770

4-dimensional Control of a Remotely Piloted

Vehicle
R. D. Linehan: K. J. Burnham and D. J. G. James+
Keywords: Mulitvariable flight control, 4dimensional control, remotely piloted vehicle.

Abstract

The problem of accurate tracking to a non-zero

reference input is addressed in the context of multivariable flight control. There exists a requirement of zero steady state error in order to perform
specific autopilot commands such as accurate 4dimensional control: thus enabling the aircraft to
be accurately positioned in time and space. The
novel algorithm of optimal dyadic pole placement
(ODP) is presented as the solution to this servomechanism problem [l]. In addition, in order
to propose a pragmatic solution, a twc-stage control strategy is suggested which is shown to offer
robust performance which may be implemented
through a gain scheduling methodology. The twostage control strategy achieves zero steady state
error through the application of LQR to obtain
an approximate track to the reference signal followed by ODP to effect the negation of the steady
state error. The effectiveness of this approach is
demonstrated via simulation.

pendent use of optimal methods which by design

minimize the tracking error, but never completely
negate it. Even a very small error in velocity can
rapidly grow over time into a very large error in
position or altitude. The principle objective therefore is the development of a control strategy which
tracks to a non-zero reference veloicty profile with
zero error, while displaying gust rejection properties.
The aircraft under consideration is a small, short
range, unmanned aircraft, used to procure tactical military surveillance [2]. A basic function of
the autopilot is the ability to perform loiter and
dash manoeuvres, whereby the controIler tracks
to a desired velocity profile. The ability to accurately control the velocity of the aircraft enables
the positioning of the aircraft in time and space.
Such 4-dimensional tracking is of significant operational advantage in terms of tactical military
surveillance.

Mat hemat ical Modelling

and Simulation

The mathematical model of the Raven 2 RPV

has been derived from first principles through de2 Introduction
termination of the aerodynamic stability derivatives [3] and presentation of the differential equaThe aim of this research is to upgrade the control tions of motion in state space form.
strategies used within the autopilot onboard the
For the purposes of mathematical modelling the
Raven 2 remotely piloted vehicle (RPV). In paraircraft is assumed to be rigid so that its motion
ticular there are two main objectives: firstly the
can be considered to have six degrees of freedom.
development of a control strategy to effect rapid
However, for the purposes of controller design, it
gust rejection and secondly the developement of a
is assumed that there is no interaction between
strategy to enable 4-dimensional control of the airlongitudinal and lateral motions, a factor only sigcraft. A pre-requiste of the latter is the tracking
nificant during rapid rolling manoeuvres.
to a profile with zero error: this excludes the indeDue to limitations on space, only the longitudinal
'Currently with Lucas Aerosapce
tBoth with Control Theory & Applications Centre, equations of motion and subsequent results are
Coventry University
detailed. The longitudinal equations of motion

UKACC International Conference on CONTROL '96,2-5 September 1996, Conference Publication No. 427 0IEE 1996

771

are represented as:

presented in this paper, it is assumed that full

state feedback is available, although the methodolgy has been successfully demonstrated using a
realistic state estimator [I].

X=Ax+Bu
y=Cx+Du

where:

A=

[
[

-0.0719
-0.6510
0.7352

0.3226
-1.5886
-1.6216

-0.0068

0.2524

-2912567

-0.i204

-0.0005
29.6714
-6.4495
1

-9.7966
-0.5110
0.0273

Problem Formulation

The novel algorithm of optimal dyadic pole placement is based upon the dyadic pole placement algorithm proposed by Young [5]. In brief, the algorithm may be outlined as follows:
Stage One: Apply an initial feedback matrix K T ~
of the form:
Kl-1

['

= O:KI1

(1)

where K T is
~ of full rank. The choice of the matrix
Krl is left to the designer, but is nominally chosen
as the (pxp) identity matrix I,,, where p is the
x = [ i ] ,U=[;;]
number of control inputs. Application of initial
feedback, removes cyclicity of the state coefficient
The longitudinal state vector x is defined in terms matrix.
of horizontal veloicty U , vertical velocity w ,pitch
rate q and pitch angle 8 . The elevator and thrust Stage Two: Apply a second stage dyadic feedback
control inputs U are denoted by the symbols 6~ gain matrix, of the form:
and ST respectively.
r
'1

The elevator control input 6~ is limited by the

upper and lower saturation values of +0.5236 -+
-0.3665 rad respectively, with a servo-controlled in order to place the closed-loop poles in their desired locations. The second stage feedback mamaximum slew rate of 1 rads-I. An idealised
trix is determined directly from the algorithm prethurst control input is formulated such that the
sented by Young:
lower saturation limit is defined by the ratio of
stall speed (21 ms-l) to maximum speed (50
KTZ= yk;f
ms-l) and the maximum saturation limit is de-1
fined as unity. This represents a realistic, velocyT BT
ity dependent thrust variation from
to %%
(3)
thrust.
ko =

3%

The state space equations of motion have been determined at the following datum flight condition:
horizontal velocity = 30 ms-', altitude = 330 m where
p =
(equivalent air density = 1.1896 kgm-3) and aircraft mass = 80 kg. However, the complete operational envelope of the aircraft is considered as
r =
this has a significant effect on the open loop flight
dynamics of the aircraft.

[PI pz ...pnlTis the vector composed

from the coefficients of the open-loop
characteristic polynomial, I I X - AI
[q r2 ...r,IT is the vector composed
of the desired closed-loop characteristic
polynomial coefficients

The equations of motion are solved within the

MATLAB/SIMULINK environment [4]. In general separate multivariable control strategies are
applied
both of to
which
the longitudinal
are describedand
by lateral
two-inputlfourmotions;
output systems. For the purposes of the results

~~

s=[

Pn-1

Pn-2

:::

. . . Pl

I]

-1

772

The resulting complete control law is given by:

4.1

Problems

associated
dyadic pole placement

with

The dyadic pole placement algorithm derived by

Young allows a considerable amount of design flexibility in terms of the four design parameters [5]:

1. dyadic vector y

2. initial feedback matrix K T ~

3. desired closed-loop pole locations

4. position of lag poles.

which are not actually achievable in the closedloop. As a result it is possible to expend control
effort in an attempt to obtain, unobtainable pole
positions.
Application of the dyadic methodology is further
conplicated due to the inter-dependency of the
three design parameters: dyadic vector y , initial feedback matrix K T and
~ lag pole position.
Closed-loop systems are very sensitive to the position of lag poles, with speed of response increasing significantly with respect to pole location
along the real axis. This has a strong influence
on the resultant demanded control action. It has
been found that with the application of dyadic
pole placement and the requirement of zero steady
state error, it is common that the demanded control action exceeds the saturation limits: consequently a level of detuning is required [l]. The
designer can attempt to restrict the speed and
magnitude of the demanded control action by tuning the dyadic vector and initial feedback matrix. However, variations in y and K T ~affect
the achieved position of the lag poles. The design
then becomes an iterative process, as the designer
continually adjusts y, K T and
~ the position of the
lag poles in an attempt to fine tune the system response. If this iterative process is combined with
an attempt to achieve unobtainable closed-loop
pole locations then the design may be compromised.

However there are a number of problems associated with the application of this strategy. Firstly,
due to the necessity of placing lag poles along the
real axis, this methodology is more suited to the
application of longitudinal flight control than to
lateral [l].This is due to the presence of the spiral convergence/divergence mode which is characterised by a real root near the origin. Conse- As a result, the novel dyadic pole placement alquently, the stability of this lateral mode is very gorithm is proposed which is a hybrid design
sensitive to the application of lag poles. It is rec- based on the linear quadratic regulator and the
ommended that this methodology is only applied
dyadic pole placement algorithm. This novel apto the longitudinal motion, characterised by comproach uses the benefits and simplicity of the LQR
plex modes of oscillation. However, this restricmethodology to determine the required closed
tion is of no consequence given the current aploop pole positions. These optimum achievable
plication of tracking to forward velocity: a state
closed loop pole positions are then used as startvariable within longitudinal motion.
ing point for a modified dyadic application which
negates
the tracking error inherent in pure optiSecondly the dyadic methodology requires the
mum
techniques.
stipulation of the position of the desired closedloop pole locations. However for multivariable
systems, this is not straightforward, as classical techniques only describe the closed-loop pcOptimal
Dyadic
Pole
sitions of SISO systems through the use of root 5
locus techniques. A root loci of a multivariable
Placement
system is only of limited value. Traditionally,
in

aerospace

applicatbns, the desired closed-loop

pole locations are assigned through application of

flying qualities specifications [ 6 ] ; however these
specifications only result in a range of applicable
pole positions and not definitive locations. This
highlights the problem of specifying pole locations

A design methodology for optimal dyadic pole

placement (ODP) is necessary due to the conflicting requirements and compromise inherent
in mulitvariable controller design. The optimal dyadic pole placement methodology allows

773

the straightforward application of an optimal ap- 6

Results
proach incorporating zero steady state tracking
error - hence enabling 4-dimensional control. The
Application of the novel ODP procedure allows
following methodology is proposed [l]:
optimal closed loop performance to be obtained in
addition to the benefits of zero steaty state tracktune the closed-loop system using the LQR ing error. The ODP algorithm has been successstrategy in order to obtain achievable opti- fully applied to the Raven 2 RPV - the aircraft has
mal pole locations for the closed-loop system. been simulated tracking to the demanded velocity
This can be performed iteratively through profile with zero steady state error. This is pervariation of the weighting matrices Q and formed within the non-hear rate and saturation
R until optimal closed loop performance is limits of the actuators onboard the aircraft.
achieved within the control input constraints.
Initially, the algorithm is assessed at one trim
flight condition and manually tuned at that poamend the system to a two stage dyadic form sition. However, in practice the flight envelope
by applying initial feedback to remove non- of the aircraft varies considerably during any one
cyclicity and close the resultant loop using mission. In particular, flight envelope variations
the dyadic pole placement tracking algorithm in aircraft velocity, altitude and mass effect the
values of the aerodynamic stability derivatives
contained within the state coefficient and driving
specify the desired closed-loop pole locations
matrices. These variations effect the natural staas those obtained from LQR
bility modes of the aircraft and as a result, the
loop gains required to perform specific autopilot
specify the desired lag poles by placing one commands.
pole at the origin, affecting a pole/zero canDue to hardware restictions onboard the Raven
cellation and retain the second pole location
2 RPV, it is not feasible to propose an adapas a sliding pole which acts as an additional
tive, self-tuning strategy to be implemented as
tuning parameter
the controller design, consequently a gain scheduled methodology is proposed [7]. This approach
is
simply applied through prior determination of
if necessary simplify the design procedure by
specifying the initial feedback matrix in terms the loop gains required at specific stages of the
flight envelope. It is suggested that the three
of the dyadic vector yij , such that
factors most effecting flight dynamics and ultimately loop gains are: veloicty, altitude (air density) and mass. In practice these parameters may
be measured directly (velocity) or inferred (air
density via altitude measurement and mass via
It has been found that the definition of the estimation of fuel consumption). Based on these
initial feedback matrix in terms of the dyadic three parameters the feedback gain matrix may
vector ensures that as the system is tuned or be calculated through linear interpolation of the
detuned, these two parameters work in unison pre-determined gain matrices. This apporach has
been succesfully demonstrated via simulation, usrather than in opposition to each other [7].
ing fuzzy logic to perform the interpolation [7].
tune the closed-loop system by sliding the
lag pole position along the x-axis in order to
obtain the system dynamics defined by the
optimal poles. Because the system has been
amended from that tuned using LQR, the optimal dyadic pole placement algorithm does
not necessarily achieve the optimal pole locations, but careful tuning of the dyadic parameters will result in optimal locations.

The application of optimal dyadic pole placement

via a gain scheduling methodology however results
in an additional problem. It has been found that
the ODP strategy is sensitive to variations in flight
envelope, in some circumstances resulting in saturated control action; although this did not effect
the stability of the aircraft, only speed of response.
Although, it should be noted that this problem
may be reduced or eliminated through determination of the feedback gains at more points through-

774

out the flight envelope.

Control input saturation is in fact due to the
requirement of the dyadic methodology of zero
steady state error in contrast with LQR where the
error tends asymptotically to zero. In an attempt
to limit control action and to render the control
strategy more robust, the tracking commands may
be applied in two stages: firstly, LQR is applied
as a base control action in order to achieve an approximate track to the reference signal with minimal control effort. Once steady state is achieved,
characterised by a steady state error, the ODP
strategy is applied to negate the reference error.
Clearly, the required demanded control action to
perform the negation of the steady state error is
significantly reduced due to the base LQR control
action.

tions on board the aircraft, it is proposed that the

strategy is implemented via gain scheduling, In
order to propose a robust solution to the tracking
problem, the tracking control is applied through a
two-stage approach: firstly LQR tracks to the input signal, obtaining an approximate track characterised by a steady state error then the ODP
strategy is adopted to negate this error. Although
initially the LQR tracking strategy may appear
to be a suitable compromise between control effort and tracking accuracy, it should be noted
that any steady state error, no matter how small,
grows with time, and eliminates the possibility of
4-dimensional control.

References

Figure 1 demonstrates the implementation of the [l] Linehan R. D. Modelling Simulation and ConODP strategy to negate steady state error while
trol of a Remotely Piloted Vehicle. PhD thetracking to a 48 ms- velocity reference. In this
sis, Control Theory & Applications Centre,
situation, LQR has been implemented as a base
Coventry University, August 1995.
control action and achieves steady state at 47.7
ms-l. The presence of this small error eliminates [a] Hudson S. Future roles for the Raven surveillance RPV. In Proc. Tenth International Conthe possibility of performing 4-dimensional conference on Remotely Piloted Vehicles, Bristol,
trol. Although the throttle control action does
UK, March 1993.
reach the saturation limits, its should be noted
that the maximum aircraft velocity is 50 ms-,
[3] ESDU International plc. Validated Engineertherefore it is un-necessary to prevent throttle sating Data Index, 1991.
uration. The magnitudes of the resulting variations in pitch rate and vertical velocity are Small. [4] The Math Works Inc. MATLAB f o r Wzndows
Users Guzde, December 1991.
The application of the ODP strategy completely
negates the tracking error and the aircraft is [5] Young p. C. and Willems J . c. An apshown flying at 48 ms-l. The achievement of the
proach to the linear multivariable servomechdesired velocity profile allows the aircraft to be
anism problem. Internatzonal Journal of Conaccurately positioned in time and space. The pertrol, 15(5):961-979, 1972.
fomance of this approach has also been succesfully
demonstrated in the presence of gusts simulated [6] Department of &fense. Military SPecificatZonflying qualities of piloted airplanes, 1980. MILthrough a Dryden gust model [l].
F-8785(ASG).

Conclusions

The novel algorithm of optimal dyadic pole placement has been successfully applied, via simulation, to the tracking problem of the Raven 2 remotely piloted vehicle. Tracking to an external
signal with zero steady state error allows effective
4-dimensional tracking of the aircraft.
Due to the sensitivity of the ODP strategy to variations in flight envelope, and the hardware limita-

[7] Linehan R. D., Burnham K. J., Hudson S.

M., James D. J . G., and King P. J . Optimal control strategy for a surveillance RPV.
In Proc. Colloquzum on the Control and Guzdance of Remotely Operated Vehicles. Digest
No: 1995/124, The Institution of Electrical
lace, London, UK, June
1995.

0.3t

/
A

E -0.02
22

'$3 -0.04
w

3
.g -0.06
>
I

30

40

-0.08 I

Time (s)

10

20
Time (s)

30

40

3
10
20
30
40

-1 oo

Time Is\

Time Is\

x
I

-5'
Y

.-0

Time (s)

e
E

48

Time (s)

g 47.9 -

8
a

3 47.8 c

7
-

47.7

Figure 1: Elimination of the steady state error upon application of the

ODP control strategy