Comprehensive System Identification of Ducted Fan UAVs

A Thesis Presented to the Faculty of California Polytechnic State University San Luis Obispo In Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Master of Science in Aerospace Engineering

by: Daniel N. Salluce January 2004

© Copyright 2004 Daniel Salluce ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

ii

APROVAL PAGE TITLE: AUTHOR: Comprehensive System Identification of Ducted Fan UAVs Daniel N. Salluce January 2004

DATE SUBMITTED: (SUBJECT TO CHANGE) Dr. Daniel J. Biezad (AERO) Advisor & Committee Chair

____________________________________

Dr. Mark Tischler (NASA/Army) Committee Member

____________________________________

Dr. Jordi Puig-Suari (AERO) Committee Member

____________________________________

Dr. Frank Owen (ME) Committee Member

____________________________________

iii

be robust in the event of collisions. The result is a high fidelity model available for the purposes of control system design and simulation. and unmanned autonomous air vehicles. These needs stress the importance of system identification and modeling throughout the design process. rotorcraft. iv .ABSTRACT The increase of military operations in urbanized terrain has changed the nature of warfare and the battlefield itself. This research shows that a variety of identification techniques can be combined to comprehensively model this family of vehicles and reveals the unique challenges involved. The operational demands of these vehicles mandate accurate control systems and simulation testing. relay strategic situational awareness. This research focuses on the unique methods of identification and their application to a class of ducted fan. A need for a unique class of vehicles now exists. These vehicles must be able to accurately maintain position in space. and operate on an organic troop level in a completely autonomous fashion.

S. and organizational efforts this research would never have been possible. Colin Theodore. Without their support. Biezad. Department Chair at Cal Poly. Dr. CA and Dr. and the whole of the Army/NASA Rotorcraft Division at Moffett Field proved to be invaluable resources and facilitators in the completion of this project. guidance. Also. Army Aeroflightdynamics Directorate Moffett Field. Mark B.ACKNOWLEDGMENTS The author would like to give special recognition to Dr. Jason Colbourne. San Luis Obispo. Daniel J. CA. U. Tischler. v .

.......14 2....1 Accelerometer Identification ..................................................................15 CHAPTER 3 – Vehicle Identification 3...............................................................................................1 1.....................................................4........1 Identification Methods ..........................................................................5 Vehicle Scaling Laws and Comparisons................ xii CHAPTER 1 – Introduction and Motivation 1...............................................94 3.................................96 3......2 Scope........48 3............................................................................................ viii LIST OF FIGURES .................4 Hiller Flying Platform...........2 Bench Test Techniques ................2.................35 3............................................16 3.2.............3 Trek Aerospace Solotrek........................98 vi ..1 Aerovironment/Honeywell OAV...........................................2 Rate Gyro Identification ........................................................................................4 Sensor Identification .........................................................................................46 3...3 Manufacturer Specifications .....................................................8 CHAPTER 2 – Dynamic Model Identification Methods and Techniques 2.....................1 Vehicles Examined .....2..........2 Allied Aerospace MAV ..................................................................................................2 Bare-Airframe ID.............1 Flight Test Techniques................................56 3...................................................95 3................1 Areas of Identification ........................................4...........................4.................................................................2.........TABLE OF CONTENTS LIST OF TABLES....3 Servo Actuator Identification...........................................................52 3.....2...2......................................................... 13 2.......2....................................................................................................17 3............................................................................14 2......................................................................... 12 2...4 Wind Tunnel Tests............3 GPS Receiver Identification ................ ix NOMENCLATURE .....................2 CIFER . 11 2...............17 3.....................................................................................................................

.......120 APPENDIX A – OAV Proposal State Space Form ..................................................................................................5 Pressure Altimeter Identification .124 APPENDIX C – Actuator Generated TF Model Bode Plot Verification ......110 CHAPTER 5 – Conclusions.................................157 vii ......102 CHAPTER 4 – Flight Simulation 4...........135 APPENDIX D – Actuator Time Domain Verification of Final Models..........................................................1 Simulated Sweeps .........................................................................................4 Magnetometer Identification............3.....................................101 3..................................................................................................................119 BIBLIOGRAPHY..........123 APPENDIX B – Frequency Response Bode Plots for all Actuator Cases ...................................4.................2 Matlab Linear Model Determination ....4..............104 4...............................................

......................................................2 – OAV Frequency Range of Good Coherence (rad/sec) ...........................................................................................................................................4 – OAV DERIVID Identified parameters and Certainties ..........................13 – Pitching Moment Coefficient Summary ....................1 – Linmod....................................23 3................12 – Pitching Moment Derivatives and Solotrek Fan Speed ........14 – Pitching Moment with Blade Chord Summary...........23 3.24 3..............19 – Square Wave Parameters .1 – OAV Measured Parameters during Flight Testing .............................................11 – MAV Wind Tunnel Identified Derivatives and Flight Test Results ............................................................54 3.............3 – OAV Control Derivatives Extracted from Transfer Function Fits ..........LIST OF TABLES 3......68 3...............................9 – MAV Identified Control Derivatives ..5 – OAV DERIVID Frequency Response Costs ..........18 – Frequency Sweep Used for all Actuators..47 3............................39 3..22 – Actuator NAVFIT Results for all Cases .....40 3...........................................................................23 – Actuator Nonlinear Characteristic Summary......................16 – Actuator Linkage Geometries ..............7 – MAV Physical Properties ............62 3.............20 3...........................................................................44 3......57 3.. and Flight Test Results for i-Star 9”..........................................................................21 – Actuator NAVFIT Frequency Ranges for CIFER Cases.....................................................................................................................63 3...................................74 4.... Wind Tunnel..10 – Final Flight Test Identified MAV Derivatives.................8 – MAV Identified Stability Derivatives..................................................18 3..............................................................................................................61 3.................114 viii ...............17 – Actuator Calibration Factors for Input and Output Channels to Degrees...............15 – Manufacturer Specifications for Servo Actuators Tested..........................................53 3..........................................35 3...............65 3...............................................42 3.................60 3....................6 – OAV Eigenvalues and Associated Eigenvectors of [F]...........67 3..19 3.......20 – Actuator Bench Test Matrix...................

.......4 – Roll response time history verification................................................................27 Figure 3......................1 – Sample Frequency Sweep Flight Test Command.............................................6 – Yaw response time history verification ..4 – Trek Aerospace Solotrek Ducted Fan – 2001..............8 – Techsburg OAV Pitching Moment to Airspeed .....................40 Figure 3...................................5 – Pitch response time history verification .........26 Figure 3......................5 – Allied Aerospace i-Star MAV 9” Vehicle – 2003.........................................................................9 – Helicopter Body Axes System Applied to the Ducted Fan .......................................................3 Figure 1.............................14 – Solotrek Wind Tunnel Test Results for Pitching Moment ............7 – MAV Stator and Vanes....9 – On and Off Axis MAV Roll Frequency Responses .................7 Figure 1.................................................17 – Results of Removing Dummy Moment from Hiller Platform Test......................................................10 – On and Off Axis MAV Pitch Frequency Responses ..10 – Block Diagram of Basic DFCS Architecture ...............1 – Land Warrior OAV Concept ...3 – Yaw response frequency domain verification .....................13 Figure 3....48 Figure 3...........6 Figure 1.....12 – MAV Longitudinal Acceleration and Pitch Response ........3 Figure 1.........................................................................11 – Comprehensive Identification Schematic.....4 Figure 1.............................................4 Figure 1..........29 Figure 3....32 Figure 3......2 – Hiller Helicopters Flying Platform – 1958 .................36 Figure 3........................13 – Pitching Moment Wind Tunnel Test Data for i-Star 9” ...................................2 – Pitch rate response frequency domain verification..............1 Figure 1.....33 Figure 3............LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1................................................37 Figure 3.................9 Figure 2..........................7 – Techsburg Wind Tunnel Setup for OAV...............1 – Roll rate response frequency domain verification.........30 Figure 3.50 ix .............................................49 Figure 3.............................8 Figure 1.................5 Figure 1.................................7 Figure 1...........................................15 – Hiller Flying Platform Pitching Moment Data ...............46 Figure 3.41 Figure 3................16 – Drag over a Flat Plate Perpendicular to Flow.......34 Figure 3.......3 – Aerovironment / Honeywell DARPA Phase I OAV – 2001 .....................6 – Detailed view of 9” MAV Design ....................11 – MAV Lateral Acceleration and Roll Rate Response to Roll Input ............31 Figure 3...........8 – Helicopter Body Axes System.......................................43 Figure 3.....................................

....99 Figure 3...30 – DS8417 TH Comparison to 1995 STI Findings ..............................................25 – Linear Fit for Max Rate Determination...........................45 – GPS Error and Discrete Signal Model.............................57 Figure 3........78 Figure 3.........40 – DS8417 at 5V Time Domain Validation ...........75 Figure 3....................................................................................58 Figure 3........36 – Sweep Amplitude and Natural Frequency with Rate Limiting .........................27 – 94091 at 6V TH Illustrating Erratic Response at High Frequency...............26 – CS-10BB at 5V TH Illustrating Erratic Response at High Frequency ..................................98 Figure 3...........................95 Figure 3.......................29 – DS8417 FR Illustrating Mismatch in Linear Model..............................42 – Accelerometer Stationary Noise Model ..............41 – Accelerometer Model ...28 – 94091 at 5V TH not Showing Erratic Response.................85 Figure 3..............90 Figure 3................Figure 3.......................86 Figure 3..............58 Figure 3.............................24 – Sample Square Wave Response .102 x .........100 Figure 3............34 – Rise Time Ratio Phase Lag Relationship ....46 – GPS Model Results........75 Figure 3...........................................................33 – Error Function Fr and NAVFIT Transfer Function Fit ......73 Figure 3..........96 Figure 3................43 – Rate Gyro Response to Constant 15 deg/sec for 10 sec ..............................35 – Rise Time for Linear Model of DS8417 at 5V................................................87 Figure 3........23 – HS512MG Responses Illustrating Difference between 5V and 6V ................89 Figure 3................................101 Figure 3....................97 Figure 3........19 – Actuator Test Stand Apparatus.......22 – Sample Chirp Input................................................37 – Simulink Actuator Blockset .................44 – GPS Heading and Speed Model ............................................81 Figure 3.........76 Figure 3.....43 – Rate Gyro Model .83 Figure 3..............21 – Schematic Detailing Linkage Geometry...................47 – Magnetometer Model ...............88 Figure 3..........................64 Figure 3.......18 – Actuators Tested and Relative Sizes ....................59 Figure 3..............................................................31 – Magnitude Comparison for Linear & Nonlinear Model to Bench Test ................72 Figure 3..........82 Figure 3........................................................................................... and Square Wave Time History...........32 – Phase Comparison for Linear & Nonlinear Model to Bench Test ....................38 – Configurable Actuator Parameters .................................................................................20 – Cirrus CS-10BB Mounted on Wooden Strip...........................77 Figure 3..................................................................... Response...70 Figure 3.........39 – 2nd Order Actuator Dynamics behind Mask .........................91 Figure 3.......

.116 Figure 4....3 – Simulink Sweep Generator GUI Built for Sweeps.........................................10 – Comparison of linmod and Flight Test Pitch Responses.......Figure 3.2 – Custom PC and COTS Simulation Environment ..........................107 Figure 4..............................................111 Figure 4.............118 xi ................102 Figure 3.......9 – Coupling Removed Illustrating linmod and Simulated Sweep Results..............4 – Simulink GUI Generated Sweep .................117 Figure 4.............115 Figure 4.........49 – Pressure Altimeter Model..........6 – Cross Control Decoupling Block Diagram.....................105 Figure 4..........50 – Pressure Altimeter at 15 feet for 5 seconds ...................5 – MAV Flight Test Cross Coherence between Pitch and Roll controls ..8 – Effect of Removing Cross Control Coupling to Response.........................................................................106 Figure 4...........................48 – Magnetometer Depiction at 5 Gauss for 5 Seconds ..................103 Figure 3.1 – Simulink MAV Model...........................108 Figure 4......103 Figure 4...............7 – LINMOD and Simulated Sweep Roll Frequency Response ........................................................109 Figure 4......................

δ CG col FS Lat lon mixer ped prop rad xx yy zz dot Command Center of Gravity Collective Full Scale Lateral Longitudinal Mixer Pedal Propeller Radians X-plane in the Direction of X Y-plane in the Direction of Y Z-plane in the Direction of Z Time Derivative xii .NOMENCLATURE A a1 b1 BW c C CMPA CMQA CMRA CR F G H1 H2 I j L M N p pmixer P q qmixer r R rmixer s tˆR Area First Fourier Coefficient Second Fourier Coefficient Bandwidth Chord Nondimensional Coefficient Commanded Roll Rate Commanded Pitch Rate Commanded Yaw Rate Cramer-Rao Bound Plant Matrix Control Matrix Output Matrix Position Output Matrix Rate Inertia Imaginary Variable Rolling Moment Pitching Moment Yawing Moment Roll body rate Lateral mixer signal Period Pitch body rate Longitudinal mixer signal Yaw body rate Radius Pedal mixer signal (deg/sec) Frequency Domain Variable Linear : Nonlinear Rise Time Rise Time Nonlinear Rise Time Linear Longitudinal body velocity Input Control Matrix Longitudinal body acceleration Lateral body velocity & v w & w Y x X Z φ θ ϕ ωn ˆ ωn Ω ρ σ τ ζ ∠ Lateral body acceleration Vertical body velocity Vertical body acceleration Lateral Body Force State Matrix Longitudinal Body Force Vertical Body Force Roll attitude Pitch attitude Heading attitude Natural Frequency Normalized Natural Frequency Propeller Rotational Velocity Density Propeller Coefficient Time Constant Damping Ratio Phase Angle Subscripts t RNL t RL u u & u v c.

1 – Land Warrior OAV Concept -1- . The Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA) advanced concept technology demonstrator (ACTD) projects yielded submissions which included the Kestrel organic air vehicle (OAV) and i-Star micro air vehicle (MAV).CHAPTER 1 – INTRODUCTION AND MOTIVATION 1. An increased need for policing and securing urbanized areas has become apparent with the conflicts in Iraq and Mogadishu.1 shows the typical application of the OAV envisioned by the US Army. Figure 1. Add to that the need for small and back-pack carried vehicles and it becomes apparent why the ducted fan design is appealing. Military operations on urbanized terrain (MOUT) have become an area of concern for the United States military within recent years. precise station-keeping requirements and overall increased risk of collision with obstacles are important. Because of the nature of MOUT. Figure 1. The military and commercial uses for a vehicle capable of hovering and forward flight while remaining small and unmanned are countless. It is this type of environment that dictates the especially challenging design of small-scale UAVs1.1 Vehicles Examined Interest and application of ring-wing type unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs) has increased within recent years.

bigger and smaller vehicles alike can be produced. traffic monitoring. This research work will focus on the comprehensive identification of these models. Most RUAV types include the ability for a wide range of scales to be produced. Their small size and weight make for stringent volumetric and mass restrictions. These ducted fan RUAVs have low inertias with most of the weight near the center of the vehicle. -2- . A unique class of small rotorcraft UAVs (RUAVs) incorporating all of the characteristics yields a small design with certain design difficulties. Flight vehicles are available very early in the design sequence and make for easier flight test based identification. especially sensors and actuators. This leads to lower performance subsystems. respectively. and search and rescue in hostile environments all can benefit from use of a small unmanned vehicle capable of hovering flight. High degrees of cross coupling due to strong gyroscopic effects are created by the fast spinning propellers. These characteristics combine to mandate accurate dynamic models. These RUAVs possess the problem of making a small-scale vehicle unmanned along with the inherently unstable nature of rotorcraft dynamics. Usually shorter design cycles due to limited funding and demanding project requirements leave these vehicles in need of accurate models early in the design cycle. However. The ducted fan RUAV design fulfills the collision and troop handling safety requirements. The unconventional designs that have little or no knowledge base established make physics based modeling difficult2. Because of the relative simplicity of construction. Bridge inspection. these ducted fans introduce a strong tendency to correct themselves in pitch and roll with longitudinal and lateral velocity.Commercial interest has also been seen by companies and organizations looking for stable camera and surveillance platforms.

the two smaller scale surveillance vehicles.2 – Hiller Helicopters Flying Platform – 1958 Figure 1. Figure 1.The vehicles examined within the scope of this research are all very similar in design in that they consist of mainly a ducted fan utilized for lift.5.2 – 1. The vehicles examined are shown in Figures 1. the Kestrel and the i-Star MAV are most representative of future military operations on urbanized terrain (MOUT) applications.3 – Aerovironment / Honeywell DARPA Phase I OAV – 2001 -3- . Although the mission profiles for all of these vehicles varies greatly.

Figure 1. Figure 1.3 shows the Aerovironment/Honeywell teamed effort technology demonstrator for DARPA. For this purpose it was included in the study.4 shows the Trek Aerospace Solotrek.2 depicts the Hiller flying platform. This vehicle underwent some testing of the pitching moment characteristics of ducted fans back in 19583. Figure 1.4 – Trek Aerospace Solotrek Ducted Fan – 2001 Figure 1. This vehicle was used for flight testing and parametric modeling as well as for the identification of sensor packages. This unique design underwent comprehensive wind -4- .5 – Allied Aerospace i-Star MAV 9” Vehicle – 2003 Figure 1.

Figure 1.tunnel testing to study the characteristics of the ducted fan at varying propeller speeds.7 shows the vanes and stators on the bottom of the 9” MAV design. Pictured is the 9” diameter vehicle. Figure 1. Figure 1. There is also a bigger cousin with a 29” diameter. flight testing. -5- . Finally. Figure 1.6 – Detailed view of 9” MAV Design The basic design of the ducted fan UAV incorporates a small COTS power plant that is centered inside a duct. The flow of air in the duct is passed over stators for flow straightening and over vanes which allow actuation to generate moments. Both of these vehicles were used for actuator identification.6 shows a detailed view of the MAV.5 shows the Allied Aerospace i-Star MAV vehicle. and simulation as part of work for DARPA.

-6- . Figure 1.9 shows it applied to the ducted fan.8 below illustrates the helicopter coordinate system used for this research and Figure 1. This causes issues because then the vehicle is at a 90° nose up orientation in hover.Duct Lower Center Body Stators Vanes Camera & Proximity Sensor Figure 1. all derivatives and mention of moments are referred to in standard helicopter notation. It is not uncommon to see these vehicles with their x-body axis out the nose.7 – MAV Stator and Vanes Great care is needed in specifying proper coordinate systems. or main nacelle pointing up. This is a gimbal-lock orientation and is best avoided for standard Euler sequences. Unless otherwise specified.

-7- .Figure 1.9 – Helicopter Body Axes System Applied to the Ducted Fan All moments and forces are represented as positive in the directions shown with moments being applied in accordance with the positive right-hand rule.8 – Helicopter Body Axes System YBody XBody ZBody Figure 1.

10 shows a simplified block diagram depicting the operation of the vehicle. these areas heavily influence the nature of flight. To accurately model the vehicle for flight control and simulation purposes. Due to the small size and limited performance actuators and sensor packages.10 – Block Diagram of Basic DFCS Architecture It can be seen that simply modeling the bare airframe and its dynamics is not enough to capture the whole nature of the vehicle. Vehicle Response Digital Flight Control Servo-Actuators Commanded Inputs Bare-Airframe Dynamics Sensors Figure 1.2 Scope This research will focus on representing the entirety of the RUAV modeling. -8- .1. a more expanded diagram would be required. Figure 1.11 represents the identification effort of this research. Figure 1.

GPS Rate Gyros Accelerometers IMU InnerLoop Closures Sensors & Telemetry Control System OuterLoop Closures Actuators Pressure Altimeter Vehicle Dynamics SOURCES OF IDENTIFICATION CIFER Wind Tunnel or Other Empirical Data Manufacturer and Bench Data Rigid Body Dynamics Unique Pitching Moment Characteristics Figure 1. Each of these areas will be the -9- .11 – Comprehensive Identification Schematic Figure 1.11 shows that a number of techniques (described in Chapter 2) applied to a large range of components are required to model the system.

10 - .focus of this research. . Various vehicles will be looked at in order to build up this compete picture of the operation of these ring wing UAVs.

11 - . The use of frequency domain techniques lends itself very nicely to accomplishing this modeling challenge. For example. The design of the flight control system requires an accurate model across a variety of operating conditions and input frequencies. This tool is used extensively for the modeling of system dynamics in this effort. The NASA/Ames Research Center tool CIFER® (Comprehensive Identification from Frequency Responses) is primarily used to identify low order equivalent systems and parametric state-space models required across broad frequency ranges. Without exclusive . they require a higher bandwidth control system. The need to operate at higher frequencies and in more of the available flight envelope requires accurate models across large ranges of input frequencies.1 Identification Methods A combination of the characteristics of these small RUAVs makes system identification an important and integral part of the design cycle. the use of Froude scaling the natural frequencies of vehicles reveals the natural frequency would increase by the square root of a scale factor measured in length. The need for a high performing and robust control system is paramount to vehicle survivability and mission performance. As previous work shows2. The reliance on small scale. making the vehicle 4 times smaller would increase the natural frequency by 2. So.CHAPTER 2 – METHODS AND TECHNIQUES 2. as vehicles become smaller. low performance components and sensors makes characterizing the errors and inconsistencies of components important.

Transfer functions. 2. This then allows for the parametric modeling.12 - . Nonparametric frequency response calculation from time history data o Use of Chirp-Z Fast Fourier Transforms (FFT) and complex functions to generate the frequency responses over multiple windows and samples 2. in the form of frequency responses represented as Bode plots are first extracted with CIFER. Time domain verification of parametric models When complete. manufacturer data must be applied for error and noise modeling. Multi-input frequency response conditioning o Off axis control inputs’ contribution to on axis response is removed 3. Nonparametric modeling. low order equivalent (LOE) systems. this procedure yields accurate models to be applied for a variety of tasks. The identification process can be summarizes as4: 1. These tools and techniques combine to represent the comprehensive identification of these vehicles. in which no model structure or order is assumed. It is not limited to vehicle dynamics either. Parametric models fit to frequency responses o Transfer function models fit to single input single output (SISO) systems o State-space models fit to all controls and states for parameter extraction 5. CIFER does require flight test time histories in which the vehicle’s modes have been excited by frequency rich inputs. CIFER is a powerful tool that incorporates all of the tools to needed to model in the frequency domain.2 CIFER CIFER provides an environment and set of programs that perform the various steps of the system identification process. or state-space models with stability and control derivative representation3 are all used.access to hardware inside of test vehicles. . This tool can be used anywhere frequency domain analysis is needed. Multi-window averaging of frequency responses o Combination of different window sampling sizes 4.

it is sufficient to say that a combination of frequency rich maneuvers as seen in Figure 2.1 and validation maneuvers like doublets are required.1 – Sample Frequency Sweep Flight Test Command .1 Flight Test Techniques There are a number of techniques that need to be applied to ensure that the flight test of the vehicle is useful and applicable to system identification. Access to the IMU and servo signals is required.2. 15 10 Control Deflection (%) 5 0 -5 Zero Duration Rise Time Sine Frequency Sweep Fall Time Zero Duration -10 -15 0 15 30 Time (seconds) 45 Figure 2.2. A combination of sensing and telemetry equipment is needed to measure both the input from the actuators and the vehicle response.13 - . While outside the scope of this research.

14 - . .3 Manufacturer Specifications The use of commercial off the shelf (COTS) devices and components for the buildup of inertial measuring units (IMU) on the vehicles provides for manufacturer specifications and ratings of component performance.2 Bench Test Techniques Bench testing was used in cases where components were to be tested without actually installing them on the vehicle or testing them while in flight. This is important when direct access of the components and hardware in the loop (HIL) bench testing is not available.2. Due to time constraints and availability of hardware for testing. magnetometers. Frequency domain analysis with CIFER was applied to determine the dynamic characteristics of the components. these specifications are slightly optimistic and reflect the specific measuring procedure applied by the manufacturer.2. In general. the actuators were tested while hooked up to specific measuring equipment. In this case. The search for and classification of actuators meeting the requirements of the vehicles made it impractical to install the numerous actuators on the vehicle for testing. Averages are usually presented by manufacturers while component-specific results are required in some modeling cases. This method was primarily applied to the testing of the servo actuators. accelerometers. and actuators all benefited from the provision of manufacturer identified errors and performance specifications. GPS receiver. The identification of the rate gyros. 2.

As previously mentioned.4 Wind Tunnel Tests Wind tunnel and other empirical data measured from the vehicles themselves play an important role as well. Regardless. Similar techniques and methodology was applied to the vehicle although it was suspended on top of a moving pickup truck. The need to accurately characterize the behavior of the ducted fan in translational velocities has put emphasis on accurate wind tunnel modeling.manufacturer specifications are modeled and applied for the majority of telemetry and measuring equipment aboard the vehicles. This type of physics-based modeling is used to draw some conclusions regarding the nature of the strong pitching and rolling moment created when the vehicle is in forward flight or in a cross-wind. . Wind tunnel studies help to better characterize this. a wind tunnel was not actually used. In the case of the Solotrek vehicle. these ducted fan RUAVs exhibit unique corrective pitching moment characteristics due to large Mu and Lv derivatives. wind tunnel tests and data were used to validate and compare trends for most of the vehicles studied.15 - . It is also used to compare and correlate the CIFER identified dynamics. 2.

all of the sensors and telemetry equipment used in observation for the control system will be analyzed and modeled.16 - . . COTS actuators will then be analyzed for there dynamics and nonlinearities. the comprehensive identification of these vehicles requires modeling and testing of the bare-airframe dynamics as well as all of the systems and components onboard which directly affect the flight characteristics of the vehicle.1 Areas of Identification As mentioned in Chapter 2.11 of Chapter 1 illustrates the areas of identification.CHAPTER 3 – VEHICLE IDENTIFICATION 3. Figure 1. The tools and techniques outlined in Chapter 2 will be applied to the bare-airframe of the vehicles with conclusions being drawn for scaling and correlation. Finally.

Frequency response analyses show that the important dynamic characteristics in this frequency range are the rigid body dynamics. A small inertia with a large concentration of mass near the center of the duct is inherent in the design. there is heavy coupling between pitch and roll due to the gyroscopic effects of the fast spinning propeller. 3.2 Bare-Airframe ID The bare-airframe dynamics are perhaps the most unique aspect of these vehicles and the way they fly. Excellent matches between the model and flight data for the on-axis time responses confirm the accuracy of the of the identified state-space dynamic model.1 –10 rad/sec. Figure 1.17 - . The frequency range of interest was 0. Combined with this. All of the vehicles looked at utilize fixed pitch propellers.11 showed that the pitching moment characteristics together with the whole of the bare-airframe rigid body dynamics characterize the vehicle in uncontrolled flight.2. Examination of the eigenvalues of the identified model reveals low frequency unstable periodic modes in both the pitch and roll degrees of freedom.3.1 Aerovironment/Honeywell OAV The goal of the CIFER® system identification was to achieve an accurate MultiInput Multi-Output (MIMO) state-space model to support flight control development and vehicle sizing for the DARPA Phase I test vehicle. .

6).18 - . These frequency ranges are listed in Table 3.35 – 20 (rad/sec) were used with four windows. The data was processed through MISOSA to remove the effect of off-axis control inputs during the sweeps. Table 3.1. The frequency ranges used for the dynamic model identification were the ranges when the coherence was good (values above 0.The CIFER identification is based on a set of flight test data gathered while flying the prototype vehicle. COMPOSITE was used to combine the four windows of data into a single response. Examination of the off-axis frequency responses indicates no significant cross-couplings between the longitudinal and lateral degrees of freedom. The data was recorded at a nominal data rate of 23 Hz and included vehicle rate and control mixer inputs. Frequency ranges from ~0. . These are presented in Table 3.1 – OAV Measured Parameters during Flight Testing Parameter pmixer qmixer rmixer p q r Measured Value CMPA CMQA CMRA PP QQ RR Frequency responses were generated with CIFER’s FRESPID tool from the test data gathered from flying the proposal vehicle. It may be due to lack of excitation during flight test. This is unique to this vehicle and differs from other vehicles tested. These couplings are therefore not included in the state space model.2 and are used in the state space model identification in DERIVID.

These values appear in Table 3.0718 s s (Equation 3.2 – OAV Frequency Range of Good Coherence (rad/sec) P Q R CMPA 1-8 CMQA 1-8 CMRA 3-10 Because no significant cross-coupling between the longitudinal and lateral degrees of freedom was observed.1.1. The identified transfer functions appear as Equations 3.5) .1-3.3) The 3rd order denominator forms known as a “hovering cubics” (Equations 3.07s2 e−0.0983)[−0.1) 21.0477 s = pmixer (s + 2.68s(s + 0.3. the state-space form would be modeled after the transfer functions.2.2) r rmixer = 20.81e−0. 18.4 and 3.9496)[−0.0032)e−0.4) (Equation 3.9349] q (Equation 3.19 - .7921] p (Equation 3.5) exemplify the dynamic modes for the longitudinal and lateral directions5.5761. The control derivatives for the state-space model were initially set as the free gain terms in the numerators of the transfer functions.Table 3.0653 s = qmixer (s + 1. ∆ lateral − hover = s 3 + ( −Yv − LP ) s 2 + Yv LP s − gLv ∆ longitudinal − hover = s 3 + ( X u + M q ) s 2 + X u M q s − gM u (Equation 3.7616.

7) & y = H1 x + H 2 x ⎧ v ⎫ ⎪p ⎪ ⎪ rad ⎪ ⎪ φrad ⎪ ⎪ ⎪ x =⎨ u ⎬ ⎪q ⎪ ⎪ rad ⎪ ⎪ θ ⎪ ⎪ ⎪ ⎩ rrad ⎭ (Equation 3.343 0.326 0.6) (Equation 3.10 ( u ). the data is in deg/sec.3 – OAV Control Derivatives Extracted from Transfer Function Fits Derivative Lδ Mδ Nδ Value 0.6 – 3. and H2) known as a quadruple was set up.11).Table 3.339 A state space form comprised of a set of four matrices (F. H1.12). The removal of cross-coupled terms yielded a final stability matrix (F) to be fitted to the data (Equation 3.8 (the subscript "rad" indicates that these quantities have the units of rad and rad/sec). The three controls were pmixer. as seen in Equation 3. A conversion factor of 57. The state vector ( x ) is presented as equation 3.20 - .13.3 (deg/rad) was multiplied through the H1 matrix (Equation 3. and rmixer. and ft/sec. rad/sec. CIFER then tuned the parameters in the F and G matrices to match the state space model’s frequency responses to those for the flight test data. qmixer. This can be seen as Equations 3. While the units of the states are in rad.3) in the G matrix (Equation 3.8) . & x = Fx + Gu (Equation 3.13) and divided through the initial values of the control derivatives (Table 3. G.

21 - . and Zw were unable to be determined in the model and were thus removed from the CIFER model (fixed to a value of 0). A closer examination of the .3 0 0 ⎥ ⎥ ⎢0 0 0 0 0 0 57. Yv. the on-axis damping parameters Xu. Because of the lack of acceleration data.3 0 0 ⎢0 H1 = ⎢ 0 0 0 57.⎧ p⎫ ⎪ ⎪ y = ⎨q ⎬ ⎪r ⎪ ⎩ ⎭ (Equation 3.12) 0 0 0 ⎤ ⎡0 57.10) (Equation 3.11) ⎡ Ypmixer ⎢L ⎢ p mixer ⎢ 0 ⎢ G=⎢ 0 ⎢ ⎢ 0 ⎢ 0 ⎢ ⎢ 0 ⎣ 0 0 0 X qmixer Mq 0 0 mixer 0 ⎤ 0 ⎥ ⎥ 0 ⎥ ⎥ 0 ⎥ ⎥ 0 ⎥ 0 ⎥ ⎥ N r mixer ⎥ ⎦ (Equation 3.3⎥ ⎣ ⎦ (Equation 3.13) It is worthwhile to note that many of the derivatives were set to zero in the identification process.9) ⎧ pmixer ⎫ ⎪ ⎪ u = ⎨ qmixer ⎬ ⎪r ⎪ ⎩ mixer ⎭ ⎡ Yv ⎢L ⎢ v ⎢0 ⎢ F =⎢0 ⎢0 ⎢ ⎢0 ⎢0 ⎣ 0 LP 1 0 0 0 0 g 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Xu Mu 0 0 0 0 0 0 Mq 1 0 0 0 0 −g 0 0 0 ⎤ ⎥ ⎥ ⎥ ⎥ ⎥ ⎥ ⎥ 0⎥ Nr ⎥ ⎦ 0 0 0 0 0 (Equation 3.

pitch. All other Cramer-Rao bounds were acceptable.15) CIFER allows for a measure of merit. This may be due to CIFER adjusting the value to make up for inconsistencies in the model or it is due to the pitch sensor or flight control computer. If these derivatives were the only ones in the hovering cubic forms (Equations 3. the Cramer-Rao bound for the longitudinal delay was rather big (29%) revealing that it was a correlated term in the minimization process. and yaw responses.4 contains the identified variables and their respective certainty during the identification. the equations would reduce to the degenerate forms seen in Equations 3.22 - .6.3) will show that the longitudinal and lateral modes are heavily reliant on the values of Lv and Mu.4 and 3. A comparison with the control derivatives extracted from the transfer functions (Table 3. These roots describe the dynamics of the system and show that Lv and Mu are the dominant terms required to depict the three modes.04205.1-3. (CR< 15%) indicating good reliability of the identified derivatives.15.08730. pure time delays were identified as 0.14 and 3. For the best possible fit. of the final model fit to the frequency responses. respectively. ∆lateral −hover = s 3 − gLv ∆longitudinal −hover = s 3 − gM u (Equation 3. The final model had an excellent average cost of 23. 0. or cost. .transfer functions (Equations 3.07189 seconds for roll.3) reveals very close matches. These forms contain one real and one complex root for negative values of Lv and Mu. and 0. However. The longitudinal delay was bigger in both the state space model and the transfer function fits.14) (Equation 3.5). Table 3. Lower costs are better fits. respectively.

4 – OAV DERIVID Identified Parameters and Certainties Table 5 shows the cost functions for the transfer functions. The ratio of the identified values (Lv : Mu = 0. Table 3.23 - .5 – OAV DERIVID Frequency Response Costs The asymmetric design of the vehicle accounts for the difference in the values between Lv and Mu.7510) reflects the relationship of the lateral and longitudinal inertias specified (Iyy : Ixx = 0.3 depicts the fact that the OAV design has nacelles or cargo pods making it asymmetric. .Table 3.6312). They were all very acceptable. Figure 1.

00E+00 +/-1.00E+00 imaginary 0.00E+00 0.000E+00] [zeta.00E+00 -/+2.20E-02 1. omega] [0.00E+00 0.04E+00 imaginary 0.60E+00 Real -1.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0. omega] [0.00E+00 Mode #5 (Longitudinal Low Frequency Periodic) real 1.000E+00] [zeta.00E+00 0.6.02E+00 imaginary -/+1.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.39E-01 -/+3.00E+00 0.38E-01 1.00E+00 0.13E-08 +/-4.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 [zeta.00E+00 0. 0.00E+00 0.76E-01 -3.000E+00.85E+00 Mode #3 (Aperiodic Roll Subsidence) imaginary 0. Table 3.00E+00 0.500E+00.00E+00 V P PHI U Q THETA R -8.24 - .00E+00 0.68E-01 0.00E+00 0. 0. From the eigenvectors and eigenvalues some interesting dynamics can be noted.00E+00 0. They have been normalized to the dominant mode.64E-01 1.00E+00 0.40E-01 0.00E+00 0. omega] [-. The eigenvalues and their associated eigenvectors are given below in Table 3.08E-02 +/-2.00E+00 0.55E-02 1.6 – OAV Eigenvalues and Associated Eigenvectors of [F] Mode # (Aperiodic Yaw Subsidence) real 0.00E+00 Mode #2 (Lateral Low Frequency Periodic) real 9.00E+00 0. The eigenvectors are the corresponding state values which identify the modes.00E+00 -1.00E+00 1.00E+00 0. omega] [-. The larger values indicate the states which are dominant in the modes.00E+00 2.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 Mode #4 (Aperiodic Pitch Subsidence) real -2. 0. A value of 1 in the eigenvector indicates which state is the primary mode.70E-01 0.000E+00.00E+00 V P PHI U Q THETA R 1.00E+00 0.185E+01] [zeta.00E+00 0.204E+01] V P PHI U Q THETA R 0.76E+00 [zeta. omega] [0.00E+00 2.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 V P PHI U Q THETA R 0.00E+00 0.42E-01 -/+1.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.25E-01 imaginary -/+1.00E+00 0.00E+00 -5.00E+00 0.00E+00 .00E+00 0.000E+00.00E+00 0. 0.00E+00 0.The final CIFER® identified state space dynamic model is presented in Appendix A.78E-02 1.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.21E-08 0.000E+00] V P PHI U Q THETA R 0.00E+00 0. 0.500E+00.00E+00 0.

. thus the value of 1 for the yaw rate state (r). These 7 eigenvalues depict 5 modes. Mode #1 is the yaw mode which was modeled with no yaw damping.The identified state-space model yielded 7 eigenvalues. Two of these were complex pairs. This is a low frequency unstable mode. Mode #2 is associated with the 2nd order periodic denominator term in the hovering cubic because of the high values for the lateral velocity (v) and roll rate (p) states.25 - . Likewise. aperiodic subsidence modes for roll (Mode #3) and pitch (Mode #4). These eigenvalues are very close to the modes of the transfer function models (Equations 1-3). The excellent agreement between the flight data and model can be seen in the following frequency responses comparing the parametric state space model and the actual flight test data. The remaining eigenvectors identify the 1st order. This is seen by the larger eigenvectors for the states of longitudinal velocity (u) and pitch rate (q). and three real. Mode #5 is from the 2nd order term in longitudinal hovering cubic.

1 that the roll rate model fits very well in the regions of good coherence.26 - .Figure 3. Only where there are dips in this signal to noise ratio does the model start to yield poor results.1 – Roll rate response frequency domain verification It can be seen in Figure 3. . These results were obtained without linear acceleration data.

Figure 3.2 – Pitch rate response frequency domain verification . at higher sampling rates together with linear acceleration data will yield closer matches across broader frequency ranges.27 - .Better sensors.

The coherence is the ratio of output power that is linearly related to input power. This means that high noise in this channel. It can be seen that the accuracy of the state-space model for the pitch rate deteriorates quickly at lower frequencies. or wind gusts during the sweep can produce lower coherence.28 - . .The pitch rate response seen in Figure 3.2 illustrates the accuracy of the statespace model in regions of good coherence as well.

The fit was accurate at higher frequencies before noise in the channel becomes a problem.Figure 3.3. The unstable hovering cubic is prevalent in the 1-3 (rad/sec) region.29 - . as seen in Figure 3. .3 – Yaw response frequency domain verification The model revealed that there was no natural yaw damping for this vehicle.

30 - .4 – Roll response time history verification . The quality of the match confirms that the identified model is accurate. Figure 3. It can be seen that the on-axis responses have an excellent match for all 3 controls.The identified models were compared with data taken by Aerovironment during flight testing.

4 shows that even though the lateral dynamics were modeled without a roll damping term. the control surface effectiveness term and Lv in the hovering cubic accurately pick up the nature of the response.Figure 3.5 – Pitch response time history verification . Figure 3.31 - .

Figure 3.5 above shows that the longitudinal degree of freedom is captured and represented in the state-space model very accurately. It stays accurate regardless of being modeled as the simple integrator form with no yaw damping. .6 shows the accuracy of the yaw degree of freedom. Figure 3.Likewise.6 – Yaw response time history verification Figure 3.32 - .

A photograph of the setup is shown as Figure 3.It can be seen that the Aerovironment Proposal prototype OAV was successfully modeled with a state-space model.7. without the payload nacelles. Figure 3. the OAV design was further analyzed in the wind tunnel.7 . Time delays were determined for all three channels. The ratio of the lateral to longitudinal moment terms Lv and Mu reflect the ratio of the inertias Iyy to Ixx. The identified model shows good agreement for both the time and frequency responses. All of the modes dictated by the hovering cubic forms were identified. After flight test was completed for the purposes of identification. The identified transfer function modes closely match the modes of the identified state space dynamic model. The identified system showed an unstable periodic mode in the pitch and roll responses. The vehicle was put into the Virginia Tech Stability Wind Tunnel by Techsburg.33 - . but because of a lack of acceleration data the speed damping force derivatives could not be accurately identified. Inc.Techsburg Wind Tunnel Setup for OAV .

the vehicle was tested in a baseline configuration similar to that seen in Figure 1.Although part of a larger control surface and augmentation experiment. 2 1. This is a corrective moment for velocities below some critical velocity. the dimensional derivative about the hover condition is 0. A negative pitching moment is then created above this critical speed. this occurs at roughly 10 fps.5 -2 u (fps) Figure 3. In the case of OAV as tested. . In this case. Figure 3.34 - .011.8 shows.5 1 0. pitching moment information was extracted with varying wind speeds. there is a unique pitching moment created when the vehicle experiences some wind velocity across the duct.5 0 10 20 30 40 50 -1 -1. From the tests.8 shows the results of that test.3. This is illustrated by the slope of the tangent line depicted as a dotted line.8 – Techsburg OAV Pitching Moment to Airspeed As Figure 3.5 M (ft-lbf) 0 -50 -40 -30 -20 -10 -0.

35 - . Table 3.9. (below duct lip .7 below shows the physical properties for the vehicle as it was tested.021 0.2 Allied Aerospace MAV Flight test was performed on the MAV vehicle in a similar manner as was described in the previous section for the OAV.00012* * value obtained from Allied Aerospace that contains the inertia of all of the rotating components. . Frequency responses for on and off-axis are presented as Figure 3.021 0.7 – MAV Physical Properties Physical Quantity Mass (slugs) C.2.021 0.25 1884. Table 3.G.0 0.inches) Propeller Speed (rad/sec) Ixx (slug-ft^2) Iyy (slug-ft^2) Izz (slug-ft^2) Iprop (slug-ft^2) Value 0.3.233 2. These include the removal of off-axis control contributions by using the CIFER tool MISOSA.

Here there is good coherence for the on-axis responses. The roll rate frequency response has a good coherence from 0.q/lat F040P_COM_ABCDE_pcmd_rb .9 – On and Off Axis MAV Roll Frequency Responses Figure 3. but no coherence in the off-axis direction.30 MAGNITUDE(DB) -10 -50 250 PHASE(DEG) 50 -150 1 COHERENCE 0. pitch and yaw rate frequency responses to roll control.9 shows the roll. .6 0.1 1 FREQUENCY (RAD/SEC) 10 100 F040P_COM_ABCDE_pcmd_pb .36 - .p/lat F040P_COM_ABCDE_pcmd_qb .2 0.5 to 12 rad/sec and this portion of the frequency response is used in the identification.r/lat Figure 3.

30 MAGNITUDE(DB)

-10

-50 250 PHASE(DEG)

50

-150 1 COHERENCE

0.6

0.2 0.1 1 FREQUENCY (RAD/SEC) 10 100

F040Q_COM_ABCDE_qcmd_qb - q/lon F040Q_COM_ABCDE_qcmd_pb - p/lon F040Q_COM_ABCDE_qcmd_rb - r/lon

Figure 3.10 – On and Off Axis MAV Pitch Frequency Responses Figure 3.10 shows the pitch, roll and yaw rate frequency responses to pitch control. As with the roll control responses, there is good coherence for the on-axis response, but no coherence for the off-axis responses. This would indicate that there is very little cross-coupling and the pitch and roll responses are essentially uncoupled. It is uncertain why the gyroscopic coupling is not evident in the flight tests. A similar

- 37 -

approach was used for the accelerometer information. The parametric state space model was setup as shown in Equation 3.16.
& ⎧ u ⎫ ⎡ Xu 0 − g ⎪ q ⎪ ⎢ Mu Mq 0 & ⎪ ⎪ ⎢ ⎪ &⎪ 1 0 ⎪θ ⎪ ⎢ 0 ⎨ ⎬=⎢ & 0 0 ⎪v ⎪ ⎢ 0 ⎪ p⎪ ⎢ 0 & Lq 0 ⎪ &⎪ ⎢ 0 0 ⎪φ ⎪ ⎣ 0 ⎩ ⎭ ⎢ 0 0 0 Yv Lv 0 0 Mp 0 0 Lp 1 0 ⎤ ⎧u ⎫ ⎡ 0 0⎥ ⎪q ⎪ ⎢ 0 ⎥⎪ ⎪ ⎢ 0 ⎥ ⎪θ ⎪ ⎢ 0 ⎪ ⎪ ⎥⎨ ⎬+ ⎢ g ⎥ ⎪ v ⎪ ⎢ Ylat 0 ⎥ ⎪ p ⎪ ⎢ Llat ⎥⎪ ⎪ ⎢ 0 ⎦ ⎩φ ⎭ ⎣ 0 ⎥⎪ ⎪ ⎢ Xlon ⎤ Mlon ⎥ ⎥ 0 ⎥ ⎧ δ lat ⎫ ⎬ ⎥⎨ 0 ⎥ ⎩δ lon ⎭ 0 ⎥ ⎥ 0 ⎦ ⎥

(Equation 3.16)

The derivatives Mp and Lq result from the gyroscopic moments produced by the rotating inertia of the propeller. This coupling is one of the unique aspects of the vehicle’s dynamics. Taking into account the angular momentum of the spinning propeller and dividing by the inertia of the total vehicle yields the moment produced by the gyroscopic effects. This is shown as equations 3.17 and 3.18.

Lq =

I prop Ω I xx

(Equation 3.17)

Mp =

I prop Ω I yy

(Equation 3.18)

The values for Mp and Lq therefore can be used for the determination of propeller inertia. This is possible because the rotational speed of the propeller remained mostly constant and the inertia of the vehicle changed negligibly due to fuel burned. This is useful because the inertia of the small propeller while spinning is hard to measure in any type of simple experiment. A time delay was also added to the dynamics to account for transport delays in the electronics.

- 38 -

A 0th/2nd order transfer function is included in the identification to take into account the actuator dynamics. The form of this transfer function is as follows:
TF =

ωn 2 s + 2ζω n + ωn
2

2

The values of the damping and natural frequency of the actuator used were obtained from bench tests of the actuator dynamics presented in section 3.3 for the Airtronics 94091 servo actuator running at nominally 5 volts. The natural frequency for this case is 28.2 rad/sec and the damping ratio is 0.52. The DERIVID utility was used to identify the elements of the state-space model. The stability derivative results are shown Table 3.8.

Table 3.8 – MAV Identified Stability Derivatives
COUP02 CR Bound C.R. (%) 0.04395 40.33 0.03412 6.805 ...... ...... ...... ...... ...... ...... ...... ...... ...... ...... ...... ...... ...... ......

Derivativ e Xu Mu Mq Mp Yv Lq Lv Lp I pr op

Param Value -0.1090 0.5014 0.000 + 0.000 + -0.1090 * 0.000 + -0.5014 * 0.000 + 0.000 +

Insens.(%) 10.92 2.729 ...... ...... ...... ...... ...... ...... ......

+ Eliminated during model structure determination y Fixed value in model * Fixed derivativ e tied to a free derivativ e Yv = 1.000E+00* X u ( COUP02 ) L v =-1.000E+00* M u ( COUP02 )

The value of the rotating inertia (Iprop) was insensitive in the identification and was dropped from the list of active elements. This is because there was no good coherence in the off-axis roll and pitch rate responses, which result for the gyroscopic

- 39 -

614 .R.effects from the rotating inertia.955 0.06767 Insens.01692 5..Identification Results Coherence Phase (Deg) p/lat Magnitude(DB) 20 0 -20 -40 -60 100 50 0 -50 -100 -150 -200 1 0.149 2.. 3.272 * Fixed derivativ e tied to a free derivativ e ølat = 1. The control derivatives were identified as shown in Table 3..4 0.796 Derivativ e X lon M lon Yl at L lat øl at øl on Param Value -0.MAV Identified Control Derivatives COUP02 CR Bound C.1 1 10 Frequency (Rad/Sec) Flight results COUP02 ..11 shows the identified model’s roll and lateral acceleration responses for the roll sweep.2 0.9..1 1 Frequency (Rad/Sec) 10 Coherence Phase (Deg) ay/lat Magnitude(DB) Figure 3.6 0.519 0.2343 0.11 – MAV Lateral Acceleration and Roll Rate Response to Roll Input .6 0.544 2..9 ..902 .599E-03 6.705 0.(%) 2. . Table 3..1789 0.4 0..058 2....000E+00* øl on ( COUP02 ) Figure 3. Ultimately this made for the coupling derivatives in the model to become zero as well.01876 7.01056 5.2841 -0.8 0. 40 20 0 -20 -40 150 100 50 0 -50 -100 -150 1 0.2495 -0.06767 * 0....8 0.2 100 0. 4. (%) 0.40 - .01103 4.

1 1 Frequency (Rad/Sec) 10 Coherence Phase (Deg) ax/lon Magnitude(DB) Figure 3. There are some inconsistencies.8 0.12 – MAV Longitudinal Acceleration and Pitch Rate Response to Pitch Input The combination of Figure 3.4 0.8 0.Identification Results Coherence Phase (Deg) q/lon Magnitude(DB) 20 0 -20 -40 -60 -100 -150 -200 -250 -300 -350 -400 1 0.1 1 10 Frequency (Rad/Sec) Flight results COUP02 .12 show that the identified model agrees with the flight test data. 40 20 0 -20 -40 150 100 50 0 -50 -100 -150 1 0.12 shows the same for the longitudinal acceleration and pitch rate response to pitch input.11 and Figure 3.Figure 3.6 0.41 - . but overall the costs of the fits were low and the model agrees with flight test results.4 0. The final identified parameters are outlined in Table 3. .10.2 100 0.2 0.6 0.

table-lookup bare airframe and control simulation.10 – Final Flight Test Identified MAV Derivatives Derivativ e Xu Mu Mq Mp Yv Lq Lv Lp I pr op X l on M l on Ylat L lat ølat ølon Param Value -0. and vertical velocities. test data based.000E+00* øl on The identification of the MAV vehicle benefited from also having wind tunnel tests performed by Allied Aerospace. These tests were completed to build up a nonlinear.Table 3.000E+00* X u L v =-1. longitudinal. MAV is a family of vehicles.5014 0. There were issues with the 9” wind tunnel results.1090 0.06767 * 0.2841 -0.971E+04* I pop ( PIT21 ) Yv = 1. To illustrate the wind tunnel method for the MAV (which is similar to the wind tunnel tests performed for OAV by .42 - .5014 * 0. Both the larger 29” vehicle and smaller 9” vehicle were put into the wind tunnel with the fans spinning at various speeds while the attitude and wind velocity was varied.000 + 0.000 + -0.1789 0.06767 + Eliminated during model structure determination y Fixed value in model * Fixed derivativ e tied to a free derivativ e M p = 8.000E+00* M u ølat = 1. This was done to determine moment and force values with angle of attack and beta as well as lateral.000 + -0.000 + -0.971E+04* I pop ( PIT21 ) L q =-8.2495 -0.2343 0.000 + 0.1090 * 0.

This represents a corrective moment. The method illustrated above was repeated for all of the major flight derivatives to obtain the values portrayed in Table 3.13 shows a summary of the data collected for the pitching moment. i-Star-9 Pitching Moment Characteristics 0.2 0 -0. Table 3.13 – Pitching Moment Wind Tunnel Test Data for i-Star 9” Figure 3. is the nature of the pitching moment response to increases in speed.Techsburg) the pitching moment response to gusts was analyzed. it will pitch in the positive direction. Figure 3.8 -1 Shroud Velocity (fps) 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 Figure 3.43 - . and will be discussed in further detail in the next sections. As the vehicle experiences a cross wind in hover.2 -0.13 shows that a linearization was completed for the first 30 knots and is shown. it will actually experience a negative moment. .4 -0. What is curious here.11 compares both 9” and 29” vehicles as well as the 9” flight test results where appropriate. However if the gust is strong enough.6 -0. The slope of this line represents the dimensional derivative Mu.11.4 Pitching Moment (ft-lb) 0.

418 .0.057/100 0 0.046 0 n/a n/a .344 .157 0.0.0.123 .11 – MAV Wind Tunnel Identified Derivatives and Flight Test Results I-Star Vehicle Derivative 9” Wind Tunnel Flight Test -0.005 0 0.003 0 n/a n/a .476 (Fixed to Xu) .0.0.264/100 .1090 (Fixed to Xu) 29” Xu Yv Zw Lv Lp Mu .0.669 -0.0.5014 (Fixed to –Mu) 0 0.0.0.012 .349 .004 (Fixed to –Mu) n/a -0.218 .0.2841 n/a n/a n/a -0.344 (Fixed to Xu) .0.0.212 0.0.0.2343 n/a n/a Mq Mp Lq Nw Nr X lon Ylat Z col Llat M lon N ped N col .0.0.056 0 .387 0.44 - .476 .0.548 0.1090 -0.156 .006 n/a .555 .046 (Fixed to –Mu) .Table 3.190 0.0.5014 0 0 0 n/a n/a -0.

11 shows that all of the dimensional derivatives for the 29” vehicle are larger than the 9” values. The only exception is that of the difficult derivative Mu.45 - .003) than the flight test (0.5014). It also shows that the flight test and wind tunnel results are all of the same sign and fairly close. Wind tunnel testing revealed a much smaller value for this critical derivative (0.Table 3. . This is to be expected because the larger vehicle should experience larger forces and moments to go with its increased mass and inertias.

14.4) was inserted into the NASA Ames 7’ x 10’ wind tunnel at Moffett Field for aerodynamic testing. This data could be used for determination of dimensional pitching moment derivatives.3. One of the Solotrek’s ducted fans (Figure 1. 200 180 160 Pitching Moment (ft-lbs) 140 120 100 80 60 40 20 0 0 20 40 60 Wind Tunnel Speed (fps) 80 100 120 1800 rpm 2200 rpm 2600 rpm 3000 rpm Figure 3.14 – Solotrek Wind Tunnel Test Results for Pitching Moment .3 Trek Aerospace Solotrek Although nothing like the other vehicle’s examined.2. The pitching moment was recorded with varying forward speeds and propeller RPM. the Trek Aerospace (now Trek Entertainment. Forces and moments were recorded with various wind tunnel and fan speeds while the ducted fan was mounted at 90° to the flow.46 - .) Solotrek does possess ducted fan technologies which are common to the MAV and OAV. Inc. The results of that test are shown in Figure 3.

a linear representation of the pitching moment derivative is obtained for this low speed condition.000 ⎛ ft-lb ⎞ ⎜ ⎟ ⎜ ft ⎟ ⎝ sec ⎠ 1.14 shows how increasing the fan speed increases the pitching moment.14 as dashed lines.933 2. They are summarized in Table 3. This is shown in Figure 3. By fitting lines to the data for 0 to 20 knots.034 1.200 2. Table 3. .589 This wind tunnel testing was the extent of identification work completed for the Solotrek vehicle.Figure 3.600 3. Figure 3.12.14 also shows that some critical velocity may exist when the derivative will actually swing to negative. The slopes of these lines are the dimensional derivatives.800 2.376 1.12 – Pitching Moment Derivatives and Solotrek Fan Speed Pitching Moment Derivative Mu Fan Speed (rpm) 1. This is seen in the 1800 RPM case to be around 70 fps.47 - .

Because this comparison is primarily focused on the pitching moment characteristics of .15.15 – Hiller Flying Platform Pitching Moment Data The truck test was performed with the fan running at the speed required to keep the vehicle in hover. However.48 - . 175 lb man. The primary data of concern is that of the pitching moment directly measured with increasing truck speed.3. it also contained a dummy 6 foot tall. The results of the tests by Sacks3 are the basis for the pitching moment identification. 450 400 350 Pitching Moment (ft-lbs) 300 250 200 150 100 50 0 0 20 40 Speed (fps) 60 80 Figure 3.4 Hiller Flying Platform The Hiller Flying Platform along with a dummy mannequin was attached to the top of a truck and possessed equipment to measure moments and forces as it was driven at Moffett Field in 1958. The results of those runs are presented in Figure 3.2.

16 – Drag over a Flat Plate Perpendicular to Flow With the approximation in size of the man.49 - (Equation 3. D plate = 1 2 ρ v ACD 2 .19) .the duct. While crude. The relationship for the drag on a flat plate for Re > 1000 is presented as Figure 3. Figure 3.15.19. It follows that the drag of the man will vary with velocity as in Equation 3.16. the effects of the man need to be removed from the above moments. This is done by approximating the man as a flat plate (6’ x 2’). a drag coefficient of CD = 1.1 is found from Figure 3. this investigation is merely to establish a trend with the pitching moment characteristics of ducted fan vehicles.

17 – Results of Removing Dummy Moment from Hiller Platform Test It can be seen that the moment from the dummy is increasing with truck speed.17.8 fps). so it is assumed that the drag will have a moment arm of 3 feet above the platform. 450 400 350 Pitching Moment (ft-lbs) Hiller Test Results Approximate Dummy Moment Approximate Duct Pitching Moment Linear Fit for 20 knts 300 250 200 150 100 50 0 0 20 40 Speed (fps) 60 80 Figure 3. This slope of this dashed line is the dimensional pitching moment derivative. . or half the height of the plate used to approximate the drag.50 - .15 to produce Figure 3. This allows the determination of moment produced with airspeed due to the dummy. Removing the effect of the dummy produces the green line. This is then used to fit a line to determine the average slope from 0 to 20 knots (33.It is known that the dummy was placed directly on top of the platform. This is calculated and then subtracted from the actual data in Figure 3. Mu.

This follows the trend of the other vehicles. It is a positive number for hover. that velocity is 55 feet per second. However. .M u PLATFORM = 5. it will go negative if the wind velocity reaches some critical speed. In this case.11 ft-lb ft sec This dimensional derivative is naturally much larger than the other values looked at for the other vehicles.51 - . This makes sense because this is a much larger vehicle.

To understand the nature of the vehicles and fully characterize and identify their flight. It is . airspeed data is calculated for only the low speed condition. Of particular interest is the derivative Mu. Hovering flight leaves these vehicles highly susceptible to wind in station-keeping applications. the propeller effects.52 - .15) in the hovering cubic. Because the condition we are most interested in is low speed around hover. and fan speed Ω. In other words. In order to compare the pitching moment characteristics of the four vehicles. One of the main advantages of the RUAV designs mentioned in Chapter 1 is that these vehicles can hover. the nondimensional pitching moment definition for rotorcraft is applied: M ~ pitching moment CM = M ρ ~ density 2 ρ A ( ΩR ) R Ω ~ blade rotation speed (rad/sec) R ~ duct radius A ~ duct area This method primarily accounts for duct size with the radius terms. Mu must be nondimensionalized to take into account the size of the vehicles. To do this. the slope of a line fit to the pitching moment vs.2.3. This value is then nondimensionalized with the above method. and the ducts themselves. we look at the derivative about zero to 20 knots airspeed for the vehicles. This derivative characterizes the vehicle very well in hovering flight (as seen with OAV flight test: Equation 3. some time is needed to understand the pitching moment characteristics.5 Vehicle Scaling Laws and Comparisons It becomes apparent that the ducted fans looked at all share some basic characteristics in one way or another.

In fact.86 x 10-5 2.13 that the values are within the same order of magnitude and show positive speed stability for most of the vehicles and methods. The geometries of the vehicles are used here to determine the dimensional and nondimensional parameters for comparison (Table 3. the four different fan speeds are presented.01 x 10-4 1.52 x 10-5 3.95 x 10-5 1.5014 0. This approximation of the way the pitching moment varies with duct size is used to compare the three vehicles.21 x 10-5 2. In the case of the Solotrek fan.11652 It is evident from Table 3.800 RPM 2.000 RPM Wind Tunnel i-Star 9” Flight Test i-Star 29” Pitching Moment Derivative Mu ⎛ ft-lb ⎞ ⎜ ⎟ ⎜ ft ⎟ ⎝ sec ⎠ Nondimensional CMu 7.53 - .87 x 10-5 2.apparent that the size of the duct is the driving factor in the aerodynamic pitching moment.600 RPM 3.00643 1.14 x 10-6 5.13). Table 3. this nondimensionalization by the third power of the radius follows what was observed for ducted fans by Sacks3.589 0. Wind tunnel values seem to differ from the other values.90 x 10-5 1.376 1.09 x 10-5 6.00323 0.30 x 10-6 2. . The largest values are seen with the flight test for MAV and wind tunnel results for OAV. demonstrating that the same method is nondimensionalizing well for vehicles of varying prop speeds.11 0.933 2. The values for the different fan speed for the Solotrek duct are all closely related.200 RPM Solotrek 2.13 – Pitching Moment Coefficient Summary Vehicle Flying Platform Wind Tunnel OAV Flight Test 1.011 0.034 1.

03 x 10-4 6.48 x 10-4 1.11652 This method yields values similar to the previous methods in Table 3.58 x 10-4 2.80 x 10-3 5. The numbers here are more closely related and show that the nondimensionalization is an . Table 3.14 – Pitching Moment with Blade Chord Summary Vehicle Flying Platform Wind Tunnel OAV Flight Test 1.00323 0.14 represents the results of this method. This nondimensionalization uses the chord and radius of the rotating propellers to nondimensionalize the pitching moment: CM = M M ~ pitching moment 2 ρσ A ( ΩR ) R ρ ~ density Ω ~ blade rotation speed (rad/sec) R ~ duct radius A ~ duct area b ~ # of blades c ~ mean blade chord bc σ= πR Table 3.45 x 10-5 3.61 x 10-4 2.11 0.034 1.000 RPM Wind Tunnel i-Star 9” Flight Test i-Star 29” Pitching Moment Derivative Mu ⎛ ft-lb ⎞ ⎜ ⎟ ⎜ ft ⎟ ⎝ sec ⎠ Nondimensional CMu 4.13 reveals that this method may not be accounting for the entirety of dominant characteristics for ducted fan vehicles. This is seen in the way the Solotrek differs from the other smaller chord vehicles.376 1.589 0.933 2.13. To account for more specific geometries.90 x 10-4 2.54 - .15 x 10-4 2.20 x 10-5 5.800 RPM 2.Table 3.011 0. a method which better characterizes the propellers was also investigated.00643 1.5014 0.200 RPM Solotrek 2.600 RPM 3.60 x 10-4 2.

This is an order larger than the other vehicles. all four of the ducted fan vehicles exhibit likeness in pitching moment characteristics. but an order lower than all of the other vehicles.20 x 10-5) are of the same order of magnitude.45 x 10-5) and the 29” value (5. Flight test revealed that the 9” vehicle actually had a very large value for Mu (3.55 - . To briefly summarize and conclude. This could be due to the fact that Mu was found to be so dominant in the identification. and a full two orders greater than the wind tunnel results for the same vehicle. the 9” value (2. or that there was something unexplainable happening with the wind tunnel tests of the vehicles.80 x 10-3). The only anomaly seen is with the i-Star vehicle which shows relatively higher and lower CMu values in comparison to the other vehicles and the method of identification. It is can be seen that the derivatives for the i-Star class of vehicles differ considerably from the other ducted fans analyzed. . In the case of the wind tunnel results for these two vehicles. This suggests that there may be something unique about the i-Star design.adequate way to characterize the different pitching moment characteristics for these vehicles.

This section also includes a time domain validation of the actuator models. An explanation of the construction of the actuator block diagrams built is also included. The identification was performed using the CIFER.3. Individual blocks were created for each actuator corresponding to each of the tested 5 volt and 6 volt conditions.56 - .3 Servo Actuator Identification The goal of the actuator test program was to measure a set of data that was used to identify models of the actuator dynamic response characteristics. Five separate actuators from four manufacturers were tested. are also evaluated from the bench test data. Linear 0th/2nd order transfer functions capturing the actuator dynamics were identified. The goal of bench testing the control surface actuators was to collect a set of bench test data that will be used to identify the actuator dynamics. The . such as hysteresis and stiction. The actuators are a critical part of the flight control system and it is important to have accurate models of the dynamics and limits of the actuators themselves. The bench testing was carried out in accordance with CIFER flight test techniques wherever possible. The significance of other non-linear actuator properties. Testing allowed for the determination of the maximum angular rates and positions using linear curve-fitting of the square wave responses. These actuator models include linear transfer functions of the input/output relationships as well as non-linear actuator properties such as actuator rate and position limits. This test data was also used to determine the position and rate limits of the actuators.

73 0.0 600. cost. and performance.90 1.0 53.32 1.91 0.03 0.0 352.8V) RATE (deg/sec) L (in) W (in) D (in) 2.actuators varied in size. weight.17 0.80 0.9 285. Table 3.0 0.7 500. For the smaller actuators.15 – Manufacturer Specifications for Servo Actuators Tested MODEL NUMBER JR PROPO DS8417 HITEC HS-512MG JR PROPO DS368 AIRTRONICS 94091 CIRRUS CS-10BB WEIGHT (oz) TORQUE (oz/in@ 4.37 1.18 1.12 0.19 82. The mechanical apparatus can be seen in Figure 3. The actuator horns were connected to horns on potentiometers using clevises.61 Figure 3.52 1. small wooden strips were used to ensure rigid mounting. The manufacturers’ specifications are presented in Table 3. .80 0.0 1000.87 0.33 1.57 - .18 shows the relative sizes of the actuators tested.0 42.18 – Actuators Tested and Relative Sizes The test apparatus was comprised of a rigid aluminum base stand with allowances for the actuators to fit inside without moving. The potentiometers offered little to no load resistance.15. Figure 3.0 18.50 0.44 0.19.0 7.39 0.32 0.

19 – Actuator Test Stand Apparatus A close up of the small Cirrus CS-10BB servo mounted on the test fixture in the wooden strip is presented as Figure 3. Figure 3.20.Figure 3.20 – Cirrus CS-10BB Mounted on Wooden Strip .58 - .

21.It is noticeable from the figure that the servo horn and the potentiometer horn are not the same length.16.21 – Schematic Detailing Linkage Geometry It is apparent that because the ‘center-center’ distance is different from the ‘hornhorn’ measurement.59 - . All attempts were made to keep these lengths the same. The geometries for all of the actuators are presented in Table 3. . Measurements of all the actuators and the various geometries accounting for the aforementioned differences were taken with precision calipers and recorded as seen in the schematic in Figure 3. the servo deflection will not be 90° when the potentiometer is at 90°. This means that the deflection of the potentiometer horn will not be the same as the deflection of the servo horn. Figure 3.

Table 3.16 – Actuator Linkage Geometries
HORN
HORNHORN (in) SERVO HORN (in) POT HORN (in) CENTERCENTER

SERVO MIN (deg) MAX (deg)

INPUT MIN (103) MAX (103)

POT

SERVO

VOLT

(in)

MIN

MAX

MIN

MAX

SERVO w/ POT @ 90°

DS8417

5 6 5 6 5 6 5 6 5 6

3.482 3.482 3.688 3.688 3.527 3.527 3.51 3.51 3.67 3.67

0.994 0.994 0.757 0.757 0.495 0.495 0.509 0.509 0.504 0.504

0.975 0.975 0.669 0.669 0.468 0.468 0.469 0.469 0.468 0.468

3.460 3.460 3.719 3.719 3.539 3.539 3.544 3.544 3.652 3.652

-40° -40° -60° -60° -45° -45° -55° -55° -45° -45°

60° 60° 68° 68° 60° 60° 50° 50° 60° 60°

-40.741 -40.741 -46.419 -46.419 -48.610 -48.610 -43.471 -43.471 -43.814 -43.814

34.174 34.174 30.644 30.644 32.539 32.539 39.408 39.408 39.785 39.785

-50 -50 -40 -40 -50 -50 -50 -40 -50 -50

50 50 40 40 50 50 50 40 50 50

1810 1809 1851 1854 2102 2102 1880 1987 1930 1935

3728 3727 3895 3882 4086 4085 3870 3670 3963 3969

91.268° 91.268° 87.653° 87.653° 88.611° 88.611° 86.170° 86.170° 92.077° 92.077°

JR94091

DS368

HS12MG

CS-10BB

The most non-linear case was observed for the HS12MG where problems with the horns also resulted in binding and interference at larger deflections. For this reason, the maximum commanded deflection was limited to 80% of the maximum actuator deflection when testing this actuator. The potentiometer apparatus was located next to Allied Aerospace’s HIL simulation test stand. This utilized the ADC and DAC capabilities of the vehicle hardware to feed the actuators the Pulse Width Modulation (PWM) from the stimulus files prepared in accordance with CIFER flight test techniques. The two primary measurements required for the CIFER identification were the sweep commanded into the actuator and the potentiometer reading as a result of the actuator moving. Because of the nature of the recording equipment, calibration factors were required to convert the input and output signals to degrees. These calibration factors were determined using the geometries shown in Table 3.16 and are presented in Table 3.17.

- 60 -

Table 3.17 – Actuator Calibration Factors for Input and Output Channels to Degrees
CALIBRATION FACTOR SERVO VOLTAGE IN Channel (degrees/unit input) 5 6 5 6 5 6 5 6 5 6 0.000749 0.000749 0.000963 0.000963 0.000811 0.000811 0.000829 0.001036 0.000836 0.000836 OUT Channel (servo deg/POT units) 0.0391 0.0391 0.0377 0.0380 0.041 0.0409 0.0416 0.0492 0.0411 0.0411

DS8417 JR94091 DS368 HS12MG CS-10BB

The hardware fed signals from -50,000 to 50,000 to the servos and recorded potentiometer deflection from roughly 1500 to 4500. The calibration factors in Table 3.17 relate these to degrees of command and deflection of the servo. They are a result of the geometries and readings for each actuator-voltage combination tested. Data was recorded at 50 Hz and there was no filtering of the input and output channels. An unidentified glitch was observed in the output signal and showed itself as a signal spike at roughly every 5 samples (0.1 sec). This was evaluated and it was determined to be minor in identifying the dynamics. With that exception, there was very little noise in the signals. Frequency sweep actuator commands were used to generate test data from which frequency responses of control surface response due to actuator command could be identified. From these frequency responses, transfer functions of the actuator dynamics were extracted. The non-linear effects, such as rate and position limits were identified by using a square-wave command.

- 61 -

The time histories of the actuator command signals were computer generated using the frequency sweep code that was described for the flight test frequency sweep maneuvers. The inputs to this code specify the various parameters of the frequency sweep. These parameters are shown in Table 3.18 for the sweeps used in the tests.

Table 3.18 – Frequency Sweep Used for all Actuators Description: Control axis Total duration of sine sweep Duration of zero signal Time for signal fade-in Time for signal fade-out Signal sample rate Minimum frequency of sweep Maximum frequency of sweep Filter cut-off frequency Amplitude of control input Maximum allowable amplitude Noise random flag Units: sec sec sec sec Hz Hz Hz Hz % % Value: 1 30 2 3 1 50 0.1 10.0 -1 10, 50, (80),100 100 -1

The signal amplitudes used to drive the actuators during the frequency sweep tests were 10, 50 and 100% of the maximum pulse width amplitude and was generated with computer code. In the case of some of the smaller actuators (DS368 & HS512MG), the 100% input was brought down to 80% because of clevis interference at higher deflections. White noise is not required in the command signals for actuator testing. A cut-off filter could be included to ensure that the frequency content of the command signal does not go beyond a maximum frequency. This is not required for bench testing and no filter cut-off frequency was set, indicating that the signal should not be filtered.

- 62 -

As an example.Figure 2. response time history. 100 0. A 50% square wave was also used to determine rates for smaller peak to peak deflections. The parameters for the square wave are shown in Table 3. .63 - . and square wave used for the DS8417 is presented in Figure 3.5 50.22.19. the chirp input.5 The amplitude of the actuator signal is the percentage of the maximum pulse width amplitude that drives the actuators in each direction. A 100% square wave was used to drive the actuators to their position limits.19 – Square Wave Parameters Description: Total duration of wave Signal sample rate Amplitude of positive step Positive step hold time Amplitude of negative step Negative step hold time Units: sec Hz % max sec % sec Value: ~30 50 50.1 shows an example frequency sweep time history generated with the computer code. 100 0. Table 3.

64 - .22 – Sample Chirp Input. Response. and Square Wave Time History .Chirp Input 50 40 30 20 Deflection (deg) 10 0 0 -10 -20 -30 -40 -50 Time (sec) 5 10 15 20 25 30 Potentiometer Response 50 40 30 20 Deflection (deg) 10 0 0 -10 -20 -30 -40 -50 Time (sec) 5 10 15 20 25 30 60 40 20 Deflection (deg) 0 0 -20 -40 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 -60 Tim e (sec) Figure 3.

TXT HS-512MG_10_5.TXT DS8417_100_5.04 29.TXT CS-10BB_100_6_square.80 30.24 29.TXT HS-512MG_80_6_square. model number.TXT DS8417_10_5.TXT CS-10BB_10_6.42 29.32 29.TXT CS-10BB_10_5.20 – Actuator Bench Test Matrix CIFER NAME TEXT FILE NAME MODEL NUMBER JR PROPO DS8417 JR PROPO DS8417 JR PROPO DS8417 JR PROPO DS8417 JR PROPO DS8417 JR PROPO DS8417 JR PROPO DS8417 JR PROPO DS8417 JR PROPO DS8417 JR PROPO DS8417 JR PROPO DS8417 JR PROPO DS8417 HITEC HS-512MG HITEC HS-512MG HITEC HS-512MG HITEC HS-512MG HITEC HS-512MG HITEC HS-512MG HITEC HS-512MG HITEC HS-512MG HITEC HS-512MG JR PROPO DS368 JR PROPO DS368 JR PROPO DS368 JR PROPO DS368 JR PROPO DS368 JR PROPO DS368 JR PROPO DS368 JR PROPO DS368 AIRTRONICS 94091 AIRTRONICS 94091 AIRTRONICS 94091 AIRTRONICS 94091 AIRTRONICS 94091 AIRTRONICS 94091 AIRTRONICS 94091 AIRTRONICS 94091 CIRRUS CS-10BB CIRRUS CS-10BB CIRRUS CS-10BB CIRRUS CS-10BB CIRRUS CS-10BB CIRRUS CS-10BB CIRRUS CS-10BB CIRRUS CS-10BB VOLTAGE AMPLITUDE (% max) 100 100 100 50 10 100 50 10 100 50 10 100 100 50 10 100 100 50 10 100 80 100 50 10 100 100 50 10 100 80 50 10 80 80 50 10 80 100 50 10 100 100 50 10 100 SAMPLES RECORD TIME (sec) n/a 29.TXT DS368_100_5_square.TXT 94091_80_5_square.90 DS8417_1 DS8417_2 DS8417_3 DS8417_4 DS8417_5 DS8417_6 DS8417_7 HS512MG1 HS512MG2 HS512MG3 HS512MG4 HS512MG5 HS512MG6 DS368_1 DS368_2 DS368_3 DS368_4 DS368_5 DS368_6 94091_1 94091_2 94091_3 94091_4 94091_5 94091_6 CS10BB_1 CS10BB_2 CS10BB_3 CS10BB_4 CS10BB_5 CS10BB_6 DS8417_TEST_RUN.24 29.38 29.34 28.TXT 94091_50_5.The test matrix is provided as Table 3.TXT HS-512MG_50_6.34 29.TXT 94091_80_5.82 29.34 29.16 29.TXT CS-10BB_50_6.TXT DS8417_50_5_square.TXT DS8417_50_5.50 29.32 29.34 27.28 29.38 29.TXT HS-512MG_10_6. It outlines the recorded file name. The CIFER case name for the frequency sweep cases is also listed if identification was completed.TXT DS8417_100_5_2.26 29.32 29.TXT DS368_100_6.50 28.TXT 94091_10_6.08 18.28 n/a 21.TXT DS8417_10_6.TXT DS8417_100_6_square.26 29.34 22.56 29.65 - .24 25.28 29. Table 3.52 29.00 28.TXT 5 5 5 5 5 6 6 6 5 5 5 6 5 5 5 5 6 6 6 6 6 5 5 5 5 6 6 6 6 5 5 5 5 6 6 6 6 5 5 5 5 6 6 6 6 n/a 1478 1464 1461 1452 1466 1464 n/a 1067 1392 1123 1380 1462 1482 1496 1125 1464 1466 1450 1404 917 1459 1471 1462 1253 1458 1462 1474 1241 1467 1458 1467 1417 1463 1475 1440 1519 1466 1469 1475 1198 1463 1476 1467 1145 .TXT HS-512MG_100_6.16 29.92 22.TXT DS368_10_5.48 24.TXT 94091_50_6.TXT 94091_80_6_square.TXT 94091_80_6.TXT HS-512MG_50_5.18 29.TXT HS-512MG_100_5_square.TXT HS-512MG_100_5.TXT DS8417_50_6.20.TXT DS368_50_5.60 29.34 29.06 29.46 27.TXT DS8417_100_5_square.TXT CS-10BB_100_6.84 22.TXT HS-512MG_100_6_square.22 29.96 29.TXT 94091_10_5.TXT DS368_50_6.TXT CS-10BB_50_5.TXT CS-10BB_100_5_square.TXT DS368_100_6_square. and conditions of the actuator tested.TXT CS-10BB_100_5.TXT DS368_100_5.TXT DS8417_100_6.TXT DS8417_10_5_square.TXT DS368_10_6.50 23.64 29.

Correlation to previous studies on nonlinear actuators is provided which explains some of the inaccuracies in the linear model. Following the test matrix yielded 5 actuators with 2 different voltages and 3 different sweep magnitudes. FRESPID (frequency response identification) was used to generate multiple responses at different window lengths for each condition. These 30 cases were processed in CIFER and frequency responses were generated within FRESPID. 15. These responses were averaged into one response for each case using COMPOSITE. 10. Table 3.66 - . The responses were analyzed for regions of best coherence in order to ensure fidelity of the responses to be used for linear model fitting within NAVFIT. A single sweep was used for each of the conditions. The COMPOSITE response is the response used for the transfer function fitting. These linear models are required for the optimization of the control system using CONDUIT. NAVFIT (transfer function fitting) was used to identify the 0th/2nd order transfer function of the actuator dynamics from the COMPOSITE results. Five frequency responses were generated for each case based on window size for the FFT routine within CIFER. COMPOSITE (multi-window averaging) was used to average the results of the FRESPID cases into one response.Three of CIFER’s subprograms were utilized to perform the identification. Plots for each of the FRESPID generated frequency responses for each case are presented at the end of this memo in Appendix B. A strong effect of the nonlinear characteristics on the responses was observed. 5.21 shows the responses used for identification and the frequency ranges where NAVFIT was used to fit a transfer function. 20. and 25 second windows were used. The case names for each of the .

frequency response curves shown in Appendix C can be referenced to the case names in Table 3. Although the coherence was good. the responses did not resemble 0th/2nd order forms of 0-dB gain at low .21.21 – Actuator NAVFIT Frequency Ranges for CIFER Cases NAVFIT FREQ RANGE CIFER NAME MODEL NUMBER VOLTAGE AMPLITUDE (% max) (rad/sec) MIN 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 (rad/sec) MAX 35 35 45 35 35 25 35 35 35 25 30 25 30 35 35 35 35 35 35 35 35 - DS8417_1 DS8417_2 DS8417_3 DS8417_4 DS8417_5 DS8417_6 DS8417_7 HS512MG1 HS512MG2 HS512MG3 HS512MG4 HS512MG5 HS512MG6 DS368_1 DS368_2 DS368_3 DS368_4 DS368_5 DS368_6 94091_1 94091_2 94091_3 94091_4 94091_5 94091_6 CS10BB_1 CS10BB_2 CS10BB_3 CS10BB_4 CS10BB_5 CS10BB_6 JR PROPO DS8417 JR PROPO DS8417 JR PROPO DS8417 JR PROPO DS8417 JR PROPO DS8417 JR PROPO DS8417 JR PROPO DS8417 HITEC HS-512MG HITEC HS-512MG HITEC HS-512MG HITEC HS-512MG HITEC HS-512MG HITEC HS-512MG JR PROPO DS368 JR PROPO DS368 JR PROPO DS368 JR PROPO DS368 JR PROPO DS368 JR PROPO DS368 AIRTRONICS 94091 AIRTRONICS 94091 AIRTRONICS 94091 AIRTRONICS 94091 AIRTRONICS 94091 AIRTRONICS 94091 CIRRUS CS-10BB CIRRUS CS-10BB CIRRUS CS-10BB CIRRUS CS-10BB CIRRUS CS-10BB CIRRUS CS-10BB 5 5 5 5 6 6 6 5 5 5 6 6 6 5 5 5 6 6 6 5 5 5 6 6 6 5 5 5 6 6 6 100 100 50 10 100 50 10 100 50 10 100 50 10 100 50 10 100 50 10 100 50 10 100 50 10 100 50 10 100 50 10 It became apparent after generating responses for the 10% max deflection cases that the signals were not adequate for system identification work.67 - . Table 3.

0048 0.653 11.154 5.0067 0.0132 0.429 21.1254 18.5446 0.0077 0.5243 0.5166 0.9439 21.3759 33.804 33.5489 0.0836 22.5034 0.922 19.5944 50.364 1.5345 0.9824 13. Table 3.006 0. Because the 0th/2nd forms were not valid.5019 0.9373 11.862 6.0127 0.490 9.4087 18.4986 0.5352 0.0121 0.4602 22.5074 0.5920 0.2309 21.0582 29.696 12.9789 16.641 - .0045 0.0054 0.0042 0.0073 0.294 16.020 17.0079 0.0844 - ωn (sec) 0.324 26.593 19.68 - .4054 20.3608 18.5472 0.0110 0.0036 0.813 65.0069 - τ COST DS8417_1 DS8417_2 DS8417_3 DS8417_4 DS8417_5 DS8417_6 DS8417_7 HS512MG1 HS512MG2 HS512MG3 HS512MG4 HS512MG5 HS512MG6 DS368_1 DS368_2 DS368_3 DS368_4 DS368_5 DS368_6 94091_1 94091_2 94091_3 94091_4 94091_5 94091_6 CS10BB_1 CS10BB_2 CS10BB_3 CS10BB_4 CS10BB_5 CS10BB_6 JR PROPO DS8417 JR PROPO DS8417 JR PROPO DS8417 JR PROPO DS8417 JR PROPO DS8417 JR PROPO DS8417 JR PROPO DS8417 HITEC HS-512MG HITEC HS-512MG HITEC HS-512MG HITEC HS-512MG HITEC HS-512MG HITEC HS-512MG JR PROPO DS368 JR PROPO DS368 JR PROPO DS368 JR PROPO DS368 JR PROPO DS368 JR PROPO DS368 AIRTRONICS 94091 AIRTRONICS 94091 AIRTRONICS 94091 AIRTRONICS 94091 AIRTRONICS 94091 AIRTRONICS 94091 CIRRUS CS-10BB CIRRUS CS-10BB CIRRUS CS-10BB CIRRUS CS-10BB CIRRUS CS-10BB CIRRUS CS-10BB 5 5 5 5 6 6 6 5 5 5 6 6 6 5 5 5 6 6 6 5 5 5 6 6 6 5 5 5 6 6 6 100 100 50 10 100 50 10 100 50 10 100 50 10 100 50 10 100 50 10 100 50 10 100 50 10 100 50 10 100 50 10 37.8425 23.5273 0.22 includes the complete NAVFIT results for natural frequency and damping ratio for each case.5606 0.0762 17.frequency and a break at -40 dB per decade at the natural frequency.862 26.993 32.0155 0. Table 3.010 0.259 31.0054 0.2955 16.826 59.22 – Actuator NAVFIT Results for all Cases CIFER NAME MODEL NUMBER VOLTAGE AMPLITUDE (% max) ζ 0.0117 0.5192 - (rad/sec) 20.3889 26.009 0.4615 12.6556 0. The NAVFIT cost function result for each case is also presented.5136 0.352 42.5039 0.5302 0.964 13.0055 0. these responses were rejected from system identification results.5108 0.5168 0.008 27.

The NAVFIT results for these same sweeps show nearly identical results. The frequency responses and the transfer function fits are presented by CIFER name (referenced in Table 3.22 shows that for the first actuator tested. This is because the smaller deflections allow the actuator to reach higher frequencies before the rate limit is reached. As Table 3.23. in general. This was done to ensure repeatability and consistency of the test. all the actuators running the sweep to only 50% instead of the full 100% yielded a noticeably higher natural frequency and higher damping ratio.69 - .Table 3. the same 100% sweep at 5V was applied. This is evident in the frequency responses for all the actuators as illustrated for the HS512MG in Figure 3.22 shows. .22) in Appendix C.

6 Volts 5 Volts Figure 3.70 - .23 – HS512MG Responses Illustrating Difference between 5V and 6V .

As the frequency responses show. all of the responses demonstrate clean breaks at their natural frequencies and 0-dB gain at low frequencies with the exception of the 50% deflection on the DS8417 at 6V. the magnitude did not break sharply.71 - .010 seconds.005 – 0.22. It was determined that the frequency range had little effect on the transfer function fit unless it went below the break frequency. The square wave commanded a near instantaneous change from maximum to minimum deflection. This is due to the fact that for the frequency range analyzed.17. Using the geometric calibration factors in Table 3. the maximum actuator deflection was calculated for the . The only response that may have been the subject of error is the 50% deflection sweep at 6V on the DS8417 which shows a really low cost and a noticeably higher natural frequency than the rest of the responses. This left a relatively flat response for which a second order form was easily fitted. Running the actuators with more power (6V) yields slightly higher damping ratios and higher natural frequencies for all of the actuators. These numbers cannot be taken as the pure transport delay because some of the delay is being absorbed in the second order form that NAVFIT determines after iterating for the best fit. The primary tool used for the determination of the nonlinear properties of the actuators was the square wave shown in Figure 3.The time delays all seemed to be around 0. More constrictive frequency ranges were chosen to study the effects this range had on the fit presented by NAVFIT. The costs for each fit seem to be very reasonable and show that the second order model is quite valid for the responses exhibited by all of the actuators.

24 shows the measurement spike every fifth data point that was described earlier. Figures 3.24 and 3.8 1 1.72 - . This is where it was receiving a PWM length of 1.0 ms (negative max) to 2. Most fits actually started at up to 0. The response data in Figure 3.1 second after the commanded change.4 0.2 0.5 seconds that the actuator was at the maximum position.2 -40 -60 Figure 3. This meant that although the first change from -100% to 100% occurred at a given time. A linear curve fit was used between the test points where the response to the change in deflection was constant.6 0.0 ms (positive max).0.25 illustrate this for the JR PROPO DS8417 for full 100% deflection at 6V.24 – Sample Square Wave Response . The presence of this spike does not have a significant effect on the identification results. 60 Response Command 20 40 0 0 -20 0. for all the actuators there was still a transient response due to the dynamics of the actuator that were ignored.

By using the slope from that line and applying the calibration factor from Table 3.9958 Figure 3.24 clearly shows that the servo was saturated.42 0. the position limits were fixed to be symmetric about zero degrees.48 0.5 0. . Figure 3. respectively because the actual limits were not known during testing.73 - . To correct for this. The figure shows how the maximum positions can be read from the plot.44 0. This is shown in Figure 3. Figure 3.24 as 50 and -50 degrees.25 – Linear Fit for Max Rate Determination The square wave commanded a maximum and minimum deflection. It also shows the transient response.25 shows how nicely a linear curve fit could be accomplished.1 R2 = 0.58 y = -13429x + 9284.23.46 0.52 0. This was repeated for each of the actuators to yield the final nonlinear characteristics for the actuators as shown in Table 3.4 0.56 0.17.4000 3500 3000 2500 2000 1500 1000 500 0 0.54 0. It is asymmetric because the servo horn was not able to be positioned at exactly the 0° location due to the teeth on the gear. the maximum rate in degrees/second was found.

There were not enough data points at which the actuator rate was saturated to fit a valid linear curve at this deflection.2 -219.3 -435. all results used a full 100% deflection command in the square wave to ensure saturation of the rate.37.5744 +/. The sampling rate of 50 Hz and nature of the square wave did not reveal any identifiable stiction or hysteresis. Many factors can contribute to this asymmetry.38.Table 3.6 404.5 265. The DS368 proved to have the best symmetry in its rates where the smaller and lighter CS-10BB showed to be more asymmetric.6 -328.5315 +/. The test stand was mounted horizontally. Because there is a motor with an armature inside.9 422. .8 -264.23 that there are different rates for different directions on the actuators.2 437.5 -474.2 -524. the methods employed here did not reveal any substantial findings.4394 +/.4 DS8417 JR94091 DS368 HS12MG CS10BB 5 6 5 6 5 6 5 6 5 6 +/.4571 +/.1 -376.1 536.74 - . More accurate potentiometers. so gravity is was not the cause.41.8 220. It should be noted that the square wave used for the first test was repeated at 50% maximum deflection.7 442.0 467.7 317. For this reason.41.7992 It is apparent from Table 3.1 534.23 – Actuator Nonlinear Characteristic Summary SERVO VOLTS POSITION (deg) RATE (deg/sec) MIN MAX -437.5 -402.7 -567. Although they undoubtedly exist.40. the brushes on the motor may be conditioned to one direction.

and tighter tolerances on the test equipment may have revealed these nonlinearities. 50 40 30 20 10 0 0 -10 -20 -30 -40 -50 5 10 15 20 25 30 Deflection (deg) Time (sec) Figure 3.27. This sporadic output is visible in the time responses shown in Figures 3.26 – CS-10BB at 5V Time History Illustrating Erratic Response at High Frequency 40 30 20 Deflection (deg) 10 0 0 -10 -20 -30 -40 -50 5 10 15 20 25 30 Time (sec) Figure 3.27 – 94091 at 6V Time History Illustrating Erratic Response at High Frequency . It should be mentioned that observing the smaller actuators like the CS-10BB and 94091 revealed that at very high frequencies the actuator demonstrated output not directly correlated to the input.75 - .higher data rates.26 and 3.

The DS8417 showed the worst correlation between the linear model response and the . It was observed that although the magnitude fits were accurate for some of the NAVFIT results. especially rate limiting.28). What the time histories reveal though is that the oscillations do not occur about 0°. The nature of the sporadic response was observed in all of the actuators to some extent.28 – 94091 at 5V Time History not Showing Erratic Response Interestingly. The errors in tracking the input signal at high frequencies associated with these small actuators must be a consideration when selecting an actuator for high bandwidth applications. indicating that the output is correlated with the input. but not more so than in the 94091 at 6V and CS-10BB at 5V and 6V. This was investigated further in an attempt to add fidelity to the model. The coherence for these actuators in this frequency range still remains relatively high. the match of the linear second order system on the phase curve did not fully characterize the response. will have an effect on the accuracy of the linear transfer function models. the 94091 at 5V did not display this asymmetric response to the extent that the 6V case did (Figure 3. These smaller actuators have issues tracking the input symmetrically at high frequencies.76 - .50 40 30 Deflection (deg) 20 10 0 -10 -20 -30 -40 -50 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 Time (sec) Figure 3. It is known that the nonlinear characteristics of the actuators.

77 - . the phase is not fully characterized by the second order fit at frequencies beyond 10 rad/sec.29 – DS8417 Frequency Response Illustrating Mismatch in Linear Model As Figure 14 illustrates.29 shows the phase of the DS8417 at 5V with a 100% sweep. The mismatch shows itself as more time delay roll off at higher frequencies. Figure 3. Figure 3.response and the response obtained from test data. Previous work completed by STI during investigation of PIOs due to nonlinear vehicle characteristics5 determined that the mismatch in phase lag was due to the rate .

limit of the actuators. A comparison of the time histories observed by STI and those of the DS8417 at 5V is presented as Figure 3.30.

Chirp Input

50 40 30 20 Deflection (deg) 10 0 20 -10 -20 -30 -40 -50 Time (sec) 20.5 21 21.5

Chirp Input Actuator Response

22

Figure 3.30 – DS8417 Time History Comparison to 1995 STI Findings

- 78 -

The time histories show that the output from the actuator is clearly rate saturated. Work presented by STI shows that a linear describing function could be generated to fit the data in the frequency domain for a given frequency range, but not for all frequency ranges. For a more accurate match over broader frequency ranges, an exact sinusoidal describing function is required. To compute this function, the Fourier integrals are first computed for the input and output fundamentals as shown in the following equations.

According to Klyde, McCruer, and Myers, these integrals are computed for f(t) being either the input or output periodic forcing function. For our case these are both sinusoids with period P, so the input describing function’s a1 term is always zero. Using these to characterize the magnitude and phase of the describing functions yields the following relationships5.

In these equations, δc is the actuator deflection commanded and δ is the actual output after rate saturation. Having these open frequency domain representations allows us to characterize the response in order to explain the discrepancies in the phase plots. According to Klyde et al, this difference can be characterized with an error function by

- 79 -

finding these integrals and comparing to the frequency responses generated by the bench test data. That method was effectively applied for the DS8417 actuator by applying a rate limiter on the identified models within Simulink and using FRESPID to then generate a frequency response. The responses for the bench test, NAVFIT linear model response, and the NAVFIT model with rate limit in Simulink are shown in Figure 3.31.

- 80 -

31 – Magnitude Comparison for Linear & Nonlinear Model to Bench Test Figure 3.Figure 3.31 shows that as expected. as Figure 3. the addition of the rate limiter in the model causes the response to break sooner. the .81 - . this yields a lower natural frequency.32 shows for the phase of the same three responses. However. The addition of the rate limit increases the magnitude accuracy of the model over the linear NAVFIT result.

addition of the rate limit actually causes a dip in the response (10 ~ 25 rad/sec) instead of matching the bench test data better.32 – Phase Comparison for Linear & Nonlinear Model to Bench Test . Figure 3. More accurate test equipment and a higher sampling rate would be required to identify these. This is most likely due to the fact that other nonlinearities exist and become more influential at higher frequencies.82 - .

NAVFIT was then used to try to characterize the error with a linear transfer function.83 - .33 for the error function. This resulted in the responses shown in Figure 3.Performing the frequency response arithmetic within CIFER allowed the frequency response quotient of the rate saturated response to the identified linear NAVFIT model to be generated. Figure 3.33 – Error Function Frequency Response and NAVFIT Transfer Function Fit .

the maximum error is an important parameter because it is directly related to the ratio of linear and nonlinear rise times ( tˆR )5. This lag cannot be characterized with a pure time delay. as shown by the NAVFIT result. the magnitude response of the error is almost entirely at zero.This response shows that the error function has a maximum phase lag of 32 degrees at approximately 14 rad/sec. . indicating that the inclusion of the rate limit in the model accurately models the magnitude as was seen previously in Figure 3.31. The loss of phase fidelity starting at around 12 rad/sec is a relatively high frequency for control system design and shows that the linear model with the rate limiter would be fairly accurate for simulation purposes. However. However.84 - .

.85 - . we see the rise time to be t RL = 0. Figure 3. The ˆ frequency is normalized by the actuator bandwidth ( ωn ) to represent the ratio ωn .Results from STI utilizing the exact describing function yielded Figure 3. Looking at the step response of the linear NAVFIT results without rate limiting.17 at a normalized frequency of ωn = 0.34.33.34 – Rise Time Ratio Phase Lag Relationship For the maximum phase error of 32 degrees seen in Figure 3.35. This generates the family of curves relating the difference in phase to the ratio of linear rise time to nonlinear rise time ( tˆR = t RL t RNL ).6. Figure 3.08 sec. as shown in Figure 3.34 ˆ predicts a rise time ratio of tˆR = 0.

Although not exactly the predicted 0.35 – Rise Time for Linear Model of DS8417 at 5V Determining the rise time from the nonlinear. The error function in Figure 3.38.6.7.33 shows the maximum additional lag to occur at 14 rad/sec. . This is very close to the predicted frequency where the additional lag is most apparent and is consistent with the STI trend. This corresponds to a ˆ normalized frequency of ωn = 0.Figure 3.34. rate-limited model was accomplished by analyzing the square wave time responses and found to be t RNL = 0.17. Comparing this rise time to the linear rise time reveals a ratio of tˆR = 0. the only nonlinearity that was included in this model was the rate limiting.86 - . The bandwidth of the DS8417 is approximately ωn = 20 rad/sec (Table 8). As mentioned previously from Figure 3. the predicted maximum difference in ˆ phase lag would be expected at a normalized frequency of ωn = 0.192 sec.

6 0.87 - . This trend is also evident in Figure 16 where the addition of the rate limit effectively causes the response to break sooner and illustrates how much an effect the rate limit has on the response. Plotting this trend as in Figure 3. According to the error function in Figure 3.The fact that the rate saturated during the sweep was readily noticeable in the fact that all the natural frequencies and damping ratios were higher for the 50% sweeps than the 100% ones. The addition of the rate limit in the model effectively corrects the magnitude of the response. .2 1 0. the model should lose fidelity in the phase of the response around 14 rad/sec where the error is at a maximum.33.2 0 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% Amplitude of Sweep (% of max deflection) Figure 3.36 shows that as expected. the natural frequency drops with increased sweep amplitude.8 0.36 – Sweep Amplitude and Natural Frequency with Rate Limiting The result of the comparison to the STI data is that the general trends of the data are correct. 1.4 0.

Figure 3.22 for the dynamics and . The modeling was done in a way which could be used for control system optimization and simulation. The blockset can be seen in Figure 3. but reflects the CIFER identified results for each voltage based on the results presented in Table 3.With the nature of the linear and nonlinear characteristics of the actuators determined modeling and validation of the actuators was performed. The validation of the models is accomplished in the time domain by feeding the models the same chirp input used in the test and comparing the responses to bench test responses.37. Simulink block diagrams were created to be used in the inner loop block diagrams for MAV control system optimization and simulation. The model is built within Simulink and includes the linear 0th/2nd transfer function form and the identified nonlinear characteristics of rate and position limits.88 - .Simulink Actuator Blockset Each block is configurable when double clicked. With the actuator models identified.37 .

A Matlab (HTML-based) help file is also accessible through the parameters dialogue.Table 3.38. as seen in Figure 3. . The mean average of the 50% and 100% sweep deflections were incorporated into the blocks because they were quite similar. The block is left configurable to allow specification of the exact characteristics for the condition and max deflections being used for the application.89 - .23 for the maximum rates and positions.38 – Configurable Actuator Parameters The physical characteristics of the actuator from the manufacturer are also presented in the header of the block parameters dialogue. Figure 3.

2nd Order Actuator Dynamics behind Mask It can be seen that a first order Pade approximation of the time delay is used. .90 - .The blocks are all masks with the same underlying block diagram as shown in Figure 3. all of the blocks have values of zero for this parameter.39 . Figure 3. but it can still be specified within the parameters dialogue. Because no observable hysteresis was recorded.39.

40 with all actuator model validations appearing at the end of this memo within Appendix D.40 – DS8417 at 5V Time Domain Validation Figure 3. The non-linearties not accounted for and the asymmetric response. Figure 3.91 - .Verification of the identified models was accomplished by using the same sweep input fed into the actuators during bench testing. begin to show as a loss of fidelity beyond approximately 13 ~ 16 .40 shows that the response has been captured in the model which includes the rate and position limits. A typical result is shown for the DS8417 in Figure 3.

33. Comparing to known theory revealed the extent to which the maximum rate of the actuator affects the response. The inclusion of the rate limit in the model significantly improved the accuracy of the magnitude but some differences are still seen at higher frequency due to nonlinear effects that are not included. The identified actuator dynamics and nonlinear rate and position limits were used to construct a set of Simulink actuator blocks. The position and rate limits of the actuators were determined by analyzing the response to the square wave input. From the error function presented previously in Figure 3. The total deflection of the actuator and phase are not fully modeled at these higher frequencies. open-form models. Any accurate modeling beyond 5 Hz would require more accurate test and data acquisition equipment. The goal of the actuator test program was to measure a set of data that was used to identify models of the actuator dynamic response characteristics.2 Hz). This corresponds to what is seen here in the time domain. It was found that the phase characteristics for some of the actuators were not fully captured with the linear models. we see that the maximum difference in phase shows itself at 14 rad/sec (2.40. These actuator models include linear transfer functions of the input/output relationships as well as non-linear actuator properties such as actuator rate and position limits.15) with those obtained . When comparing the manufacturer listed rate limit specifications (3.rad/sec. A time domain validation of the models showed them to be accurate up to the highest frequency range of interest for flight control work. These blocks are customizable and include the manufacturer specifications. in addition to more complex nonlinear. The responses of the actuators were modeled by using CIFER to generate frequency responses and then fit 0th/2nd order transfer functions.92 - . as seen when zooming in on the response in Figure 3.

22). . it was found that the true actuator rate limits were lower than those quoted. All of the actuators demonstrated increased bandwidth. The CS-10BB at 5V and 6V and the 94091 at 6V exhibited these characteristics. weight. It is one of fastest actuators tested while remaining the 2nd lightest.93 - .from testing (3. Its performance is comparable to the much larger and heavier JR DS8417 while being much smaller. damping ratios. The smallest and fastest actuators have issues tracking the input at high frequencies. Based on bandwidth. The manufacturers’ specified maximum torques of the actuators tested varied considerably. All bench tests were conducted with the actuators unloaded and no conclusions could be made about the effect of load on the actuator response. and size the Airtronics 94091 is the best performing when run at 5V. and rate limits when powered at 6V instead of 5V. maximum rate. This is an important factor because the application will drive the amount of torque required.

In flight test however. . rate gyro is high.3. This is complimented with a pressure altimeter. All of these areas need to be modeled to have a working model of the entire system (1. and integral feedback. laser ranging equipment. This PID controller is usually adequate to control the vehicle nicely in hover and forward flight. Knowing the limitation of the components and the effects they have on the control systems is important. Ultimately. and other advanced telemetry would be needed for accurate position and landing requirements. Because these vehicles are unmanned they usually utilize their control systems in a conservative manner. rate. small-packaged.11). However. In some cases. The accelerometers are needed for determination of lateral and longitudinal speed as well as vertical speed. Expanding the envelope of operation would be beneficial to the overall performance and mission success. Magnetometers are used for heading determination. machine or synthetic vision. the small size of the vehicles leaves them susceptible to low performance sensors. GPS with selective availability (SA) off working nominally at 1 Hz was used for outer loop position control. The reliance on the highest performing. the need for cross feed in pitch and roll or pitch and yaw was deemed necessary due to high coupling and large propeller inertias.94 - .4 Sensor Identification The identification of the sensors and their respective errors is an area that requires some attention. All of the vehicles utilize inner loop controllers to stabilize the airframe. This is usually comprised of proportional. this proved unwarranted.

41 – Accelerometer Model Figure 3.1 Accelerometer Identification Modeling of typical accelerometers was done with the representative Crossbow CXL04LP3.42 shows the noise and nonlinear effects the model has while the sensor is stationary over a period of 10 minutes.3. A random number is filtered to ensure subtle changes between positive and negative. This is the accelerometer present on the Honeywell OAV. According to the manufacturer. Figure 3.41 shows how this was done. . This would be erratic and slowly switching between positive and negative. The accelerometers were modeled with white noise and random bias.4. Figure 3. Hysteresis was also identified to be no more than 0.2 g of max bias. the modules could report up 0.95 - .1 g. The noise coming into the system was identified as 10 mg RMS.

4.42 – Accelerometer Stationary Noise Model 3. The description from Inertial Science specified the noise as a function of the bandwidth at which the gyros were run.96 - .01 deg sec BW It can be seen that as the bandwidth increases.Figure 3. they are based on Inertial Science specifications. The parameters are different.43) were modeled in a similar fashion as the accelerometers. The piezoelectric rate gyros (3. This was also part of the OAV sensor package.2 Rate Gyro Identification Identification of the rate gyros was performed on the Inertial Science RRS75. The expression was: Noise = 0. the RMS of noise will as well. .

02 deg/sec. . and the max bias specified was 0.Figure 3. Figure 3.97 - .43 – Rate Gyro Model The hysteresis was identified as a 0.43 shows the model’s response to a constant 15 deg/sec input. Figure 3.1 wide dead zone.43 shows that gyros were modeled with the noise specified from the manufacturer as well as Hysteresis and a slow drift modeled as a sine wave of low frequency.

The GPS manufacturer supplied detailed metrics as well as actual test data to verify the accuracy of the model.43 – Rate Gyro Response to Constant 15 deg/sec for 10 sec 3. Figure 3.98 - .4.Figure 3.44 shows how the manufacturer’s specifications were implemented in Simulink. The actual positions north and east in feet are biased by a low frequency random number that sweeps the position about the origin to a max error of 10 feet. The random numbers are set to a variance to closely meet the 5 meter Circular Error Probability (CEP 50%) specification provided by µ−BLOX which quantifies the error by predicting that at least 50% of the GPS’s readings will lie within a . a lot of tie was spent studying the nature of the test data provided for the µ−BLOX GPS-MS1E receiver used on the Honeywell OAV.3 GPS Receiver Identification To model the GPS error and characteristics.

The module was running at a 1 Hz sampling rate.44 appears as the main green block in Figure 3.45. which shows how the speeds were combined and the heading calculated from the north and east positions.5 meter circle centered about the true position. This was modeled with a zero order hold.44 – GPS Heading and Speed Model . The speed calculation was modeled by applying a unit delay and taking the difference of the positions and dividing by the sample time.99 - . Figure 3. Figure 3. The modeling was completed for the case of Selective Availability (SA) off.

Figure 3.45 – GPS Error and Discrete Signal Model .100 - .

48 depicts a 5 sec reading at 5 gauss.4 Magnetometer Identification Identification of the magnetometers used for heading determination was performed on the Honeywell HMC 2003 used on the OAV.46 shows the modeled fluctuation of position over a 2 hour period assuming the sensor is stationary at (0. Figure 3.002 gauss wide. The magnetometers were modeled with a max noise of 0.Figure 3. . while Figure 3.46 – GPS Model Results 3.001 gauss.4. Figure 3.101 - . and a small Hysteresis 0. The only other specification modeled was the 40 microgauss resolution specified by Honeywell.0).47 shows the model.

.47 – Magnetometer Model Figure 3.4 Pressure Altimeter Identification Identification was performed on the Motorola MPX 4115A based on manufacturer specifications.48 – Magnetometer Depiction at 5 Gauss for 5 Seconds 3.4. Motorola specified a max noise error of 0.03 inches of Hg. Figure 3.49 depicts the final model.102 - .Figure 3. This was scaled to an approximate linear relationship in the standard troposphere relating pressure to altitude.

103 - .50 shows the model’s response to constant 15 foot reading for 5 seconds. Figure 3.49 – Pressure Altimeter Model Figure 3.50 – Pressure Altimeter at 15 feet for 5 seconds .Figure 3.

actuators. and flight control laws. This model was used to extract a linear state-space model about hover as well as investigate certain flying qualities.CHAPTER 4 – Flight Simulation The wealth of identification information and models were applied to a full nonlinear simulation. 4. The model used was that of the Allied Aerospace MAV.104 - . This vehicle was also in a Phase I DARPA ACTD program at the time of writing. sensors.1 Simulated Frequency Sweeps An industry supplied Simulink model was used to feed frequency sweeps in of varying parameters in order to create time history responses for use in CIFER. Although it was found to be the most troublesome in correlating the Mu derivatives with the other vehicles. . Figure 4. it was the timeliest and possessed the most information from wind tunnel testing.1 shows the top level Simulink model used. Automated sweeps were fed through the model in an attempt to simulate flight test sweeps which were unavailable and evaluate the effects of the nonlinear effects.

This is seen as the TimeKeeper subsystem block. Although no guarantee of frame sizes and determinism is made within the timer code.2.1 – Simulink MAV Model Figure 4. Output for such things as graphics and sound are provided by special software utilizing a 100 Base-T network shares the computing load. Code written to handle joystick input from the Logitech Strike Force 3D USB Joystick is also required.1 shows the special code written to handle the unique task of real-time simulation on a PC running COTS equipment.105 - . it nevertheless works quite well.Figure 4. . these subsystems combine to create a unique and powerful simulation environment shown in Figure 4. Together. Special code was written to throttle Matlab’s Simulink to run in near real-time.

Other subsystems were built up to handle the flow of state variables and the creation and formatting of CIFER specific time history text files. . the changing of parameters in a timely manner is valuable.2 – Custom PC and COTS Simulation Environment While outside the scope of this research. This sweep GUI is depicted in Figure 4.3.Figure 4. the nature of the sweep used to generate responses is extremely important. This was accomplished with special code and a graphical user interface (GUI) which handles the specification of parameters. For this reason. As it would become apparent.106 - . it suffices to say that the environment allows for some unique monitoring and evaluation of the overall simulation. Special code was also written to handle the sweep of the vehicle. and mentioned in the proper methods to frequency domain identification.

Figure 4.3 – Simulink Sweep Generator GUI Built for Sweeps Using the GUI and code in Figure 4.4 was used to simulate a sweep through the actual vehicle with all of its included sensors and nonlinear actuators.3.107 - . the sweep of Figure 4. .

The simulation environment is isolated and protected from naturally occurring oscillations and energy other than that of the sweep entered. The RUAV class of vehicles analyzed all use spinning propellers inside a duct for lift.3. all coupling is hard-wired directly into the simulation. Figure 2. Also. The parameters for this sweep can be seen as entered in the GUI in Figure 4. From the start.1.4 – Simulink GUI Generated Sweep Of note from Figure 4. gyroscopic coupling occurs between pitch and roll. The angular momentum of the spinning propeller will . by the nature of the simulation. This means that the addition of noise to break up off-axis coupling will still show high degrees of correlation to on-axis inputs. In a piloted sweep.4 is that the sweep does not have a fade in and fade out time associated with it as was seen in Chapter 2.Figure 4.108 - . This is due primarily to the fact that for a 300 second sweep. there is usually plenty of lower frequency data due to doublets and natural oscillation by the pilot. With small vehicle inertias and very high speed propellers. sweeping the vehicle proved to be problematic within Simulink. the amount of energy going in to the system in the low frequency region needs to be high.

5 – MAV Flight Test Cross Coherence between Pitch and Roll controls It is readily evident that there is a large amount of coherence at some gyroscopic mode between 2 ~ 7 rad/sec. a rolling moment is produced. Due to sign conventions in standard helicopter coordinate systems. The actual flight test data revealed correlation and cross-control coherence between the roll and pitch commands.6 0. or any identification tool to determine which input is creating which output. It is these gyroscopic effects that make simulating a sweep through the vehicle difficult.2 0. Mp will be a positive value and Lq will be negative. The reverse is true if moved in pitch.5. .109 - . This effect is apparent in the stability derivatives Mp and Lq. This was seen when the MAV vehicle was flight tested.cause a pitching moment to be exerted on the vehicle when its angular momentum vector is moved in roll. 1 COHERENCE 0.1 1 FREQUENCY (RAD/SEC) 10 100 Cross Coherence between Pitch and Roll Figure 4. They directly correlate the roll and pitch controls and make it difficult for CIFER. This is shown in Figure 4.

17 and 3.17 and 3.18) Lq = I prop Ω I xx A look at these equations shows that there would be a linear relationship between the amount of moment received in pitch or roll due to the cross control’s generated response. In fact.4. .110 - .6 shows. as Figure 4. Mp = I prop Ω I yy (Equations 3.18 from the MAV bare airframe identification are repeated here. the coupling could be calculated from what is known about the angular momentum of the propeller and would be the key to modeling and sweeping the simulation. the dynamics in pitch and roll can be separated entirely.1 Matlab Linear Model Determination Assuming that there are no other sources of coupling in pitch and roll besides gyroscopic effects. Equations 3.

Because the gyroscopic nature is known.6 – Cross Control Decoupling Block Diagram Figure 6 shows that by applying Equations 3.18. For a pitch command.17 and 3.111 - . we look at the linearization results from Matlab. The similar approach is used with the roll command.Figure 4. To illustrate how this is possible. a pitch response and a roll response are generated. equivalent control inputs are generated from the off-axis responses. it can then be applied to come up with an equivalent roll command input. .

and states. Identify inputs.Linearization of a nonlinear Simulink model is accomplished by the following steps: 1.1) (Equation 4. 2. Run the linmod function to generate quadruple matrices. & x = Fx + Gu (Equation 4.112 - . Adjust linmod minimum step size and tolerance as needed. Invoke the trim function to bring all controls to yield desired states.1 – 4. With the model trimmed.2) & y = H 0 x + H1 x ⎧ p⎫ ⎪q ⎪ ⎪ ⎪ ⎪r ⎪ ⎪ ⎪ ⎪u ⎪ ⎪ ⎪ x = y = ⎨v ⎬ ⎪ w⎪ ⎪ ⎪ ⎪φ ⎪ ⎪ ⎪ ⎪θ ⎪ ⎪ψ ⎪ ⎩ ⎭ ⎧ δ lat ⎫ ⎪δ ⎪ ⎪ lon ⎪ u=⎨ ⎬ ⎪ δ col ⎪ ⎪δ ped ⎪ ⎩ ⎭ (Equation 4.3) (Equation 4.8. 4.4) . 3. linmod was used to generate the model setup (based on states occurring as integrators in Simulink) presented in Equations 4. outputs.

.⎡ Lp ⎢M ⎢ p ⎢ Np ⎢ ⎢Xp F = ⎢ Yp ⎢ ⎢ Zp ⎢ 1 ⎢ ⎢ 0 ⎢ 0 ⎣ ⎡ Llat ⎢M ⎢ lat ⎢ N lat ⎢ ⎢ X lat G = ⎢ Ylat ⎢ ⎢ Z lat ⎢ 0 ⎢ ⎢ 0 ⎢ 0 ⎣ Lq Mq Nq Xq Yq Zq 0 1 0 Llon M lon N lon X lon Ylon Z lon 0 0 0 Lr Mr Nr Xr Yr Zr 0 0 1 Lu Mu Nu Xu Yu Zu 0 0 0 Lv Mv Nv Xv Yv Zv 0 0 0 Lw Mw Nw Xw Yw Zw 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 g 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 −g 0 0 0 0 0 0⎤ 0⎥ ⎥ 0⎥ ⎥ 0⎥ 0⎥ ⎥ 0⎥ 0⎥ ⎥ 0⎥ 0⎥ ⎦ (Equation 4.113 - .8) With this setup.5) Lcol M col N col X col Ycol Z col 0 0 0 Lped ⎤ M ped ⎥ ⎥ N ped ⎥ ⎥ X ped ⎥ Yped ⎥ ⎥ Z ped ⎥ 0 ⎥ ⎥ 0 ⎥ 0 ⎥ ⎦ (Equation 4. the derivatives were calculated and Table 3.1 and expanded upon with the results from linmod.6) H0 = I H1 = 0 (Equation 4.11 is repeated here as Table 4.7) (Equation 4.

123 .Table 4. and Flight Test Results for i-Star 9” I-Star Vehicle Derivative 9” Wind Tunnel Flight Test -0.344 (Fixed to Xu) .0.2373 0 0.2373 0 2.004 0 -0.114 - .0004 .1233 -0.5014 0 n/a n/a n/a n/a -0.157 0.5014 (Fixed to –Mu) 0 0.1 – Linmod.0027 -0.004 (Fixed to –Mu) n/a -0.0. Wind Tunnel.555 .1090 -0.4003 -0.344 .0.0.003 0 n/a n/a .0.00264 .2343 n/a n/a X lon Ylat Z col Llat M lon N ped N col .212 0.412 -0.418 .4003 -0.0.2841 n/a n/a n/a -0.00057 0 0.548 0.6261 -2.006 n/a .1416 0.1737 -0.6261 -0.1090 (Fixed to Xu) LINMOD Xu Yv Zw Lv Lp Mu Mq Mp Lq Nw Nr -0.0.1554 0.8361 1.0.0.

115 - . This is to be expected because the simulation is based on a table lookup scheme directly based on tables from the wind tunnel data. Figure 4. we can overlay the frequency response for the simulated sweep with the results of linmod. Returning now to the simulated sweeps. This shows that linmod is working and the vehicle is trimmed in a hover state.It can be seen right away that the results from linmod agree very well with the wind tunnel results. This is done in Figure 4. Once MISOSA is used in an attempt to remove the .7 illustrates how the simulated sweep breaks down due to the crosscoupling in pitch and roll.7.7 – LINMOD and Simulated Sweep Roll Frequency Response Figure 4.

but misses the nature of the response and is tainted by the fact that a good amount of energy was put into the system from the pitch coupling. Figure 4. Figure 4.which is know to be untrue. Comparing the linmod results to the FRESIPD case where all the off-axis contribution is intact reveals a better match.8 shows the dramatic change in cross-control coupling.8 – Effect of Removing Cross Control Coupling to Response . The nature of the coupling is known already so we can avoid the breakdown in coherence.116 - .contributions of pitch input on the roll response. We can then superimpose the coupling as linear feedback into the off-axis control. With the coupling removed. the result is a loss of coherence about the gyroscopic mode (2~4 rad/sec) and a stable phase characteristic. From Figure 6 it is evident that we can model and validate the system the without the pitch and roll coupling by treating each response as uncoupled.

6 would be a valid approach for correction and Figure 4. Figure 4.9 – Coupling Removed Illustrating linmod and Simulated Sweep Results Figure 4.Figure 4. linear.9 shows that the results of linmod and simulated sweep match up very well and that this method of treating the coupling as an external. The results of the linmod model. effect works from a modeling point of view.8 shows that the coherence drops dramatically when the inertial coupling is removed. This means that once the coupling is removed from the model by removing the propeller inertia. the coupling all but disappears.117 - .9 illustrates how well the results of sweeping the model and the results of linmod agree. This proves that the coupling diagram in Figure 4. the parametric . A similar approach was used for the pitch response to be compared with the actual flight test data.

.state space model determined with CIFER. This is gyroscopic coupling mode.10 – Comparison of linmod and Flight Test Pitch Responses Figure 10 shows excellent agreement between the flight test results and the linear model determination with linmod within Simulink on the wind tunnel data-based model. Figure 4.118 - . these results are deemed fairly good considering the use of limited flight test data. and the actual frequency response from flight test data is shown in Figure 4. Although there are some differences in the phase and magnitude of the response from linmod.10. It is interesting to note that all the models reveal a lack of fidelity at about 2 ~ 3 rad/sec.

Sensor performance is seen to be less than desirable due to the small packaging and weight of the available components. ducted-fan. . and wind tunnel data all may be required to ensure proper modeling techniques.119 - . this research has shed some light on some of the unique tasks and procedures for the system identification of ducted fan unmanned air vehicles. Mu and Lv. This is avoided by identifying the linear coupling and then removing it from the correlated responses. This class of vehicles also shows that the coupling of roll and pitch due to the spinning ducted fan proves troublesome during identification. simulation analysis. This model comprehensively contains sensor and high fidelity actuator models along with nonlinear bare airframe models. Overall. unmanned air vehicles has lead to the development of techniques unique to this class of vehicles.CHAPTER 5 – CONCLUSIONS The need for accurate simulation models of small scale. The use of flight test results. Taken as a whole. this research activity shows that by combining existing industry tools with new techniques a fairly high fidelity model can be constructed. All the vehicles showed that the ducted fan is vulnerable to a high degree of pitching and translation at slow speeds due to a strong effect of the lateral and longitudinal moment derivatives. Models and trends were developed by analyzing a number of different vehicles spanning almost 50 years. This is important to consider because almost all MOUT exercises require some sort of higher bandwidth maneuvering. the maximum rate of the servos was seen to have profound effects on high bandwidth performance. In the area of actuation.

Jan-Feb 1997. New York.H.. 4. M. 2. P. Mansur.T. D. L. Colin. McMichael.120 - . “Micro Air Vehicles – Toward a New Dimension in Flight”.” Proceedings of the American Helicopter Society 57th Annual Forum. Virginia Beach. D. Rotkowitz. 5. B. Frye. May 2000. J. The Aerodynamics and V/STOL Aircraft. D. Inc. DC. DARPA Program Office Web Release: Dec. Nord Aviation. H. H. 1961. & T. D. M. Tischler.T. Aug. Lazareff. 2.. Alvin H. 20. Volume I: PIO Analysis with Linear and Nonlinear Effective Vehicle Characteristics. Internal Documentation. AIAA Proceedings.. M. Montegut.) Sacks. 1997. NJ: Princeton University Press. “Rapid Prototyping and Evaluation of Control System Designs for Manned and Unmanned Applications.) James M. Hiller Helicopters. 1958.. Journal of Guidance. and Dynamics. Lipera. Myers “Unified Pilot-Induced Oscillation Theory.. May 2001.. 2003. Systems Technology. M... Army/NASA Rotorcraft Division (ARH).. 3... Michael S. “CIFER User’s Manual Volumes 1-4”. “Pilot-Induced Oscillation Analysis and Prediction with Actuator Rate Limiting". Aircraft Dynamics and Automatic Control. Princeton. “Rapid Frequency Domain Modeling Methods for UAV Flight Control Applications”. “The Micro Craft iSTAR Micro Air Vehicle: Control System Design and Testing. Graham. France.. J. M. Vol. 4. 3. Mark.) Tischler.) D.) Theodore. C. and Patangui. 6. Myers. Including Rate Limiting”. References: 1. . Colbourne. M. M. Proceedings for the 26th Annual Meeting of Institute of the Aeronautical Sciences. VA. Tischler. USAF (ret).. Graham.T.. No.” Proceedings of the American Helicopter Society 56th Annual Forum. Jan. T. May 1968. 1973.. M. Ashkenas. Wiley and Sons.. Control. McRuer. Francis. 5. McRuer.) Klyde. Klyde D. “Aerodynamics of Shrouded Propellers”. Washington. “The Flying Platform as a Research Vehicle for Ducted Propellers”. Colbourne. I. Mansur. 1. B. Mettler.BIBLIOGRAPHY Works Cited: 1. McRuer. T. McRuer.. D. D. Analysis of Nonlinear Control Systems. Col. Agardograph 126. December 1995. D.

” Proceedings of the American Helicopter Society 55th Annual Forum. Control Systems Engineering. 37/3: p. N.. Addison-Wesley 1995. and Moldoveanu V. November 2000. S. 10.. “System Identification of Small-Size Unmanned Helicopter Dynamics. Vol.S. CA.. Arlington. “Frequency-Response Method for Rotorcraft System Identification: Flight Application to BO-105 Coupled Rotor/Fuselage Dynamics.6.. B. Tischler. D. B. J. Nise.G. 47. “A Multidisciplinary Flight Control Development Environment and Its Application to a Helicopter. M. 1992. New York: McGraw-Hill. Flight Stability and Automatic Control. 8. No. January 2002. T.. pg 22-33. and Kanade. Larry Lipera. Montreal. T. 1. R. and Kanade. Biezad D. 11... Levine W. B. May 1999...” Journal of the American Helicopter Society. 7. Mettler. 3-17. Vol. Tischler M. 2nd ed.” Journal of the American Helicopter Society. American Helicopter Society International Powered Lift Conference... August 1999. Tischler. “System Identification of a SmallScale Unmanned Rotorcraft for Flight Control Design. Colbourne J. 12. “Micro Craft Ducted Air Vehicle”. M..B. No... R. Canada. 19. M. Morel. 9. 2nd Edition.C. M. Tischler. K. B. Nelson. and M. 4. B. Cheung K.” IEEE Control System Magazine. 1998. Mettler.121 - . Cauffman. ..

122 - .com Phone (UK): +44 (0) 1622 618628 Inertial Science RRS75 RRS75.honeywell.pdf Motorola MPX 4115A http://e-www.pdf Zuercherstrasse 68 P/O Box 78 8800 Thalwil Switzerland Email: info@u-blox.com/pdf/Accelerometer/LP/LP%20Accel. Inc.Manufacturer References: Crossbow CXL04LP3 http://www. (805) 499-3191.worldclassmodels.motorola.inertialscience.ch/gps/gps-ms1e/ubloxgps performance.pdf Crossbow Technology.cgi?product=servos µ−BLOX GPS-MS1E http://www.com/cgi-bin/agora/agora. Inc.com Honeywell HMC 2003 http://www.xbow.com JR Components 8700G Super Servos Saturation identified from World Class Models: http://www.com pjmoon@inertialscience.pdf Peter Moon Inertial Science.jsp?code=MPX4115&catId=M98716 .u-blox. 41 Daggett Drive San Jose. CA 95134-2109 Phone: (408) 965-3300 Fax: (408) 324-4840 Email: info@xbow.com/magnetic/datasheets/hmc2003. (805) 498-4882 Fax http://www.ssec.com/webapp/sps/prod_cat/prod_summary.

197 ⎢ ⎢ 0 ⎢ F =⎢ 0 ⎢ 0 ⎢ ⎢ 0 ⎢ 0 ⎣ ⎧ p⎫ ⎪ ⎪ y = ⎨q ⎬ ⎪r ⎪ ⎩ ⎭ ⎧ pmixer ⎫ ⎪ ⎪ u = ⎨ qmixer ⎬ ⎪ ⎪ ⎩ rmixer ⎭ 0 32.3 0 0 ⎢0 H1 = ⎢ 0 0 0 57.2623 0 0⎤ 0⎥ ⎥ 0 0⎥ ⎥ −32.123 - .17 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 .2958 0 0 ⎥ ⎢ ⎥ ⎢ 0 0 0 ⎥ ⎢ ⎥ G=⎢ 0 0 0 ⎥ ⎢ 0 .3629 ⎥ ⎣ ⎦ 0 0 0 ⎤ ⎡0 57.3⎥ ⎣ ⎦ H2 = 0 .Appendix A OAV Proposal Vehicle Identified State-Space Quadruple and Form & x = Fx + Gu & y = H1 x + H 2 x ⎧v ⎫ ⎪ p⎪ ⎪ ⎪ ⎪φ ⎪ ⎪ ⎪ x = ⎨u ⎬ ⎪q ⎪ ⎪ ⎪ ⎪θ ⎪ ⎪ ⎪ ⎩r ⎭ ⎡ 0 ⎢ −0.3013 0 ⎥ ⎢ ⎥ 0 0 ⎥ ⎢ 0 ⎢ 0 0 .17 0 ⎥ 0 0⎥ ⎥ 0 0⎥ 0 0⎥ ⎦ 0 0 0 0 ⎤ ⎡ 0 ⎢.3 0 0 ⎥ ⎥ ⎢0 0 0 0 0 0 57.

Appendix B Frequency Response Bode Plots for all Actuator Cases .124 - .

125 - .DS8417 – 5V .

DS8417 – 6V .126 - .

127 - .HS512MG – 5V .

HS512MG – 6V .128 - .

DS368 – 5V .129 - .

DS368 – 6V .130 - .

131 - .94091 – 5V .

94091 – 6V .132 - .

133 - .CS-10BB – 5V .

CS-10BB – 6V .134 - .

Appendix C Actuator Generated Transfer Function Models Bode Plot Verification .135 - .

136 - .5V .DS8417 – 100% .

137 - .DS8417 – 100% .5V .

DS8417 – 50% .138 - .5V .

6V .139 - .DS8417 – 100% .

140 - .6V .DS8417 – 50% .

141 - .HS512MG – 100% .5V .

HS512MG – 50% .142 - .5V .

HS512MG – 100% .6V .143 - .

144 - .6V .HS512MG – 50% .

5V .145 - .DS368 – 100% .

DS368 – 50% .146 - .5V .

147 - .DS368 – 100% .6V .

DS368 – 50% .148 - .6V .

94091 – 80% .149 - .5V .

94091 – 50% .5V .150 - .

151 - .94091 – 80% .6V .

94091 – 50% .152 - .6V .

153 - .CS-10BB – 100% .5V .

CS-10BB – 50% .5V .154 - .

6V .155 - .CS-10BB – 100% .

6V .156 - .CS-10BB – 50% .

Appendix D

Actuator Time Domain Verification of Final Models

- 157 -

Time Domain Verification DS8417 5V

DS8417 6V

- 158 -

94091 5V

94091 6V

- 159 -

CS-10BB 5V CS-10BB 6V .160 - .

DS368 5V DS368 6V .161 - .

162 - .HS-512MG 5V HS-512MG 6V .