Automatica.Vol. 24, No. 4, pp. 471-483, 1988
00
Printedin GreatBritain.
Flight Control Design Using Non-linear Inverse
Dynamics*
STEPHEN H. L A N E t and R O B E R T F. STENGELt
Flight control systems based upon non-linear inverse dynamics offer the
potential of providing improved levels of safety and performance over
conventional designs developed using linearizing assumptions.
Key Words--Non-linear systems; control system design; decoupling; inverse systems; aerospace
control.
Abstract--Aircraft in extreme flight conditions can encoun-
ter severe non-linear effects generated from high angles of
attack and high angular rates. Flight control systems based
upon non-linear inverse dynamics offer the potential for
providing improved levels of safety and performance in these
flight conditions over the competing designs developed using
linearizing assumptions. Inverse dynamics are generated for
specific command variable sets of a 12-state non-linear
aircraft model to develop a control system which is valid over
the entire flight envelope. Detailed descriptions of the
inertial dynamic and aerodynamic models are given, and it is
shown how the command variable sets are altered as a
function of the system state to add stall prevention features
to the system. Simulation results are presented for various
mission objectives over a range of flight conditions to confirm
the effectiveness of the design.
INTRODUCTION
THE PROBLEM of stall/spin accidents is a
particularly severe one for general aviation (GA)
aircraft. In recent years more than a tenth of all
single-engine light plane accidents, and nearly a
third of all fatal light plane accidents have been
related to stall (Stengel and Nixon, 1982).
Conventional flight control designs assume the
aircraft dynamics are linear and time invariant
about some nominal flight condition. They
feature stability and command augmentation
systems to meet handling qualities criteria, with
gains scheduled as functions of the nominal flight
condition. In extreme flight conditions the
performance of these systems starts to deterior-
ate due to the unmodelled effects of strong
non-linearities inherent in the flight dynamics,
which only become significant at high angles of
attack or high angular rates.
* Received 21 May 1986; revised 13 May 1987; received in
final form 13 January 1988: The original version of this paper
was not presented at any IFAC meeting, but was presented
at the 1986 American Control Conference, Seattle, on 18
June 1986. This paper was recommended for publication in
revised form by Associate Editor B. Friedland under the
direction of Editor H. Austin Spang III.
t Princeton University, Department of Mechanical and
Aerospace Engineering, Princeton, NJ 08544, U.S.A.
471
0005-1098188$3.00+ 0.
Pergamon Press plc.
~) 1988InternationalFederationof AutomaticControl
Control laws that are based on the non-linear
inverse dynamics (NID) of the aircraft offer the
potential for providing improved levels of
performance over conventional flight control
designs in these extreme flight conditions. This is
due to the NID controller's more accurate
representation of the forces and moments that
arise in response to large state and control
perturbations. These control laws also allow
specific state variables to be commanded
directly. This simplifies the pilot's task of
capturing desired flight trajectories, and it is
useful in adding stall prevention features to the
system.
The control of non-linear systems through the
use of their inverse dynamics is a topic that has
received a great deal of attention in recent years
(Falb and Wolovich, 1967; Singh and Rugh,
1972; Freund, 1973, 1975; Asseo, 1973; Singh
and Schy, 1979, 1980; Meyer and Cicolani, 1981;
Meyer et al. 1984; Menon et al. 1985). Asseo
(1973) showed how a simplified aircraft model
could be decoupled to provide flight path angle
and heading angle commands to the pilot. Singh
and Schy (1979, 1980) applied this same theory
to maneuvering aircraft and demonstrated how
the roll coupling divergences associated with
rapid open-loop maneuvers could be eliminated
from the closed-loop response. In a slightly
different approach, Meyer and Cicolani (1981)
and Meyer et al. (1984) construct the inverse
dynamics of a VSTOL aircraft by using
linearizing transformations. A regulator is then
designed for the transformed system, forcing it
to track the output of a reference model. Menon
et al. (1985) simplify the calculations of the
linearizing transformations by using singular
perturbation theory. Assuming that there is a
sufficient time-scale separation between the fast
and slow modes in the system, they have shown
472 S . H . LANEand R. F. STENGEL

that the steady-state values of the fast modes can entiation operator, L~A(.), such that,
be used as control inputs to the slow modes.
This paper is part of a continuing effort of
analytical and experimental studies at Princeton
L~(x) = [-~xL*A-'(x)]A(x) (5)

(Fratter, 1982; Sri-Jayantha, 1983a,b, Ehren- L°(x) = x (6)

strom, 1983; Silhouette, 1986) investigating the
control of aircraft at high angles of attack. It simplifies the subsequent development. Using
extends the above works by developing a stall this notation to differentiate the ith component
prevention flight control system that is valid over of y yields.
the entire flight envelope for both highly )~i = C,i = CiA(x) + C,B(x)u = C,L•(x) (7)
maneuverable and GA aircraft. Through the use
of non-linear inverse dynamics, this controller
Yi~--"Cii = C i [ ~ x L~(x)]A(x)
decouples specific state variables that are of
particular interest to the pilot. The command
variables are organized in sets that can be varied q-Ci[~ ZlA(X)]B(x)u=Cit2(x) (S)
as functions of the flight phase, to provide the
pilot with a maximum of control over the aircraft
with a minimum of effort. The controller
incorporates the full non-linear inertial dynamics
and aerodynamics into its design using an
aerodynamic model based upon the Navion GA
aircraft, with elevator, aileron, rudder and
throttle deflections as the control inputs. where di is the order of the derivative of Yi
necessary to ensure that,

GENERAL THEORY OF NON-LINEAR INVERSE

DYNAMICS
The objective of this section is to review the After differentiating the m elements of y, each
techniques that can be applied to develop a flight the appropriate number of times, the output
control system that is valid over the entire flight dynamics can be represented as,
envelope. These techniques are based on the
F ClL ,(x)7
construction of inverse dynamics as presented in
yea== Y~d2zl=lCzL!Z(x)
J
Singh and Rugh (1972) and Freund (1973) for
systems of the form,
= A(x) + B(x)n (1)
y = C(x) (2) c,
where A(x) = (n x 1) vector, B(x) = (n x m)
matrix, C(x) = (m x 1) vector. Since the aircraft C2 C2-'(x)
dynamics take the general non-linear form, + B(x)u. (11)
/t' = f(x', u') (3)
y = Cx' (4)
where x ' = ( n x l ) state vector, u ' = ( m × l ) Using the notation of Singh and Rugh (1972)
control vector, y = (l x 1) output vector, and and Freund (1973) let,
C=(lxn) constant matrix, a transformation
into the linear analytic form of (1) and (2) is A*(x) = C,[L~(x)l (12)
required. This can be accomplished by augment-
ing the system dynamics with derivatives of B*(x) = C~[~x L~-l(x)]B(x ) . (13)
appropriate control inputs.
The inverse dynamics of (1) and (2) are This allows (11) to be written in more compact
constructed by differentiating the individual notation as,
elements of y a sufficient number of times until a yCd~= A*(x) + B*(x)u. (14)
term containing a u appears. Since only m
outputs can be controlled independently with m A sufficient condition for the existence of an
inputs, it will be assumed that d i m ( y ) = inverse system model to (1) and (2) is that B* in
dim ( u ) = m . Introducing the kth-order differ- (14) be non-singular (Singh and Rugh, 1972;
 Non-linear inverse dynamics flight control systems 473

Freund, 1973). If this is the case, then the
inverse system model takes the form,
i = [A(x) - B(x)F(x)] + B(x)G(x)v
u = - F ( x ) + G(x)v
where v = yCaZ is the input to the inverse system,
u is its output and
G = [ B * ( x ) ] -~
closed-loop stability can be guaranteed if
closed-loop observability can be proven (Freund,
(15) 1975). For cases where ~ d~ < n, closed-loop
i=1
(16) stability can be guaranteed only locally by
showing that the modes made unobservable by
the NID control law have stable dynamics over
the regions of interest in the state space.
(17)

F = [B*(x)I-IA*(x). (18) MATHEMATICAL MODEL OF THE AIRCRAFT

Applying the NID control law. Now that the methods of construction of NID
control laws for general non-linear systems of
u = - F ( x ) + G(x)v (19) the form of (1) and (2) are clear, the next step is
to the original system of (1) and (2) leaves it in to apply these techniques to the equations of
the integrator-decoupled form, motion of the aircraft. Choosing a hybrid
coordinate system consisting of combined wind
yCaZ= v. (20)
and body axes, the equations of motion of an
Setting, aircraft take the form (Etkin, 1972),
d-1
V= -- Z PkYckz + Pow (21) D t~
f' . . . . g sin 7 (23)
k=O m

with yCk~ the kth derivative of the output vector 3:'= qw cos q0 - rw sin q0 (24)
y, and the Pk chosen as (m X m ) constant
diagonal matrices, gives the original system the = Pw + (qw sin qo + rw cos q0) tan ]/ (25)
decoupled linear, time-invariant dynamics, ~, = (q~ sin q~ + r~, cos qg) sec y (26)
yed~ + pa_lyCa-lz + . . . P0Y = Pow (22) & = q - qw sec/3 - (p cos oc + r sin o0 tan/3 (27)
where w is the new external control input. = rw + p sin oc - r cos o~ (28)
Figure 1 illustates the NID approach to control
law development. (t = 1 [ ~ + ixz(r2 _ p2) + (Iz~ - tx~)rp] (29)
The maximum number of poles that can be ~yy

placed with a NID control law is highly

dependent upon the choice of the elements in
the output vector y. For cases where ~ di = n, [(ff+ I~pq+(lyy-l:~)qr)](301
i=l
all the system poles can be placed, and + L ( N - l~zqr + (I~ - Iyy)pq) j (31)

W LINEAR
DYNAMICS
I J INVERSE
DYNAMICS UJ NONLINEAR
DYNAMICS
y
v %XoF'~y.
d-I (~) PoWI - u - -F(x) . G(x)v 7 } = A(x) ÷ B(x)u

[
(d)
y =V

FIG. 1. Non-linear inverse dynamicscontrol system.

474 S . H . LANEand R. F. STENGEL

where l Cr
1
q~ = - ~ (L - mg cos 7 cos qg) (32)

1
r~ = - ~ ( - S + mg cos y sin q~)
p~ = p cos cr cos fl + (q - &) sin fl + r sin a~cos fl
(34)
and q.,, r.,, p., are the wind-axis angular rates; V
is the flight path velocity; q~, y, lp are the
wind-axis Euler angles; p, q, r are the body-axis
angular rates; D, S, L are the drag, side and lift
forces; GP, d~, X are the rolling, pitching and
yawing moments; or=angle of attack; and
= sideslip angle. A thrust coefficient (Cx) is
also used in the calculation of the aerodynamic
forces (D,S, L) and aerodynamic moments
.(G~, d~, N). It is found from the thrust model,
CT ~---r/P.,~x 6T
qsv
where 6T is the throttle setting, r/ is the
propeller efficiency, q is the dynamic pressure, S
is the wing planform area and Pm~ is the
maximum power of the engine.
The non-dimensional aerodynamic moment
coefficients (G, Cm, C,,) used in the calculation
of GP, dd and X are assumed to be non-linear
functions of or, fl and CT, and linear functions of
the elevator (6E), aileron (6A) and rudder (6R)
deflections. These non-dimensional coefficients
take the general functional form,
~/ = /./0(~(, ~, CT) q"/./1(0¢, ~, CT)(~E
+ l~2(cr, fl, CT)6A + #3(a~, fl, CT)6R (36)
where the /l~ ( i = 0 , 1, 2, 3) are obtained by
interpolating actual aerodynamic data using
functions of the form,
I 1..--
(33)
FIG. 2. Partitioning of aerodynamic data into subspaces.
lated in this way are Ct0, C,,o, Cno; and Ct~A, Ct,R,
C.,a,
The non-dimensional aerodynamic force
coefficients (Co, Cs, Ct.) used in the calculation
of D, S and L take the general functional form,
fl)6A + )~,(o~,fl)6R + ~.5(oGfl)6ECT
"4- /~3(~,
+ ;t6(~, fl)6ACT + ~.7(a~, fl)6RCT (39)
where the ;~,. (i =0, 1, 2 . . . . . 7) are obtained
(35) from the compressed bi-cubic spline
representations,
~'i( ~', ~ ) = /~i0 q- Zil "j- ~/2~ "q")~i3&~J "~ ~i4 c~'3
"Jr"~i5~ 3 -Jr-/~i61X31~all"~.i7(~'~3 (40)
of appropriate aerodynamic data on each data
subspace of (38). The bi-cubic form is required
to ensure that the derivatives of the aerodynamic
force coefficients used in the NID control laws
are continuous across the subspace boundaries.
The aerodynamic force coefficients interpolated
in this way are: Coo, Cso, CLo; Co~, Cs~T, CL~;
Co~, Cs~A, Cs~R, CLUE;and Co~r, CS~A,T, CS~R~,
CL6E6T"
The aircraft equations of motion can be put in
the triangular form,
il = Al(Xl, x2, Xl) (41)
i2 --'~A2(Xl, X2, X3, Ul) jr. B2(xl, x2, X3, Ul)U 2 (42)

~/i(C~', j~, CT) = ~,lio -}- [lilO[ "~ ~li2[~ + [.li3C T .-~ ~.li40L[~ f¢3 = A3(xl, x2, x3, el, u2)

"~ ~li50cC z "4" ~li6~C T q" ~li70c[~C T. (37) + a3(xl, x2, x3, el, U2)U3 (43)

The /~j (j = 0, 1, 2 . . . . ,7) are unique constants where

associated with each subspace of aerodynamic
data, and they are derived by compressing linear Xl , X2 ~ , X3
interpolation operations into minimal realiza-
tions. The data subspaces are cubes defined by
o~, fl and CT on the intervals, (44,45,46)
and
I a,<a~_<a:,+~]
fl,-< fl <-fli+l / (38)
CT, ~-~ CT ~ CTi+, 3 u, = u: = [o], = 6A .

5R
where the subscripted values of oG fl and CT (47,48,49)
define the cube boundaries shown in Fig. 2. The
non-dimensional moment coefficients interpo- These definitions allow stable inverse dynamics
 Non-linear inverse dynamics flight control systems
U2
U3
FIG. 3. Triangular representation of aircraft dynamics.
to be constructed for the NID control laws. This
triangular model of the aircraft dynamics
neglects the derivatives of the aerodynamic
forces (but not the aerodynamic moments) with
respect to the control surface deflections
(rE, 6,4, 6R) and the body angular rates
(p, q, r). Although the system is controllable
through these force effects, they are small for
most aircraft configurations and are not primary
paths of aerodynamic control. The principal
function of the control surface deflections is to
impart aerodynamic moments about the various
body axes. It can be shown that if NID control
laws are derived exploiting these weak force
effects, either unrealistically large control deflec-
tions will be required for small state perturba-
tions, or the system will be destabilized by
cancelling the non-linear equivalent of non-
minimum phase transmission zeros with unstable
poles. The neglected force effects will however
be included in the numerical calculations of D, S
and L used by the real-time control laws, and
they can be considered as disturbances (di) in the
block diagram representation of the triangular
system in Fig. 3. The control input u2 in the
general triangular model of (41)-(43) is not
applicable in this study.
Engine dynamics up to second order of the
form,
6"~F= k , b T + k26T + k36Teo m (50)
also can be accomodated in the triangular model
by making 6T and its derivative (fiT) states of
the system. 6T~o~ represents the new com-
manded throttle setting, while k l - k 3 are engine
parameters that can vary as a function of the
flight condition.
APPLICATION OF NON-LINEAR INVERSE
DYNAMICS TO FLIGHT CONTROL
The first step in the design of the flight control
system is to decide upon the command variable
sets. These sets can be selected as functions of
the flight phase; examples include:
475
Y¢om3= Y , y¢o,~,= (51a,b,c,d)
for aircraft with four independent control inputs.
Body-axis roll rate (p) is also a candidate
command variable for Ycor,l and Ycom, replacing
q0. For purposes of simulation, however, it was
found more convenient to work with the
wind-axis roll angle (q0). Y¢oml and Y¢om3 are
intended primarily for the take-off, landing and
cruising phases of flight. Y.¢o~3has the option of
commanding either ~p or ~p, depending upon the
mission objectives. The addition of Yco~2
provides the pilot with a manuever mode. This
allows direct control over attitude, simplifying
the performance of tracking tasks and landing
flare maneuvers. Y¢om, is activated by the stall
prevention logic, and supersedes all other
command variable sets in the event of stall.
The NID control laws are derived by
differentiating V, 7 and ~p three times; o:, fl and
tp twice; and p and q once, using the aircraft
dynamics of (23)-(34) in the triangular form of
(41)-(43). Using the derivatives of the various
command variables in Appendix A, A* and B*
can be assembled for each of the command
variable sets. This allows the F and G of the
NID control law of (19) to be computed.
Elements of Pk that give each command variable
the approximate response of a single-input-
single-output (SISO) linear system must also be
chosen with the speed of response of the original
system in mind. Arbitrary pole placement can
lead to a high sensitivity to plant parameter
uncertainty and an increased tendency for
control saturation. Table 1 contains the diagonal
elements of the Pk matrices that correspond to
systems with time constants of from 1-2 s. Given
the dynamics of the Navion aircraft, these
choices of time constants are reasonable.
Because B* must be inverted to form the NID
control law (19), any flight conditions that cause
B* to be singular must be avoided, B* is a
function of the command set definition, so
different command vectors have different points
of singularity. As noted in Appendix B, the
476 S. H. LANEand R. F. STENGEL
TABLE 1, DIAGONAL ELEMENTS OF LINEAR DYNAMICS PARAMETERS ( P k )

Diagonal elements of Diagonal elements of

Command Command
set P2 PI Po set Pz P~ Po
-7 -15 -9 -7 -15 -9
-7 -15 -9 -7 -15 -9
Ycoml 0 -2.5 -1 Yc°m3 0 -2.5 - 1
0 -2.5 -1 0 -2.5 -1
-7 -15 -9 -7 -15 -9
0 -5 -4 0 -5 -4
Ycom2 0 -5 -4 Yeom, 0 --2.5 --1
0 --2.5 --1 0 --2.5 --1

singularities occur outside the normal flight 15

envelope of the aircraft studied.
Command variable independence also can be
maintained in the event of control saturation.
This is accomplished by dropping appropriate 10

variables from the command set, and incor-

porating the control saturation effects into the
calculation of the inverse dynamics of the
remaining command variables. Table 2 shows
the correspondence between control saturation
and command variable elimination.
To prevent the pilot from commanding trim 0 ,
x,
conditions beyond the edges of the normal flight V . V
mln
envelope, these edges have been implemented as
hard constraints in the various command sets.
Based upon the Navion aircraft model, Fig. 4 -5 , I l l ' i l l ' ' . . . . l . . . . .
shows the maximum flight path angle command 50 100 150 200 250
V (f t/see)
(Ycom) for a given velocity command (Vcom),
FIG. 4. Maximum steady-state flight path angle versus
while Fig. 5 shows the maximum bank angle velocity.
command (tPcom) given Vcom and ~'com. For each
value of V in Fig. 5 the left q0 boundary is based and CLmax is the trim value of the lift coefficient
upon a zero throttle setting, the right q0 (CL) at the maximum angle of attack (am~x).
boundary a full throttle setting, and the upper These constraints help to keep the pilot from
boundary is computed assuming cr = trm~x. stalling the plane in the steady state. Y¢om,is used
Given Vco,, and ~'¢om, the maximum ~, in conjunction with the activation logic of Fig. 6
command can be found from,
80

~max = g COS ~/com tan ~max (52)

Veom 70

where 60

(JOrnax=tan-l[~/( ~_SCLm~ ~2_ 1] (53) 5o

L --\mg cos Zoom/
4O

TABLE 2. CORRESPONDENCE BETWEEN CONTROL SATURATION " 30

AND COMMAND VARIABLE ELIMINATION

Command variable affected 20

Control Command set

saturated 1 2 3 4

fiT V V V y o
fiE y q y a" -30 -25 -20 -15 -t0 -5 0 5 10 t5
5A q~ q~ ~ ¢ SAMMA {¢leg]

FIG. 5. Maximum steady-state bank angle flight envelope.

 Non-linear inverse dynamics flight control systems 477

singularity conditions of Ycom, and Ycom3 in

~ff/ REGION
~/,,
,., : ,,~ + ,.,~., .-)~Vv//.__.... STALL
I
I
I prevention system under transient and steady-
(~actlve ~ u < O~stall
FIG. 6. Stall prevention logic in the (0¢ &) phase plane.
to prevent stalls during transient motions. The
angle-of-attack limiter becomes active whenever
the system enters the region designated as
"Active Stall Prevention" in the (a~, &) phase
plane. Once activated, a: is driven towards ~max
by Y¢o,~ until the angle-of-attack acceleration, &,
associated with the pre-empted command vari-
able set is less than or equal to the
angle-of-attack acceleration commanded by the
angle-of-attack limiter. At this point the stall
prevention system is disengaged, allowing the
aircraft to be flown with the originally selected
command variable set. Defining oq,au as the
angle of attack where the lift curve slope equals
zero, o:m~ must be chosen just below oqta. to
ensure that if the throttle saturates, the
Appendix B will not be encountered.
Simulations were conducted to evaluate the
OF performance of the NID system by flying the
ACTIVE
PP-_Eva~Io. trajectory shown in Fig. 7. The maneuvers were
chosen to highlight the capabilities of the
command variables, to test the control saturation
logic, and to probe the integrity of the stall
//I/I/, state flight conditions. The trajectories of Fig. 7
(~ can be divided roughly into five main segments.
Segment 1 consists of an ascent at the maximum
rate of climb using Ycom,- The stall prevention
system limits Y~omto be within the steady-state
flight envelope during this maneuver. Segment 2
is a constant-altitude coordinated turn per-
formed using ~ as a command variable of Y¢omr
Segment 3 is a climbing banked turn using q~ in
Y¢o~, as the relevant command variable. Segment
4 shows that sideslips can be executed with
either constant bank or heading angles. This
depends on whether Y~om; or Yco,~3 is chosen as
the command variable set. In the final segment,
Ycom3 is used to perform a descending banked
turn while simultaneously reducing the velocity
along the flight path. The complexity of the
maneuver in Segment 5 tests both the stall
prevention system and the saturation logic.
Table 3 contains a detailed summary of the
simulation broken down into 10-s maneuver
blocks. The simulation results of this study are
shown in Figs 8-12. Figure 8 shows the

ALTTTUDE vs RANGE
1600

15oo I 4 I
1400 ~
1300
~laoo 1F 2
1100 /
1000
gO0 ......................................................................................................................
-6000 -5000 -4000 -3000 -2000 -1000 0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000
x (ft)

CROSSRANGE vs RANGE
5000 !
4000 i
3000

2000
I000
1
0 I I
2
-1000
-6000 -5000 -4000 -3000 -2000 -1000 0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000
X (ft)

FIG. 7. Simulation flight trajectory in the ,,I/-Z and X - Y planes.

478 S. H . LANE and R. F. STENGEL

TABLE 3. SIMULATION COMMAND VARIABLE SUMMARY

Command variables

Trajectory Maneuver Time Command V Y @ ~ V~ fl

segment block (s) set (ft s - l ) (deg) (deg) (deg s - ] ) (deg) (deg)

I 1 0-10 1 110----~ 125 0----~ 10 0 -- -- 0

2 10-20 3 125 10--, 0 -- - -
0 0
3 20-30 3 125 ---~ 145 0 ~ -- 0 0

2 4 30-40 3 145 0 -- 0--, 10 -- 0

5 40-50 3 145 0 -- 10---~ 0 -- 0

3 6 50-60 1 145 0--* 5 0---* 30 -- -- 0

7 60-70 1 145 5 30---*0 -- -- 0
8 70-80 1 145 5--*0 0 -- -- 0

4 9 80-90 1 145 0 0 -- -- 0---, -I0

10 90-100 1 145--* 150 0 0 -- -- -10
11 100-110 3 150 0 -- -- 180 - 10---, 0

5 12 110-120 3 150 0 ~ -- 180 0

13 120-130 3, 4 150----~ 130 0---* - 5 ~ 0---* 15 -- 0
14 130-140 3 130 -5 -- 15 --0 0 -- 0
15 140-150 3 130 -5---*0 -- 360 0

tmm VELOCITY vs TIME

~s~a

to ]o
rl~ rseel

GAMMA vS T[NE
Is
/ )room
- to r- i . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ~ ymo~

J
-k ___2/.- r
i

tl'l~ IN¢I

PHI vs TIWE

~* ..... . ,; . . . . . . &. . . . . . . . . ~ . . . . . . . . . ,~.... -: '.. ~i** ,~. ii. . . . . . . . i~ i;, "i~,

T i m Iiiw}

PSI vs TIME

" ~ ,0 2, ' ~ . . . . . . . . ,~ . . . . . . . . 50 . . . . . . . ao 7, " ~. " 9*...... io; i~o i~ ;i, i,o .... ~
TII~ [secl

fl~TA v5 TIME

60 70 80 RO 100 rio 120 130 X4O 150

FIG. 8. C o m m a n d v a r i a b l e s (V, y, rp, ~p, fl) v e r s u s time.

 60 ANGULAR RATES (p. q. r ) vs TIME
Is f

40 1o t ........ ,~-r

20

!o
- ,10
-1°o .... 1o. . . . . . . . . ~ ....... 3o 4o so 60 70 oo 90 ,oo : "~'11o
I'IWE (sec] 120 i30 146 t50

FIG. 9. Angular rates (p, q, r) versus time.

[.I ~ - - THROTTLE vs TIME

J
O
.B
~..0
d .6
N .5
~ .4

.2
.!
0

rIME (~ec|

20
CONTROL SURFACE DEFLECTIONS vs T I M E

u~ 15 l-.o
M io

u_ O
o~ O

u -J5
-20
0 10 20 36 40 50 60 70 80 90 |00 110 t20 130 140 150
I:IWE Isec}

FIG. 10. Control deflections (GT, 6E, 6A, 6R) versus time.

20 ALPHA vs T I M E

t5 a - timiter . ~ - . Disengaged

5
5

......... 1o . . . . . . . . . 2'0 . . . . . . . . . 3~ ......... 4o ......... 5o ......... 6o ......... 7o ......... 6'0 . . . . . . . . . go ........ ~oo ...... ~o ....... i~o ....... ,3o ....... 14o ..... ~5o ,..,)
TIWE [see)

FIG. 11. Angle of attack versus time.

480 S . H . LANEand R. F. STENGEL
ALPt-tADOT vs ALPHA
5 6 7 8 g t0 i! t2 t3 ~.4 15 t6 t7 t8 19 20
ALPHA (aeo)
F[o. 12. Stall prevention in the (o~, &) phase plane.
command variable inputs and the corresponding
time histories, while Figs 9 and 10 show the
resulting angular rates and control deflections.
The stall prevention results can be most
dramatically seen in Figs 11 and 12. Figure 11
shows angle of attack (a0 being limited to
ocm~ = 17° in manuever 13, while Fig. 12 shows
the corresponding phase plane trajectory.
Immediately after issuing the ~P:om= 0 at the
start of manuever 14, the stall prevention system
disengages and angle of attack is allowed to
again follow an unconstrained course.
CONCLUSIONS
As can be seen from the simulated results, the
flight control system designed using NID allows
the aircraft to be flown by the pilot with
command variable inputs that reflect the goal of
the particular flight phase, and which are valid
over the entire flight envelope. In addition, the
command variables have low order dynamics,
and time constants which can be selected as
functions of the flight condition. The system
maintains command variable independence even
in the event of control saturation, and it prevents
the pilot from entering stalls through steady-
state flight envelope boundary constraints and
angle-of-attack limiting.
These results indicate that the issues of
handling qualities, tracking capabilities and
operational safety at high angles of attack can be
addressed directly using this type of flight control
system. This will lead to improved levels of
performance over coventional flight controller
designs developed using linearizing
approximations.
Current research activities include a discrete-
time formulation of the NID control laws (Lane
and Stengel, 1987), their digital implementation
in a multi-microprocessor environment and
testing using a fixed-base flight simulator. Future
work will concentrate on updating the non-linear
interpolation operators defined over each aer-
odynamic data subspace by using parameter
identification techniques. This will produce an
adaptive flight control system that continually
improves with time as better aerodynamic
estimates are used in the construction of the
aircraft's inverse dynamics.
REFERENCES
Asseo, S. J. (1973). Decoupling of a class of nonlinear
systems and its application to an aircraft control problem.
AIAA J. Aircraft, 10, 739-747.
Ehrenstrom, W. A. (1983). A lateral-directional controller
for high-angle-of-attack flight. M.S.E. Thesis, Princeton
University.
Etkin, B. (1972). Dynamics of Atmospheric Flight. John
Wiley, New York.
Falb, P. L. and W. A. Wolovich (1967). Decoupling in the
design and synthesis of multivariable control systems.
1EEE Trans. Aut. Control, AC-12, 651-659.
Fratter, C. (1982). Determination of aerodynamic
coefficients for the avionics research aircraft using
estimation-before-modeling techniques. M.S.E. Thesis,
Princeton University.
Freund, E. (1973). Decoupling and pole assignment in
nonlinear systems. Electron. Lett., 9, 373-374.
Freund, E. (1975). The structure of decoupled nonlinear
systems. Int. J. Control, 21, 443-450.
Lane, S. H. and R. F, Stengel (1987). Nonlinear inverse
dynamics control laws-a sampled data approach. Proc.
1987 American Control Conf., Mineapolis, MN., pp.
1224-1226.
Menon, P. K. A., M. E. Badgett and R. A. Walker (1985).
Nonlinear flight test trajectory controllers for aircraft.
AIAA Guidance and Control Conf., Snow Mass, CO,
AIAA-85-1890-CP.
Meyer, G. and L. Cicolani (1981). Application of nonlinear
system inverses to automatic flight control designs--system
concepts and flight evaluations. In Theory and Application
of Optimal Control in Aerospace Systems, A G A R D - -
AG251, pp. 10.1-10.29.
 N o n - l i n e a r i n v e r s e d y n a m i c s flight c o n t r o l s y s t e m s 481

Meyer, G., R. Su and L. R. Hunt (1984). Application of APPENDIX A. COMMAND VARIABLE

nonlinear transformations to automatic flight control. DERIVATIVES
Automatica, 20, 103-107.
Silhouette, X. (1986). Estimation of the aerodynamic The derivatives of appropriate order of the command
coefficients and derivatives of the Navion aircraft at high variables V, y, q, or, ~, q~ and ~p are presented assuming the
angles of attack. M.S.E. Thesis, Princeton University. non-dimensional aerodynamic coefficients take the form of
Singh, S. N. and W. J. Rugh (1972). Decoupling in a class of the interpolating functions in (36) and (37) and (39) and (40).
nonlinear systems by state variable feedback. AIAA J. In order to simplify the expressions for the derivatives of the
Dynamics Syst. Meas. Control, 323-329. aerodynamic forces D, L and S, the following notation is
Singh, S. N. and A. Schy (1979). Nonlinear decoupled introduced. Let,
control synthesis for maneuvering aircraft. Proc. 1979
Conf. Decision and Control. Fort Lauderdale, FL, pp.
360-370. zT = [V y o:fl CT ~1 (AI)
Singh, S. N. and A. Schy (1980). Output feedback nonlinear
decoupled control synthesis and observer design for @t =[D~, mgcosy D~, Do Dc~ O] (A2)
maneuvering aircraft. Int. J. Control, 31, 781-806.
Sri-Jayantha, M. and R. F. Stengci (1983). A
microprocessor-based data-aquisition system for stall/spin
research. IEEE Trans. Aero. Elec. Syst., V AES-19,
59-70. 0 -rag sin y 0 0 0
Sri-Jayantha, M. (1983). Data aquisition and aerodynamic
coefficient estimation at high angles of attack. Ph.D. D~ 0 0 D~,# D~cv 0
~=
Dissertation, Princeton University. D#o 0 D#:, 0 Dacr 0 (A3)
Stengel, R. F. and W. B. Nixon (1982). Investigation of the
stalling characteristics of a general aviation aircraft. AIAA Dcw 0 Dcr~ Dcra 0 0
J. Aircraft, 19, 425-434. 0 0 0 0 0 0 1
Q, = [(L v - mq,) mgsinycosq~ L~, L# LeT mgcos),sin~o] (A4)

Lvv 0 L,~,,, L,,# L,,c.r 0

0 -rag cos y cos q0 0 0 0 -rag sin y sin ¢p

Q2 = L~ 0 0 L~# L~,cr 0 (A5)

L#o 0 Lo,, 0 L#cr 0
Lc~ 0 Lc~ LeT O 0 0
0 -rag sin y sin q0 0 0 0 mg cos ~, cos cp

Rt=[(S~+mr~) mgsinysincp S~ So Scr -mgcosycosqo] (A6)

so~ o s.. so~ s.~ 0

0 mg cos y sin tp 0 0 0 mg sin y cos,

R2= S~
s~o
0
o s~
0 S,,#
o
S~cr
s#~,
0
o
(A7)

Scro 0 Scr~ SCTO 0 0

0 mg sin y cos cp 0 0 0 mg cos y sin q~

Derivatives up to second order of the wind-axis pitch and Command variable derivatives
yaw rates (qw, r.,) will be required in the NID control laws.
These can be expressed in terms of the previously defined z,
Q1, Q2, RI, R2 as, ~" = "-~ (D + mg sin y) (A13)
1
ow= g-p (Q:) (AS) I
V117" = -_' 1~ (~,z.) (A14)
.. 1
qw = ~ (z. rQ2z + Q l z - 2ml;'~w) (A9) k P = _~2 (~rN2 ~ + @lZ) (A15)

/'w = ~VV(R,.~) (A10) [ ~' = qw cos ~0 - r. sin ~0

] ~ = (q~, cos ~ - ~, sin q~) - (q~ sin ~o + r~ cos q~)4~
(A16)

?w=~VV(2rR2 ~ + g l z + 2m12~w). (All) Y~ (A17)

['~ = -(q,, cos tp - rw sin ~)4v2 - 2(0w sin q0 +/'w cos q0)~
The first derivative of the wind-axis (p~) roll rate will also be ~
used. This is given by, /~. -(q,, sin q0+ r,, cos q0)t~+ (#w cos q0 - ~,, sin q0)
(A18)
/~, = (/~ cos ot + ~ sin o:) sec fl + (r cos oc - p sin o0 sec fl& t"
+ ((p cos o: + r sin or) tan fl + qw see/~) sec fl/~ q I0 = L [.a + Ixz(r2 _p2) + (I,, - Ixx)rp] (A19)
+ t~,, tan ft. (A12) L
482 S.H. LANE and R. F. STENOEL

A P P E N D I X B: C O M M A N D SET S I N G U L A R I T Y
"&= q - %, sec fl - (p cos o~ + r sin or) tan fl (A20) CONDITIONS
ot & = q - q w s e c f + ( p s i n o t - r c o s o t ) t a n f &
- ( % sin # + p cos ot + r sin or) sec z 3fi The B* matrices can be considerably simplified if the
following notation is introduced. Let,
- ( p cos ot + f sin o0 tan/3 (A21)
• fi = r , + p sin ~r - r cos o~ (A22) P =/~o +PrA 6A +PeRrR (B1)
13 /3 = ~., + p sin o r - f cos ot + (p cos ot + r sin or)& (A23)
cl = ?lo + gl,~e6E (B2)
~ = p ~ + (sin qo tan Y)qw + (cos qo tan y)r., (A24)
f
~ 0 =Pw + (qw cos q0 - r~, sin cp) tan 7c~ i" = i*0 + i'6AOA + r r R r R (B3)
rP / +(q~, sin ~ + r~, cos ~) sec2 ,(9
&= 6to +&rErE + &&~6A + ii%R6R (B4)
I,. + (q sin qo + i cos cp) tan y (A25)
"~ = (%, sin qo + r,~ cos cp) sec y (A26) = flO + fl6A 6A + fl6R6R (B5)
~) = (q., sin cp + #w cos q0 + ( % cos qo - r~ sin q0)~0) s e c r
(o = (0o + (06A6A + ~rarR (B6)
+ ( % sin q0 + rw cos cp) tan y sec Y9 (A27)
= (qw sin qo + ~:,,cos ~ + 2(~., cos qo - ~., sin cp)@ #w = q~o + q~rr6T~om + q ~ e 6E + q~ra 6A + i ? ~ r R (B7)
~p - ( q . sin qo + r~ cos ~o)~ 2
~ =i:~o + /~er6Tco= + i%eerE + i~ahA + ?~urR (B8)
+ (q~ cos qo - r~, sin cp)~b) sec y
+ 2(q~ sin ~p + G cos qo where the terms containing the subscripts 6T, 6E, 6A, 6R
+ ( % cos cp - r,, sin cp)~)(tan Y sec y)~ represent the control derivatives, and the 0 subscripts
represent the remaining terms after all the control effects
+ (q~ sin q~ + r~ cos qo)(1 + sin z y)(sec 3 y)~,2 have been considered.
+ (tan y sec y)~ (A28) For Y~o~, = [V r cp/31"r,

_DrT ( q ~ r cos q~ - ?~,r sin q~) 0 0

m

1
- - - D~&6E (q~E cos ~o - t:~E sin ~) 0 0
m
(B*) r = (B9)
(q~5, cos qo - / ~ A sin ~o) - (q.. sin qo + r~ cos rp)~e.~
m

(D"&eR + DO/36R) (q-~a cos qo -/;~rR sin ¢p) - (q~ sin qo + r~ cos rp)tp~ R

This matrix becomes singular when, or when q0 = - t a n - 1 (CLJCs,). Since Cs~ << Ca~ except for
angles of attack near the point where L~, equals zero (~qt,,),
F 1 ~--~
det (B*) = 0 = i.m
1 "
qee sec fl(15eaiea
-/~6a~;~a)] this singularity condition is avoided as the stall prevention
./ system enforces ¢l'ma x < 0(stal I.
For yT~2 = [V q p 3] T
• [(Dc, L r T - DerL~) cos cp + (Dc~SeT- DerS=) sin qo].
(B10)
--°rr 0 o 0
m
Since (/56af~A--/56af6n)<0 over the entire flight envelope
for the Navion aircraft, det (B*) = 0 when,
D~ ~re q~e 0 0
[ (DrTL~ - D~'Lrr] (Bll) m
(B*) T =
cp = tan -1 [ (SorD~ - S~D~r J"
_ 1_ (DaS,5 A + Ooflra) 0 ~OrA BrA
Normal flight conditions for this aircraft produce singular m
bank angles of approximately 90 ° as,

(DnrL~-D~L~r) = b >5. (B12) m

(SerD~, - S,,Drr) (B14)
If the throttle saturates, however, the first row and column of
1 . . . . .
B* must be truncated. In this case a singularity condition det (B*) = - - - O~rqee cos Ot(peRr~a - p r A r r R ) • (B15)
occurs when, m

1 . Since det (B*) = 0 only when ot = 90 °, Y¢om,. is valid over the

det (B*) = ~ q6e(Lc, cos ~ + S~, sin q0)(ab6RkaA - P6A/;6R) = 0
full flight envelope.
(B13) For Y~o~3 = f r y ~fllW
 Non-linear inverse dynamics flight control systems 483

06 T
(#~,r COS q0 - ?,,or sin qo) (~w6r sin qo + ?w6r cos q0) 0
m

D~ ..
lrl ( # , ~ COSq0 -- ~:'~e sin qo) ( # ~ r sin q0 + r~6Ecos q0) 0
(B.) r = (/]woA cos qo - i,,~, sin q0) (#w~. sin qo + r,~A cos ~) /~a
~mI (D~&nA+ Da]JeA) (B16)
- ( q , sin ~o + r~ cos ~0)¢~0A +(qw cos q~ - r.~ sin q o ) ~ a

-~ (D~&~R +Da/~) ( # ~ s COS q0 - ~:.,~ sin qo) (#w~ sin qo + ~ : ~ cos qo) /~R
- ( q w sin qo - r~ cos q~)¢e~ +(q~ cos tp + r~ sin $)¢~R

This matrix becomes singular when,
det (B*) = 0 = (rag cos y cos qo + mVq)(D6rL ~ - D=L6r )
+ (mg cos y sin q0 - mVrw)(D6rS~ - D~S6r).
Since
When fl = 0, Ic/dl >25. Therefore bank angles up to 75*
would require lateral accelerations in excess of 7 gs (when
n = 1) to encounter these singularity conditions within the
(B17) normal flight envelope. In the event of throttle saturation,
/ \1 2

L = mVq~ +mg cos y cos cp (BI8)

and (B22)
S = mg cos ~, sin q0 - mVrw (B19)
Since Cs~ << C ~ when o:=.~ < oqt.n , this singularity condition
the singularity condition for this B* matrix is, also occurs outslde the normal flight envelope.
For r
S = (D~rL=-D=L6r)
(S6rD~ S~D,r) = d' (B20)
r (#w~r cos qo - ?w~r sin cp) 0 0 ]
Assuming the aircraft is in a coordinated turn (zero sideslip / (/i'vE c°s cP - ~'6E sin q°) &,e 0
angle) as shown in Fig. 13, where L = n(mg), and n is the
load factor, then the singularity condition occurs when the , x _ / (#~a cos q0 - ~:.,~,tsin qo)
lateral acceleration of the flight path is given by,
(B) -
/ ,
- ( q ~ sm ,.
qo + r., cos Cp)%A ~dbA •6A ~6A

S--= ng[sin q~ + dC°S (B21) i. --(qw sin qo + rw cos q0)C~6R

(B23)

det (B*) = q6e sec fl(L6r cos cp + Set sin qg)

x 0~eRe~, - P~,~6R). (B24)
Since Y~o=, is only active when o~> el'active, and for the Navion
aircraft at these values of angle of attack Ct,6r> 3Cs6r, the
singularity condition,

cp = - t a n -1 [(CL,r/Cs6r)] (B25)
occurs at values of qo in excess of 70*. In the event of throttle
FIO. 13. Forces in a coordinated turn (fl = 0). saturation, however, Ycor~ has no singularity conditions.