Professional Documents
Culture Documents
1
Six-DoF Dynamic Modeling and Flight Testing of a
UAV Helicopter
Subodh Bhandari
=
r p v w
r p v q u
r p v q u
r p v q w u
w
r p v q w u
N N N N
L L L L L
Y g Y Y g Y Y
M M M M M M
g g Z
X X X g X X X
A
0 0 0 0
tan cos 0 1 0 0 tan sin 0 0
0 0 0
cos cos sin sin 0
0 0 0 0 0 cos 0 0
0 0
0 cos sin 0 0 sin cos 0 0
0 cos
u | u |
u | u |
|
u | u |
u
(13)
American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics
11
(
(
(
(
(
(
(
(
(
(
(
=
T
T
T
T
N N
L L L L
Y Y Y Y
M M M M
Z
X X X
B
A B
A B
A B
A B
0 0
0 1 1 0
0 1 1 0
0 1 1 0
0
1 1 0
0 0
0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0
0 0 0
0
u u
u u
u u
u u
u
u
(14)
states
B1
To Workspace6
position
To Workspace5
B
To Workspace4
A
To Workspace3
A1
To Workspace2
control_inputs
To Workspace1
state_space
To Workspace
Velocity Input Position
Position
input_collective
From
Workspace4
input_tail
From
Workspace3
input_lateral_cyclic
From
Workspace2
input_long_cyclic
From
Workspace1
Flight Data Comparison
inputs
inputs1
inputs2
states
states2
Dynamic Equations
em
State Space
Command Input
A
B
A1
B1
Calculate next A &B
Matrix
v
p
phi
r
u
w
q
theta
Figure 5: 6-DoF Simulink Model
V. Raptor 50 V2 Simulation Results vs. Flight Data and CIFER
A number of flight tests were carried out to collect the helicopters response to
remote pilot input. The primary forms of the pilot input for these tests were either pure
sinusoidal or frequency sweeps. This data was generated for system identification using
CIFER. A frequency sweep is a type of sinusoidal excitation of the helicopter, the sweep
American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics
12
going from low frequencies with small amplitudes to high frequencies with higher
amplitudes within the frequency range of interest. In some of the flights, a doublet input
was also used.
The remote pilot input extracted from the flight data was used to stimulate the 6-
DoF dynamic model of the Raptor. The same data was used to extract the transfer
function (TF) model for the single input single output case and the state-space model for
the multiple input multiple output case using CIFER. The TF models obtained were both
in pole zero form and simple gain and time delay form. For the purpose of this
discussion, simple gain and delay models were used. The results of the 6-DoF simulation
were then compared with flight data and later with the response obtained from the CIFER
model. The comparisons are shown in the following figures.
47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54
0
20
40
u
(
f
t
/
s
)
47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54
-10
-5
0
w
(
f
t
/
s
)
47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54
-1
0
1
q
(
r
a
d
/
s
)
47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54
-1
0
1
time (s)
t
h
e
t
a
(
r
a
d
)
47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54
0
20
40
v
(
f
t
/
s
)
47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54
-0.5
0
0.5
p
(
r
a
d
/
s
)
47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54
-0.5
0
0.5
p
h
i
(
r
a
d
)
47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54
-0.5
0
0.5
time (s)
r
(
r
a
d
/
s
e
c
)
Simulation
Flight Data
Figure 6: 6-DoF Simulation vs. Flight Data for a Pitch Sweep
Figures 6 and 7 show the comparison between the flight data and the simulation
results for the pitch and roll sweeps respectively. The simulations shown are for a
moderately short period of time. When the simulations are run for a longer period, the
responses are found to show an increasing error. A research effort is currently underway
to mitigate this problem. It can be seen from these figures that the correlation between the
American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics
13
simulation results and the flight data is very good, with some exceptions for off-axis
responses. Though there has been improvement in the off-axis responses after the
incorporation of rotor wake effects, it is felt that more work has to be done in this area.
When compared to the 3-DoF longitudinal model, it is noticed that the velocities and
angular rates are in better agreement with the flight data. It is noteworthy to mention
here that stabilizer bar dynamics have not been included within the model. The stabilizer
bar has a pronounced effect on controllability, and on the pitch and roll damping of the
helicopter
20
. Further improvement in the simulation response will be seen once the bar
dynamics are included.
288 289 290 291 292 293 294 295
-50
0
50
u
(
f
t
/
s
)
288 289 290 291 292 293 294 295
-20
0
20
w
(
f
t
/
s
)
288 289 290 291 292 293 294 295
-0.5
0
0.5
q
(
r
a
d
/
s
)
288 289 290 291 292 293 294 295
-0.5
0
0.5
time (s)
t
h
e
t
a
(
r
a
d
)
288 289 290 291 292 293 294 295
0
20
40
v
(
f
t
/
s
)
288 289 290 291 292 293 294 295
-1
0
1
p
(
r
a
d
/
s
)
288 289 290 291 292 293 294 295
-0.5
0
0.5
p
h
i
(
r
a
d
)
288 289 290 291 292 293 294 295
-1
0
1
time (s)
r
(
r
a
d
/
s
e
c
)
Simulation
Flight Data
Figure 7: 6-DoF Simulation vs. Flight Data for a Roll Sweep
In Figure 8, a comparison between the flight data, the CIFER model response, and
the 6-DoF model response is shown for pitch rate. Similarly, Figure 9 shows a
comparison for roll rate. It is obvious from these figures that there is a high degree of
correlation between the flight data and the CIFER model response, while the 6-DoF
model response is seen to follow the trend closely. However, the CIFER models obtained
so far are SISO models for the pitch, roll, and yaw rates. Some MIMO models from
CIFER have also been extracted, but this work is still in the development phase. The
American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics
14
SISO models are transfer function models, while the MIMO models are obtained in state-
space form. The pitch rate to longitudinal cyclic and the roll rate to lateral cyclic transfer
functions are described in equations 15 and 16, respectively.
47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54
-40
-30
-20
-10
0
10
20
30
40
P
i
t
c
h
R
a
t
e
(
d
e
g
/
s
)
Time(s)
Simulation
Flight Data
CIFER
Figure 8: Pitch Rate Comparison Between 6-DoF Simulation, Flight Data
and CIFER for a Pitch Sweep
s
e
s B
s Q
0020 . 0
1
) (
) (
= (15)
s
e
s A
s R
0037 . 0
1
) (
) (
= (16)
The characteristics of the above transfer functions, such as the gains and biases,
are listed in Table 3 and Table 4 respectively. The characteristics listed are the time
constant, cost function, gain, and bias. The time constants and the cost functions were
obtained from CIFER, while the gains and biases were selected on a trial and evaluation
basis.
American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics
15
Table 3: Longitudinal SISO Transfer Function Properties
SISO Longitudinal Transfer Function
Time constant 0.0020 sec Phase-shift -
Cost Function 0.18 Gain 17
Bias 30 deg/sec Eigenvalue -
Table 4: Lateral SISO Transfer Function Properties
SISO Lateral Transfer Function
Time constant 0.0037 sec Phase-shift -
Cost Function 0.166 Gain 15
Bias -22 deg/sec Eigenvalue -
288 289 290 291 292 293 294 295
-40
-30
-20
-10
0
10
20
30
40
R
o
l
l
R
a
t
e
(
d
e
g
/
s
)
Time(s)
Simulation
Flight Data
CIFER
Figure 9: Roll Rate Comparison Between 6-DoF Simulation, Flight Data
and CIFER for a Roll Sweep
American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics
16
VI. Conclusions and Future Work
The results obtained from the 6-DoF dynamic model are encouraging. There has
been a significant improvement in the simulation response after the incorporation of the
coupling and rotor wake effects. Still, there is some discrepancy between the flight data
and the simulation results. It is hoped that this discrepancy will disappear, to a large
extent, after the incorporation of stabilizer bar dynamics into the model. As mentioned
earlier, the development of the dynamic model is being done on a step-by-step basis, and
the work will continue until a model good enough to be used for control system design is
obtained. The CIFER transfer functions provide a good match to the flight data. It is felt
that both 6-DoF and CIFER models need further improvement. Efforts are underway to
accomplish these improvements. An improved data acquisition package is being installed
in the UAVs. There is a concentrated effort to increase the fidelity of the 6-DoF model.
It is hoped that there will continue to be rapid progress made in the data acquisition and
parameter identification processes, as well as in the 6-DoF dynamic modeling effort.
References
1. E. Johnson and S. Kannan, Adaptive Flight Control for an Autonomous Unmanned
Helicopter, AIAA Guidance, Navigation, and Control Conference and Exhibit,
Monterey, California, Aug. 5-8, 2002.
2. Mettler and Kanade, System Identification Modeling of a Model-Scale Helicopter,
Carnegie Mellon University, April 2004.
<http://www.ri.cmu.edu/pubs/pub_3328.html>.
3. Gavrilets, Mettler, and Feron, Non-Linear Model for a Small-Size Aerobatic
Helicopter. AIAA Guidance, Navigation, and Control Conference and Exhibit,
Montreal, Canada, Aug. 6-9, 2001.
4. V. Gavrilets, I. Martinos, B. Mettler and E. Feron, Control Logic for Automated
Aerobatic Flight of a Miniature Helicopter, AIAA Guidance, Navigation, and Control
Conference and Exhibit, Monterey, California, Aug. 5-8, 2002.
5. Johnson, Wayne, Helicopter Theory, New York, Dover Publications, 1980.
6. Bramwell, Balman, and Done, Bramwells Helicopter Dynamics. Washington DC:
American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics, 2001.
7. Stevens, Brian L. , and Lewis, Frank L. , Aircraft Control and Simulation, John Wiley
& Sons Inc., Hoboken, NJ, 2003.
8. Kowalchuk, Scott, UAV Longitudinal Dynamics Model and Flight Testing of a
Raptor 50 V2 Helicopter, Department of Aerospace Engineering, University of
Kansas, Lawrence, KS, May 2004.
9. Kowalchuk, Holly, Lederbogen, and Colgren, UAV Dynamic Modeling and Flight
Testing using a Raptor 50 V2 Helicopter, AIAA Atmospheric Flight Mechanics
Conference and Exhibit, Providence, Rhode Island, Aug. 16-19, 2004.
10. Prouty, Raymond W., Helicopter Performance, Stability and Control, Krieger
Publishing Company, Malabar, Florida, 1995.
11. CIFER-Comprehensive Identification FrEquency Responses, Army/NASA Flight
Control and Cockpit Integration Branch, January 25, 2004.
<http://caffeine.arc.nasa.gov/cifer/>.
American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics
17
12. Lederbogen, Philipp, Flight Test Evaluation and Modeling of a Raptor 50 V2 UAV
using CIFER, Department of Aerospace Engineering, University of Kansas,
Lawrence, Kansas, December 2004.
13. Lederbogen, Kowalchuk, Holly, and Colgren, Flight Testing of a Raptor 50 V2
Helicopter for Parameter Identification, 35
th
Annual Society of Flight Test Engineers
Symposium, 2004.
14. Roskam, Jan, Airplane Flight Dynamics and Automatic Flight Controls, Lawrence,
Kansas, DAR Corporation, 1998.
15. Ogata, Katsuhiko, Modern Control Engineering 3
rd
Edition, Prentice Hall, New
Jersey, 1997.
16. Curtiss, H. C., Aerodynamic Models and the Off-Axis Response, American Helicopter
Society, 55
th
Annual Forum Proceedings, Volume 2, Montreal, Canada, May 1999.
17. Keller, J. D., An Investigation of Helicopter Dynamic Coupling Using an Analytical
Model, Journal of the American Helicopter Society, Volume 41, October 1996.
18. Keller, J. D., and Curtiss, H. C., The Effect of Inflow on the Dynamic Response of
Helicopters, American Helicopter Society, 52
nd
Annual Forum Proceedings,
Washington D. C., June 1996.
19. Padfield, Gareth, Helicopter Flight Dynamics: The Theory and Application of Flying
Qualities and Simulation Modeling, American Institute of Aeronautics and
Astronautics, Washington D.C., 1996.
20. Mettler, Bernard, Identification Modeling and Characteristics of Miniature
Rotorcraft, Kluwer Academic Publishers, Boston, 2003.