AIAA Guidance, Navigation, and Control Conference and Exhibit AIAA 2005-6256

15 - 18 August 2005, San Francisco, California

Modeling for Control of a Generic Airbreathing Hypersonic
Vehicle

Maj Mirmirani* and Chivey Wu*
California State University, Los Angeles
5151 State University Dr.
Los Angeles, CA 90032, United States

Andrew Clark† and Sangbum Choi†
Multidisciplinary Flight Dynamics & Control Lab.
California State University, Los Angeles
5151 State University Dr.
Los Angeles, CA 90032, United States

and

Richard Colgren‡
University of Kansas
1530 West 15th St.
Lawrence, KS 66045, United States

The unique airframe-engine configuration of airbreathing hypersonic flight vehicles
(AHFV) pose a significant challenge for design of controllers for these vehicles. The
Airframe-engine configuration, the wide range of speed and the extreme flight conditions
result in significant coupling among various dynamics and modeling uncertainties. There is
almost a complete absence of models that adequately include and quantify the unique
attributes for this class of vehicles. This paper describes a high-fidelity CFD-based model of
a full scale generic airbreathing hypersonic flight vehicle under development at the
Multidisciplinary Flight Dynamics and Control Laboratory (MFDCLab,
www.calstatela.edu/centers/mfdclab) at California State University, Los Angeles (CSULA).
The vehicle (CSULA-GHV), which has an integrated airframe-propulsion system
configuration, resembles an actual test vehicle. The vehicle is specifically designed to study
the challenges associated with modeling and control of airbreathing hypersonic vehicles and
to investigate and quantify the couplings between the aerodynamics, the propulsion system,
the structural dynamics, and the control system. The configuration of the vehicle and its
dimensions are developed based on 2-D compressible flow theory, and a set of mission
requirements broadly accepted for a hypersonic cruise vehicle intended for both space
access and military applications. Analytical aerodynamic calculations are conducted
assuming a cruising condition of Mach 10 at an altitude of 30 km. The 2-D oblique shock
theory is used to predict the shock wave angles, the pressure on the frontal surface, and the
Mach number at the engine inlet. The scramjet engine is simply modeled by a 1-D
compressible flow with heating. The exit flow is modeled using 2-D expansion wave theory to
predict the pressure on the rear surface. The unique aspect of this study is the use of coupled
simulations using multi-physic software in conjunction with theory enabling quantification
of the couplings which are broadly ignored in models used for control system design.
Simulation results developed to date are presented.

*
Professors, Mechanical Engineering Department, AIAA Member

Research Associates, MFDCLab, AIAA Member

Professor, Aerospace Engineering Department, AIAA Member

1
American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics

Copyright © 2005 by the American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics, Inc. All rights reserved.

or a hybrid numerical-analytic approach. Air Force funded the Scramjet Incremental Flight Test Vehicle (IFTV) program [10].S. the U. In spite of the enormous amount of effort and achievements in many aspects. the scramjet’s technical hurdles of fuel injection and mixing. History of Hypersonic Flight Research in the United States Hypersonic airbreathing propulsion has been studied by NASA for more than 60 years. since the evolvement of the hydrocarbon-fueled conventional ramjet (CRJ) engine concept [9]. Models that incorporate the interactions and the salient features of these vehicles and takes account of the integrated airframe- engine-control system are needed [4]. Air Force and NASA initiated the National Aerospace Plane (NASP) program. In April 1965. The NASP was a full-scale operational prototype vehicle system development program rather than an incremental technology program. and the wide range of speeds at which these aircraft fly pose significant control challenges.[12] . An extensive list of references is included in the bibliography section.[15].[6]. a major hypersonic flight research program including flight tests. and propulsion system. structure.[17]-[20]. and nozzle performance. and the control system. NASP incorporated extensive development of rectangular airframe-integrated scramjet technology. In the late 1940s. the paper starts with a brief description of various modeling. The simplifying assumptions made in almost all existing literature must be relaxed to obtain the accuracy required for flight test environment applications. The longitudinal dynamics of these aircraft is unstable in pitch mode and non-minimum phase. Meanwhile. The configuration and dimensions are developed based on 2-D compressible flow theory. Following the theoretical results. This paper describes the preliminary design and modeling of a 2-D model of a generic vehicle. To put our approach in context.[22] . Such a unique high-fidelity model built around a set of requirements identified for an actual future vehicle will have tremendous value for the hypersonic research community in many ways. and uses in-stream struts as housings for distributed fuel injectors. wall cooling and frictional losses. To obtain such high-fidelity models for this class of vehicles. (CSULA-GHV). comparisons of the performances of CRJ and scramjet engines determined that the scramjet engine would outperform the CRJ somewhere in the speed range of Mach 6-8. the NASP program was terminated in January 1995 due to lack of funding. the feasibility of developing a scramjet engine attracted the attention of the propulsion community. In 1964. The focus of the NASP program was to build an airbreathing single-stage-to-orbit (SSTO) experimental aircraft. one resembling an actual test vehicle such as NASA’s X-43 and DARPA’s FALCON. the X-30.[11]. 2 American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics . will require full utilization of computational tools combined with the underlying physics. including a large number of newly developed modular experimental engines which were tested at NASA Langley Research Center (LRC) in the Mach 4-7 regime [10]. characterized by the tight integration of airframe and the propulsion system make the modeling and control of these vehicles very challenging. The couplings between the airframe. the thermal effects of hypersonic speeds. without having conducted flight tests. regeneratively cooled. the CFD Simulation data obtained to date at MFDCLab are presented. and would be superior at higher speeds [10]. were outlined.[21]. The purpose of the program was to demonstrate vehicle acceleration from a boosted speed of 5400 ft/s to at least 6000 ft/s using four hydrogen-fueled scramjet modules located around the central vehicle body. This concept utilizes the inlet sidewalls to produce extra horizontal compression in addition to the vertical forebody compression (Figure 1). for which little test data are available. In the 1970s. I. propulsion.[13]. It then proceeds to describe the design of a 2-D full-scale AHFV model based on oblique shock and expansion wave theories. In the early ‘60s. flight-weight scramjet research engine on the X-15 rocket-powered research plane [13]-[16] . The model is developed to investigate and quantify the couplings between aerodynamics. which aimed to flight test a complete. II. and control challenges of hypersonic flight and the state of knowledge in this field. Introduction THE dynamics of airbreathing Hypersonic Flight Vehicles (AHFVs). NASA began focus on the rectangular airframe-integrated engine configuration [10]. The aeroelastic effects for the full-scale vehicle become significant effects due to the specific structural design requirements and the high aerothermodynamic loading. An effort is underway at the Multidisciplinary Flight Dynamics and Control Laboratory at California State University.[10]. Los Angeles in collaboration with the University of Kansas and the University of Southern California to develop a high fidelity simulation model for a full-scale generic airbreathing hypersonic vehicle.S. Modeling and control techniques used for conventional aircraft are inadequate for AHFVs. and a set of mission requirements broadly accepted for a hypersonic cruise vehicle intended for both space access and military applications. In 1986 the U. which incorporates various dynamics of the vehicle and their interactions. which would be used for hypersonic flight testing and demonstration. NASA began the Hypersonic Research Engine (HRE) program. structure.

whose architecture is the same as that of the operational vehicle and whose size is large enough to operate overall airbreathing propulsion speeds. Although the first trial in June 2001 was unsuccessful due to a booster failure. X-43A is a 12-foot-long hydrogen-powered experimental vehicle with a five- foot wingspan (Figure 2).[5]. Besides the aerothermodynamic effects of hypersonic speeds.[44]. aeroelastic effects and/or aircraft structure vibration will result in mass-flow spillage.[10]. The current plans focus on the development and flight testing of small-scale (X-43A. Designing reliable and effective AHFV controllers requires careful consideration of these vehicles’ unique dynamic characteristics. the propulsion system. NASA started the Hyper-X program [9].[46]. the Air Force Hydrocarbon Scramjet Engine Technology (HyTech) program [10]. X-43C. it is expected to be incorporated with hypersonic transportation and. Figure 1. combined cycle demonstrator vehicle with combined turbojet and dual-mode scramjet power. The Flow Features on an AHFV Fore Body Among the other three demonstrator concepts. the primary lift generating surface is the body itself. which differ in major ways from those of typical aircraft. One primary challenge is flight controller design. X-43A (NASA LRC Archive) The U. Figure 2. It has been used in three scramjet- powered and un-powered flight tests at Mach 7 and Mach 10. III. X-43D is a concept for flight testing hydrogen-fueled scramjet engines at velocities of Mach 15 or greater. X-43B is a 35'-45' reusable.[32].[30]-[33] as an initial stage of its current hypersonic plans. X-43C is a 16-foot- long hydrocarbon-powered vehicle utilizing a three-module engine which will accelerate the vehicle from Mach 5 to Mach 7 during the flight test. Control Challenges of Hypersonic Flight The NASP and the Hyper-X programs identified key technological obstacles to the feasibility of hypersonic transportation. in the X-43B and X-43C projects of the Hyper-X program.[45] .S Air Force is currently conducting another scramjet development program.In 1996. However. X-43D) and one full-scale demonstrator vehicles [32]. in particular. Finally a large-scale reusable demonstrator (LSRD) vehicle. is planned to be built and flight tested. the next two flight tests were successfully conducted at Mach 7 in March 2004 and at Mach 10 in November 2004. In hypersonic aircraft configurations with tightly integrated airframe scramjet engine [4]. the optimum operating condition will be based on the shockwave formed on the leading edge to be captured by the inlet lip (Figure 1). Although HyTech is currently missile-oriented. because 3 American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics . “smart scaled” from a 200-foot operational concept. For example. the strong interactions between the aerodynamics. and the elastic airframe make the explicit characterization of flight dynamics of the AHFVs highly challenging [4]. which are yet to be flight-tested. X-43B.[45].

On the other hand. The inlet sidewalls produce extra horizontal compression in addition to the vertical fore-body compression. hypersonic speeds cause the so-called “path-attitude decoupling” phenomenon. these vehicles will require a variable geometry inlet to operate at or near optimum aerodynamic and propulsion conditions at all times. many aerodynamic and propulsion characteristics still remain uncertain and are hard to predict due to the almost complete lack of flight test data and the inadequacy of ground test facilities. IV. These flows may also affect the lateral dynamics if they are laterally non-uniform. stable high-performance flight.[10]. Moreover. one must accept unstable configurations at hypersonic speeds in pitch mode [4]. The tightly integrated airframe propulsion system configuration needed for efficient AHF also affects landing/take-off performance and increases transonic drag. If the low-speed static stability margins are desired to be kept in the conventional range. the engine inlet must capture as much of the airflow under the AHFV surface as it is possible. The engine-airframe integration causes significant interaction between the propulsion system and vehicle aerodynamics [4]. Effects of Hypersonic Speeds At hypersonic speeds. and structural dynamics are highly interactive. This is done through the integration of the engine with the airframe so that the inlet area is contiguous with the vehicle undersurface [4]. Therefore. hence the control bandwidths for flight and propulsion systems cannot be separated clearly. the inlet flow pressure acting on the fore-body generates a nose-up pitching moment while the external nozzle flow generates a nose-down pitching moment. Hence the actual flight path significantly lags the changes in the pitch attitude at hypersonic speeds. the dynamic characteristics of the hypersonic vehicle vary more significantly over the flight envelope than other aircraft due to the extreme range of operating conditions and the rapid change of mass distribution.the bow shock angle changes as the structure deforms. shock waves. VII. [46]-[48]. Since the hydrogen and the scooped oxygen have less time to mix and react in supersonic combustion.[50]. Airframe . and the pitching moment coefficient increase with the Mach number [4]. resulting in the engine operating in off-design conditions. These effects result from the diverging angle between the nozzle and the ground plane [55]. stability. Scramjet Engine Dynamics The Scramjet engines operate by supersonic combustion of fuel in an air stream compressed by the aircraft's forward speed. the loading on certain aircraft surfaces. and drag. In particular. airbreathing scramjet engines burn oxygen scooped from the atmosphere.[52]. 4 American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics .[53].[55]. Variations due to Speed Range The dynamic characteristics.[54]. As most high-performance aircraft AHFVs are non-minimum phase and unstable in pitch. High temperatures on the control surfaces place constraints on control surface deflection limits.Propulsion . Using hydrogen (or hydrocarbon) as the basic fuel for combustion.[45].[13]. Considering the longitudinal dynamics. differing significantly from the results of the inviscid characteristics of the aerofoil. Ground testing at NASA LRC that examined subsonic AHFV behavior close to the ground plane demonstrated that turning the power off causes a sharp increase in lift while turning the power on causes negative lift effect together with a large increase in the pitching moment.[23]. propulsion system. changing the effective aerodynamic surface significantly. the temperatures behind the normal shock waves.Structural Dynamic Interactions In AHFVs with airframe-integrated scramjet engines. The following sections list the major issues characterizing AHFV flight dynamics and control challenges in more detail. the combustor needs to be longer. and performance of AHFVs vary over the flight envelope more than other aircraft due to their wide range of operating conditions and mass distributions. V. The external nozzle configuration for good hypersonic performance causes flow separation at lower speeds and a steep increase in drag in transonic regime. which is the resistance of the high momentum of the AHFV to the changes in the desired flight path [51]. On the other hand. the high temperature gas effects of hypersonic flow regimes thicken the boundary layer around the aerofoil. In addition. the aerothermodynamic properties of the air deviate from the ideal gas behavior with more significant impact at Mach 6 and faster [4]. Moreover. the aerodynamics. This change as well as the flow separation and reattachment phenomena lead to viscous behavior in terms of pressure distribution. in order to produce sufficient thrust for hypersonic flight. The variations due to wide speed ranges of a complete flight and the sensitivity of the AHF dynamics to the flight conditions. VI.[49]. requires a highly integrated guidance scheme flight control system to provide a robust.[18].

The dynamics with the lower bandwidth includes the states that can be measured during the flight. elevon defections over a wide frequency range. Modeling Airbreathing Hypersonic Flight Dynamics Despite The traditional development of equations of motion for flight vehicles is based on the Newtonian approach that excludes the elastic degrees of freedom [64]. angle of attack.[58]-[63]. and pitch rate. The majority of the AHF dynamic models in the literature consider only the longitudinal motion. the elastic mode variations. since the low structural vibration frequencies are close to those of the rigid body as a result of the requirement for very low structural weight [4].[7]. The coupling between 5 American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics . wind-tunnel data. However. The mass property variations can also be considered to be a modeling uncertainty. Robust control design and compensation algorithms involving intelligent and adaptive flight control are necessary. Hence.[56].[65]. the non-uniform aerodynamic heating in AHF. [69]. Accurate determination of the structural elastic modes is critical for flight control. the AOA and the dynamic pressure need to be greater than certain values in order to provide acceptable performance. and flight test data. however. unconventional composite materials used in building the airframe. The propulsion system perturbations that indirectly impact the longitudinal dynamics. A widely used longitudinal model in the literature is the rigid-body model of Reference [68]. which are determined by the angle of attack (AOA) and the dynamic pressure as well as the free stream characteristics [4]. The winged-cone configuration is of course significantly different from the rectangular airframe- integrated engine configuration of AHFVs and the model is derived neglecting the coupling effects among aerodynamics. propulsion. The AOA and the dynamic pressure also affect the combustion kinetics and the exhaust flow/free stream shear layer. and aeroelasticity. Similarly. Design and development of hypersonic aircraft. In general. the non-uniform pressure distribution.[57]. The capture and compression of the flow through the inlet is determined by the properties of the bow shock wave under the vehicle forebody. and the uncertainties explained above comprise some of these unpredictable behaviors. A common approach used in modeling for control design assumes that the aircraft dynamics can be decomposed into two distinct parts with sufficiently separated bandwidths: dynamics of the “measured” states. the aerodynamics affects the propulsion system in several ways. and their contributions to the overall dynamics of the vehicle are in general hard to measure and model. The sensitivity of the performance to the AOA and the dynamic pressure is small at high Mach numbers and increases as the speed decreases. In the case of AHFVs for example. for the winged-cone accelerator configuration. Databases and Uncertainties Despite the unprecedented capabilities of the powerful CFD codes available today. Bending of the fore-body and aft- body together with propagations throughout the entire airframe affect the flows through the inlet and the exhaust and hence the aerodynamic performance. the “unmeasured” states. and therefore have been combined and treated as uncertainties in the control design formulation.g. The frequency domain numerical analysis in Reference [4] shows that the thrust and the pressure at the engine inlet are significantly affected by pitching control surface. the purely structural dynamics models for aeroelastic analysis exclude rigid-body modes [66]. and structural dynamics. and the shell-type structure of AHFVs cause significant variations and uncertainties in the shapes and natural frequencies of the elastic modes [5]. e.[67]. Another major source of dynamic coupling in AHFVs is the aeroelastic modes. At the other end of the spectrum. Unpredictable aerodynamic and thermodynamic behaviors due to hypersonic speed and aerodynamics- propulsion-structural dynamics interactions constitute another uncertainty source [4]. must proceed without the benefit of a vast statistical database of actual flight test data.. Air Force DATCOM. especially for precise control of the AOA. The effects of couplings and the impact of the propulsive perturbations on the pitching moment are formulated in Reference [57] as additive uncertainties and incorporated into a linear model of the vehicle.[57]. conventional control methodologies that depend on relatively accurate models and a reliable aerodynamic database are not suitable. the development of conventional aircraft and the design of their control systems depend on the use of empirical estimates of aerodynamic and engine data obtained from sources such as U. Elastic-rigid body interactions are also significant in AHFVs. altitude.S. At low speeds. VIII. and dynamics of the “unmeasured” states. The analysis indicates a similar effect of the fuel flow rate and diffuser area ratio changes on the AHFV pitch rate. the effect of propulsion and its interaction with aerodynamics of the vehicle has not been included in the development of models and/or control algorithms. The insufficiency of the flight test data and the inadequacy of the ground test facilities lead to aerodynamic and propulsion uncertainties. many of the critical aerodynamic characteristics are hard to predict while the ability to experimentally determine them is limited. with few exceptions. such as vehicle’s velocity. IX. propulsion. The effects of structural dynamics.

An LQ design is used in Reference [71]. none has been completely implemented in a real AHFV — primarily because the AHF technology is in its developmental and testing stages. [26] where an analytical aero-propulsive/aeroelastic hypersonic-vehicle model derived for the rectangular AHFV configuration with airframe-integrated scramjet. algorithm-based approaches [89]. maintaining the design condition during the engine test. The adaptive structure makes the controller efficient in dealing with the parametric uncertainties. GHAME is composed of five data sets: two aerodynamic models (one based on empirical data sources and the other on analytical programs). two aero-thermodynamic models (a simple convection-radiation heat flux and equilibrium model and a model obtained through analytical programs). Robust AHF control approaches include linear model-based and nonlinear model-based. They merely concentrate on the application of specific techniques to the existing hypersonic flight dynamic models. they are the most suitable approach. developed as a Boeing/NASA partnership. To this end. X. XI.[77] techniques such as H∞ and µ-synthesis are applied to the AHFV models with structured and unstructured uncertainties. Since robust AHF control addresses the modeling uncertainties and the trade-off between robustness and performance. In all the above designs. These techniques are applied to the longitudinal AHF in Reference [71] and [72]. and a simplified switching turbojet- ramjet-scramjet engine model. A more and realistic mathematical model for AHFV longitudinal dynamics can be found in Reference [5]. the classical robust control [76]. and provided a controlled descent [33]. such a controller achieved successful separation from the booster rocket. A recent alternative to the nonlinear controller of Reference [72] is the adaptive sliding mode control approach of Reference [83]. The aerodynamic models are based on a rigid body configuration with geometry similar to that of the conic accelerator [68]. Nonetheless. [78]. The adaptive scheme is based on the inverse dynamics of the original system.[69]. The control design problem becomes significantly more complex when lateral-directional characteristics are included. time. Any supervisor design should take into account the significant variations in the AHF system due to wide speed ranges. Main categories of this group of works are model reference adaptive control approach for linear models [85]. the concept of stochastic robustness has been introduced in Reference [73]-[75] for nonlinear systems. have been tested via flight simulations 6 American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics . optimal and sub-optimal control approaches [86]-[88]. The literature includes a number of other efforts to control hypersonic flight. and the aim of the flight tests conducted or planned thus far has been to analyze newly developed AHFV components and quantify the AHF dynamics rather than to perform a complete guided flight. little or no attention is given to the airframe/engine coupling. the use of an efficient flight controller is one of the key technologies for flight demonstration of the scramjet-powered hypersonic aircraft. In the linear model-based approach. and neural network approaches [91]. genetic-based. The simulation results demonstrate the effectiveness of the H∞-based eigenstructure assignment design compared to the traditional Shapiro design. The resultant controllers have the common property of being highly conservative with undesirable compromise in performance. This model focuses on dynamic couplings and control system integration. carrying information about the flexible modes. Nonlinear models are more suitable for representing the coupling effects.[92]. The states that are not available for measurement are estimated using a nonlinear sliding mode observer. [84]. An extensive computational model for a Generic Hypersonic Aerodynamic Model Example (GHAME) is presented in Reference [45]. and is improved upon in Reference [72] using a triangular model and imposing nonlinear dynamic inversion techniques [82]. The focus of the approach in Reference [81] is decoupling the phugoid and short-period modes. a new adaptive sliding mode technique for a class of MIMO nonlinear systems including the nonlinear models is presented. No operational vehicle yet exists. Airbreathing Hypersonic Flight Control The available literature in the AHF control focuses on the longitudinal dynamics — ignoring its lateral-directional counterpart. NASA AHFV Programs Flight Control Designs Although a significant number of AHFV control schemes have been designed and tested via simulations. As an alternative to the classical robustness theory developed for linear systems. the controller applies to a certain flight condition and hence a supervisor such as a gain scheduling scheme is needed. The control laws to perform these tasks. Included among the linear model-based approaches are the robust control design for the rigid conic accelerator configuration in Reference [69] and [57].and/or parameter-varying approaches appear as a viable scheme or as a companions to the gain scheduling schemes. However. fuzzy control approaches [90]. In this work. In the Hyper-X program.elastic and rigid structure modes is included in the frequency domain by defining a cover function.

with a high level of detail over a wide speed range (Mach 0. XIII. reliance on high-fidelity simulation models such as the one presented in this paper is the only viable alternative. This extended scheme is a potential candidate for AHF control. the aerodynamic and propulsive control laws to be applied need to be interactive. This goal could be broadened to include the original single-state-to-orbit (SSTO) and triple-stage-to-orbit (TSTO) space access task of NASP. A feedforward compensator suppresses the effects of the propulsion system and dynamic pressure variations on the AHFV. Elastic mode effects are circumvented in the controller design as a part of the gain margin requirements.[32]. Development of a 2-D Longitudinal AHF Cruise Vehicle Model An effort is underway at the Multidisciplinary Flight Dynamics and Control Laboratory at California State University. Based on a set of requirements broadly identified for an actual AHFV. The final goal could be using AHFVs efficiently to follow arbitrary paths similar to conventional aircraft in a wide speed span including hypersonic ranges. avoiding the use of a separate structural filter. and the lack of broad flight data. and to follow steering commands from the guidance system to maintain a desired descent trajectory after the tests are completed. In order to implement the control designs based on the integrated models. a full-scale generic airbreathing hypersonic vehicle (CSULA-GHV) is under development. These control effectors should be commanded via an integrated mechanism that processes the combined information from the aerodynamic and propulsive measurements. and return to base without refueling at altitudes 7 American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics . deliver a payload of 20. wide operation ranges. one resembling an actual test vehicle. A method to exploit the a priori information about the system parameter in designing controllers for time-varying systems is presented in Reference [111]. New Directions in Control Design After performing a sufficient number of flight tests with demonstrator vehicles. Considering the speed of variations in the AHF system.5 degrees during the test flights. The airframe-integrated scramjet engine concept forms the basis of the technology of current and foreseen AHF programs. [39]-[42]. however. [58]. Until that time. the next step in AHF research will be guided AHFs that follow certain prescribed paths. an essential task is to enhance and optimize the propulsion systems developed for this configuration. [37]. Time.and parameter-varying approaches can be used to fill the gaps in the gain scheduling schemes. a supervisor to handle the variations in the complete flight envelope should be designed. The two most dominant sources of uncertainty in AHF are the lack of flight test/wind tunnel data and the commonly ignored coupling effects. These control designs. Engine control effectors controlling fuel flow. and the exit area of the internal nozzle should be in use along with the conventional control surfaces [16]. there is still a lack of tests to guarantee global stability of gain-scheduled systems in general [104]-[107]. The basic goal of the flight control system in Hyper- X was to maintain the desired AOA and bank angle to within ±0. To perform a fully guided AHF design. The CSULA-GHV is designed to the requirements of a global-reach vehicle that must travel to a target halfway around the world in less than two hours. XII. The former can only be addressed in time. This method is used to design effective adaptive controllers for linear time-varying systems in Reference [111]-[114]. The controller parameters are gain scheduled with AOA and Mach number. recently developed time. Moreover. [96]. The supervisory scheme will be required to perform the transitions between these flight conditions. Los Angeles in collaboration with the University of Kansas (UK) and the University of Southern California (USC) to develop a high-fidelity simulation model for a full-scale generic airbreathing hypersonic vehicle.[96]. and is the focal configuration of all major AHF research centers worldwide [10].[97]. using available unclassified (open literature) information. The Hyper-X flight control scheme design uses classical linear control techniques [93] rather than advanced nonlinear laws [33]. through performing ground and flight tests.and stability margin analyses before being used in the flight tests. The conventional methodology used in aerospace applications is gain scheduling. Considering the airframe-integrated engine configuration. but in spite of its wide use and the recent interest of the academic research community. the control scheme of Reference [114] can be extended to a class of nonlinear systems. are in general based on the assumption that the variations are slow in a certain sense and they do not exploit the a priori information about the variation structures.000 pounds.and parameter-varying methods have already been used in designing controllers for various aerospace systems [108]-[110]. The bandwidth of some of these dynamics may limit one’s ability to effectively control the vehicle. Lead-lag compensators are used to improve stability margins. The control design is based on a linear model including rigid-body modes and second-order actuation modes.3 to Mach 20). Ongoing studies and discussions on data collection via experiments and numerical techniques can be found in Reference [36]. the inlet/diffuser area ratio.

Shock and Expansion Waves in a Generic Hypersonic Vehicle Configuration A flight Mach number. the model is developed to investigate and quantify the couplings between aerodynamics. Specifically. The CSULA-GHV concept vehicle (Figure 4) has an integrated airframe propulsion system configuration resembling that of the X-43. structure. Main aerodynamic coefficients. a scramjet engine with a constant cross-section area and another trailing wedged surface. and is designed to study the unique challenges associated with the modeling and control of airbreathing hypersonic vehicles. which predicts the flow rate of hydrogen fuel required for a chosen design Mach number at the engine exit. the upper body of the vehicle is simply a flat surface. and Mach number at the engine inlet as described in the following section. The vehicle is designed to the requirements broadly accepted for a hypersonic cruise vehicle intended for both space access and military applications. CD . As a first cut a 2-D version of the GHV has been designed for development of a longitudinal model for control design application. As shown in Figure 3. and engine thrust are then estimated by summation of these pressure forces and momentum change of the airflow. the length of the engine 9. which is kept at zero angle of attack for simplicity. Longitudinal control is affected by elevators and the engine thrust. The unique aspect of this study however is the coupled aerodynamics propulsion simulations of the vehicle dynamics in conjunction with the theory which enable uncovering and quantifying the couplings which are broadly ignored in models used for control system design in the past. and the set of mission requirements described above. A. The exit flow is modeled by 2-D expansion wave theory. The vehicle has an integrated airframe-propulsion system configuration. and the engine cross-section area is A = 0. Figure 3. propulsion.5 m. and CM are obtained using analytical aerodynamic calculations assuming a cruising condition of Mach 10 at an altitude of 30 km. which can be used to predict the pressure on the rear surface. Resultant aerodynamic forces.6 m (height) by 1 m (span). The multi-Physic software FLUENT is used to simulate the vehicle coupled aero-propulsion and aero-structural-propulsion simulations to develop a high fidelity model. The wave angle (β1) of the oblique shock generated from the leading edge. The scramjet engine is simply modeled by a 1-D compressible flow with heating. The longitudinal equations of motion ensued will include both an inverse-square-law gravitational model and a centripetal acceleration that results from a curved flight path. The configuration and dimensions are developed based on 2-D compressible flow theory. 2-D GHV Configuration Design The 2-D configuration for the hypersonic vehicle is designed based on inviscid compressible flow theory of a perfect gas. total lift and drag. the Mach number (M2). The leading edge angle is arbitrary chosen to be θ = 50.near the outer limit of the Earth’s atmosphere. and a corrected specific heat ratio γ = 1. and control systems. CL . pressure (P2) and temperature (T2) behind the shock can be determined by the oblique shock relations: ( ) ( ) 2 − 1⎞⎠ 2 ⋅ cot β 1 ⋅ ⎛⎝ M1 2 ⋅ sin β 1 tan( θ) M1 ⋅ ( γ + cos ( 2 ⋅ β 1) ) + 2 2 (1) γ−1 1+ ( ( )) ⋅ M1 ⋅ sin β 1 2 ( M2 ⋅ sin β 1 − θ ) 2 ( ( ) ) 2 − γ −2 1 γ ⋅ M1 ⋅ sin β 1 (2) 8 American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics . and the trailing surface acts as a propulsive surface. pressure on the frontal surface. respectively) is considered. The frontal wedged surface serves as a diffuser for the flow entering the scramjet.36 for air at hypersonic speeds is assumed. M1 = 10 at an altitude of 30 km (where the standard atmospheric temperature and pressure are T1 = 227 K and P1 = 1172 Pa. The lower side consists of a frontal wedged surface. The 2-D oblique shock theory is used to predict shock wave angles.

pressure (P3) and temperature (T3) at the engine inlet are similarly determined by the oblique shock relations. ⎡ ⎤ P2 := P1 ⋅ ⎢ 1 + ⎣ 2γ ⎡ ( ⋅ M1 ⋅ sin β 1 γ+1 ⎣ 2 − 1⎤ ⎥ ⎦⎦ ( )) (3) P2 ⎡ 2 + ( γ − 1) ⋅ ( M ⋅ sin( β ) ) 2 ⎤ ⋅⎢ ⎥ 1 1 T2 := T1 ⋅ ⎢ ( 2 ⎥ ⎣ γ + 1) ⋅ ( M1 ⋅ sin( β 1) ) ⎦ P1 (4) The leading edge of the lower surface of the engine inlet intercepts the first oblique shock to capture the entire air flow rate and to deflect the flow back by 50 when entering the scramjet. The wave angle (β2) of the oblique shock reflected from the lower leading edge of the engine inlet. the Mach number (M3). so that the shock reflection would terminate at the upper edge of the engine inlet. The required flow rate of hydrogen fuel (with lower heating value LHV = 120 MJ/kg) can then be estimated. the total temperature change. γ−1 (9) ⎛⎜ M 2 − 1 ⎞ 4 ν4 G ⋅ atan⎜ − atan⎛⎝ M4 2 − 1 ⎞⎠ ⎝ G ⎠ (10) ⎛⎜ M 2 − 1 ⎞ 5 ν 4 + θ5 G ⋅ atan⎜ − atan⎛⎝ M5 2 − 1 ⎞⎠ ⎝ G ⎠ (11) µ5 asin ⎜ ⎛ 1 ⎞ ⎝ M5 ⎠ (12) γ γ −1 ⎛ γ−1 ⎞ P04 P4 ⋅ ⎜ 1 + ⋅ M4 2 ⎝ 2 ⎠ (13) 9 American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics . one-dimensional compressible flow with heat addition. Selecting a Mach number (M4 = 5) at the exit of the scramjet.084 kJ/kg-K is the corrected specific heat of air at hypersonic speed. that is. and the flow through the scramjet would become one-dimensional. (8) The expansion waves’ angles (µ4 . the Mach number (M5) and pressure (P5) along the trailing surface are simply determined by the two-dimensional expansion wave theory: µ4 asin ⎜ ⎛ 1 ⎞ γ+1 G ⎝ M4 ⎠ . µ5) extending from the upper edge of the engine exit. the air flow rate and the rate of heat added can be determined from the Rayleigh Flow relations: 2 ⎛ 1+ γ⋅M M4 ⎞ ⎡ 2 + ( γ − 1) ⋅ M4 ⎤ 2 2 T03 ⋅ ⎜ ⋅⎢ ⎥ 3 T04 ⋅ ⎜ ⎢ 2⎥ ⎠ ⎣ 2 + ( γ − 1) ⋅ M3 ⎦ 2 M3 ⎝ 1 + γ ⋅ M4 (5) γ m3 P3 ⋅ A ⋅ M3 ⋅ R ⋅ T3 (6) Q ( m3 ⋅ Cp ⋅ T04 − T03 ) (7) where Cp = 1. The combustion process in the scramjet is simply modeled by Rayleigh flow theory. and the total mass flow rate exiting the scramjet can be found: Q mf m4 m3 + mf LHV .

08 m4 = 129. The 2-D data will serve as an initial design for further modifications and design iterations into a 3-D configuration (Figure 4).6 m). Comparison of CFD and Analytical Results Parallel to the analytical results described above Computational Fluid Dynamics (CFD) simulations have been conducted using Fluent. estimated cruise weight and centre of gravity of the vehicle all seem to be reasonable.359 V4 = 2864 M5 = 6.130 P5 = 4.66 V3 = 2907 M4 = 5. The model has been simulated over AoA between negative and positive five degrees at intervals of one degree.16 kN.06 mfuel = 0.42 β1 = 9. elevon deflection angles between negative and positive five degree 10 American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics . The slope of the trailing surface is found to be θ5 = 110. which dictates the vehicle weight at the beginning of steady level flight. The GHV was modeled using a coupled solver with inviscid flow. the density calculated from ideal gas law. and is found to be at 48% aft from the leading edge.02 V5 = 2965 With the wave angles known and the dimensions of the scramjet engine already specified. the geometry of the entire vehicle can be determined.83 m3 = 128. It is seen that 2-D inviscid flow analysis shows that it is possible to generate positive excess thrust with this simple configuration. The overall length is 33.66 V2 = 2945 M3 = 7.42 m.450 P2 = 3.0 µ4 = 11. Figure 4.530 P4 = 18. γ 1−γ ⎛ γ−1 ⎞ P5 P04 ⋅ ⎜ 1 + ⋅ M5 2 ⎝ 2 ⎠ (14) where ν4 is the Prandtl-Meyer function and P04 is the total pressure at the engine exit. the propulsion model and the coupling between the two.21 β2 = 10. Numerical results of these computations are summarized in the following table: Mach Wave Pressures Flow Rates Velocities Numbers Angles (kPa) (kg/s) (m/s) M2 = 8.37 m and the total height is 2. and a net normal force (Lift) = 28 kN.45 m2 = 128. The location of center of mass of the vehicle is determined by a balance of pitching moments for trimmed flight. including the height of the engine (0. specific heat constant from the kinetic theory. Applying the momentum equations results in a net axial force (Thrust–Drag) = 2. a multi-physics CFD code capable of simulating compressible flow coupled with combustion to obtain the basic aerodynamic properties of the 2-D vehicle. The dimensions. 2-D GHV Preliminary Simulation Results 1. Initial Configuration B.3 µ5 = 9.430 P3 = 8.

04 -5 -4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4 5 Angle of Attack (Degrees) Angle of Attack (Degrees) Figure 6 .001 -0. On comparison with the data from the theory.002 -0. drag.at intervals of 2.006 CSULA.5° ± 1° 2. CFD Data 0. 0.5 degrees and over six different fuel flow rate (0 kg/s. including coefficients of lift. fuel flow rates and elevon angles. CFD-Generated Aerodynamic data Basic aerodynamic data. then the engine through the range of angles of attack and fuel flow rates and finally the aftbody through the range of angles of attack. Mach 7. pitching moment as well as thrust data have been generated using Fluent.02 Coefficient of Lift 0.5 kg/s. Mach Number Contours for Different Angles of Attack Propulsion integration was implemented by using a one-step finite rate chemistry model and injecting hydrogen fuel from the upper surface of the scramjet as a boundary condition.005 0.01 -0.0 kg/s.52 ° 10° ± 1° 5° 14. X43A. Figure 5. The figure shows the CFD results for the contours of mach number.05 NASA. the following comparison can be made with the shockwave from the leading edge.42 ° 14.03 0 -0. the aircraft was split into three sections and simulated separately.03 Coefficient Of Pitching Moment 0. 1. The preliminary results are shown below and are compared with published data when available. A major challenge in the CFD simulations is the inclusion of shock wave interactions and the combustion coupling. 0.06 0. Although using multi-step chemistry models would yield results with greater accuracy it has been shown in [126] that a one-step model can provide general agreement with experimental data and is therefore adopted in this study. Wind Tunnel Data 0. at the optimum design condition of zero-degree-AoA and at the off-designs of five- degree-AoA and negative-five-degree-AoA.04 0.25 kg/s and 1.52 ° -10° ± 1° 0° 9. 0. Wind Tunnel Data CSULA. Mach 7. X-43A.75 kg/s. The preliminary computer simulation results are shown in Figure 5. CFD Data NASA.5 kg/s).003 0. the forebody was run without combustion through the range of angles of attack.004 0.02 0. A more complete aerodynamic data base is currently under development.Lift and Pitching Moment Coefficient Comparison between CFD Data for CSULA-GHV (Power Off) at Mach 10 and Wind Tunnel Data for X-43 at Mach 7 [36] 11 American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics . Table 1 Results form 2-D Shock Wave Theory Angle of Attack Theoretical Wave Angle CFD Wave Angle -5 ° -9. To reduce the computational demand.01 0 -5 -4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4 5 0. 1.

CFD Data.008 -0.01 Angle of Attack (Degrees) Angle of Attack (Degrees) Thrust Coefficient for Power On Excess Thrust Coefficient for Power On 12 American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics .003 0. Drag Coefficient and L/D for Power Off Coefficient of Lift Coefficient of Drag 0.01 0. Coefficient of Drag L/D 0.002 0 -0. CFD Data.03 0. Mach 7.03 0. CFD Data.5 kg/s Fuel 1.0 kg/s Fuel 1. Lift and pitching moment coefficient data from CFD simulations of the CSULA-GHV at Mach 10 and wind tunnel data for the X-43 at Mach 7 [36] are shown on the same graph in Figure 6.002 -0. 1.0 kg/s Fuel 0.0 kg/s Fuel 1.0 kg/s Fuel 1.002 -0.02 Coefficient of Lift 0. 1. X-43A.04 0.5 kg/s Fuel NASA. However.5 kg/s Fuel 0.5 kg/s Fuel CSULA.CD) 0.5 kg/s Fuel 1.02 0.004 Coefficient of Drag 0.002 0.003 -5 0.25 0 0.007 0.5 kg/s Fuel 1.5 kg/s Fuel 0.004 -0.0005 -0.01 0 -5 -4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4 5 0.25 0 -0.001 0.04 -5 -4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4 5 Angle of Attack (Degrees) Angle of Attack (Degrees) Lift Coefficient for Power On Drag Coefficient for Power On Effect of Fuel Rate on Thrust Excess Thrust Coefficient (CT .002 -10 0.009 15 0.001 0 -5 -4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4 5 Excess Thrust Coefficient Thrust Coefficient 0.008 10 0.002 0.006 CSULA.004 -5 -4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4 5 -0.001 -0.0015 0.0005 -0.004 -5 -4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4 5 0.06 0. 0.006 -0.005 0. Wind Tunnel Data 0.001 0 -5 -4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4 5 -15 Angle of Attack (Degrees) Angle of Attack (Degrees) Figure 7.006 -0.004 0. As it can be seen there is good agreement in the range of values.0015 -0.006 5 Coefficient of Drag 0. the data comparison is not meant to be an exact match because the CSULA-GHV and the X-43 are subtly different vehicles.005 L/D 0 0.5 kg/s Fuel 0.05 CSULA.

004 Coefficient Of Pitching Moment 5 0.0015 Coefficient of Lift 0.003 0.03 -0.005 -15 -0.04 -0. This is caused by the aftbody surface being pressurized by the expanding scramjet exhaust flow.002 Angle of Attack (Degrees) Angle of Attack (Degrees) L/D.004 -10 -0.006 Angle of Attack (Degrees) Angle of Attack (Degrees) Figure 9.0 kg/s Fuel 0. dE = -5 degrees Excess Thrust Coefficient.003 0.003 L/D 0 0.02 -0.0035 0.002 -5 -0. Most notable is the effect of the scramjet propulsion on the pitching moment in causing a substantial nose down pitching increment (shown in Figure 10). Fuel Flow Rate = 1.002 10 0. dE = -5 degrees Coefficient of Pitching Moment.0015 -0.001 Angle of Attack (Degrees) Angle of Attack (Degrees) L/D for Power On Pitch Moment Coefficient for Power On Figure 8.05 -0.5 kg/s Fuel 1.003 -0.01 0.001 L/D 0 -5 -4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4 5 -0.5 kg/s Fuel 1. 13 American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics . L/D Coefficient of Pitching Moment About 40% Aircraft Length 15 0.03 0.05 0. A simple analysis of the actual forces on airframe-engine integrated configuration shown in Figure 11 can be used to explain this effect. dE= -5 degrees 15 0.002 -5 -4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4 5 -5 0. Aerodynamic Data for Trim Condition: Elevon Deflection = -5 degrees. dE = -5 degrees 0.5 kg/s Fuel 1. Preliminary Aerodynamic Data for Power On Coefficient of Lift.5 kg/s Fuel 10 0.005 0.01 0 -5 -4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4 5 -0.0025 0.001 5 0 Excess Thrust Coefficient -5 -4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4 5 -0.001 0 0.001 -10 0 -5 -4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4 5 -15 -0.5 kg/s 3.0 kg/s Fuel 1.04 0.001 -0.0005 -0. Coupling Effects – Aerodynamic & Propulsion Effects on Pitching Moment An examination of the Power off and Power on graphs reveals uncovers the coupling between aerodynamic properties and propulsion.06 0.02 0.002 Coefficient Of Pitching Moment 0.0005 -5 -4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4 5 -0.

006 Power Off Power On .001 Angle of Attack (Degrees) Figure 10 .Lift Forces for Leading and Trailing Edge for Aerodynamics Forces both With and Without Propulsion Coupling Effects of Angle of Attack on Thrust It is well known that maximum thrust is generated when the bow shock created by the leading edge is impinged on the lip of the engine inlet and the entire aerodynamic pressure is captured. Of more interesting note. Effect of Scramjet on Lift An examination of the list curves in Power on condition (Figure 8) suggests that the lift generated is insensitive to the flow fuel flow rate or the thrust as the curves essentially collapse into a single graph for all angles of attack. A review of the lift forces generated in the engine compartment and the exhaust nozzle area (Figure 12) indicate that the lift force is also coupled to the propulsion. 0.1. of the vehicle. is the different fall-off rate for positive and negative angles of attack on the thrust curves. This is mainly due to the combustor being placed approximately near the C.004 Coefficient Of Pitching Moment 0. again a direct result of the engine airframe integrated configuration. However.001 0 -5 -4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4 5 -0. In power on condition with combustion effects. However. Thrust Coefficient for Power On that the maximum thrust is indeed generated at zero degrees angle of attack. In fact.5 kg/s Fuel Power On . the coupling is not detectable from the overall lift curves.005 Power On .0 kg/s Fuel 0. the fall-off rate is higher at positive angles of attack because the shock wave from the leading edge misses the engine cowl whereas it penetrates deeper into the engine up to the negative five degrees AoA when the leading edge is aligned with the flow and there is no shockwave.Aerodynamics & Propulsion Coupling Effects on Pitching Moment In power off condition.G. with aerodynamic forces acting only the lift force on the leading edge is significantly greater than that on the trailing edge.5 kg/s Fuel 0. It can be seen from Figure 8. the difference between these forces are reduced to a great extent.1.002 0.003 0. Figure 11 . since one drops with the increase in AoA almost at the same rate as the other is increased. which at the first glance may appear paradoxical. the GHV configuration design at AoA zero is on that basis. It may appear that at high angles of attach there is a higher air flow rate through the engine and hence more power.0. (Figure 12 depicts the lift force on both the engine components and post engine surfaces) 14 American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics .

5 kg/s Fuel Post Engine . 1. pp. which based on a set of broadly accepted requirements for such a vehicle.0 kg/s Fuel 60000 Post Engine . K.S. DC. pp. D.The Effect of Propulsion on Lift Force both In the Engine and After the Engine at Different Fuel Flow Rates XIV. Conclusion AHFV configurations with airframe integrated scramjets form the basis for the current and foreseen AHF technology programs. Therefore.0. Jan. K. Vol. F49620-01-1-0489 and by NASA Dryden Flight Research Center under Grant No. and Schmidt. As a first cut a 2-D model has been developed and presented in this paper. Vol. Hypersonic Technology for Military Applications.1. 1995 [2] National Research Council. and Dynamics. 18. [7] Chavez. California. D. References [1] Scientific Advisory Board. Control. “Integrated Development of the Equations of Motion for Elastic Hypersonic Flight Vehicles. pp.” Proceedings of the American Control Conference. 100000 Post Engine . D. and Schmidt. NAG4-175.1. “Dynamics and control of hypersonic vehicles. K. Dec.0. 1995. a multi-physic code are presented and coupling effects are discussed. On the other hand. H. 17.. San Diego. Jan.. United States Air Force. Coupled CFD data generated using Fluent. and Chavez. “Unified Approach to H2 and H∞ Optimal Control of a Hypersonic Vehicle. 87-95.. F. 15 American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics .L. K. Control. Control. For the second it is necessary to develop accurate simulation models quantify and elaborate the couplings and include them in the system models. “Uncertainty modeling for multivariable-control robustness analysis of elastic high-speed vehicles. 1999. DC. The hypersonic flight control law design is also associated with significant uncertainty. “Analytical aeropropulsive/aeroelastic hypersonic-vehicle model with dynamic analysis. [6] Bilimoria. Acknowledgments This project was supported by the United States Air Force under Grant No.1. and Dynamics.. F.” AIAA Journal of Guidance. June 1999. [5] Chavez. which does not address all major dynamic characteristics of AHFVs like X-30 or X-43A.5 kg/s Fuel 80000 Engine Components ... 73-81. New World Vistas: Air and Space Power for 21st Century.5 kg/s Fuel 40000 Lift Force (N) 20000 0 -5 -4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4 5 -20000 -40000 -60000 -80000 Angle of Attack (Degrees) Figure 12 . National Academy Press. The first will be handled in time by flight tests. 1994. Mamich. A comprehensive list of references is included. The correct tradeoff between the comprehensiveness of a model and complexity of designing/ implementing a controller based is the key in successful control system design.0 kg/s Fuel Engine Components . CSULA- GHV. The two most dominant sources of uncertainty in AHF are the lack of sufficient data and ignored coupling effects. Vol.0 kg/s Fuel Engine Components . 22.” AIAA Paper 91-5057. Washington. R. F.0 kg/s Fuel Post Engine . A study has been initiated at Cal State LA in collaboration with USC and University of Kansas to develop in- house a CFD-based high-fidelity model for a full-scale airbreathing generic hypersonic cruise vehicle. Banda. D. and Schmidt. D. No.1.S. The integration challenge for the 1990s. and Buffington. 1308-1319. and Dynamics. new designs based on realistic models that address all the major issues in AHF dynamics are needed..5 kg/s Engine Components . 1989 [3] Naidu. No. Washington. S. J. R... D..” AIAA Journal of Guidance.” AIAA Journal of Guidance. almost all of the existing control designs in the open literature are based on the rigid winged-cone accelerator configuration. [4] Schmidt. K. 6. Nov. No. 1. The GHV resembles NASA’s X- 43. 1991.

pp. and Lovell. [10] Curran.. Vol. Reubush. “Dynamics and control of hypersonic aeropropulsive/aeroelastic vehicles. No. H. 2001. Jan. T. 1961. C. 1991. P. Small. R. D. J.” AIAA Paper 86-0159. and Engelund. Daley. and Mackay. 460-466. K.. Martin.” 10th AIAA/NAL/NASD-ISAS International Space Planes and Hypersonic Systems and Technologies Conference.. C. The Hypersonic Revolution. Air Force History and Museums Program.. W. “Computational Fluid Dynamics Pre-diction of Hyper-X Stage Separation Aerodynamics. S. “Scramjet Engines: The first forty years. L. Cockrell Jr. C. Nov. “Hyper-X: Flight validation of hypersonic air-breathing technology. 1986. 6.. P. [34] Rock.. R.” ISABE 99-7214. J. [16] Thompson. [21] Schweikart. L.. M.. Vol.. NASA's Hyper-X Scramjet Engine Ground Test Program. V.. J.” NASA TM X-2895.. M. J. The Hypersonic Revolution..” AIAA Journal of Spacecraft and Rockets. No. Vol. K. No. L. 1998.” AIAA Journal of Spacecraft and Rockets.. Jan. G.” NASA ARC 92-2. and Schmidt. Oxford. 38.. 6. “The NASA Hyper-X program. “Flight Dynamics and Control of Air-Breathing Hypersonic Vehicles: Review and New Directions. D. [37] Engelund. Rogers. No. K. and Guy. [18] Weidner. Air Force History and Museums Program. 1157-1164. Holland. D. 803-810. R. P. L. D. 1994. McClinton. H. 6. Nov. and Anderson. and Mehta. V. 1999. A.” ISOABE Paper 99-7215..” NACA TN 4386. No. F. “Supersonic combustion research at Langley. L..” 11th AIAA/AAAF International Conference. D.. A. 1138-1148. J. 828-835. pp. V. D. J.” High Mach Number Air- breathing Engines. I: From Max Valier to Project PRIME (1924-1967)... J. 2001. No.. 2001. Sept. J. 1993. Pratt.. [22] Voland. The Hypersonic Revolution. and Crawford.. (1964-1986).. Nov. 1999. K. C.. J. [35] Engelund.” AIAA Journal of Spacecraft and Rockets. T. K. 1992 [17] Henry. Lallman. C.. Rausch. and Reukauf. ISABE 97-7024. J.. D. “NASA's advanced space transportation hypersonic program. Hypersonic Air-breathing Propulsion. editors.. E. “Propulsion System Air.. pp. D. Cockrell Jr. 33 16 American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics .. 801-802. D. and Anderson. W. Capriotti. Voland.. editor. U.. D. “Hyper-X program status. K. 811-819.. [15] Hallion. 38. G. J. and Bittner. A. R. D. R. March 1997. [32] Hueter. [25] Schmidt. No. Sept. D.. Sep. Woods. “Experimental supersonic combustion research at NASA Langley.. 1997. 729-734. Bolling AFB. D. May 1977. 158-164. C.K. pp. Dilley. [27] Schmidt. and Hermann. C. A. Dec.. 17.” 48th International Astronautical Congress. 1992. Y. Washington. D. 6. McClinton. T. and Ioannou.32 [26] Chavez. K. “Flight control laws for NASA's Hyper-X research vehicle. McMinn. C. R. April 1995 [23] McRuer. C. C. 2.. D.. E. J. Nov. Rausch. and Dynamics. K. U. pp.. C. editor. 1958. Y. [28] Schmidt. [13] Heiser. R. DC. “Comparison of hypersonic ramjet engines with subsonic and supersonic combustion. Vol.. At the Edge of Space: The X-15 Flight Program. 2002. 2001. L. “Mission performance and design sensitivities of air-breathing hypersonic launch vehicles. L. F. II: From Scramjet to National Aero-Space Plane.” AIAA Journal of Spacecraft and Rockets. O. “Optimum mission performance and multivariable flight guidance for Air-breathing launch vehicles.” AIAA Journal of Propulsion and Power. No. T. DC.frame Integration Issues and Aerodynamic Database Development for the Hyper-X Flight Research Vehicle. Control.... Wong. editor. C. J.. J. G. 2003. [33] Davidson. R. M.. Vol. D. AIAA 2001-1910. 6. 1998. “An Integrated Analytical Aeropropulsive/Aeroelastic for Dynamic Analysis of Hypersonic Vehicles. G. Vol. 2001. [9] Freeman.. R. M. W. S.. Pergamon. S... Vol.” AIAA Paper 98-2506. pp. [40] Holland. No. Volume III: The Quest for the Orbital Jet: The National Aero-Space Plane Program (1983-1995).” AIAA Paper 2003-7081. Smithsonian Institution Press. R. D. R. “Hyper-X Stage Separation Wind-Tunnel Test Program. E... Nov. Washington. “Hyper-X Research Vehicle Experimental Aerodynamics Test Program Overview. “NASP concept demonstration engine and subscale parametric engine tests. Apr.” Proc. L. [8] Fidan... Selmon.. L. pp. B. 20. S.” AIAA Paper 99-4124.. P. Vol.” AIAA Journal of Spacecraft and Rockets. P. Vol. Control. [12] Dugger. “Design considerations for the airframe-integrated scramjet. Nov. 1. 38. G. and Bose. “Aerodynamic Database Development for the Hyper-X Airframe-Integrated Scramjet Propulsion Experiments. 14. A. DC. Holland. 2001. W. [31] McClinton. pp.” AIAA Journal of Spacecraft and Rockets. P. W. Vol. D. J. W. 1973. [36] Engelund...” AIAA Journal of Aircraft.. C. Vol. pp. and Pao. [14] Hallion. AIAA. R. pp. American Control Conference. 34. Pahle. 2001. Oct. 5. 38. 21. and McClinton. Nov... [11] Weber. 6. Vol. and Huebner.. [24] Schmidt. and Penland. D. and Bittner. 71-76. E. E. W. “Hyper-X Aerodynamics: The X-43A Airframe. “Use of energy-state analysis on a generic air-breathing hypersonic vehicle. “An Analysis of Ramjet Engines Using Supersonic Combustion.. J. June 1992. C. Bolling AFB.. B. Dec.” AIAA paper 92-4326. and Rock. R. [29] Schmidt. Sitz. 6.” AIAA Journal of Guidance. DC. and Crawford. U..... [20] Rogers. and DiFulvio. [38] Woods. Air Force History and Museums Program. R. Holland. 1999. S.. June 1998. and Dynamics.. R.. 1997.. D.” AIAA Paper 95-6055. [19] Northam. D. D.Integrated Scramjet Propulsion Flight-Test Experiments. B.” AIAA Journal of Guidance. 1998. J. C. “Scramjet Integration on Hypersonic Airplane Concepts. 1997. Bolling AFB. [39] Buning. R. W.” XIII ISABE.. 1998.. “Design and modeling issues for integrated airframe/propulsion control of Hypersonic Flight vehicles. AIAA 2002-5175. P. DC. Mirmirani. Stephenson. pp. C.... Vol. Aug. W.. “Integrated control of hypersonic vehicles.” AIAA paper 93-5091.. T. Vol. No. [30] Rausch. 38. Vol. 820-827.

“Stochastic Robustness of Linear-Time-Invariant Control Systems.. S. 2001. “Impact of Aero-Propulsive-Elastic Interactions on Longitudinal Flight Dynamics of a Hypersonic Vehicle. Periaux. No. J. R. DC. 42-48. J. 4. Vol. T. J.” AIAA Journal of Aircraft. T... J. R. Wiley.. Arena. July 2000. Engelund. Bach. Propulsion. E.. December 2000. New York. S. A. R.” NASA TM-102610. J. K. C. J. 1999. Sept. “Flying Qualities Criteria Review. Jr. R.. K. G. J.. Handbook of Intelligent Control: Neural... K..” NASA CR-2770. L. H. L.. R.. pp. Friedmann. J. G. [53] McRuer. Witte. [44] Faulkner. R. Vol.. Control. Phillips. D. Principles of Aeroelesticity. Jan. October 1995. D. D. 1992. S.. New York. J. August 1999. L. Los Angeles. and Stevenson. pp. M. and McNamara... F. Giffith. S. Pototzky. D. “Performance Sensitivity of Hypersonic Vehicles to Change Angle of Attack and Dynamic Pressure. McGraw-Hill. Chowdhry. and Gupta. “CFD-Based Aeroelastic Analysis of the X-43 Hypersonic Flight Vehicle. Jr. 844-852. and Shaughnessy. [43] Reubush.” AIAA Journal of Guidance. Powell.. 1: Theory of Flight Paths. Control. [48] Bertin.” AIAA Paper 89-5013. and Chapman. [64] Etkin. M. 23. A.. [58] Gupta. B. R. J. G.0. and Best. F. H.” AIAA Paper 93- 5028..” NASA Technical Paper 3525.. D. 6. D..” AIAA Paper 99-4123...” AIAA Journal of Spacecraft and Rockets.” AIAA Aerospace America. 21. J. Washington. Bittner. U. Vol. [73] Stengel. “Fitting Aerodynamics and Propulsion in to the Puzzle. R. Dilley. R. January 1991. R. Reading.. Szema. T.. 1989.. pp. L.. [74] Ray.” AIAA Journal of Spacecraft and Rockets. J.” AIAA Journal of Guidance. J. [72] Wang.. Jr.. A. Whitehead.. 1994 [70] Brauer. Y. MA. “Hydrocarbon Scramjet Propulsion System Development.. No.2 to 6. Doyle. L. Cornick. Buffington. [63] Lind. L. F. 1. H. R. A. 1. 1. [69] Gregory.” IEEE Transactions on Automatic Control. Bose. J. W. Assessment and Recommendations for NASP.” AIAA Paper 01-0712.. Vol. New York. NY. [49] Johnson... No. E. K. “Hypersonic Vehicle Simulation Model: Winged-Cone Configuration.. March 1995.. T. Wiley. J. H. No. 2002. “NASP Aerodynamics. 1978. L. 1992. [42] Huebner. R.. “Development of a Discrete-Time Aerodynamic Model for CFD-Based Aeroelastic Analysis. pp. No. “An Aero Dynamic Analysis of Several Hypersonic Research Airplane Concepts from M=0. [56] Walton. and McMinn. A. H. 6. A. [68] Shaughnessy. Flight. pp. 1984. C. J.. “Hypersonic vehicle model and control law development using H∞ and µ-synthesis. 2. [66] Bisplighoff. I.. S. Nov.. and Petersen. Birkhäuser.” AIAA Paper 89-2463. D.” NASA TM-4562. J. 357-465.. NASP JPO. [45] White. Wright-Patterson AFB. D.. Demonstration. pp.. 38. 17 American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics . J. F. P. Martin. 21. and Dynamics. and Weber. and Person.. [67] Mirmirani. J... Dinlon. [59] Cowan. 1962. “Linear Quadratic Gaussian Control of Coupled Aeroservoelastic of a Simple Wing Model.[41] Cockrell Jr. K. 82-87. A.. C. G.... and Hahn. 36. T. and Strovers. Hypersonic and High Temperature Gas Dynamics. NY. Nov. K. 1994. “Multi-Loop Aeroservoelastic Control of a Hypersonic Vehicle.” AIAA 2001-1802.. D.” NASP CR-1065. Optimal Control and Estimation. [51] Raney. H. Dynamics of Atmospheric Flight.. N.. Q.. K. April 2001. and Calise. E. and Application. J. J. C. Dec.. Cruz. 1977. and Pittman. K. Vol. E. L. 836-843. D.. Bowers. 58-63. A. Ruf. T. 1992. pp. 32-34. [55] Whitehead... [57] Bushcek.. 1989.. Voelker. 1972 [65] Meile. A. 132-141.. Dover. and Adaptive Approaches. A... [62] Raney.” AIAA Paper 99-4922.S.. L.. Fuzzy. and Dynamics. T. [52] Chalk. M. T. Vol. [71] Marrison. 1998. A. W. J... Advances in Hypersonics.. Nov. I. Xu. 2001.. and Dynamics. “Uncertainty modeling and fixed-order controller design for a hypersonic vehicle model. D. 1994. Iliff. 15. J. Flight Mechanics Vol. K. E. New York.. E. editors. D. S. Pinckney.. “Robust nonlinear control of a hypersonic aircraft. pp.. D. “Considerations for the Development of NASP Flying Qualities Specifications. Nov. 20.Program Summary Document.” AIAA Paper 2002-1209. “Hypersonic Mach Number and Real Gas Effects on Space Shuttle Orbiter Aerodynamics. L.. Robinson. and Thermal Control of Advanced Aircraft and Hypersonic Vehicles. California State University. and Ballmann. [50] Maus. J. Vol. K. 1989. “Hyper-X Flight Engine Ground Testing for Flight Risk Reduction. W. Vol.. “Capabilities and Applications of the Program to Optimize Simulated Trajectories(POST) ... [46] Bertin. R. and Stengel. 11. 1990.” AIAA Journal of Guidance. and Choi. 32. S.. Addison-WESLEY.. 2001. No.. pp. 1997. and Kelley. I. “Integrated Aeropropulsive Computational Fluid Dynamics Methodology for the Hyper-X Flight Experiment. “Aeroelasticity of a Generic Hypersonic Vehicle. Boston.Simulation Development and Results. C. M. Control. McMinn. R. MA. “Hyper-X Stage Separation . D. 1962. [61] Thuruthimattam. “Multidisciplinary Aeroelastic Analysis of a Generic Hypersonic Vehicle. C. E. D. B. P. B. McMinn. M. D... A.L.” AIAA Paper 99-0765. F. [54] Penland.. 1999. and Menousek. B.” WL-TR-92- 3042. 716-723. D. and Ashley. Hypersonic Aerothermodynamics.” AIAA Journal of Aircraft. Jr. Z. “Investigation of Piloting Aids for Manual Control of Hypersonic Maneuvers. K. J.. Air Force. [47] Anderson. Jentink. pp.” Technical Report 101-2000. No. 577-585. Vol. C. 1989. J.. J. Rock. and Frendi. 1987.. Van Nostrand Reinhold. chap. 1993.. “Design of robust control systems for a hypersonic aircraft. Jan.” AIAA Journal of Spacecraft and Rockets. No. and Andrews Jr. and Stengel... H... J. and Myers. [60] Gupta. AIAA. 38. and Stengel. K. L.. and Sparks.

. [102] Isidori..” IEEE Transactions on Automatic Control. and Mirmirani.” AIAA Journal of Guidance. Saeks..” AIAA Journal of Guidance. D. L. NY. 4.. [83] Xu. New York. Jan. [99] Krstić.. “Neural adaptive control of the LoFLYTE®.April 1997. Springer-Verlag.. “µ Controllers: Mixed and Fixed. [106] Shamma. Vol. IFSA World Congress and 20th NAFIPS International Conference.. pp.. Vol. K. M.. 8. 20.. M.. J. P. editors. Carlton. [94] Gibson. pp.” AIAA Journal of Guidance. 20. J. Vol... J. NJ. 2.Geometric. 24. and Lendaris. J. 3112-3117. L. June 1995. and Dynamics... “Research on Gain Sceduling. London. R. K. Vol. 2002. A. Kosmatopoulos. C. G. and Calise. NJ. pp. “Multidisciplinary optimization of air-breathing hypersonic vehicles... and Dynamics.” Proc. V. Mirmirani. Vol.. H1 Aerospace Control Design: A VSTOL Flight Application. Prentice-Hall. and Doyle.. Saeks. June 1992. 2001. 1186-1190. 2001. Gibson. A. Control. IEEE Int. Neidhoefer. 29. 1997. M. “Linear Time-Varying Approach to Satellite Attitude Control Using Only Electro-magnetic Actuation. 2002. G. “Gain Scheduling: Potential Hazards and Possible Remedies. 229-236. H. July-Aug.” Advances in Astronautical Sciences 108. pp. Prentice-Hall. 1947-1962. [81] Lohsoonthorn.. and Robust. 1401-1425. S. F. L. and Dynamics. A. and Dynamics. [76] Maciejowski. Lewis. M. Adaptive. pp.” Proc. [80] Young. 898-907. 2001. 1998. and Jorgensen. Vol. “Sub-optimal and optimal periodic solutions for hypersonic transport. J... pp. Control. S.. Kocher. and Stengel. and Dynamics. [78] Bowers. 2001. Leung. pp. and Buffington. H. H. and Hunt.. R. and Jacobs. W. [87] Chuang. [108] Wiśniewski.” Proc. Lamnabhi-Lagarrigue.” NASA TM. L. “Development and Flight Test of the X-43A-LS Hypersonic Configuration UAV. 20. A. No. and Respondek. H. “A Switching Controller for Multivariable LTI Systems with Known and Unknown Parameters. “Generic Hypersonic Aerodynamic Model Example (GHAME) for computer simulation.. August 1990. NJ. June 1999.” AIAA Paper 2002-3502. editor. “Eigenstructure vs constrained H∞ design for hypersonic winged cone.. [79] Bushcek. S.. Nonlinear Control Systems. 4688-4693. E. [96] Marren. Cox. Conference on Decision and Control. 17. D. Wiley. J. 2001. pp.. P. and evaluation requirements for future air-breathing hypersonic systems. [86] Dewell. 1993. 648-658. J. R. “Fuzzy logic based flight control system for hypersonic transporter. Cox. Edwards. [101] Qu. and Ioannou. S. 1995.” AIAA Journal of Guidance. July 2001. and Athans.” AIAA Paper 2001-4168.” AIAA Journal of Guidance. 1998. 4. 1995. K. “Numerical investigation of model reference adaptive control for hypersonic aircraft. and Maurice. L. Linear Time Varying Systems: Control and Adaptation.. S. Nonlinear Control in the Year 2000. Banda. 2333-2337. 4. [109] Zhu.. [104] Hyde. 10. I. 2002. [111] Tsakalis. A. Vol. 315-323. 4. January 1993. No. F. Vol.. C. and Iliff. 4. Vol. “A Monte Carlo Approach to the Analysis of Control System Robustness. “Unified approach to H2 and H1 optimal control of a hypersonic vehicle.. [84] Xu. P. J. New York. 1989. [92] Saeks. Multivariable Feedback Design. [88] Naidu. C. Englewood Cliffs. L. 17. J. and Dalzell. and Deng. Control. Vol. S. 2002. New York. F. J. Neidhoefer. Upper Saddle River. M.. pp.. J. S. Kanellakopoulos. Vol. and Ioannou. M. 23. 1. M. L. and Tomei. Jonckheere. American Control Conference. J... M. [90] Zhou. B. 41st IEEE Conference on Decision and Control.” Automatica... C. W.. 1184-1190. 1995. “Parameter Varying Control of a High. Wiley. 5. W.. Part 2. P. J. 1998. Nov. No. 1. P. J. 923-932. J... pp. American Control Conference. P.” AIAA Paper 2002-3462. “Analysis of Gain Scheduled Control for Nonlinear Plants. [93] Ogata. Control.... D. pp. pp. NY. No. Sep.” Proc. 34-41. E. 1997..” AIAA Journal of Guidance. and Ioannou. S.-Feb... [107] Rugh. Prentice-Hall.. C. Cooper. C. R. Man. A.. Vol. March 2001.” Proc. American Control Conference. Vol. 35. “Controller Design with Mixed Uncertainties.. March.. Vol. B. Q. No.. L. No. [98] Krstić. “Fuel-optimal periodic control and regulation in constrained hypersonic flight. [110] Biannic. “Robust adaptive sliding control for a class of MIMO nonlinear systems. Cox. “Missile Autopilot Design Using a New Linear Time-Varying Control Technique. [75] Ray.” Automatica. 20. 6. 2428-2433. Oct. C. Vol. “Adaptive sliding mode control of a hypersonic flight vehicle. Dec 1997. R.” Proc. Nonlinear Control Design . and Dynamics. M. pp. 6. 1997. S. 36. C. Springer-Verlag. A. 4. H. test. No. P... 2730-2735.. 1.. P. W.” AIAA Journal of Guidance. 101-107. E. 1987. K. No. [77] Zhou. 1994. [97] Bowcutt. Z.” AIAA Journal of Propulsion and Power. R. Upper Saddle River. 1998. [89] Austin. and Mickle. Vol. Conference on Systems. [95] Neidhoefer. Essentials of Robust Control. “Application of genetic algorithms to hypersonic flight control. Addison-Wesley. “Accurate Automation Corporation's LoFLYTE® Program. Robust Control of Nonlinear Uncertain Systems..Performance Aircraft. NASA Ames-Dryden. C. No. No. Jan. [82] Isidori. October 2000. pp. R... and Shamma.2000.” IEEE Control Systems Magazine. J. 1361-1365.. Z.” Proc. [105] Shamma. and Garrard. and Pap. P. Prentice-Hall. pp. UK. Modern Control Engineering. 1997. C. M. M. pp. American Control Conference. Apkarian. [103] Fidan. Stabilization of Nonlinear Uncertain Systems. P. H. [91] Cox. K. and Speyer. R. Springer-Verlag. “Neural control of the LoFLYTE® aircraft.. K. pp. No.” Proc. H. 2. pp. No. 18 American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics . Neidhoefer. 2913-2917. Nov. and Dynamics. and Lin. NY.. Control.. Boussalis. A.. R. “Experimentation. [100] Marino. Nonlinear and Adaptive Control Design..” AIAA Journal of Propulsion and Power.. 24.. July 2001. 2737-2741. M. J. and Morimoto. CA. C. H. pp. [85] Mooij... and Cybernetics. 2001.. Control. Springer-Verlag. and Kokotović. and Athans. Control.

637-662. 37. 2003. 1631-1651. 2003. 1986. 37. Design of Robust control system for a hypersonic aircraft. 45. editors. S. J. Prentice Hall. 1996. 21. Wang and R.16 User Guide. 1999. B. [113] Limanond. M. [115] Nijmeijer. Li. Control and Dynamics. Journal of Guidance.” CSULA. [119] Q. I. Prentice Hall. pp. December 2001.-J. Australia National University. J. “Model reference adaptive and nonadaptive control of linear time-varying plants. Vol. New Directions in Nonlinear Observer Design. P. A. 4. P. [116] Kokotović. Vol.-J. No. No. [122] J. [118] C. pp. and Arcak. “Adaptive and nonadaptive pole-placement control of multivariable linear time-varying plants. K. 1290-1300. Vol. H.” Automatica. 43. “Six-DOF modeling and simulation of a generic hypersonic vehicle for conceptual design studies. and Fossen. S. 2004.” Aerophysics and Laser Diagnostics Research Kaboratory. [125] Fluent 6. Slotine and J. Fluent Inc. Adaptive Controller Synthesis for Nonlinear Systems. 1991 [121] P. [123] Josue Cruz. [124] Shahriar Keshmiri. A.. Sun. M. Lebanon. Hyslop. 2000. NH [126] P. Slotine and W. Vol.. [120] J. E. of Guidance. and Kokotović.2. Ioannou and J. No. Stengel. 507-523.. Springer-Verlag. of Control. J.. Y. “Constructive nonlinear control: A historical perspective. pp. and Ioannou. No. A.. [117] Arcak. 23.” IEEE Trans.. 1998.[112] Limanond. Vol. Robust Nonlinear Control of a Hypersonic Aircraft. 1923-1930. Fidan. Int.” Int. 2001. No. 2000. Marrison and R. “Backstepping Control of Linear Time Varying Systems with Known and Unknown Parameters. P. [114] Zhang. I. F. 74. 5. S. “CFD Modeling of Supersonic Combustion in a Scramjet Engine Thesis.” Automatica. 6.. Coetsee. E. on Automatic Control. Upper Saddle River. 1.. and Dynamics. K. and Tsakalis.” CSULA. Control. pp. 2001. on Automatic Control. 1998 19 American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics . T. pp. Robust Adaptive Control.” to appear in IEEE Trans. Vol. Control. and Tsakalis. Stengel. “CFD-based Aerodynamic Coefficients and Stability Derivatives for a Generic Hypersonic Air Vehicle. “Nonlinear observers: A circle criterion design and robustness analysis. Vol. Applied nonlinear control. 12. F.