9 views

Uploaded by FedericoBetti

- ece402
- Aeroelastic Analysis of a wing (Pressentation)
- EEE 352 Automatic Control Systems General Course Information
- Structura Lanalysis Traffic-Signal
- Assignment.pdf
- Closedloop PID control of Universal Motor
- MATLAB
- Gyro Position Control - Student Manual
- 2662_tcm1023-4484
- Network-Based H Inf Output Tracking Control
- locs_hk_rs_c2
- Computer Control of Process 2UPs
- Advanced control foundation tools and techniques.pdf
- Smart Base Isolated Benchmark Building-Part IV: Phase II Sample Controllers for Nonlinear Isolation Systems
- Industrial Automation and Control Interview Questions Instrumentation Tools
- FLIGHT SIMULATION OF A HIGH WING UNMANNED AERIAL VEHICLE
- Mec522 Chapter 1_atma
- Control Engineering - Open vs Closed Loop
- Controls Finals Research
- Induction Motor Speed Control

You are on page 1of 19

Adaptive Control of a Nonlinear Aeroservoelastic (ASE) System

ABSTRACT

In this paper a nonlinear airfoil equipped with a trailing edge flap. The wing-

flap structure is coupled to a simplified rate limited flight control actuator. The

closed loop system will be examined for its aeroservoelastic response to a

reference free adaptive feedback controller with nonlinear actuator dynamics in

the loop.

INTRODUCTION

Aerodynamic flutter refers to a subject that has evolved since the beginning of manned flight.

Aeroelasticity continues to occupy a prime role in the current design of advanced aircraft,

missiles and launch vehicles. With the advent of modern flight control systems, the disciplines of

aeroelasticity and structural dynamics are linked together by the interaction between the

aeronautical structure and the flight control system and associated sensors; this is known as

aeroservoelasticity (ASE). Aeroservoelasticty exists primarily because of the excitation of the

flight vehicles structural modes can cause both oscillatory aerodynamic loads and flight control

system demands that result from the airframe mounted motion sensors; the aeroservoelastic

interaction comes from these secondary responses which induce further excitation of structural

modes. It is common practice to apply notch and low pass filters to the flight control system in

order to meet the stability and gain margins required to clear an aircraft for flight. But in doing

so one can incur undesirable phase lags at the rigid body frequencies. The secondary oscillatory

dynamics often present as Limit Cycle Oscillations (LCO). There is a distinction to be made

between the LCOs caused by ASE interaction and those caused principally by the aero-structure

itself. Hence it is instructive to understand the mechanism by which limit cycles and chaotic

motions are created. A limit cycle is a standing periodic oscillation that is characterized in the

phase plane as a single loop; in some instances a multi-frequency limit cycle may appear as in

the case of a chaotic system that has been transformed by an appropriate control force. For a

stable limit cycle, the rate of energy input from the freestream is equal to the energy dissipation

rate. A limit cycle is unstable when the system continuously receives more energy than it is able

to dissipate and it will grow in amplitude. Conversely, if energy is extracted from the system,

then the oscillation will decay. It is this mechanism that makes it possible to force an aeroelastic

1

Graduate Student, Department of Mechanical and Aeronautical Engineering, AIAA Senior Member

2

Professor, Department of Mechanical and Aeronautical Engineering

3

Professor, Department of Mathematics and Computer Science

4

Associate Professor, Department of Mechanical and Aeronautical Engineering, AIAA Senior Member

Copyright 2011 by the American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics, Inc. All rights reserved.

system to switch limit cycles. We will revisit the notion of an unstable limit cycle and limit cycle

switching later. For now we will introduce examples of limit cycle switching and suppression.

The first such example as pointed out by Dimitriadias and Cooper [1] was work performed by

Holden et al [2]. Specifically, during a series of wind tunnel tests on a flutter model of a tail

plane, Holden and his colleagues noticed that applying a certain excitation signal caused an

LCO; the re-application of the same signal a short time later produced a limit cycle of larger

amplitude. The manipulation of limit cycles has a lot to do with the energy state of the system.

There are devices which have the capability to make instantaneous changes of its mass, stiffness

or damping; such devices are termed state switchable dynamical systems. For example if a

switchable stiffness element is build into a vibration absorber, the change in stiffness causes a

change in the resonant frequencies of the system and thus retuning the system. One can design

a switching rule-control law that extracts energy from the system [3, 4]. Lee et al [5]

demonstrated that one can use continuously varying stiffness and damping elements (or

nonlinear energy sinks NES) coupled to a van der Pol oscillator. By adjusting the parameters of

the NES indicated in Figure 1, suppression of LCOs can be achieved.

Figure 1. System configuration with: (a) grounded NES; (b) ungrounded NES [5]

Now lets revisit the discussion on unstable limit cycles also referred to as unstable periodic

orbits (UPOs); for a system with sufficient complexity (i.e. multiple degrees of freedom, number

and type of nonlinearities), a significant number of limit cycles can exist in its phase plane. As

such the key is to force a system into a stable limit cycle knowing the location of the unstable

limit cycles that surround it. A very similar argument was made by Pyragas [6]. Specifically, the

stabilization of unstable periodic orbits of a chaotic system is achieved by applying a combined

feedback with the use of a specially designed external oscillator or by a delayed self controlling

(Figure 2) feedback force without the use of an external force. Both of these methods do not

require any prior analytical knowledge of the system. These methods make use of the fact that

there are an infinite number of unstable periodic orbits contained in a chaotic attractor. The

delayed-self controlling method was successfully demonstrated for an aeroelastic system by

Ramesh et al. [7].

2

Figure 2. Schematic of delayed-feedback control system [6].

The majority of closed-loop aeroservoelastic work does not include the actuator dynamics. If the

actuator dynamics is modeled, it is observed that the nonlinearity is either in the aero-structure or

the actuator but tend not to be cascaded or in series under closed-loop control [16]. The other

combination seen in the literature is the use of a model that includes the trailing edge flap

characterized by a nonlinear stiffness. Further, the closed-loop controllers developed for this type

of system tend also to consider one nonlinearity at a time (i.e. either rate limiting or saturation)

[17]; real flight control actuators have multiple nonlinearities [18]. The inclusion of the actuator

dynamics is more common place in flight control system development work. The actuator

dynamics are often linear transfer function relationships. Will the adaptive control signal still be

able to suppress the chaotic motion with the actuator dynamics included? The aim of this work is

to investigate the effects of simulated nonlinear actuator dynamics on the designed control

signals capability to provide suppression to the aeroelastic system. To facilitate this evaluation,

a 2D nonlinear wing with a trailing edge flap from the Texas A& M Aeroelasticity Group will be

used in [19].This model allows for coupling of the actuation system in series with the aeroelastic

plant (Figure 3) as the flap displacement input to the system as given by Eqn. 1

( ) (1)

EHA Dynamical

System

LPF

k

3

ADAPTIVE CONTROLLER

Controlling chaotic behavior mainly deals with the stabilization of unstable periodic orbits. The

stabilization of a fixed point by classical methods requires knowledge of the location in the phase

space. For many complex systems, the locations of the fixed points are not known a priori; as

such, adaptive control techniques that are capable of locating unknown steady states are

desirable. A simple adaptive controller for stabilizing unknown steady states can be designed

using ordinary differential equations (ODEs). One such controller utilizes a first order ODE that

represents a low pass filter (LPF). The filtered DC output of the filter estimates the location of

the fixed point, such that the difference between the actual and the filtered signal can be used as

a control signal. This control signal is then scaled by a proportional gain. The structure of the

system is represented in Figure 4.

Figure 4. Block diagram of adaptive controller. LPF denotes low pass filter [11]

In general mathematical terms, when considering an autonomous dynamical system as the one in

Figure 4, a description by a set of ordinary differential equations can be cast as:

( ) (2)

where the vector defines the dynamical variables and p is the total control force. The

scalar variable ( ) ( ( )) is a function of the systems states; for the aeroelastic system,

y() could be anyone of the four states i.e. pitch, plunge, or any of their rates. Suppose that

, that is the system has an unstable fixed point at x* that satisfies ( ) . If the

steady state value y*=g(x*) corresponding to the fixed point were known, one could try to

stabilize it using classical proportional feedback control.

( ) (3)

Suppose now, that the reference value y* is unknown. The objective will be to construct a

reference-free feedback perturbation that automatically locates and stabilizes the fixed point.

When the controller locates the fixed point, the control input should vanish i.e. no control power

should be dissipated in the closed-loop condition. The controller that satisfies the requirements

can be constructed from an ODE that represents a low pass filter given by the following

equation:

( ) (4)

Here, w is a controller variable and the parameter, represents the cut-off frequency of the

filter. The output of the filter provides an averaged input variable y(t). If y(t) oscillates about the

steady state value of y* one can expect that the output variable w(t) will converge to this value.

4

As result the reference value y* can be replaced with the output variable of the filter; that is the

control force can now be expressed in the following way:

( ) (5)

The complete control-loop is in fact a high-pass filter, since the second term in Eq. (8) is

obtained from the difference of the actual output signal and filtered by the LPF. The control

signal is proportional to the derivative of the controller variable w i.e.

( ) ( ) (6)

As , from Eq. (5), it follows that ( ) ( ); for large , the control signal becomes

proportional to the derivative of the output . When this happens, the controller behaves as a

simple derivative controller.

( ) ( ( ) ( )) (7)

For our numerical study, is set to zero so that the system is reference free and ( ) ( ).

The Aeroelasticity Group at Texas A&M University has conducted a number of experiments

using the apparatus shown below (Figure 5).The experiments performed have provided the

validation for the theoretical model presented in this report. The NATA test bed has been used

to study both linear and nonlinear aeroelastic behaviour as well as the development of control

laws for flutter suppression. The system consists of a NACA 0012 and is controlled by a full

span trailing edge control surface located at 20% chord. The pitch and plunge stiffnesses of the

NATA are provided by springs attached to cams with profiles designed to illicit a specific

response. For example, a parabolic pitch cam yields a spring hardening response. This is the

mechanism that causes the NATA to exhibit the limit cycle behaviour.

5

The flexible mounting of the wing structure allows the NATA to move in two degrees of

freedom displacement, i.e. torsion and bending displacements. Bending or plunge is denoted by h

and torsion or pitch is denoted by . The derivation of the following equation can be found in

Fung. The governing equations of motion are given by:

h L

M h C h K (8)

M

In Equation 8, L and M are the aerodynamic lift and moment respectively. A quasi-steady

aerodynamic assumption is used in this model:

h

L U 2bcl 0.5 a b U 2bcl (9)

U U

h

M U 2b 2cm 0.5 a b U 2b 2cm

U U

c c c c

where l and l are the lift and moment coefficients per angle of attack, and m and m are

the lift and moment coefficients per control surface deflection. The nonlinear torsional stiffness

is obtained through experimental data and is given by:

k ( ) 2.82 1 22.1 1315.5 2 8580 3 17289 4 (10)

By combining equations 8 and 9, we can define the matrices presented in equation 8. They are

defined as follows:

m mx b ch Ubcl Ub2cl 0.5 a

M , C

I Ub cm c Ub3cm 0.5 a

2

mx b

kh U 2bcl bcl

K , Qf 2

0 U 2b2cm k b cm

Equation 8 is used to build the nonlinear aeroelastic model in SIMULINK (Figure 6). Note that

in Figure 6 there is a block called Nonlinear Stiffness Matrix; the structural nonlinearity has been

implemented using the function block. It allows one to read the angle of attack such that equation

8 can be implemented in SIMULINK. Figure 7 demonstrates the open loop response for a shear

center location of a= -0.75 and tunnel velocity of 25 m/s.

6

Figure 6. Nonlinear Aeroelastic SIMULINK Model

7

NONLINEAR ACTUATION SYSTEM MODELING & CLOSED LOOP SIMULATION

Todays aircraft employ 2 types of actuators: the electro-hydraulic (EHA-1) and the electro-

hydrostatic actuators (EHA-2). Both actuator types are typically used in aircraft flight control

and Stability Augmentation Systems (SAS) [19, 20]. A traditional aircraft servo-hydraulic

system has the components shown in Figure 8. The non-hydrostatic actuator (EHA-1) is

composed of four main components, the actuator control or command system, then main valve

actuation, the main valve and the ram.

The electro-hydrostatic actuator (Figure 9) differs from the hydraulic version in that it does not

require a central hydraulic power supply which eliminates the need for plumbing. Instead the

EHA (hydrostatic) uses electrical cables. Specifically, the hydrostatic actuator is a Power-By-

Wire (PBW) actuator that utilizes the hydraulic pump to transfer the rotational motion of the

electrical motor to the actuator output. The EHA-2 is based principally on closed circuit

hydrostatic transmission; as a result the need for oil reservoirs and electro-hydraulic servo-valves

are eliminated [23]. A version of the electro-hydrostatic actuator designed by Moog Inc is

currently being flown on the F-35 Lightning II (Joint Strike Fighter).

Due to the complexity of the nonlinear models for both types of EHA, we will make use of a

nonlinear first order rate limited actuator model for this analysis. This model still retains most of

the characteristics of interest including rate limited operations and actuator nonlinearities. The

selected model is realistic and it was used successfully in the study of Pilot Induced Oscillations

(PIO) [25] in the simulation and flight test of the NF-16D Variable Stability In-flight Simulator

Test Aircraft (VISTA).Often the same flight control system actuators allocated to the automatic

8

flight control system (AFCS) are also employed in flutter suppression and hence the same

actuator nonlinearities that cause flying qualities issues also cause aeroservoelastic interactions.

Initially it was thought that an actuator model with multiple nonlinearities would be effective in

this investigation but after several simulations it proved difficult to isolate the cause of the

closed-loop instability. As such the nonlinear first-order rate limited actuator model provides a

means for simple parametric investigation and demonstration of the research problem at hand.

Common actuator nonlinearities include saturation, friction, dead zones (or free play) and

hysteresis and rate saturations. In this study we will focus on the rate saturation nonlinearity. The

simplified model of the rated limited actuator is presented in (Figure 10)

Figure 11 Effective Nonlinear Gain for Open Loop Saturation Nonlinearity [25]

The saturation element for the configuration seen in Figure 11 is given by the describing function

[24]:

( ) [ ( ) ( )] (15)

By using a series expansion, keeping only the first order linear terms, the describing function can

be written as follows:

( ) (16)

9

By replacing Equation 16 can be cast as ( ) . The derivation in Slotine and

Li [24] employs four conditions that must be satisfied, one of which is that the properties of the

nonlinear elements do not vary with time; while this true, in our application, the signals entering

the actuator will be non-stationary in nature. The parameters of this model are defined in Figure

11.

When the error signal , the saturation point, a rate limited actuator induces a phase lag in

the closed loop system. This can cause limit cycles. From a frequency domain standpoint,

actuators have a flat bandwidth. When the amplitude is increased such that , the right

most side of magnitude and phase plots start to migrate toward the left hand side of the diagram;

physical this means that the actuator is operating with a decreased bandwidth and the output

signal will be clipped. For a more in-depth treatment of the effect of rate limiting, the reader is

directed to Klyde [25]. The actuator model is placed in series with the controller and comes

before the aeroelastic system in the given SIMULINK block diagram (Figure 12). Specifically,

the magenta colored blocks are the actuator blocks and the yellow blocks represent the

aeroelastic system and its outputs. The blue blocks are the components of the controller and the

red block is a switch that is used to engage the controller at different times in the simulation.

For the purpose of this study, an airspeed of 25 m/s (above flutter) and a shear center is

coincident with the mean aerodynamic center have been selected; we will also confine our

analysis to sea level conditions. Before we can begin to investigate the issue of suppression with

actuator dynamics in the loop, we must first understand how the frequencies change with

airspeed and shear center location. Lets now introduce the structural coupling design procedure

used in this work, after which it will become clear how the velocity-frequency plot (Figure 13) is

used.

10

Figure 13 Velocity vs. Frequency

After some exploratory simulation runs, the following procedure was developed to find the

minimum feedback gain with an actuator in the loop.

1. Select the feedback gain, k without the actuator dynamics. This is done by using the

manual switch (See in Figure 13). Vary k until the angle-of-attack is approximately zero.

The gain that corresponds to a zero angle-of-attack is the first estimate of the feedback

gain.

2. Switch the simulation path to the actuator path and input the value of k obtained in Step

1. In this step, the frequencies for the actuator and the low pass filter as it is given in the

Section Adaptive Control must be selected. First the low pass filter cut-off frequency

must be chosen such that it attenuates the first mode; the first mode from the green curve

that represents the wing configuration of a=-0.75, the lowest velocity, 5 m/s where the

frequency, (or 10.83 rad/s) was selected; the cutoff frequency, is set

equal to 10 rad/s, less that than the first mode at 5 m/s. Next the actuator frequency gain,

should be chosen such that there is sufficient frequency separation between the first

mode frequency at 40 m/s (9.765 Hz or 61.35 rad/s); graphically this means that if one

was to scribe a straight line at some desired actuator frequency, it should not intersect the

velocity frequency boundary of interest. The actuator frequency is then set equal to

30 Hz (or 188.49 rad/s). To summarize we have now selected the actuator and low pass

filter frequencies and the estimated feedback gain, k from Step 1.

3. Vary the rate limit, until the angle-of-attack, is approximately zero. The rate limit

obtained in this step is the critical value of the rate limit i.e. the final rate limit must

selected such that ( ) ( )

4. Using the or some value greater prescribed by the inequality in Step 3, return to the

feedback gain, k and vary the parameter until the angle-of-attack is approximately zero.

The frequency and rate limit parameters should not be changed. The new value of the

11

feedback gain obtained in this step is the value of feedback gain required to ensure stable

limit cycle and flutter suppression with the actuator dynamics in the loop.

The closed loop bifurcation without actuator dynamics (in black-Figure 14) shows that a

feedback gain of 80 N/m will give zero angle-of-attack. Compare this result with the red curve; it

appears to have a lower and upper branch and a discontinuity. The significance of these features

is best understood by studying Figure 15. The discontinuities in Figure 15 can either be

hysteretic or regions of intermittent switching indicating a mode transition. For this work, when

the gain is selected such that the feedback gain is greater than 44 N/m, the closed loop system

exhibits intermittent switch and presents as chaotic motion as seen in the phase plane (Figure

18). The mode transition can be visualized by the Lissajous curve.A Lissajous figures indicate

the periodicity of the lower branch and the less steady dynamics of the upper branch as well as

phase changes. Figure 16 shows that the actuator input to the aeroelastic system locks in and

confines the wing to a limit cycle. Figure 17 is indicates rate limiting by the wave like closed

trajectories which translates to chaotic motions (again see Figure 18). The implications for the

control system design lies in the fact that for this set of model parameters, the flat region of the

lower branch is smaller; that is the designer has a smaller range of feedback gains that will

produce zero displacements is less

12

Figure 15. Amplitude Response Curve [28]

13

Figure 17. Lissajous Curve (in discontinuity)

14

Figure 19 Closed Loop actuator dynamics

15

Figure 21 Controller Bifurcation Diagram (increased rate limit)

Actuator rate limiting occurs when the input rate to the control surface exceeds the hydraulic

and/or mechanical capability of the control actuator. One tell that the actuator is rate limited in

Figure 19 by looking at the output, . The output exhibits periodicity and has a saw tooth profile.

The actuator rate is a clipped signal. If the rate limit, were reduced by 50%, it can be

observed that the hysteresis zone moves to the left. In addition, the length of the flat portion of

the stability boundary decreases. The flat portion is important because it is the set of feedback

gains that yield a zero angle-of-attack when the loop is closed on the actuator. Conversely, when

the rate limit is increased by a factor of 2 the flat portion of the stability boundary increases,

indicating that the hysteresis/rate limit zone moves to the right (Figure 21).

FUTURE WORK

NASA has initiated an Integrated Resilient Aircraft Control (IRAC) initiative under the Aviation

Safety Program. The main thrust of this initiative is to advance the state-of-the-art technology in

order to facilitate a design option that allows for increased resiliency to failures, damage, and

upset conditions. These adaptive flight control systems will have the capability to automatically

adjust the control feedback and command paths to regain stability in the closed loop

configuration. One of the consequences of changing the control feedback and command path

configuration is the occurrence of aeroservoelastic (ASE) interaction which results in undesirable

limit cycle oscillations. The combination of changing structural behavior with changing control

system gains results in a system with a probability of adverse interactions that is very difficult to

predict a priori. Onboard, measurement based methods are required to ensure that the system

adjusts to attenuate any adverse ASE interaction before a structural system can become entrained

16

in sustained limit cycle and vehicle damage occurs. This system must work in concert with the

adaptive control system to restore nominal rigid body performance as much as possible without

exacerbating the situation with ASE interactions. To that end Li [26] developed an in-flight

narrow bandpass filter (NBWF) detection method that is coupled with an adaptive notch filter

that was inserted into the command path to attenuate limit cycle oscillations in the vehicle flight

dynamics. In this study we have seen that the rate limiting nonlinearity can induce sever closed

loop instability. Originally, the RLPF was employed in the investigation into pilot induced

oscillations (PIOs) and there prevention during the aggressive, high gain maneuvers performed

by fighter aircraft [27]. PIOs can result in departure from controlled flight. The RLPF was also

inserted into the command path. Since the same flight control actuator nonlinearities that can

cause PIOs can also induce structural coupling and limit cycle oscillations, it may be of interest

to explore whether the RLPF can attenuate in flight limit cycle oscillation events.

CONCLUSIONS

In this study we have successfully illustrated that that nonlinear actuator dynamics can

destabilize a closed loop system. We also show that such systems can be stabilized without any

reduction in actuator bandwidth. Regions of hysteresis can be very dangerous in the sense that a

closed loop stable system can become chaotic and may lead to catastrophic failure. Also, the

hysteresis region may limit the use of a full adaptive controller. In a simple way, this study

demonstrates that the actuator can be designed to attenuate structural modes without the use of a

notch filter; this is can probably attributed to the fact that in this evaluation the actuator was

tuned such that there was no structural coupling, this is not always the case in major aircraft

development programs. The final parameter configuration based on the design method presented

in this work is as follows: The low pass filter and actuator frequencies are 10 rad/s and 188.5

rad/s respectively. The feedback gain (with nonlinear actuator dynamics) is 40 to 44 N/m with

the bending displacement as the feedback signal. For the shear center location of a=-0.75 at

U=25 m/s, this represents a 50% decrease in the control power required to maintain closed loop

stability when actuator dynamics are included. The final rate limit for the actuator is 15 deg/s.

17

REFERENCES

1. Dimitriadis, G., Copper, J.E. Limit Cycle Oscillation Control and Suppression, The

Aeronautical Journal, Vol. No. 1023, May 1999, pp 257-263

2. Holden, M., Brazier, R.E.J. and Cal, A.A. Effects of structural nonlinearities on a

tailplane flutter model, IFASD, Manchester UK, 1995

3. Cunefare, Kenneth, A., De Rosa, Sergio, Sadegh, Nader and Larson, Gregg, State

Switched Absorber for Semi-Active Structural Control, Journal of Intelligent Material

Systems and Structures, Vol. 11, April 2000, pp 300-310

4. Cunefare, Kenneth, A., State-Switched Absorber for Vibration control of Point-

Excited Beams, Journal of Intelligent Material Systems and Structures, Vol. 13, March

2002, pp 97-105

5. Lee, Young S., Vakakis, Alexander F., Bergman, Lawrence A., and McFarland,

Michael D., Suppression of limit cycle oscillations in the van der Pol oscillator by

means of passive nonlinear energy sinks, Structural Control and Health Monitoring,

Vol. 13, 2006 pp 41-75.

6. Pyragas, K., Continuous control of chaos by self-controlling feedback, Physics Letters

A 170 (1992), pp 421-428

7. Ramesh, M., Narayanan, S., Controlling Chaotic Motions in a Two-Dimensional

Airfoil Using Time-Delayed Feedback, Journal of sound and Vibration (2001) 239(5),

pp 1037-1049.

8. Zhao, Y.H., Stability of a two-dimensional airfoil with time-delayed feedback control

Journal of Fluids and Structures, Vol. 25, 2009, pp 1-25

9. Marzocca, P., Librescu, L., Silva, W.A., Time-delay effects on Linear/Nonlinear

Feedback Control of Simple Aeroelastic Systems, Journal of Guidance, Control and

Dynamics, Vol. 28, No. 1, January-February 2005.

10. Rubillo, C., Marzocca, P., Bollt, E., Active Aeroelastic Control of Lifting Surfaces via

Jet Reaction Limiter Control International Journal of Bifurcation and Chaos, Vol. 16,

No. 9, 2006, pp 2559-2574

11. Pyragas, K., Pyragas, V., Kiss, I.Z., and Hudson, J.L., Adaptive Control of Unknown

Steady States of Dynamical Systems, Physical Review E 70, 026215 (12 pages), 2004

12. Yuan, Y., Yu, P., Librescu, L. and Marzocca, P., Aeroelasticity of Time-Delayed

Feedback Control of Two-Dimensional Supersonic Lifting Surfaces, Journal of

Guidance, Control, and Dynamics, Vol. 27, No. 5, 2004, pp. 795-803.

13. Librescu, L., Marzocca, P., Silva, W.A., Aeroelasticity of 2-D lifting surfaces with

time-delayed feedback control, Journal of Fluids and Structures, Vol. 20, No. 2, 2005,

pp. 197-215

14. Yuan, Y., Yu, P., Librescu, L. and Marzocca, P., Implications of time-delayed feedback

control on limit cycle oscillation of a two-dimensional supersonic lifting surface,

Journal of Sound and Vibration, Vol. 304, No. 3-5, 2007, pp. 974-986

15. Alstrom, Robert Bruce, Marzocca, Pier, Bollt, Erik and Ahmadi, Goodarz, Controlling

Chaotic Motions of a Nonlinear Aeroelastic System Using Adaptive Control Augmented

with Time Delay, AIAA GNC/AFM/MST/ASC/ASE 2010 Conference. Toronto

,Ontario Canada, August 2010.

18

16. Dimitriadis, G., Cooper, J.E., Characterization of the behavior of a Simple

Aeroservoelastic System with Control Nonlinearities, Journal of Fluids and Structures,

Vol. 14, No. 8, 2000, pp 1173-1193

17. Demenkov, Max, Goman, Mikhail, Suppressing Aeroelastic Vibration via Stability

Region Maximization and Continuation Techniques, UKACC Control Conference,

Manchester England, 2008. http://www.control2008.org/

18. Taylor, Richard, Pratt, Roger W., and Caldwell, Brian D., Effect of Actuator

Nonlinearities on Aeroservoelasticity, Journal of Guidance, Control and Dynamics,

Vol. 19, No. 2, March-April 1996.

19. Ko, J., Kurdilla, A.J., and Strganac, T.W., Nonlinear Control of a prototypical wing

section with torsional nonlinearity, Journal of Guidance, Control and Dynamics, Vol.

20, No. 6, pp 1181-1189.

20. Edwards, John W., Analysis of an Electrohydraulic Aircraft Control-Surface Servo and

Comparison with Test Results, NASA TN D-6928, 1972

21. Fielding, C., Flux, P.K., Non-linearities in flight control systems, The Aeronautical

Journal, No. 2838, November 2003.

22. Stirling, R., Actuation system jump resonance characteristics University of Bristol,

Department of Engineering Report RS/2/84 (1984).

23. Kang, Rongjie, Mare, Jean Charles, and Jiao, Zongxia, Nonlinear Modeling and

Control Design of Electro-Hydrostatic Actuator, Proceedings of the 7th JFPS

International Symposium on Fluid Power, TOYAMA 2008, Sept 15-18, 2008.

24. Slotine, Jean-JacquesE., Weiping Li. Applied Nonlinear Control. Upper Saddle River

NJ: Prentice Hall, 1991.

25. Kylde, David H, Unified Pilot-Induced Oscillation Theory, Volume 1:PIO Analysis

With Linear and Nonlinear Effective Vehicle Characteristics, Including Rate Limiting.

WL-TR-96-3028. AFRL, Wright Patterson AFB OH, December 1995.

25. Li, Xiaohong, L., Brenner, Martin J., Practical Aeroservoelasticity In-Flight

Identification and Adaptive Control, AIAA GNC/AFM/MST/ASE 2010 Toronto

Ontario, Canada.

26. Chapa, Michael J., A Nonlinear Pre-Filter to Prevent Departure and/or Pilot Induced

Oscillations (PIO) due to Actuator Rate Limiting.

27. Khalak, A, Williamson, C.H.K., Motions, Forces and Mode Transitions in Vortex-

Induced Vibrations at Low Mass-Damping, Journal of Fluids & Structures (1999) 13,

813-851.

19

- ece402Uploaded byNayan Chauhan
- Aeroelastic Analysis of a wing (Pressentation)Uploaded byMuhammad Aamir
- EEE 352 Automatic Control Systems General Course InformationUploaded byZeynal Abidin Şabaş
- Structura Lanalysis Traffic-SignalUploaded byagvelazquez
- Assignment.pdfUploaded byNajeeb Ullah
- Closedloop PID control of Universal MotorUploaded byabhywa
- MATLABUploaded bySmile Selva Kumar
- Gyro Position Control - Student ManualUploaded byBruno Martins Leite
- 2662_tcm1023-4484Uploaded bysujaydsouza1987
- Network-Based H Inf Output Tracking ControlUploaded byRajini Makam
- locs_hk_rs_c2Uploaded bymailmado
- Computer Control of Process 2UPsUploaded bykarthiveera
- Advanced control foundation tools and techniques.pdfUploaded byayyagarisri
- Smart Base Isolated Benchmark Building-Part IV: Phase II Sample Controllers for Nonlinear Isolation SystemsUploaded bypezhmankhan
- Industrial Automation and Control Interview Questions Instrumentation ToolsUploaded bymahamd saied
- FLIGHT SIMULATION OF A HIGH WING UNMANNED AERIAL VEHICLEUploaded byamir
- Mec522 Chapter 1_atmaUploaded byFaez Feakry
- Control Engineering - Open vs Closed LoopUploaded byWaseeq Ahmed
- Controls Finals ResearchUploaded byRenz Xynor Liotib Cadiz
- Induction Motor Speed ControlUploaded byMohammedHaytham
- Process Dynamics and Control_IntroductionUploaded byMarie Angeline Bautista
- chapter+10Uploaded byAshleigh Hein
- Indonesia We Report 2009Uploaded bychbeggy
- 21-7-1kusuharaUploaded bymghgol
- 1-s2.0-S1474667016365612-main.pdfUploaded bysaeed
- Adaptive UnitIUploaded byMona Ali
- motorUploaded byRajesh Satti
- 6.302rec23Uploaded byKy-Anh Tran
- pid controlUploaded byapi-272723910
- 04909027Uploaded bypradeep kumar sahu

- 2010 - Practical Aeroservoelasticity in-Flight Identification and Adaptive ControlUploaded byFedericoBetti
- 1-5-US 155235630AP1Uploaded byFedericoBetti
- Qing Guo, Dan Jiang-Nonlinear Control Techniques for Electro-Hydraulic Actuators in Robotics Engineering-CRC Press (2017)Uploaded byFedericoBetti
- Documento PompeUploaded byFedericoBetti
- 2014 - Time-Domain Aeroservoelastic Modeling and Active Flutter Suppression by Model Predictive ControlUploaded byFedericoBetti
- 2004 - Estimation ofFlape Electromechanical Actuator !!Uploaded byFedericoBetti
- 2013 - Modal Isolation and Damping for Adaptive Aeroservoelastic SuppressionUploaded byFedericoBetti
- 1995 - AEROELASTIC ANALYSIS FOR FLAP OF AIRFOIL IN TRANSONIC FLOW.pdfUploaded byFedericoBetti
- 2013 - Active Control for Flutter Suppression: An Experimental InvestigationUploaded byFedericoBetti
- 2015 - Aeroservoelastic Simulation Considering Control System Component UncertaintyUploaded byFedericoBetti
- ???? - Larpe JFlectromechanical Actuation Svstems for Fbht Control Surfaces !!Uploaded byFedericoBetti
- 2004 - Aeroelastic Response of an Airfoil-Flap System Exposed to Time-Dependent DisturbancesUploaded byFedericoBetti
- Aeroelasticity03.pdfUploaded byGaneshGovindarajan
- 2006 - Modelling and Position Control of Voltage Forced Electromechanical ActuatorUploaded byFedericoBetti
- canless rngineUploaded bySrinivas Murthy
- 2014 - Aeroservoelastic Modeling and Analysis of a Missile Control Surface With a Nonlinear Electromechanical ActuatorUploaded byFedericoBetti
- 1999 - Single Finite States Modeling of Aerodynamic Forces Related to Structural Motions and Gusts.pdfUploaded byFedericoBetti
- 2000 - Comparing Linear Parameter-Varying Gain-scheduled Control Techniques for Active Flutter SuppressionUploaded byFedericoBetti
- 2014 - Nonlinear Aeroelastic Analysis for a Rudder With a Hydraulic BoosterUploaded byFedericoBetti
- 2014 - SCREW-DRIVEN VS. BELT-DRIVEN RODLESS ACTUATORS: How to select drive trains for reliability, ef ciency and long service life .pdfUploaded byFedericoBetti
- 2004 - Aeroelastic Forces and Dynamic Response of Long-span BridgesUploaded byFedericoBetti
- Electro Mechanical Actuators for General Aviation Fly by Wire AircraftUploaded byFedericoBetti
- ???? - Aeroelastic Dynamic Response and Control of an Airfoil Section With Control Surface NonlinearitiesUploaded byFedericoBetti
- MP-AVT-152-18Uploaded byFedericoBetti
- 1450-55840404317MUploaded byFedericoBetti
- 1996 - The Role of Eigenvectors in Aeroelastic AnalysisUploaded byFedericoBetti
- 01235292Uploaded byFedericoBetti
- Sem.org IMAC XXIV Conf s02p01 Investigation Dynamic Characterization Aircraft Control Surface FreeUploaded byFedericoBetti
- AIAA-2010-492Uploaded byFedericoBetti

- DC Machines Week 4Uploaded byEdilson Valderrama
- Turbo Machines,Uploaded byyash_ganatra
- A New Auto-switched Chaotic System and Its FPGA ImplementationUploaded byblablablou
- School Form 5 (RBEC)Uploaded byJobel Sibal Capunfuerza
- CausalUploaded byGerilyn Galinato
- TEXT 13. StatisticsUploaded byHector R.
- learningwithmickeyminnie lesson planUploaded byapi-294491980
- Input & OutputUploaded bymas akhbaruddin
- Neki Zadaci AnalizaUploaded byJohanna Carlson
- grade 7 7 3 l18Uploaded byapi-296039056
- Another Thermodynamics WorksheetUploaded bysobre1982
- Calculation of Shear CenterUploaded byflorin
- Geo3Uploaded bywshen1468
- distributed_dbms_tutorial.pdfUploaded byVivekananda Ganjigunta Narayana
- hw03Uploaded bybookwprk122134
- 2820007Uploaded byJignesh
- OM 08.1 Operations SchedulingUploaded byChetas1992
- Learning With ScratchUploaded byJosé Vasconcelos
- Numerical Computation of Internal and External Flow. Ch3Uploaded byJavier Carceller
- Quiz-003Uploaded byDolly Lyn Reyes
- Scaffold.pptUploaded byliandu
- Statprob 2Uploaded byDessyDwiRosAninda
- Unified Modelling LanguageUploaded bySteve dan macabiog
- A Slug Test is a Controlled Field Experiment in Which the Water Level in a Control Well is Caused to ChangeUploaded byMalik Mohsin Tariq
- Energy System in Steady StateUploaded bySkay Paonam
- IGCSE Mathematics 4400 May 2004 Question Paper and Mark Scheme Paper 2F N20709Uploaded byVarun Panicker
- 10476.pdfUploaded byzorrito25
- Thesis Writing - CopyUploaded byHamka Hidayah
- Durbin LevinsonUploaded byNguyễn Thành An
- 35206-900Uploaded bymalli gadu