1 INTRODUCTION
Aeroelastic control can be more challenging than conventional controlled structures problem, in that the dynamics of the system change dramatically with the flight conditions. It
holds the promise of significant improvements in performance: reducing the ambient vibration
level, increasing the maneuver responsiveness and stabilizing an otherwise unstable system [4].
Considering the usual mission of a large commercial aircraft, aerodynamic forces and
moments entail a substantial deformation of the elastic structures of fuselage, tailplane and
wing. Each incremental change of the structural shape yields a new aerodynamic state which
causes aeroelastic interaction. Due to the increasing sizes of transport aircrafts, the spectral
gap between flightmechanical motion and internal structural modes decreases continuously.
Hence, dynamically coupled modes of the flexible aircraft arise, which can be excited by
gust loads as well as manoeuvres and flight mechanical stability augmentation functions.
These oscillatory modes are usually characterized by weak damping without supplementary
measures. The resultant vibrations reduce the fatigue life of the structure and may lead, under
worst conditions, to a complete loss of the aircrafts controllability. In order to solve this
problem for light weight structures, new perspectives aim at an additional functionality of
the primary flight control surfaces, to ensure an active modal damping augmentation. Due to
changing flight operation conditions, as e.g. speed, and masses of the dynamic system by e.g.
fuel in the wing, the physical parameters of the present plant vary considerably. Moreover,
the required control circuit consists of a substantial nonlinear electrohydraulic servo actuation
system. Although the complete system is characterized by high order, nonlinearities and
significant parameter uncertainties, a linear controller of low order is aspired. In order to
outline a general approach, the basic plant consists of a quasistationary formulation of the
aerodynamics linked together with a mechanical airfoil model, which is connected with the
model of the electrohydraulic actuation system. Adapting its essential overall properties to a
seventh order linear multiple model system, allows the design of a robust static state feedback
which provides the desired additional active damping function.
The paper is organized as follows: The basic aeroservoelastic plant is presented in section 2.
The performance specifications and principals of the applied controller design procedure are
outlined in section 3. Section 4 presents the practical validation of the closed loop system as
well as current PFC actuation system aspects. Concluding remarks finalize this paper.
2 MODEL AGGREGATION
2.1 Aeroelastic model
Although, in practice the dynamic instability of an elastic body in an airstream usually described as flutter, is a complicated phenomenon, this approach is based on a quite simple
aeroelastic system. It exhibits some of the dominat properties, which can be met at a current
flexible wing configuration in more formidable guise. With regard to an experimental variable
camber wing of large aspect ratio, the incisive reduction leads to a twodimensional structure,
which is characterized by the center of gravity C, the elastic axis E, the aerodynamic center A
and the hinge line G (figure 1). Immediately, this structure can be adapted to the representative
k
h
q
k
A
h
h
a = a
q (y )
q
z
E
C
.
+ q + h / U
L
M
section [2], a rigid airfoil section, suspended in an airstream and with degrees of freedom in
bending and torsion by suitable suspension from two sets of springs. Assigning the geometric and inertial properties of this system to a wing cross section at threequarters of the wing
span yields a basic mechanical representative dynamic model [6]. Hence, the set of generalized
coordinates is denoted by a downward vertical displacement h of the line of attachment (E),
a leading edge up angular rotation about this line and the trailing edge downward aileron
deflection
h
iT
(1)
In further discussion the latter will be ommitted by inserting a suitable actuator representative.
With the total stiffness kh ; k , the total mass m, static unbalance SP and mass moment of inertia
JP about the generalized reference point P 2 f A; E ; C; G g, the sum of potential energy of
strain V and the kinetic energy T can be expressed as function of the generalized coordinates
and its derivatives. By assumption that small deflections are to be expected, the application of
Lagranges Equations
; dtd
(T ; V )
q
(T ; V )
q
+Q =
(2)
on this lumped parameter system in the presence of airstream [4] results in a non conservative
linear system. The mechanical equation of motion reads:
2
3
m
6
6 E
6 S
4
SG
f

SE
SG
f
JE
G
(x + a ) S G
f + Jf
G
(x + a ) S G
f + Jf
J fG
{z
7
7
7 q +
5
S
M
;L
d
0 0
k
0 0
6 h
6
6 h
7
7
6
7 6
7
6
+ 6 0 k 0 7 q = 6 M + e L
+ 6 0 d 0 7 q
4
4
4
5
5
0 0
0 0
MH


{z
}
{z
}
S
B
S
K
3
7
7
7
5
(3)
In this case the () elements in (3) will be determined by the electrohydraulic actuation system
model. The right hand side of (3) denotes the lift L, the summarised aerodynamic momentum
0 + (t ) +
h (t )
U
(4)
The coupling between the aerodynamic forces and the generalized mechanical motion leads to
a set of static gain matrices
2
;L
6
6
6 M +eL
4
MH
7
6
7
6
7 = U 6
5
4
S cL
0 0
7
7
0 0 7 q +
5
0 0
}
2 S (c cM + e cL )
2 Sf
c f cH
{z
(5)
A
B
; 2 S cL
6
6
+U 6 0
4
0

2
2 S (c cM + e cL )
2 Sf
c f cH
; S cL
S c cM + e cL
S f c f cH
{z
7
7
6
6
7 q + U 6
5
4
2
; 2 S cL
2 S (c cM + e cL )
2 Sf
c f cH
{z
3
7
7
7 0 :
5
}
F A
A
K
Assembling (3) and (5), results in the aeroelastic equation where the homogeneous aerodynamic terms have been moved to the left hand side
S s2 + B
S ;U B
A s + K
S ;U 2 K
A
M
q (s)
U 2 F A 0 :
(6)
Bearing in mind that the aileron deflection is due to the control law of the electrohydraulic
PFC actuation system, truely does not represent a third degree of freedom (DOF) within the
present system. Thus, the 3DOF system (3) must be reduced to a 2DOF plant (q ! q). The
third column elements of (6), which describe the inertia coupling between aileron motion and
wing, then must be considered as additional input. Whereas the equation represented by the
third row elements of (6) describe the load input of the PFC actuation system, the third column
m
[k g ]
U
[m
s 1 ]
contains the inertia effects of a control surface deflection on the wing. Therefore, regarding
the aeroelastic subsystem, the number of generalised coordinates (1) decrease. Defining the
structural state and subsystem input vector
h
xS
qT
q T
h h
iT
=
uS
iT
(7)
and considering the resulting 2by2 mass, damping and stiffness matrices yield the equivalent
statespace realisation
2
x S
;1 ;
;MS
KS ; U KA
2
2
6
6
6
+6
6
4
C xS + D uS ;
3
0
SG
f
; 2 U 2 S cL
G
x + a S G
f + Jf
c cM + e cL
2
2 U S (c cM + e cL )
xS (0) = 0 :
U [0, 330] m s1
25
bending
Im {s}
torsion
20
15
U
10
5
5
1
Re {s}
25
0.04
[rad s1]
0.06
[]
(8)
;U 2 S cL
U 2 S
yS
S ; U BA )
5 xS +
;M ;1 (B
0.02
0
0
100
200
300
U [m s1]
20
15
10
5
0
0
100
200
300
U [m s1]
7
7
7
7 uS
7
5
Scrutinizing the parameter dependencies of (8) leads to a significant insight. Obviously, the
eigenvalues of (8) are severely effected by a few uncertain parameters:
airstream velocity U
mass m 2 fm ; ; m +
Figure 3 outlines the corresponding operating domain. For reasons of simplicity, the latter uncertain parameter m is initially assumed to be fixed, because it varies quite slowly due to fuel
consumption. This leads to two dominant parameter dependent root locus branches within the
complex plane (figure 4(a)). When the torsion branch crosses Refsg = 0, the allocated airspeed reads U = Ucrit . The damping of this eigenmode shifts its sign and the system becomes
instable. Simultaneously, the absolute values of the poles tend to converge (figure 4(b)). As
damping decreases rapidly with speed near the critical speed Ucrit, the certification regulations
require a significant margin between Ucrit and the maximum dive speed UD of the aircraft, say
Ucrit 1:15UD.
Z (s)
Gc (s) Gd (s)
{z
2
4
Zc(s)
(9)
F (s)
GA (s)
This characteristic yields a 1by2 transfer function matrix GA (s), where Gc(s) describes the
command transfer characteristic and Gd (s) is synonymous to a complex stiffness [19]. Figure
in e r tia (c o n tr o l s u r fa c e )
lo a d s im u la tio n
a c tu a to r (a c tiv e )
s e r v o v a lv e
p r e s s u r e
s u p p ly
s h a ft
a c tu a to r (s ta n d b y )
180
135
2
4
6
90
measurement
simulation
45
0
8
10
0.1
0.2
0.3
1
2
3
frequency [Hz]
10 13
phase [deg]
magnitude [dB]
45
20
160
170
135
measurement
simulation
90
45
180
190
200
0.1
45
0.2
0.3
1
2
3
frequency [Hz]
10 13
phase [deg]
90
20
GA (s)
1
a3 s 3 + a2 s 2 + a1 s + a0
b0
f 1 s + f0
(10)
The coupling of aeroelastic and actuation system can be deduced from (3). Therefore, the actuator load leads to
F (t )
;
MH (t )
; x + a S G + J G ;
;
SG
h
f
f
f
r?
(11)
h
L
M
..
w in g
s tr u c tu r e
q
.
.
..
h..
q
U
L
M
a e r o d y n a m ic s
H
.
h
z
C
..
h. .
c o n tr o lle d
a c tu a to r
.
..
h h
iT
h
;
c 0
iT
h
;
h h
iT
:
(12)
Assuming the sensors to be ideal grants the availability of necessary state information: vertical
displacement and rate, torsion angle and rate respectively. Thus, the aeroservoelastic plant can
be summarized in a seventh order linear multi model system
x (t )
y(t )
x(0)
x0 ;
(13)
where p = [ p1; p2 ] = U ; U 2 denotes the present uncertain parameter vector [1]. The interacting quantities within the model (13) and the interdependencies of the submodels are illustrated
by the block diagram shown in figure 7. Assuming the angle of attack 0 = constant the frequency domain inputoutput modelling yields a 4by1 transfer function matrix
h
Y(s)
iT
Zc (s) ;
(14)
G(p;s)
where G(p; s) denotes the polynomial plant family [1]. Analysing the eigenvalues of the aggregate model yields the aeroelastic modes maintaining their dominant character. As the actuation system mainly operates as lowpass filter embedded within the forward path of the entire
aeroservoelastic system and has significant faster eigenvalues compared to the aeroelastic structure, the objective of the subsequent section focusses on a significant damping augmentation of
the aeroelastic modes: bending and torsion (figure 4).
q (y )
0
K (s )
3 VIBRATION CONTROL
In order to accomplish the outlined goals, the uncertain plant family requires a parametric
robust control law. Keeping pragmatic realisation aspects in mind, a low order compensator is
preferred, because an increase in order results in additional closedloop eigenvalues that must
be robustly stabilised, too [1]. The preceding analytical modelling of the aeroservoelastic plant
favours the application of the Parameter Space Design method [1]. Aiming at a minimum order
controller the basic approach consists of a static state feedback (figure 8)
K(s)
;!
k=
kh k kh k
(15)
3.1 Assumptions
With regard to the aeroelastic eigenmodes (figure 4), the dynamics of the state controlled actuation system reveal a very high bandwidth fB 12 Hz. Considering the third basic rule of
robust control [1]:
GA (s)
;!
A :=
G
1 0
(16)
If any robust stabilising k exists, subsequent examination must focus on the effect of the actuation systems command and disturbance performance. Moreover it is assumed, that the state
quantities of the simplified aeroelastic plant are completely measurable. This implies no restriction, because the corresponding states can be derived from integration of the accelerometer
signals. The principle structure of the damping augmentation feedback control loop displays
figure 8. The input of the actuation system is composed of the basic aileron deflection command signal c and the weighed state feedback ;ky (12), which acts as a compensator relating
to the critical eigenmodes of the wing structure (figure 4).
The uncertainty domain is comprised by a lower and upper boundary pi; ; pi+ ; i = 1; 2.
Even though the entire operating domain of the flexible aircraft covers U 2 f0; UDg, the
+
2
p
2
p
s ta b le
c r it
p
1
u n s ta b le
When you close a loop with actuator constraints, leave a slow system slow and
leave a fast system fast.
Moreover, the quantitative description of the desired region is dominated essentially by the
demand on the augmented damping characteristic. For the analytical modelling a structural
damping factor DS 0:02 in the absence of any airstream is assumed [6]. Hence, a moderate
minimal damping heuristically reads D ; = 0:1 covering the entire operating domain (figure
10(a)). The maximum permissible dynamic of this loop is prescribed by the bandwidth of the
PFC actuation system. In order to follow the statement of separated design, the latter should
be three to four times higher, than the maximum bandwidth of this loop with fmax 3:5 Hz.
Preserving unnecessary high loop gain the negative real part denotes
2 fS = min (jsi j) D ; 0:18 Hz ; n = 10 :
i=1:::n
U = 200
20
300
200
10
U = 200
A []
10
0
100
200
300
20
400
20
15 10
5
Re{s}
10
20
B []
U = 200
20
10
U = 200
10
20
25
30
40
25
Im{s}
Im{s}
100
20
15 10
5
Re{s}
Finally, the complete pole region is outlined in figure 10(a), it is bounded by the edge and
overlapped by the open loop aeroelastic root loci.
k :=
km
m=1
where km
km
2 K
\
n
)
( j)
n = 10 :
(17)
j=1
3.5 Verification
Bearing in mind that the outlined design procedure only represents a necessary condition
requires an adjacent verification of the closed loop performance. Selecting k = k ((+) shown
in figure 10(b)) as representative candidate yields the closed loop eigenvalues in figure 10(c).
Although the pole zero map reveals that G(s; p ( j); k ) ; j 2 [1; n] meets the requirements, a
nonlinear simulation is essential for verification, including the actuation system characteristics.
Figure 11 shows the system response following a step input 0 . For U = Ucrit the open loop
system executes coupled bending/torsion oscillations as expected. By means of the robust state
feedback controller a well damped time response is achieved.
U = Ucrit
U = Ucrit
, [ o ], h [101 m]
bending
torsion
aileron
deflection
1
0.5
, [ o ], h [101 m]
0.5
bending
torsion
aileron
deflection
1.5
1
0
2
t
[s]
2
0
2
t
[s]
2 0
1 5
B
B
B
z (P )
1
to r s io n
z
z
H z
H z
I m {s }
= 3 H
= 5 H
= 8 H
= 1 2
= 1 5
[2 0 0 , 3 3 0 ] m
1 0
b e n d in g
5
0
P F C
2 0
a c t. s y s .
1 5
1 0
R e {s }
5
0
trajectory with increasing actuator performance. For the proportional controlled actuation
system the actuator bandwidth is similar to the torsional eigenfrequency of the aeroelastic
structure. In this case an aeroelastic feedback controller in unable to stabilize the system for
the whole flight regime considered.
4 VALIDATION
To demonstrate the feasibility of the previously developped damping augmentation control
loop, an implementation of the outlined control law has been performed on the test rig. This included the wing structure, sensors and aerodynamics. The PFC actuation system test rig (figure
5) has been upgraded to a realtime system. Two usual personal computers with Intel Pentium
III processors at fT = 450 MHz, which are linked together in targethost configuration, provide
the universal realtime simulation platform based on Matlab/Simulink. The robust state controlled actuation system operates hardwareintheloop within a virtual dynamic wing structure simulation in the presence of quasistationary aerodynamics. A modular architecture of the
simulation model simplifies the transfer to the test setup, as only the actuator model has to be
replaced by the test rig I/O module. The actuator control law as well as the damping augmenta1
0 .5
to r s io n
b e n d in g
0 .5
1
h [m ]
q [d e g ]
z [d e g ]
1 .5
2
a ile r o n
d e fle c t io n
1
0
3
t [s ]
0 .5
0
0 .5
h [m ] b e n d in g
q [d e g ] to r s io n
z [d e g ] a ile r o n d e fle c tio n
1
1 .5
2
0
1
2
3
t [s ]
Ucrit
tion feedback is realized within the simulation environment. The validation focusses especially
on two aspects: practical functionality, that means confirmation of the simulation results with
physical actuators in the loop. Beyond that, further examination of the interaction of a proportional SISO controlled actuator and the presented damping augmentation control loop should
be done. In order to ensure comparability to the simulation results (figure 11), the measured
time response applies to the initial step in angle of attack at t = 1 s. Figure 13 illustrates the
superior effect of damping augmentation by the robust state controlled actuation system. By
fast actuation system dynamics the compensation signal (t ) effectively operates as an active
oscillation damper, whereas the significant phase lag of a conventional controlled PFC actuation system causes further exitation of the coupled oscillatory motion h; . These experimental
results confirm the conclusions already gained from linear analysis (figure 12).
5 CONCLUDING REMARKS
It has been demonstrated that active damping augmentation by primary flight control surfaces
could efficiently effect the weakly damped aeroelastic wing motions. The deduction of the
aeroservoelastic synthesis model from principles of physics led to an analytical plant description. The resulting uncertain seventh order multimodelsystem comprised originally stable
and unstable representatives. As physically motivated boundaries could be determined for the
uncertain parameters, Ackermann s Parameter Space Design method yielded a set of robust stabilizing state feedback vectors. A significant damping augmentation was verified by simulation
with the actuation system hardwareintheloop. Practical investigations revealed the considerable influence of the actuation systems performance. Especially, the common SISO controller
of current electrohydraulic actuation systems caused an unsufficient phase lag, which led to
instability of the entire system. The aeroelastic compensation feedback grants a fast rejection
of exogeneous perturbations in connection with a double bandwidth than applied in actual
actuation systems. Finally, it has been demonstrated that the implemented controller design
method was capable of shaping a suitable actuator controller as well as an aeroelastic feedback
which simultaneously provides damping augmentation throughout the entire uncertain parameter set. The ongoing investigations focus on elaborating enhanced models of current flexible
wing structures and examinating optimal sensor locations. Future work will also aime at applying suitable order reduction methods to preserve a state controller which mainly effects the
critical modes of the aircraft and can be transferred to an equivalent output controller.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
The author thanks DaimlerChrysler Aerospace Airbus GmbH for promoting and supporting the
project Aktuatorregelung in aeroelastischer Umgebung.
0
a
A
B
B
c
cL ; cM ; cH
C
e
D
D
G
G
h
J
A;B
k
k
K
L
M
MH
M
m
p
p
q
q
Q
r?
s
S
S
T
U
UD
u
V
x
x
y
[ ]
[ ]
[m]
;]
;]
[;]
[
[m]
;]
;]
[m]
;]
;]
[;]
[
[
[Hz]
;]
;]
[;]
[ ]
[ ]
[kg m 2 ]
;]
[kg/s 2 ]
;]
;]
[N]
[N m]
[N m]
[
;]
[m]
;
;]
[;]
[;]
[;]
[ ]
[
[kg/m 3 ]
[m]
[rad/s]
[kg m]
[m 2 ]
[Nm]
[m/s]
[m/s]
;]
[Nm]
[m]
;
;
[ ]
[ ]
[ ]
;]
Indices
(Note: The listed symbols may be used as lower as well as upper index.)
;
+
A
B
c
crit
d
f
h
max
min
P
S
;]
;]
;]
;]
;]
;]
;]
;]
;]
;]
;]
;]
;]
;]
;]
;]
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
lower boundary
upper boundary
angle of attack
aerodynamic
bandwidth
command
critical
disturbance
flap, aileron
angular rotation
vertical displacement
maximum
minimum
reference point P 2 fA; E ; C; Gg
structural
aileron deflection
Abbreviations
A
C
E
G
DOF
I/O
PFC
SISO
TUHH
;]
;]
;]
;]
;]
;]
;]
;]
;]
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
aerodynamic center
center of gravity
elastic axis
hinge line
degrees of freedom
inputoutput
primary flight control
single input single output
Technical University of HamburgHarburg
REFERENCES
[1] Ackermann, J. et. al.: Robust Control Systems with Uncertain Physical Parameters. London: Springer, 1993.
[2] Bisplinghoff, R.L.; Ashley, H.; Halfman, R.L.: Aeroelasticity. Mineola: Dover Publications, 1996.
[3] Bossche, D.; El Sherif, F. et. al.: Airbus A330/340 Primary Flight Control System Aileron Actuation. SAE Committee A6. Atlanta/USA, 1991.
[4] Dowell, E.H.(Ed.): A Modern Course in Aeroelasticity. 3 rd edition. Dordrecht: Kluwer, 1995.
[5] Foersching, H.W.: Einfluss servomechanischer Steuerungs und Stabilitaetssysteme auf das Flatterverhalten von Flugzeugen. Z. Flugwiss. 21 (1973), S.2231, 1973.
[6] Foersching, H.W.: Grundlagen der Aeroelastik. Berlin: Springer, 1974.
[7] Gelb, A.; Vander Velde, W.E.: MultipleInput Describing Functions and Nonlinear system Design. New York: McGraw Hill, 1968.
[8] Green, W.L.: Aircraft Hydraulic Systems. Chichester: J. Wiley & Sons, 1985.
[9] Guillon, M.: Hydraulic Servo systems Analysis and Design. London: Butterworths, 1968.
[10] Kliffken, M.G.; Kruse, U.: Robust Control of Electro Hydraulic Actuators in Primary Flight Controls. atAutomatisierungstechnik
11/45, 1997.
[11] Kiffken, M.G.: Nichtlineare strukturelle Regelung, angewandt auf Stellsysteme der Flugsteuerung. PhD thesis, Technical University of
HamburgHarburg. FortschrittRep. No.737, Series 8. Duesseldorf: VDIVerlag, 1999.
[12] Kliffken, M.G.; Gojny, M.H.: A Unified Control Strategy for Flight Control Actuators. Recent Advances in Aerospace Hydraulics.
Toulouse/France, 1998.
[13] Kliffken, M.G.; Gojny, M.H.: Numerical Robust Implementation of SampledData Controllers for Flight Control Actuators. at
Automatisierungstechnik 9/47, 1999.
[14] MacKinnon, A; Stollery, J.L..: Variable Camber Wing. COA Rep.9304, Cranfield University, 1993.
[15] Lind, R; Brenner M.: Robust Aeroservoelastic Stability Analysis. London: Springer, 1999.
[16] Middleton, R.H.; Goodwin G.C.: Digital Control and Estimation A Unified Approach. Englewood Cliffs: PrenticeHall, 1990.
[17] N.N.: Donnees Aerodynamiques Aileron Hinge Moments. Aerospatiale, Toulouse, 1991. Note Aerodynamique 445.343.
[18] Raymond, E.T.; Chenoweth, C.C.: Aircraft Flight Control Actuation System Design. Warrendale: SAE, 1993.
[19] Vaughan, N.D.; Raval, R.: The Use of an Impedance Analysis of an Hydraulic Servo to Investigate Control Compensation for Flutter
Suppression. Recent Advances in Aerospace Hydraulics. Toulouse/France, 1998.