it is possible to au-
Version: 3
GARTEUR/TP-088-4
tomate the procedure and to what extent expert knowledge of the designer is required for
intermediate decisions. This implies an extensive description of weight function selection
criteria, design parameters and search strategies as well as a discussion on the convergence
of the iteration procedure.
Analysis of the resulting controller in terms of the applied methodology (Chap-

ter 6)
The analysis of the resulting design will be dependent on the applied methodology. It
should be made clear to what extent the controller satises the design objectives formu-
lated in x 6.3. Again, it is necessary to consider the relation between the design objectives
and the original design requirements formulated in Chapter 4. Methods and indicators
that may be of interest for a specic design method could be:
eigenvalues, minimum damping,
broken loop frequency analysis at actuators and sensors, gain margins and phase
margins, actuator loop roll o,
singular value and structured singular value analysis,
covariance response, rms values of state variables and control inputs for given dis-
turbances and gusts,
ride quality indicators,
control activity indicators,
robust performance indicators,
cost functions,
linear and non-linear simulations.
Results of the automated evaluation procedure (Chapter 7)
The control design method independent evaluation procedure is automated and will result
in a single chapter in the nal document. Default text is provided but may be adapted
to comment on particular results. It is preferred that no changes are made to any of the
automatically generated gures and tables. If a given gure does not satisfactorily repre-
sent the controller's behaviour, please do not remove it: if desired an extra gure may be
added.
Version: 3
GARTEUR/TP-088-4
Conclusions (Chapter 8)
This chapter should comment on overall aspects of the design methodology and its features
with respect the HIRM design problem. Specic strong and weak points of the method
should be discussed. Possible future extensions or improvements of the presented method
should be indicated. Some comments should be given on the performance of the method
related to the four main objectives mentioned in x 6.1. Any comments on the set up of
the design challenge or the considered design problem can also be considered here.
References and appendices

For the style of referencing see this document. Appendices containing extra information,
for instance on successful applications, required and/or available software and software
generated for the purpose of the application of the method to the HIRM design challenge
(Matlab m-les, etc.) may be added if desired.
Note that it is the intention to be able to reperform the presented design method. All soft-
ware and information necessary for this purpose should be documented or made available
(by means of ftp etc.).
6.4 Final remarks
As mentioned before, standard document layouts will be available in WordPerfect and
LATEX. These documents can be used as a framework for your design challenge entry
document. Default texts are inserted when possible but may be adjusted to your specic
needs. Note that the layout is chosen to accommodate a large number of methodologies
and is aimed at an objective and complete comparison. Any comments you may have on
these standard layouts and the entire procedure are welcomed.
Version: 3
GARTEUR/TP-088-4
References
[1] GARTEUR Action Group FM(AG08), Communication Handbook,
GARTEUR/TP-088-5, June 1995.
[2] GARTEUR Exploratory Group FM-EG12, Terms of Reference for GARTEUR
Flight Mechanics Action Group (FM-AG08): Robust Flight Control in a Com-
putational Aircraft Control Egineering Environment, National Aerospace Labo-
ratory (NLR), Amsterdam, Jan. 1995.
[3] GARTEUR Action Group FM(AG08), Project Document,
GARTEUR/M-088-1, Version 2, January 1996.
[4] McRuer D., \Interdisciplinary interactions and dynamics systems integration",
Int. J. Control, Special Issue on Aircraft Flight Control, vol.59, No.1, Jan. 1994.
[5] Dorato P. (ed.), Robust Control, IEEE Press, 1987.
[6] Dorato P. and Yedavalli R.K. (ed.), Recent Advances in Robust Control, IEEE
Press, 1990.
[7] Matlab User's Guide, The MathWorks Inc., 24 Prime Park Way, Natick, Mass.
01760, USA, July 1993.
[8] Simulink User's Guide, The MathWorks Inc., 24 Prime Park Way, Natick, Mass.
01760, USA, April 1993.
[9] MATRIXX /SystemBuild V.2.4 User's Guide, Integrated Systems Inc., Santa
Clara, CA, USA, 1991.
[10] Favre C., `Fly-by-wire for commercial aircraft: the Airbus experience', Int. J.
Control, Special Issue on Aircraft Flight Control, Vol.59, No.1, 1994.
[11] Flying qualities of piloted vehicles, MIL-STD-1797A, Department of Defence,
Washington, USA, 1987.
[12] Elmqvist H., Dymola { Dynamic Modeling Language User's Manual, Dynasim
AB, S{22370 Lund, Sweden, 1993.
[13] Elmqvist H., Object-Oriented Modeling and Automatic Formula Manipulation
in Dymola, Scandinavian Simulation Society SIMS'93, Kongsberg, Norway, June
1993.
[14] Brockhaus R., Flugregelung, Springer Verlag, Berlin, Heidelberg, 1994.
[15] Etkin B., Dynamics of Flight - Stability and Control, John Wiley & Sons, USA,
1958.
Version: 3
GARTEUR/TP-088-4
[16] Otter M., DSblock: A neutral description of dynamic systems. Version 3.2, Tech-
nical Report TR R81-92, DLR, Institute for Robotics and Systemdynamics,
Oberpfaenhofen, Germany, May 1992.
[17] Grubel G., Joos H-D., Otter M. and Finsterwalder R., The ANDECS Design
Environment for Control Engineering, 12th IFAC World Congress, Sydney, Aus-
tralia, July 19-23, pp 447-454, 1993.
[18] Lambrechts P. and Terlouw J., A Matlab Toolbox for Parametric Uncertainty
Modeling, Philips Research Eindhoven and NLR Amsterdam, 1992.
[19] Sienel W., Bunte T. and Ackermann J., PARADISE { A Matlab-Based Robust
Control Toolbox, Proc. IEEE Symposium on Computer-Aided Control System
Design, Dearborn, MI, 1996.
[20] Handling qualities of unstable highly augmented aircraft, AGARD AR{279, May
1991.
[21] Otter M., Modeling of Multibody Systems with the Object-Oriented Modeling Lan-
guage Dymola, Nonlinear Dynamics 9, 1996 Kluwer Academic Publishers, The
Netherlands, pp 91-112, 1996.
[22] Otter M., Objectorientierte Modellierung mechatronischer Systeme am Beispiel
geregelter Roboter, VDI Fortschrittsberichte, Reihe 20: Rechnerunterstutzte Ver-
fahren, 1995.
[23] Cellier F., Continuous System Modelling, Springer-Verlag, New York, 1991.
Version: 3
GARTEUR/TP-088-4
A The HIRM model and design environment software description

A.1 Introduction
In this chapter the software of the six-degree-of-freedom HIRM model, as detailed in x 2,
is described. The software code is automatically generated by Dymola, where the objects,
given in Fig. 2.3, are coded in the form of equations. The connections between those
objects represent their physical interaction.
From the physical description set up in Dymola, a consistent symbolical mathematical
model is built automatically by the Dymola symbolic equations handler and, from that,
an ecient simulation code for dierent simulation environments is generated.
For the Matlab/Simulink simulation environment, code can be generated in the form of a
Matlab m-le and of mex-les for Fortran or C. Also Fortran or C-code may be generated
according to the neutral DSblock format, which can be used directly within the ANDECS
simulation environment.
The HIRM software supplied with this manual uses the Fortran-code or C-code version
of the HIRM model: it is relatively easy to use and much faster than the m-le version.
Hence, it is assumed that the user has a Fortran-compiler that can be used in combination
with fmex or a C-compiler that can be used in combination with cmex.
A.2 HIRM model in Matlab/Simulink
It is assumed that a correctly installed version of Matlab/Simulink (Matlab version 4.2 or
higher, Simulink version 1.3c or higher) is installed on a workstation or a, preferably fast,
PC. As mentioned before, a Fortran or C-compiler that can be used in combination with
fmex or cmex is also required.
A.2.1 Installation of C-Code version of HIRM

All les, which are required for the design of the controller should be arranged in a single
directory, for instance:
....\garteur\hirm\des
These les will be available from an anonymous ftp site .

The following procedure should be executed for installation from anonymous ftp:
create on your harddisk a new directory to work in and make this your current
directory (e.g. ./garteur),
start ftp; check whether your current local directory is still your intended work
directory,
The custodians of the HIRM software have yet to be determined. Once decided, the ftp site which
stores HIRM will be made known.
Version: 3
GARTEUR/TP-088-4
from the ftp> prompt: enter open <ftp site name>, enter username anonymous
and supply your e-mail address as password,
change remote directory by entering the command: cd garteur/hirm,
make sure that the le transfer mode is set to binary by entering the command: bin,
now get the le hirm0202.uue by entering the command: get hirm0202.uue,
leave ftp and check whether your current directory is still your intended work direc-
tory,
decode, uncompress and untar the le hirm0202.uue:
uudecode hirm0202.uue
uncompress -f hirm.tar.Z
tar xvfo hirm.tar,
go to the directory:
./hirm/des/cmex
compile the cmex-le of the aircraft dynamics model with the interpolation routines
hirmex.c and interpol.c by entering the command:
cmex hirmex.c interpol.c
compile the cmex-le of the actuator model hirmexa.c by entering the command:
cmex hirmexa.c
compile the cmex-le of the sensor model hirmexs.c by entering the command:
cmex hirmexs.c
compile the cmex-le of the simplied sensor model hirmexss.c by entering the
command:
cmex hirmexss.c
compile the cmex-le of the simplied sensor model hirmexsss.c for use in the
evaluation procedure by entering the command:
cmex hirmexsss.c
A.2.1.1 Installed les

You should now have at least the following les:
hirm_des.m,
hirmex.c, hirmexa.c, hirmexs.c, hirmexss.c, hirmexsss.c,
hirmex.m, hirmexa.m, hirmexs.m, hirmexss.m, hirmexsss.m,
simulink.h, matrix.h, mex.h,
interpol.c, interpol.h,
Version: 3
GARTEUR/TP-088-4
control.m,
aero.tab,
ini2001.mat, ini2001p.mat, ini2420.mat, ini2420p.mat,
ini5015.mat, ini5015p.mat
README
hirm des.m is the Simulink Design model including the S-functions of the HIRM dynamics
(hirmex), the actuator dynamics (hirmexa), and the three sensor dynamics (hirmexs,
hirmexss, hirmexsss), which are given as cmex-les: hirmex.c, hirmexa.c, hirmexs.c,
hirmexss.c and hirmexsss.c. Their corresponding help les are hirmex.m, hirmexa.m,
hirmexs.m, hirmexss.m and hirmexsss.m.
Three sensor models are included in the model. hirmexs is the full sensor representation
as described in x 2.5.2 of the manual. hirmexss is a representation of the simplied sensor
dynaamics described in x 2.5.3 of the manual. hirmexsss gives the simplest sensor dynam-
ics which only includes the sensor dynamics blocks shown in Fig. 2.6 (Sensor dynamics +
notch lters in the case of the rates and accelerations). The complex sensor model is the
default used in hirm des. The simpler models can be substituted by editing the name of
the sensor block. The appropriate initialisation vector also needs to be specied: either
X0s, X0ss or X0sss.
The aerodynamics requires interpolation interpol.c from a table aero.tab, which con-
tains all aerodynamic data for linear interpolation in one tabley .
simulink.h, matrix.h, and mex.h are necessary to compile the cmex-les.
A dummy controller with zero gains is included in the S-function control.m.
Finally, the les ini****.mat contain all of the variables (controller, parameters, etc.)
necessary for simulation at a certain ight condition. The contents of the ini****.mat
and ini****p.mat les are fully described in the le README.
A.2.2 Installation of Fortran Code version of HIRM
All les, which are required for the design of the controller should be arranged in a single
directory, for instance:
....\garteur\hirm\des
You can obtain these les from an anonymous ftp site.

The following procedure should be executed for installation from anonymous ftp:
create on your harddisk a new directory to work in and make this your current
directory (e.g. ./garteur),
y For plotting purposes the aerodynamic data and their Matlab plotting routines can be found in the
direcory ./hirm/aer.
Version: 3
GARTEUR/TP-088-4
start ftp; check whether your current local directory is still your intended work
directory,
from the ftp> prompt: enter open <ftp site name>, enter username anonymous
and supply you e-mail address as password,
change remote directory by entering the command: cd garteur/hirm
make sure that the le transfer mode is set to binary by entering the command: bin,
now get the le hirm0202.uue by entering the command: get hirm0202.uue,
leave ftp and check whether your current directory is still your intended work direc-
tory,
decode, uncompress and untar the le hirm0202.uue:
uudecode hirm0202.uue
uncompress -f hirm.tar.Z
tar xvfo hirm.tar,
go to the directory: ./hirm/des/fmex

compile the fmex-le of the aircraft dynamics model with the interpolation routines
hirmex.f and interpol.f by entering the command:
fmex hirmex.f interpol.f
compile the fmex-le of the actuator model hirmexa.f by entering the command:
fmex hirmexa.f
compile the fmex-le of the sensor model hirmexs.f by entering the command:
fmex hirmexs.f
compile the fmex-le of the simplied sensor model hirmexss.f by entering the
command:
fmex hirmexss.f
compile the fmex-le of the simplied sensor model hirmexsss.f for use in the
evaluation procedure by entering the command:
fmex hirmexsss.f
A.2.2.1 Installed les

You should now have at least the following les:
hirm_des.m,
hirmex.f, hirmexa.f, hirmexs.f, hirmexss.f, hirmexsss.f,
hirmex.m, hirmexa.m, hirmexs.m, hirmexss.m, hirmexsss.m,
Version: 3
GARTEUR/TP-088-4
interpol.f,
aero.tab,
control.m,
ini5015.mat, ini5015p.mat,
README
hirm des.m is the Simulink Design model including the S-functions of the HIRM dynamics
(hirmex), the actuator dynamics (hirmexa), and the three sensor dynamics (hirmexs,
hirmexss, hirmexsss), which are given as fmex-les: hirmex.f, hirmexa.f, hirmexs.f,
hirmexss.f, and hirmexsss.f. Their corresponding help les are hirmex.m, hirmexa.m,
hirmexs.m, hirmexss.m and hirmexsss.m.
The aerodynamics requires interpolation interpol.f from a table aero.tab, which con-
tains all aerodynamic data for linear interpolation in one tablez .
A dummy controller with zero gains is included in the S-function control.m.
Finally, the les ini****.mat contain all of the variables (controller, parameters, etc.)
necessary for simulation at a certain ight condition. The contents of the ini****.mat
and ini****p.mat les are fully described in the le README.
A.2.3 Use
Before starting a
simulation
symmetrical taileron (dtsc) load ini****.mat
0 of desired flight condition time
U0 in the workspace
differential taileron (dtdc) Clock Time
trim_inputs Double click here
0 to actuator for more information
symmetrical canard (dcsc) hirmsim
outputs for simulation
0
differential canard (dcdc) Mux +
+ hirmexa hirmexs hirmy
− Mux hirmex Demux
0 measured variables
Sum_inputs1 Actuator Mux Demux Sensor
rudder (drc) model HIRM model model
(16 states)
0 wind
nose suction (suctionc) wind_input
left engine throttle (thrott1c)
right engine throttle (thrott2c) CONTROLLER

Mux1
Fig.A.1 Simulink design model hirm des.m
The user is free to modify the wind input vector and will need to replace the dummy
controller supplied in the le control.m. The CONTROLLER block format in Fig. A.1 is not
rigidly xed and the user is free to include additional controller blocks such as feedforwards
z For plotting purposes the aerodynamic data and their Matlab plotting routines can be found in the
directory ./hirm/aer.
Version: 3
GARTEUR/TP-088-4
as required. The format for the inputs shown in hirm/eva/h clo pi.m is suggested as this
is what is required for the evaluation software.
The number and order of the dened reference signals, measurement signals and con-
trol inputs in the Simulink-le hirm/eva/h clo pi.m should not be changed to prevent
problems with the evaluation procedure described in Appendix C.
Version: 3
GARTEUR/TP-088-4
B The standard design challenge entry document layout

This manual is provided with a framework document that can be used as a starting point
for your design challenge entry document. It is set up in LATEX and set in the GARTEUR
style that we would like you to use (this manual is also set in this style). We strongly
advise the use of LATEX: it is public domain, it runs on many dierent platforms, and it is
well accepted in academia.
B.1 Installation
We assume you have a correctly installed version of LATEX on a workstation or PC (for
instance EMTEX) and the possibility to make use of a Postscript printer (or Ghostscript).
All les, which are required for the creation of your design challenge entry document can
be arranged into a single directory, for which we suggest:
....\garteur\hirm\fra
Similar to the HIRM model and design environment software as described in Appendix A,
these les can be obtained from anonymous ftp.
After the installation of the design environment the framework document is in directory
.nhirmnfra.
B.2 The rst test

To check correct transfer of all les and correct operation of your version of LATEX, it is
possible to immediately test whether the document can be compiled and printed:
go to your intended work directory,
run LATEX on the le HIRM-FRA.TEX,
after compilation, run DVIPS on the le HIRM-FRA.DVI,
print HIRM-FRA.PS to your Postscript printer (or use Ghostscript).
B.3 The use of .STY les
After successful completion of the rst test, you may consider a more permanent installa-
tion of the provided software. For this you should locate the subdirectory in which your im-
plementation of LATEX stores its style les: usually this is the subdirectory ....nTEXINPUT.
You may also consider a separate subdirectory for the provided .STY les, as long as LATEX
knows where to nd them. Next, move all .STY les to this subdirectory.
Most of the style les are standard, like BK11.STY and EPSF.STY: they are included for
completeness. Two of them are specially designed for the GARTEUR FMAG-08 group:
Version: 3
GARTEUR/TP-088-4
GARTEUR.STY and FMAG.STY. GARTEUR.STY replaces standard style les like BOOK.STY and
ARTICLE.STY; FMAG.STY is used for some additional denitions. See HIRM-FRA.TEX for
more information on the use of these style les.
The two Encapsulated Postscript les GARTEUR.EPS and GARTHEAD.EPS must remain in
the same directory as HIRM-FRA.TEX.
Version: 3
GARTEUR/TP-088-4
C The automated evaluation software

The automated evaluation software can be used to evaluate any controller designed with
the help of the design environment discussed in Appendix A. It is the intention that
you design your controller within the design environment, and that you also use this
design environment to apply any evaluation techniques that you prefer to show that your
controller meets the design objectives. The evaluation software should only be used for the
automated evaluation procedure, to produce the results needed for an objective comparison
of dierent control design methods.
C.1 Installation
It is assumed that the HIRM model and design environment software described in Ap-
pendix A have been installed successfully. Similar to this software, all les required for
the automated evaluation should be placed in a single directory, for instance:
....\garteur\hirm\eva
These les can be obtained from anonymous ftp.

After installation of the design environment the evaluation environment can be found in
directory .nhirmneva together with a dummy controller will be in directory .nhirmnctl,
the controller environment.
C.1.1 Installed les
You should now have at least 38 .m-les and one .mat-le in .nhirmneva. In the evaluation
environment the denition of the controller to be evaluated should be included.
C.2 Use of the evaluation software
The evaluation script le evalhirm.m is in the directory hirm/eva. It should be executed
from the Matlab command window with the working directory set to either hirm/des/fmex
or hirm/des/cmex. Directory hirm/eva should be in the Matlab-path.
A number of questions will be put during the evaluation, requiring entry of a character
followed by pressing the Enter key. The possible answers are mentioned in the questions,
surrounded by parentheses, like (y), for optional answers, or surrounded by brackets, like
[n], for the default answer.
It is possible to execute all four parts of the evaluation successively, or to select any part
separately.
During the evaluation, a number of linear models will be derived from the applicable non-
linear congurations, and saved subsequently for later use. In all these congurations the
Version: 3
GARTEUR/TP-088-4
control system, developed by the designer, acts as a parameter. When the control system
has been changed, any existing linear models should be removed. A question is put to
deal with such a possibility.
The evaluation proceeds parallel to Chapter 5. The evaluator should inspect each g-
ure produced visually, in order to establish the Pass or Fail condition for every criterion.
Questions will be put at appropriate instants.
Hardcopies of the generated gures may be ordered, for each gure separately, or a
PostScript plotle may be created, for later use. File prques.m in hirm/eva should be
adapted to include the local printer designation.
The Gibson pitch rate criterion in the Performance section requires a special action of
the evaluator: the plot position should be aligned with the crossing of the Level bound-
aries. The plot may be shifted vertically in an unlimited fashion by a specied incremental
number of dB's. Pressing the Enter key only terminates the shifting operation.
At the conclusion of the evaluation a report is generated, containing the Pass/Fail answers
given and the calculated numerical results. The report may contain all possible items in
case of a complete evaluation, or a part of it in case of a partial evaluation.
C.3 Incorporation of results into the framework document
The results are now available in your work directory. To incorporate them into the frame-
work document you should copy the following les to the directory in which you have your
framework document (see Appendix B):
all .EPS les,
HIRM-TBL.TEX.
Note that you will overwrite some of the les in the target directory.
Next, go to the directory with your framework document and use LATEX to compile
HIRM-FRA.TEX: the new results are automatically incorporated. The le HIRM-TBL.TXT is
created for use with other wordprocessors.
C.4 Use with your own controller
In directory hirm/eva, an example controller is supplied to be able to test the software
on the current platform. This controller is given as an S-function named control2.m.
To use your own controller, simply replace this S-function with the one you created with
the design environment. If you use the design environment as indicated, your controller
should be an S-function with the correct number and order of inputs and outputs for use
with the evaluation environment. The procedure for the evaluation is then as follows:
Version: 3
GARTEUR/TP-088-4
save the controller S-function you created with the design environment as
control2.m,
save any parameters you need to dene this controller in control2.mat; in the le

hirm/ctl/README there is a list of names that should NOT be used as they contain
evaluation procedure parameters,
copy control2.m and control2.mat to your evaluation software subdirectory
(e.g. garteurnhirmneva); overwrite the control2.m and control2.mat les already
existing,
proceed with the procedure given in the previous section.
Version: 3
GARTEUR/TP-088-4
D Linear and non-linear model check case and comparison
The following appendix fulls a dual role. First it validates the linearisation process by
comparing small amplitude responses on the non-linear model with responses from the
linear model. Second, it allows designers to validate their model against the check cases
shown. The ight condition used for the validation is at 5000 ft and Mach 0.3.
D.1 Matrices for check case
The A, B, C and D matrices for the linear model are given below. Note that the full
matrices have not been listed due to their size. The matrices shown are for states [u, v, w,
p, q, r, , , engine1F , engine1F 1 ], for inputs [DTS, DTD, DCS, DCD, DR, THROTTL1]
and for outputs [V , , ].
0 6:167e 3 0 8:909e 2 0 2:082e + 1

B
B 0 6:119e 2 0 2:106e + 1 0
B
B
B 7:578e 2 0 5:643e 1 0 9:635e + 1
B
B 0 1:254e 1 0 1:578e 0
B
B
B 1:306e 3
A = B
0 1:060e 2 2:851e 9 4:143e 1
B
B 0 1:710e 2 0 7:804e 2 0
B
B
B 0 0 0 1 0
B
B 0 0 0 0 1
B
B
@ 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0
0 0 9:593 6:538e 5 0 1
9:746e + 1 9:593 0 0 0 CC
CC
0 7:151e 7 2:035 0 0 CC
7:019e 1 0 0 3:900e 7 0 CC
2:851e 9 0 0 2:144e 6 0 CC
CC
1:894e 1 0 0 3:065e 6 0 CC
2:122e 1 0 0 0 0 CC
0 0 0 0 0 CC
CC
0 0 0 0 1 A
0 0 0 3:948e + 1 1:257e + 1
Version: 3
GARTEUR/TP-088-4
0 8:872e 1 0 1:473 0 0 0 1
BB 0 2:012 0 2:126 4:516 0 CC
BB CC
BB 1:124e + 1 0 1:596 0 0 0 CC
BB 0 6:546 0 3:527 3:459 0 CC
BB 3:259 0 1:869 0 0 0 CC
B = B BB CC
BB 0 8:029e 1 0 1:996e 1 1:976 0 CC
BB 0 0 0 0 0 0 CC
BB 0 0 0 0 0 0 CC
B@ CC
0 0 0 0 0 0 A
1:461e + 6
0 9:7820e 1 0
0 0
2:075e 1
0
0 0 0
0
0 0 0 01
C = B @ 2:069e 3 0 9:751e 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0CA
0 0 0 0 0 0 09:968
01
e 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
D = B @0 0 0 0 0 0C A
0 0 0 0 0 0
D.2 Time responses

The non-linear model was run using the Runge-Kutta5 integration method with a min-
imum step size of 1E-5 and a maximum of 1E-2 seconds. Each simulation was run for
a period of 5 seconds with a step being applied at 1 second. The amplitude of the step
used for each simulation and the corresponding gure number for the resultant response
is shown in Table D.1.
Control surface step amplitude gure number

Symmetric tailplane 0.01 Fig. D.1
Dierential tailplane 0.01 Fig. D.2
Symmetric canard 0.01 Fig. D.3
Dierential canard 0.01 Fig. D.4
Rudder 0.01 Fig. D.5
Throttle 1 0.1 Fig. D.6
Table D.1 Amplitude of step and gure number for each response
Responses from the non-linear and linear models were overplotted and the resulting graphs
are shown in the gures below. The same line types are used in each gure and these are
described in Table D.2.
Version: 3
GARTEUR/TP-088-4
Plot variable model line type

top left roll rate linear solid
non-linear dot dash
yaw rate linear dashed
non-linear dotted
top right pitch rate linear solid
non-linear dot dash
bottom left air speed linear solid
non-linear dot dash
bottom right angle of attack linear solid
OR non-linear dot dash
sideslip linear dashed
non-linear dotted
Table D.2 Legends for graphs in gures D.1 to D.6
−8
x 10
2 0.005
0 0
roll and yaw rates (r/s)
−2 −0.005
pitch rate (r/s)
−4 −0.01
−6 −0.015
−8 −0.02
−10 −0.025
−12 −0.03
0 1 2 3 4 5 0 1 2 3 4 5
102 0.21
0.205
101.5
0.2
air speed (m/s)
alpha (rad)
0.195
101
0.19
0.185
100.5
0.18
100 0.175
0 1 2 3 4 5 0 1 2 3 4 5
time (secs)
Fig.D.1 Response to step in symmetric tailplane.

Version: 3
GARTEUR/TP-088-4
−3
x 10
0.01 1
0
0.8
roll and yaw rates (r/s) −0.01
pitch rate (r/s)

0.6
−0.02
0.4
−0.03
0.2
−0.04
−0.05 0
0 1 2 3 4 5 0 1 2 3 4 5
−4
x 10
100.3205 5
100.32
0
air speed (m/s)
100.3195
beta (rad)
−5
100.319
−10
100.3185
−15
100.318
100.3175 −20
0 1 2 3 4 5 0 1 2 3 4 5
time (secs)
Fig.D.2 Response to step in dierential tailplane.
−8
x 10
2 0.02
0
0.015
−2
pitch rate (r/s)
−4
0.01
−6
−8
0.005
−10
−12 0
0 1 2 3 4 5 0 1 2 3 4 5
100.4 0.23
100.2
0.225
air speed (m/s)
100
alpha (rad)
0.22
99.8
0.215
99.6
0.21
99.4
99.2 0.205
0 1 2 3 4 5 0 1 2 3 4 5
time (secs)
Fig.D.3 Response to step in symmetric canard.

Version: 3
GARTEUR/TP-088-4
−3 −5
x 10 x 10
12 4
10
3
pitch rate (r/s)

6 2
4
1
2
0
0
−2 −1
0 1 2 3 4 5 0 1 2 3 4 5
−3
x 10
100.3186 3.5
3
100.3185
2.5
air speed (m/s)
100.3184
2
beta (rad)
100.3183 1.5
1
100.3182
0.5
100.3181
0
100.318 −0.5
0 1 2 3 4 5 0 1 2 3 4 5
time (secs)
Fig.D.4 Response to step in dierential canard.
−4
x 10
0.01 2.5
0 2
−0.01
1.5
pitch rate (r/s)
−0.02
1
−0.03
0.5
−0.04
−0.05 0
−0.06 −0.5
0 1 2 3 4 5 0 1 2 3 4 5
−3
x 10
100.32 12
100.318 10
100.316 8
air speed (m/s)
beta (rad)
100.314 6
100.312 4
100.31 2
100.308 0
100.306 −2
0 1 2 3 4 5 0 1 2 3 4 5
time (secs)
Fig.D.5 Response to step in rudder.

Version: 3
GARTEUR/TP-088-4
−3
x 10
0.035 7
0.03 6
0.025 5
0.02 pitch rate (r/s) 4
0.015 3
0.01 2
0.005 1
0 0
−0.005 −1
0 1 2 3 4 5 0 1 2 3 4 5
100.9 0.216
100.8 0.215
0.214
air speed (m/s)
100.7
alpha (rad)
0.213
100.6
0.212
100.5
0.211
100.4 0.21
100.3 0.209
0 1 2 3 4 5 0 1 2 3 4 5
time (secs)
Fig.D.6 Response to step in throttle 1.

Version: 3
GARTEUR/TP-088-4
E Key HIRM aerodynamic characteristics

The key aerodynamic characteristics of HIRM have been plotted in this Appendix to give
an indication of the type of vehicle that HIRM is. The parameters plotted are the lift
coecient, CL , the pitching moment coecient, Cmh , and the yawing moment coecient
due to sideslip, Cni . The coecients Cmh and Cni are included in the total moment
equations given in x 2.3.5. The lift coecient CL is calculated from the equation:
CL = CZTS cos() + CXTS sin()
Each of the coecients is plotted versus angle of attack as shown in Figs. E.1 to E.3 below.
Variation of lift coefficient with angle of attack

2
1.5
1
Lift coefficient
0.5
−0.5
−10 −5 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40
Angle of attack (degs)
Fig.E.1 Lift coecient versus angle of attack

Version: 3
GARTEUR/TP-088-4
Variation of pitching moment coefficient with angle of attack

0
−0.05
Pitching moment coefficient
−0.1
−0.15
−0.2
−0.25
−0.3
−10 −5 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40
Fig.E.2 Pitching moment coecient versus angle of attack
Variation of yawing moment coefficient with angle of attack as a function of sideslip

0.3
sideslip = −50 degs
sideslip = 50 degs
0.2
Yawing moment coefficient
0.1
−0.1
−0.2
−0.3
−10 −5 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40
Fig.E.3 Yawing moment coecient versus sideslip

Version: 3
GARTEUR/TP-088-4
F Evaluation Questionnaire
GARTEUR ROBUST FLIGHT CONTROL DESIGN CHALLENGE - EVALUATION QUESTIONNAIRE
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
VERSION: 3
DESIGN ENTRY:
EVALUATOR: DATE:
It is recognised that an evaluators background and experience (see questions

5(a) and 5(b)) will determine which questions they can answer easily. The
notes given below each question are aimed at clarifying them and helping
assessors to make decisions, by providing specific detailed answers for each
question.
The first four questions follow the four assessment criteria given in the
benchmark definitions, GARTEUR/TP-088-3 (section 4.1) and GARTEUR/TP-088-4
(section 5.1) respectively.
1(a) TUTORIAL VALUE

-------------------
One of the aims of Action Group on Robust Flight Control FM(AG08) was that of
"transferring the knowledge and experience gained through the Action Group
into industry". The design entries support this aim and are here being
assessed in terms of their value in meeting this aim. It is therefore the
educational content and suitability for publication of the entry that is
being evaluated:-
How do you rate the TUTORIAL VALUE of this design entry ? 1 2 3 4 5 ?
1 -> Unacceptable, incomprehensible.

2 -> Unsatisfactory; needs improvement before publication.
3 -> Acceptable; can be published.
4 -> Good, suitable for publication.
5 -> Very good; recommended reading.
COMMENTS:
Version: 3
GARTEUR/TP-088-4
2. EFFORT NECESSARY FOR APPLICATION

-----------------------------------
2(a) LEVEL OF UNDERSTANDING

---------------------------
This question is aimed at indicating the level of investment industry will

need to make in terms of training of their designers, to be able to use (and
if necessary, modify) the method, such that satisfactory results can be
achieved. It must be assumed that the method is supported by a user-friendly
state-of-the-art toolset.
What LEVEL OF UNDERSTANDING of the methodology is needed 1 2 3 4 5 ?

to obtain satisfactory results ?
1 -> Very high, needs detailed knowledge of the principles, the mathematical
background and software implementation.
2 -> High, needs detailed knowledge of principles and the mathematical
background.
3 -> A lot, needs detailed knowledge of the principles.
4 -> Some understanding of the basic principles.
5 -> Nothing, i.e. 'black box' method.
COMMENTS:
2(b) LEARNING CURVE

-------------------
Having established the level of understanding required, it is also important

to determine whether this can be achieved quickly or whether it will take a
long time to acquire the required level of understanding. i.e. the learning
curve is:-
How do you rate the LEARNING CURVE associated with using 1 2 3 4 5 ?

this method, i.e. how easy is the method to grasp ?
1 -> Very steep; very difficult.

2 -> Steep; difficult.
3 -> Moderate; acceptable effort.
4 -> Gentle; easy.
5 -> Almost flat; very easy.
COMMENTS:
Version: 3
GARTEUR/TP-088-4
2(c) RE-DESIGN
--------------
In practice, it is usual to design flight control systems to be capable of

dealing with a range of operating conditions and for carriage of internal and
external stores. Additionally, new moding might be added to the baseline
system at a later date. At any stage of the design process, an engineer,
other than the original designer, might inherit design responsibility and we
must take into account the ease with which he could take over the design:-
How easy would it be for you to take over the design 1 2 3 4 5 ?

and carry out a RE-DESIGN, with the same method ?
1 -> Very difficult.

2 -> Difficult.
3 -> Normal effort.
4 -> Easy.
5 -> Very easy.
COMMENTS:
2(d) FLIGHT CONTROL LAW STRUCTURES

----------------------------------
This question is looking at the possiblities for using alternative control

strategies which are beyond the current design challenges, by considering the
application of the methodology to the range of flight vehicles that an
organisation might be designing. i.e. it is an assessment of the range of
applicability of the method for flight control.
Does the method support all FLIGHT CONTROL LAW STRUCTURES 1 2 3 4 5 ?

that you might possibly want to design ?
1 -> None.
2 -> Some.
3 -> A lot.
4 -> Most.
5 -> All.
COMMENTS:
Version: 3
GARTEUR/TP-088-4
2(e) DESIGN REQUIREMENTS

------------------------
In a similar manner to 2(d), this question is also addressing the potential

of the method in terms of its application beyond the design challenge. i.e.
inclusion of an organisation's flight control design requirements for current
or future project vehicles, in addition to the those used in the design
challenge.
Is it possible to translate all of your DESIGN 1 2 3 4 5 ?

REQUIREMENTS into the design method syntax ?
1 -> None.
2 -> Some.
3 -> A lot.
4 -> Most.
5 -> All.
COMMENTS:
3. COMPLEXITY OF THE CONTROL SOLUTION

-------------------------------------
3(a) VISIBILITY
---------------
It must be recognised that there are a wide range of specialists and managers
who need to work with the control laws at a later stage of the total design
process. These might be piloted simulation engineers, flight control computer
implementers and testers, or engineers and managers responsible for flight
clearance. The level of visibility of the functionality is important to these
people, to help them to carry out their tasks:-
Do you consider the controller structure presented to 1 2 3 4 5 ?

have good VISIBILITY in terms of its functionality ?
1 -> Unacceptable, no visible correlation between controller structure and

functionality.
2 -> Unsatisfactory; unclear in some parts.
3 -> Acceptable, controller structure and functionality correlate.
4 -> Favourable level of visibility; easy to follow.
5 -> High level of visibility; easy to understand.
COMMENTS:
Version: 3
GARTEUR/TP-088-4
3(b) COMPLEXITY
---------------
The controller algorithms need to be executed in real time in the aircraft's
flight control computer. Since this capability is always limited, it is
important that control algorithms are efficient and do not lead to real-time
processing problems. High order controllers, multi-dimensional look-up tables
and complicated nonlinear fuctions all add to this potential problem.
How do you rate the COMPLEXITY of the design, in 1 2 3 4 5 ?

relation to the design problem complexity ?
1 -> Unacceptable, too complex.

2 -> Unsatisfactory, very complex.
3 -> Acceptable, complexity of controller structure and design problem is
well balanced.
4 -> Favourable; design of low complexity.
5 -> Optimal, all requirements can be fulfilled with a very simple design.
COMMENTS:
3(c) IMPLEMENTATION
-------------------
Execution time was addressed by the previous question, but there are other
aspects which could cause implementation difficulties. For example, the
control algorithm's numerical integrity, timing requirements and potential
for gain scheduling are all important implementation aspects.
How suitable is the design for IMPLEMENTATION in an 1 2 3 4 5 ?

aircraft's on-board flight control computer ?
1 -> Unacceptable, completely unsuitable.

2 -> Unsatisfactory, undesirable effort necessary.
3 -> Acceptable, but modifications necessary.
4 -> Favourable, few modifications necessary.
5 -> Highly suitable, straightforward implementation is possible.
COMMENTS:
Version: 3
GARTEUR/TP-088-4
3(d) QUALIFICATION AND CERTIFICATION

------------------------------------
If the aircraft and its flight control system are to be accepted by the
customer it must be 'qualified' against its specification. Before it flies,
it must be 'certified' against airworthiness criteria. The method and the
resulting design specification need to be compatible with existing
regulations for aircraft response and handling qualities.
How suitable is the design for compliance with your 1 2 3 4 5 ?

QUALIFICATION AND CERTIFICATION procedures ?
1 -> Unacceptable, certification is impossible.

2 -> Unsatisfactory, undesirable modification effort is necessary.
3 -> Acceptable, but modifications necessary.
4 -> Favourable, few modifications necessary.
5 -> Highly suitable, fits without modification.
COMMENTS:
4. BEHAVIOUR OF THE CONTROLLER

------------------------------
Quantitative measures will be available from the assessment software. Here it

is intended to capture a qualitative assessment.
4(a) ROBUSTNESS
---------------
Do you have any comments regarding the ROBUSTNESS of the design that has
been achieved ?
COMMENTS:
Version: 3
GARTEUR/TP-088-4
4(b) PERFORMANCE
----------------
Do you have any comments regarding the PERFORMANCE of the design that has
been achieved ?
COMMENTS:
4(c) CONTROL SURFACE ACTIVITY

-----------------------------
Do you have any comments ragarding the CONTROL SURFACE ACTIVITY associated
with the design ?
COMMENTS:
5. BACKGROUND AND GENERAL COMMENTS OF THE EVALUATOR

---------------------------------------------------
5(a) KNOWLEDGE OF THE DESIGN METHOD

-----------------------------------
This is to determine the assessors experience with the method to establish

the assessors 'authority' with respect to answering the questions. This
additional information could be helpful for supporting the interpretation of
the total evaluation.
How much KNOWLEDGE OF THE DESIGN METHOD did you (as an evaluator) 1 2 3 4 5
have before reading the design entry report ?
1. No knowledge.
2. Some knowledge.
3. Theoretical knowledge.
4. Theoretical knowledge and practical experience.
5. As 4; and having used the design method for a similar problem.
COMMENTS:
Version: 3
GARTEUR/TP-088-4
5(b) LEVELS OF EXPERTISE

------------------------
Please indicate your LEVELS OF EXPERTISE in the following areas asociated

with flight control systems design, implementation, testing and
certification:-
Flight mechanics / Aircraft stability 1 2 3 4 5
Flight Control laws design 1 2 3 4 5
Piloted simulation / handling qualities 1 2 3 4 5
FCC implementation and testing 1 2 3 4 5
Flight clearance / certification 1 2 3 4 5
Flight test / post-flight analysis 1 2 3 4 5
1 => Very little knowledge and experience.

2 => Basic knowledge and some experience.
3 => Good knowledge and experience.
4 => High level of knowledge and experience.
5 => Expert.
COMMENTS:
5(c) GENERAL COMMENTS AND OBSERVATIONS

--------------------------------------
Taking into account the results achieved and any background knowledge that
you may have on the approach considered, please note down any significant
additional thoughts or observations that you have made, which have not been
covered by the above questions (one page maximum please):-
{ End {

HIRM Design Spec

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

HIRM Design Spec

Diunggah oleh

Hak Cipta:

Format Tersedia

GROUP FOR AERONAUTICAL RESEARCH AND TECHNOLOGY IN EUROPE

ORIGINAL: ENGLISH GARTEUR/TP-088-4

Robust Flight Control Design Challenge

GARTEUR aims at stimulating and co-ordinating

ORIGINAL: ENGLISH GARTEUR/TP-088-4

Robust Flight Control Design Challenge

This report has been prepared under auspices of

Group of Resp. : FM-GoR Action Group : FM(AG08)

1 NLR, Anthony Fokkerweg 2, 1059 CM Amsterdam, The Netherlands.

Members of the Executive Committee

List of gures viii

3 Aircraft physical modelling leading to automatic code generation 25

5.3.2 Structural coupling . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 54

List of symbols and abbreviations

SMA Saab AB, Saab Military Aircraft

A theme of world-wide importance to aircraft manufacturing companies is the improve-

The traditional process of systems integration is to make individually designed

 Multivariable systems can be handled in a concise methodical framework, thus re-

derived. A detailed description of the components of the model (aircraft, sensors,

2 Description of the HIRM model

Fig.2.1 HIRM con guration.

2.2 Block diagram of the system

left engine throttle (thrott1c)

right engine throttle (thrott2c) CONTROLLER

Fig.2.2 Simulink block diagram of HIRM aircraft system

2.3 Aircraft dynamics model

Transfor- mation Transfor- mation

Symbol Alphanumeric Name Unit

Table 2.1 Aircraft model inputs de nition

Symbol Alphanumeric Name Unit

Table 2.2 Aircraft model states de nition

Symbol Alphanumeric Name Unit

Table 2.3 Aircraft model outputs de nition

Symbol Alphanumeric Default Unit

Table 2.4 Aircraft model parameter de nition

2.3.2 Rigid body Equations of motion

2.3.2.1 Translational movement

Symbol De nition Bounds

Table 2.5 Parameter uncertainty de nition

Fig.2.4 Coordinate transformation body xed , vehicle carried

2.3.4 Airspeed calculation

The derivatives of and with respect to time are:

+ Clr ( ) + ClrTS ( )abs(TS + 20 180 lrCS CS 180 2 V

+Clp ( ; abs(p) 2 bV ) sign(p)

+ Cnr ( ; TS ) + CnrCS ( )abs(CS ) 2r Vb + Cnp ( ; abs(p) 2 bV ) sign(p)

TH Throttle FE

Fig.2.5 Engine model.

throttle TH demanded thrust FE thrust FE

Gravity is not considered to be a function of altitude:

2.4 Actuator models

Symbol Alphanumeric Name Unit

Table 2.7 Actuator inputs de nition

2.4.3 Taileron actuator

Table 2.8 Actuator states de nition

2.4.5 Canard actuator

sensor dynamics + anti-aliasing lter + computational delay + a/d converter

Additional dynamics on the rate and acceleration information should be modelled as a

sensor dynamics + averaging + computeational delay + a/d converter

Air Data and Attitudes

Rates and Accelerations

Fig.2.6 Sensor hardware assumptions.

A block diagram of the series of subsystems is given in Fig. 2.6.

 averaging on rate and acceleration data:

2.5.3 Simpli ed sensor dynamics

Multivariable systems can be handled in a concise methodical framework, thus re-

Fig.2.1 HIRM conguration.

Table 2.1 Aircraft model inputs denition

Table 2.2 Aircraft model states denition

Table 2.3 Aircraft model outputs denition

Table 2.4 Aircraft model parameter denition

Symbol Denition Bounds

Table 2.5 Parameter uncertainty denition

+ Clr () + ClrTS ()abs(TS + 20 180 lrCS CS 180 2 V

+Clp (; abs(p) 2 bV ) sign(p)

+ Cnr (; TS ) + CnrCS ()abs(CS ) 2r Vb + Cnp (; abs(p) 2 bV ) sign(p)

TH Throttle FE

throttle TH demanded thrust FE thrust FE

Table 2.7 Actuator inputs denition

Table 2.8 Actuator states denition

averaging on rate and acceleration data:

2.5.3 Simplied sensor dynamics

f cut of the body-xed reference frame g

f Transformation matrix between body-xed and vehicle carried frame

f Aerodynamic force coecients g

f side force coecient g

f Aerodynamic moment coecients about centre of gravity g

f transformation of the thrust vector to body-xed coordinates g

f denition of local speed of sound g

f denition of local speed of sound g

Fig.3.7 From system conguration to symbolic model or simulation model

4 Control problem denition

Mach 0:15 to 0:5,