Design of Robust Pitch Controller for

an Aircraft Autopilot

Zeashan H. Khan, Faisal Saud,

Iftikhar Makhdoom & Naveed Ur Rehman
N E S C O M

Motivation

Dynamic model of an airplane (derived from the flight

mechanics equations) does not perfectly represent
the behavior of the real aircraft.
It is necessary to deal with the associated model
uncertainties.
Model perturbations (inside the control BW)
High frequency unmodeled/neglected dynamics
(beyond the control BW)

Plant Model

Longitudinal model of a medium category UAV

Flight condition is 60 Kts airspeed & 1000 ft altitude
Longitudinal states are Forward speed (u), Downward speed (w), Pitch
rate (q), Pitch angle () and Height (h).
Control inputs are Elevator deflection (e) and throttle (t)
Output is Pitch angle ()
In state space is as follows:
- 0.1131 0.4761 - 1.4781
- 0.4871 - 2.9936 28.5681

A = - 0.0563 - 1.1940 - 9.7514

0
0
1.0

0.0496 - 0.9988
0
C =[0

- 9.7951
- 0.4766
0.0482
0
30.8680

0 ] & D = [0

0]

0
0
0

0
0

0.2593 193.1017
- 5.0120

B = - 28.3890 - 9.6551

0
0

0
0

Poles of the plant

 Two dynamics are represented in PZ map
 Phugoid, the lower frequency dynamics has poor damping while
 Short period, the higher frequency dynamics has good damping
P1 = -6.3598 4.751i (SP)
P2 = -0.0693 0.2403i (PH)

Singular Values of OL Plant

Robust Stabilization
McFarlane Glover LSDP







Modern H optimization approach

Incorporate simple performance/robustness tradeoff
Based on concepts from classical Bode plot methods
Multivariable
Robust-stability guaranteed in face of plant perturbations
and uncertainties

Robust Stabilization





Classical gain and phase margins are unreliable indicators

of robust stability when defined for each channel (or loop),
taken one at a time, because simultaneous perturbations in
more than one loop are not then catered for.
It is common to model uncertainty by norm bounded
dynamic matrix perturbations.
Robustness levels can then be quantified in terms of the
maximum singular values of various closed loop transfer
functions.
Consider the stabilization of a plant G, which has a
normalized left coprime factorization:
G = M-1N-------- (1)

H robust stabilization problem

+
u

M
+

H robust stabilization problem

A perturbed plant model can then be written as [1].

G p = ( M + M ) 1 ( N + N )

------- (2)

where M and N are stable unknown transfer functions, which

represent the uncertainty in the nominal plant model G. The
objective of robust stabilization is to stabilize not only the
nominal model G, but also a family of perturbed plants defined
by

G p = ( M + M ) 1 ( N + N ) :|| [ N M ] || < ------- (3)

H robust stabilization problem

where >0 is the stability margin. To maximize this stability
margin is the problem of robust stabilization of normalized
coprime factor plant description.
The stability probability is robust if and only if the nominal
feedback system is stable and

K
1
1
= ( I GK ) M
I

------- (4)

where is the H norm from to [u y] and is the sensitivity

function for this feedback arrangement.

H robust stabilization problem

The lowest achievable value of and the corresponding max
stability margin are given by Glover and McFarlane as [1]:

min =

1
max

= 1 || [ N M ] ||

2
H

1 / 2

= (1 + ( XZ )) 1 / 2

--- (5)

where || . ||H denotes Hankel norm, denotes the spectral

radius (maximum eigenvalue), and for a minimal state space
realization (A, B, C, D) of G, Z is the unique positive definite
solution to the algebraic Ricatti Equation (ARE).
(A-BS-1DTC)Z+Z(A-BS-1DTC)T-ZCTR-1CZ+BS-1BT = 0 --- (6)
where R = I+DDT, S = I+DTD

H robust stabilization problem

where X is the unique positive definite solution of the
following ARE:
(A-BS-1DTC)TX+X(A-BS-1DTC)-XBS-1BTX+CTR-1C = 0 --- (7)
Notice that the formulas simplify considerably for a strictly
proper plant, i.e. when D = 0. A controller (the "central"
controller in McFarlane and Glover), which guarantees that
K
I

( I GK )

For a specified >min is given by

A+ BF + 2 (LT )1 ZCT (C + DF)
K =
BT X

F = S 1(DTC + BT X )
S

L = (1 2 )I + XZ

2 (LT )1 ZCT
T

H Loop Shaping
The loop shaping design procedure is based on robust stabilization combined
with the classical loop shaping, as proposed by McFarlane and Glover [1].

Step:1 Augmented the open loop plant with pre and post
compensators to give a desired shape to the singular values
of the open loop frequency response

W1

G
Augmented System

W2

Singular values of Gs (dB)

W1 and W2 chosen so weighted plant has

good shape
max sing. value
Roll-off < 20 dB/dec

high gain
at low
freq
freq
Low gain at
high freq
Singular
values close
at cross over
min sing. value

H controller design
Step:2 The resulting shaped plant is robustly stabilized with
respect to coprime factor uncertainty using optimization. An
important advantage is that no problem dependent
uncertainty modeling or weight selection is required in the
second step

W1(s)

G(s)
Ks(s)

optimal
controller

W2(s)

Step 3

Final controller K(s) = W1 .K .W2

G(s)

W1
K(s)

Ks(s)

W2

Controller
 Design index value = 1.48, which indicates a good design
W1= (26 s + 5)/(52 s + 1)
W2=1
 H controller is designed using MATLAB.
- 480.3555
13.2486

23.6818
A=
1.3361
20.3196

- 0.3611
C = [ 0.0004

0.0140 - 0.2014

0.8414 - 0.0000

- 2.9540 28.4367 - 34.3497

- 0.9468 - 10.5594 - 17.7700
0
- 0.9988
- 0.0039

0.2576

0.0000 - 0.2401
0.0000 - 1.3720

1.0000 - 4.7656
0
0
0
- 94.8223
0
0
0.0131
1.6515 - 0.0000 - 0.1684

0.0158 - 0.0524 - 0.9847

0.0000

0.5965

]&

D = [0

1.3361 - 383.8044
- 31.404 13.7346

- 3.3822 18.9098
B=

- 4.7656 1.3361
- 125.69 20.27

1.4053 - 0.3610

Closed loop SV

Figure: 3 SV of plant with weighting functions

Figure: 4 SV of closed loop plant

Pitch angle control

PI controller
(G.M = 16.2 dB & P.M = 153 deg)

Figure: 5 Step response of closed loop Gthe2de

Figure: 6 Bode plot of closed loop Gthe2de

Response with Disturbance

Figure: 7 Simulink model for disturbance injection

Comparison
disturbance (deg)

6
4
2
0

10

20

30

40

50

Time(sec)

y (deg)

10
0
PI controller

-10

H controller

-20

10

20
30
Time (sec)

40

Figure: 8 Comparison of PID and controller

50

References
[1] D.C McFarlane and K. Glover, A loop shaping design
procedure using synthesis, 1992.
[2] Mangiacasale, Flight Mechanics of a Airplane, Milano,
Italy.
[3] Magni, Bennani & Terlouw, Robust Flight Control: A
design Challenge, Garteur.
[4] Robust Control Toolbox, Mathworks Inc.
[5] Ferreres, A practical approach to Robustness Analysis
with Aeronautical applications

Thank you!