Anda di halaman 1dari 10

HIGH FREQUENCY EFFECTS IN CLASSICAL DESIGN APPROACH OF ROLL AUTOPILOT AND ITS ALLEVIATION

Notes based on papers (1) Why Modern Controllers Can Go Unstable in Practice by F.W.Nesline and P.Zarchan and (2) Combined Optimal/Classical Approach to Robust Missile Autopilot Design by F.W.Nesline, B.H.Wells and P.Zarchan.

Contents

1 Missile Control 1.1 1.2 1.3 Roll Position Autopilot . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Control Techniques in Roll Autopilots . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Classical Design Approach [2] . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

1 1 2 3 8

References

Chapter 1 Missile Control


An autopilot [1] is a closed loop system and it is a minor loop inside the main guidance loop; not all missile systems require an autopilot. (a) Broadly speaking autopilots either control the motion in the pitch and yaw planes, in which they are called lateral autopilots, or they control the motion about the fore and aft axis in which case they are called roll autopilots. (b) In aircraft autopilots, those designed to control the motion in the pitch plane are called longitudinal autopilots and only those to control the motion in yaw are called lateral autopilots. (c) For a symmetrical cruciform missile however pitch and yaw autopilots are often identical; one injects a g bias in the vertical plane to oset the eect of gravity but this does not aect the design of the autopilot.

1.1

Roll Position Autopilot

A simple block diagram of roll position autopilot is as shown in Fig.1.1.

Figure 1.1: General Block Diagram of Roll Position Autopilot[1]

(a) The roll position demand (d ), in the case of Twist and Steer control, is compared with the actual roll position (), sensed by the roll gyro. (b) The error is amplied and fed to the servos, which in turn move the ailerons. (c) The movement of the ailerons, results in the change in the roll orientation of the missile airframe. (d) The changes in the airframe orientation due to external disturbances, biases etc are also shown in the achieved roll position. (e) The controlling action (feed back) continues till the demanded roll orientation is achieved.

1.2

Control Techniques in Roll Autopilots

(a) Traditional or Conventional Design of Roll Autopilot as given in [1] [2] [3].

(b) Design of Roll Autopilot using Optimisation Technique. (Linear Quadratic Regulator) (c) Design of Roll Autopilot using Sliding Mode Control. (d) Design of Roll Autopilot using Inertial Delay Control. (e) Design of Roll Autopilot using Disturbance Observer.

1.3

Classical Design Approach [2]

The classical design approach in control theory utilises stability derivatives to derive transfer functions that describe the dynamic behavior of the air frame in the vicinity of the trim point. The transfer function which forms the basis of roll autopilot design is K (s) = RR 1 s 1 + RR (1.1)

The roll rate response for the system represented by Eqn.1.1 is too slow and must be made faster by the autopilot. The maximum roll angle and roll rate must be kept within limits to ensure a safe and controlled launch. To cater to these requirements, the roll autopilot is generally designed as a proportional-plus-integral control. In Part-II, the control technique described in [1] was explained and a PI Controller was designed for roll autopilot with a zero order servo. However, when the second order servo dynamics were included into this design, the system goes unstable. Garnell overcomes this problem by using a lead-lag compensator which helps in increasing the phase margin and making the so-designed system relatively stable. In [2], the classical design approach uses a high-order dynamic model for the actuator, missile aerodynamics (rigid air frame) and rate gyro dynamics including torsional eects (exible body dtnamics). (a) The autopilot is designed to achieve maximum cross-over frequency given the actuator and rate gyro bandwidths and the rst torsional mode.

(b) If the rst torsional mode limits the cross over frequency or causes excessive peaking due to its low damping, the mode peak can be attenuated using a notch lter. (i) The lter is designed so that the notch is at the center of the uncertainty band of the modal frequency and that its bandwidth is wide enough to give attenuation over the entire band. (ii) Such a lter is sub optimal but robust. (c) The open loop gain must be set high enough to provide adequate phase and gain margins. (d) For each design, the maximum missile roll angle and rate is calculated and compared with the limits required for a safe and controlled launch. (e) Trial and error leads to an acceptable design for a set of aerodynamic parameters K and RR . A typical classical design approach considers the dynamic model made up of the quadratic transfer functions shown in Fig. 1.2.

Figure 1.2: Block Diagram of Roll Autopilot [2]

The open loop transfer function HG(s) can be written from the above gure as HG(s) = F1 s + F2 GN F GA K (GRB + GF B )GG s (1.2)

Initially the exible body and notch lter dynamics are neglected. Thus the open loop transfer function becomes HG(s)|nof lex = where A = F2 /F1 . The gain cross over frequency CR , such that RR < A < A < G must satisfy A < CR < A to ensure good relative stability. For this the Bode plot must cross 0 dB at a slope of 20 dB/sec. Cross over occurs when the magnitude of the open loop transfer function is unity (0 dB) i.e., HG(s)|nof lex = F 2 K F 2 k (CR /A = =1 RR CR CR /RR ACR (1.4) F2 K (1 + s/A)GA GG RR s(1 + s/RR (1.3)

Therefore the crossover frequency is calculated from CR = F2 K = F 1 K A (1.5)

Eqn.1.5indicates that the autopilot gain F1 determines the cross over frequency. Choice of Cross Over Frequency. The cross over frequency must be chosen to be high enough to ensure a wide autopilot bandwidth. At the same time, it should be chosen low enough to prevent stability problems due to actuator and rate gyro dynamics. The autopilot gain ratio A is chosen to yield satisfactory phase margin. INFLUENCE OF HIGH FREQUENCY DYNAMICS The inuence of the rst torsional mode (exible body dynamics) on the open loop transfer function can be seen by leaving out the notch lter in Eqn. 1.2. Thus the open loop transfer function becomes HG(s)|nonotch = F2 K (1 + s/A)(GRB + GF B )GA GG s 5 (1.6)

The rigid body and exible body dynamics are given by the transfer functions GRB (s) = 1/RR 1 + s/RR KT s 1 + (2l /l )s + s2 /l 2 (1.7)

GF B (s) =

(1.8)

Expansion of eqn.1.6 using eqn.1.8 gives HG(s)|nonotch = F2 K (1 + s/A)GA GG 1 + s(KT RR + 2l /l ) + s2 (KT + 1/l 2 ) [ ] (1.9) RR s(1 + s/RR 1 + (2l /l )s + s2 /l 2

Comparing Eqns.1.3 and 1.9, it is found that the open loop transfer function of eqn.1.9 is identical to that of eqn.1.3 except for the bracketed term. Scrutiny of the bracketed term shows that it is made up of a quadratic divided by a quadratic transfer function. (1) The damping of both quadratics is quite low. (2) The frequency of the numerator, Z , is much higher than the frequency of the denominator, l , where Z is given by Z = (KT + 1 1 ) 2 l 2

(3) An open loop Bode plot for eqn.1.9 can be constructed and it will be seen that the low damping of the rst torsional mode causes peaking such that the gain is very close to 0 dB. If the phase angle is less than 180 deg at this frequency, instability can result. Thus the peak of the exible body dynamics can be attenuated by the use of a notch lter. The transfer function of the notch lter is given by GN F (s) = 1 + (2N /N )s + 1 + (2D /D )s +
s2 N 2 s2 D 2

(1.10)

If the notch lter happens to be tuned to the torsional mode then N = D = l , N = l ,D = 0.5. 6

Thus the damping of the mode l will eectively be increased to D . The open loop transfer function will then be given as HG(s)|nonotch = F2 K (1 + s/A)GA GG 1 + s(KT RR + 2l /l ) + s2 (KT + 1/l 2 ) [ ] RR s(1 + s/RR ) 1 + (2D /D )s + s2 /D 2 (1.11)

References
[1] Garnell, P., Guided Weapon Control Systems, Brasseys Defence Publishers, London, 1980. [2] Nesline, F. W. Wells, B. and Zarchan, P., Combined Optimal/Classical Approach to Robust Missile Autopilot Design, Journal of Guidance and Control , Vol. 4, No. 3, May-Jun 1981, pp. 316322. [3] Nesline, F. W. and Zarchan, P., Why Modern Controllers can go Unstable in Practice, Journal of Guidance, Vol. 7, No. 4, 1984, pp. 495500.