'2/50 &/2 !%2/.!54)#!, 2%3%!2#( !.$ 4%#(./,/'9 ).

%52/0%
&2!.#% ⋅ '%2-!.9 ⋅ )4!,9 4(% .%4(%2,!.$3 ⋅ 30!). ⋅ 37%$%. ⋅ 5.)4%$ +).'$/-

/2)').!, %.',)3( '!24%5240   !

&EBRUARY TH  !DD 2EF #)2! #2 3)6  

'!24%52 /PEN

3%,%#4%$ #2)4%2)! &/2 #,%!2!.#% /& 4(%

()2-0,53 &,)'(4 #/.42/, ,!73

!$$%.$5- 4/
4(% ()2-0,53 !)2#2!&4 -/$%,
!.$ #/.42/, ,!73 $%6%,/0-%.4

BY
'!24%52 &-!'

'!24%52 AIMS AT STIMULATING AND CO ORDINATING CO OPERATION BETWEEN 2ESEARCH

%STABLISHMENTS )NDUSTRY AND !CADEMIA IN THE AREAS OF !ERODYNAMICS &LIGHT
-ECHANICS (ELICOPTERS 3TRUCTURE  -ATERIAL AND 0ROPULSION 4ECHNOLOGY
 I $ATE &EBRUARY TH 
'!24%5240   ! V
!DD 2EF #)2! #2 3)6  

,IST OF !UTHORS

&REDRIK +ARLSSON 3!!" DETAILED FORMULATION OF CRITERION  AND APPENDIX !

5DO +ORTE $!3! - CRITERIA DEFINITION
3TEFANO 3CALA #)2! DETAILED FORMULATION OF CRITERIA  AND 
 II $ATE &EBRUARY TH 
'!24%5240   ! V
!DD 2EF #)2! #2 3)6  

3UMMARY

4HIS DOCUMENT CONTAINS THE DESCRIPTION OF THE CLEARANCE CRITERIA SELECTED BY &-!'
FOR THE APPLICATION TO THE ANALYSIS OF THE ()2-PLUS AND THE PROPOSED LAYOUT OF THE
ANALYSIS REPORTS TO BE PRODUCED BY THE ANALYSIS TEAMS
)T IS INTENDED AS AN ADDENDUM TO THE DOCUMENT '!24%5240   4HE ()2-PLUS
!IRCRAFT -ODEL AND #ONTROL ,AWS $EVELOPMENT
4HE CURRENT VERSION IS UPDATED WITH MODIFICATIONS APPROVED AT THE THIRD MEETING OF
&-!' 
 III $ATE &EBRUARY TH 
'!24%5240   ! V
!DD 2EF #)2! #2 3)6  

#ONTENTS

,IST OF !UTHORS I
3UMMARY II
,IST OF !BBREVIATIONS IV
$ISTRIBUTION ,IST VI
,ISTS OF &IGURES AND 4ABLES VIII
,IST OF #HANGES WITH RESPECT TO VERSION  IX
 )NTRODUCTION 
 &LIGHT ENVELOPE AND MODEL UNCERTAINTIES FOR THE ANALYSIS 
 7ORST CASE STABILITY MARGIN CLASS  
 7ORST CASE UNSTABLE EIGENVALUES CLASS  
 !VERAGE 0HASE 2ATE  ABSOLUTE AMPLITUDE CRITERION CLASS  
 #LONK CRITERION CLASS  
 ,ARGEST EXCEEDANCE OF ANGLE OF ATTACK AND NORMAL LOAD FACTOR LIMITS CLASS   
 2EFERENCES 
! 4HE PROPOSED LAYOUT OF THE ANALYSIS REPORTS 
 IV $ATE &EBRUARY TH 
'!24%5240   ! V
!DD 2EF #)2! #2 3)6  

,IST OF !BBREVIATIONS

!$-)2% !ERO $ATA -ODEL )N 2ESEARCH %NVIRONMENT

!' !CTION 'ROUP
!) !CTION )TEM
!O! !NGLE OF !TTACK
!O3 !NGLE OF 3IDESLIP
"!E -! "RITISH !EROSPACE -ILITARY !IRCRAFT AND !EROSTRUCTURES
"5 "RISTOL 5NIVERSITY
##, #AMBRIDGE #ONTROL ,IMITED
#)2! #ENTRO )TALIANO 2ICERCHE !EROSPAZIALI
#O' #ENTRE OF 'RAVITY
$! $AIMLER#HRYSLER !EROSPACE !IRBUS 'MB(
$!3! - $AIMLER "ENZ !EROSPACE -ILITAIRFLUGZEUGE
$!V $ASSAULT !VIATION
$% 'ERMANY
$%2! $EFENCE %VALUATION AND 2ESEARCH !GENCY
$,2 "3 $EUTSCHES :ENTRUM F¼R ,UFT UND 2AUMFAHRT EV
"RAUNSCHWEIG
$,2 /0 $EUTSCHES :ENTRUM F¼R ,UFT UND 2AUMFAHRT EV
/BERPFAFFENHOFEN
$54 $ELFT 5NIVERSITY OF 4ECHNOLOGY
%' %XPLORATORY 'ROUP
%3 3PAIN
&# &LIGHT #ONTROL OR &LIGHT #ONDITION
&#, &LIGHT #ONTROL ,AWS
&#3 &LIGHT #ONTROL 3YSTEM
&% &LIGHT %NVELOPE
&&! &LYGTEKNISKA &¶RS¶KSANSTALTEN !ERONAUTICAL RESEARCH INSTITUTE
OF 3WEDEN
&-'O2 &LIGHT -ECHANICS 'ROUP OF 2ESPONSABLES
&2 &RANCE
'!24%52 'ROUP FOR !ERONAUTICAL 2ESEARCH AND 4ECHNOLOGY IN %52OPE
()2- (IGH )NCIDENCE 2ESEARCH -ODEL
()2-PLUS 5PDATED (IGH )NCIDENCE 2ESEARCH -ODEL
(7%- (ARRIER 7IDE %NVELOPE -ODEL
).4! )NSTITUTO .ACIONAL DE 4©CNICA !EROESPACIAL
)4 )TALY
)1# )NTEGRAL 1UADRATIC #ONSTRAINTS
,& 05- ,INEAR &RACTIONAL 0ARAMETER 5NCERTAINTY -ODEL
,&4 ,INEAR &RACTIONAL 4RANSFORMATION
,-) ,INEAR -ATRIX )NEQUALITY
 V $ATE &EBRUARY TH 
'!24%5240   ! V
!DD 2EF #)2! #2 3)6  

-"$ -ATRA "RITISH !EROSPACE $YNAMICS

., 4HE .ETHERLANDS
.,2 .ATIONAAL ,UCHTVAART EN 2UIMTEVAARTLABORTORIUM
/$% 05- /RDINARY $IFFERENTIAL %QUATION 0ARAMETER 5NCERTAINTY -ODEL
/.%2! 3ALON /FFICE .ATIONAL D ‰TUDES ET DE 2ECHERCHES !©ROSPATIALE 3ALON
DE 0ROVENCE
/.%2! 4OULOUSE /FFICE .ATIONAL D ‰TUDES ET DE 2ECHERCHES !©ROSPATIALE
4OULOUSE
0-4 0ROJECT -ANAGEMENT 4EAM
0O# 0OINT OF #ONTACT
05- 0ARAMETER 5NCERTAINTY -ODEL
2#!- 2ESEARCH #IVIL !IRCRAFT -ODEL
3!!" 3AAB !"
3% 3WEDEN
4"$ 4O "E $EFINED
4O2 4ERMS OF 2EFERENCE
5"/2 5NIVERSIT¨ "ORDEAUX 
5#!- 5NIVERSITY OF #AMBRIDGE
5+ 5NITED +INGDOM
5, 5NIVERSITY OF ,EICESTER
534 5NIVERSITY OF 3TUTTGART
70 7ORK 0ACKAGE
8# '!24%52 %XECUTIVE #OMMITTEE
 VI $ATE &EBRUARY TH 
'!24%5240   ! V
!DD 2EF #)2! #2 3)6  

$ISTRIBUTION ,IST

DISTRIBUTION IS VIA E MAIL AND 7IDE !REA .ETWORK IF NOT OTHERWISE SPECIFIED

'!24%52 3ECRETARY HARDCOPY 

3ODHA /+ 5+ $%2!

'!24%52 &LIGHT -ECHANICS 3YSTEMS AND )NTEGRATION 'ROUP OF 2ESPONSIBLES

"OER 7 DE ., .,2
"RANNSTROM " 3% &-6
#AAP 0 3% &&!
(ALL * 5+ $%2!
(UYNH (4 &2 /.%2!
-UNOZ 3ANZ & #HAIRMAN &- 'O2 %3 ).4!
2ODLOFF 2 $% $,2
6ERDE , -ONITORING 2ESPONSIBLE &-!' )4 #)2!

'!24%52 &-!' 0OINTS OF #ONTACT

"ATES $ 5+ 5,
"AUSCHAT - $% $,2 "3
"ENNANI 3 ., $54
"ERGEON " &2 5"/2
#HOPLIN * &2 $!V
$ANG 6U " &2 /.%2! 3ALON
$-ELLO ' 6ICE #HAIRMAN &-!' 5+ $%2!
&IELDING # 5+ "!E -!
&ORSSELL , 3% &&!
'LOVER + 5+ 5#!-
(YDE 2 5+ ##,
+ARLSSON & 3% 3!!"
+ORTE 5 $% $!3! -
,OWENBERG - 5+ "5
,UCKNER 2 $% $!
-AGNI * & &2 /.%2! 4OULOUSE
-ART­NEZ ! %3 ).4!
.EIGHBOUR % 5+ -"$
3CALA 3 #HAIRMAN &-!' )4 #)2!
3ELIER - ., .,2
 VII $ATE &EBRUARY TH 
'!24%5240   ! V
!DD 2EF #)2! #2 3)6  

6ARGA ! $% $,2 /0

7ELL + $% 534

/THERS
"ENNETT $ 5+ "!E -!
"OGG 3 3% 3!!"
"URNELL * 5+ $%2!
#ANTONI - 5+ 5#!-
#AZAURANG & &2 5"/2
*OHANSSON & 3% &&!
-ANNCHEN 4 $% 534
-OORMANN $ $% $,2 /0
2UNDQWIST , 3% 3!!"
6IDAL # %3 ).4!
6INNICOMBE ' 5+ 5#!-
7ILMES 4 $% $,2 "3
 VIII $ATE &EBRUARY TH 
'!24%5240   ! V
!DD 2EF #)2! #2 3)6  

,ISTS OF &IGURES AND 4ABLES

,IST OF &IGURES

&IGURE  &LIGHT ENVELOPE OF THE ()2-PLUS WITH 2)$% CONTROL LAWS

&IGURE  'AIN AND PHASE EXCLUSION ZONES ON .ICHOLS PLOT FOR SINGLE LOOP ANALYSIS 
&IGURE  'AIN AND PHASE OFFSETS INCLUDING TOLERANCES 
&IGURE  $EFINITION OF A POSSIBLE STABILITY MARGIN BY SCALING THE EXCLUSION REGION 
&IGURE  !LTERNATIVE DEFINITION OF EXCLUSION REGION FOR STABILITY MARGIN COMPUTATION
&IGURE  "OUNDARIES FOR THE WORST CASE UNSTABLE EIGENVALUE REQUIREMENT
&IGURE  'AIN SCHEDULING OF LONGITUDINAL STICK COMMAND WITH DYNAMIC PRESSURE
&IGURE  0ARAMETERS OF THE !VERAGE 0HASE 2ATE  !BSOLUTE AMPLITUDE CRITERION
&IGURE  !VERAGE 0HASE 2ATE  !BSOLUTE AMPLITUDE #RITERION BOUNDARIES 
&IGURE  $EFINITION OF THE CLONK MANOEUVRE
&IGURE  0ILOT COMMANDS FOR TESTING LARGEST EXCEEDANCE OF !O! AND NZ LIMITS

,IST OF 4ABLES

4ABLE  3ET OF POINTS IN THE FLIGHT ENVELOPE FOR TESTING OF NON LINEAR RESPONSE CRITERION
4ABLE  )MPORTANCE OF UNCERTAIN PARAMETERS IN THE CLEARANCE ANALYSIS 
4ABLE  7EIGHTS ON SIMULTANEOUS AERODYNAMIC TOLERANCES 
4ABLE  3TICK CHARACTERISTICS 
4ABLE  &#3 GAIN FOR LONGITUDINAL STICK COMMAND AT SPECIFIED FLIGHT CONDITIONS SORTED
BY DYNAMIC PRESSURE  
 IX $ATE &EBRUARY TH 
'!24%5240   ! V
!DD 2EF #)2! #2 3)6  

,IST OF #HANGES WITH RESPECT TO VERSION 

 )N SECTION  A FREQUENCY DEPENDENT BOUND HAS BEEN INCLUDED FOR THE REAL PART OF
EIGENVALUES
 )N SECTION  THE COMMAND PATH GAIN FOR THE PITCH CHANNEL IS NOW GAIN SCHEDULED
WITH DYNAMIC PRESSURE
 )N SECTION  FOR THE CLONK TEST THRUST HAS TO BE MAINTAINED AT THE INITIAL VALUE AND
THE CONDITION TO END THE SIMULATION HAS BEEN MODIFIED
 )N SECTION  IDENTIFICATION OF THE LARGEST EXCEEDANCE OF THE ANGLE OF ATTACK AND
NORMAL LOAD FACTOR RESPONSES IS NOW REQUIRED
 )N SECTION  THE MINUTES OF THE THIRD MEETING OF &-!' ARE REFERENCED
 X $ATE &EBRUARY TH 
'!24%5240   ! V
!DD 2EF #)2! #2 3)6  

0!'% ,%&4 ",!.+ ).4%.4)/.!,,9

  $ATE &EBRUARY TH 
'!24%5240   ! V
!DD 2EF #)2! #2 3)6  

 )NTRODUCTION

!T THE SECOND MEETING OF &-!'  A SET OF CRITERIA CURRENTLY USED IN THE AERONAUTICAL
INDUSTRY FOR THE CLEARANCE OF FLIGHT CONTROL LAWS HAS BEEN PROPOSED BY $!3! - -R
+ORTE  ;= AS AN APPROPRIATE SET OF EVALUATION CRITERIA TO BE USED IN 70 !NALYSIS
4ECHNIQUES OF &-!' 

4HE CRITERIA WERE GROUPED INTO FOUR CLASSES

 ,INEAR STABILITY CRITERIA
 !IRCRAFT HANDLING0)/ CRITERIA
 .ON LINEAR STABILITY CRITERIA
 .ON LINEAR RESPONSE CRITERIA

&OR THE FIRST ANALYSIS TASK OF 70 THE ANALYSIS OF THE ()2-PLUS MODEL AND ITS FLIGHT
CONTROL LAWS A SELECTION OF CRITERIA FROM THE ABOVE SET HAS BEEN AGREED UPON DURING THE
SECOND MEETING ;= AND TESTED UNTIL THE THIRD MEETING WHERE THEIR DEFINITION HAS BEEN
UPDATED ON THE BASE OF THE EXPERIENCE OF THEIR APPLICATION TO THE ()2-PLUS 4HE
SELECTED CRITERIA COVERING ALL OF THE ABOVE CLASSES OF CRITERIA ARE
 7ORST CASE STABILITY MARGIN CLASS 
 7ORST CASE UNSTABLE REAL EIGENVALUES CLASS 
 !VERAGE 0HASE 2ATE  ABSOLUTE AMPLITUDE CRITERION CLASS 
 #LONK CRITERION CLASS 
 ,ARGEST EXCEEDANCE OF !NGLE OF !TTACK AND .ORMAL ,OAD &ACTOR LIMITS CLASS  

4HIS REPORT AIMS AT PROVIDING A CLEAR DEFINITION OF THE SELECTED CRITERIA )T IS INTENDED AS
AN ADDENDUM TO THE REPORT '!24%5240   4HE ()2-PLUS !IRCRAFT -ODEL AND
#ONTROL ,AWS $EVELOPMENT ;=
4WO REPORTS FROM &-!' ARE ALSO RELEVANT FOR THE ()2-PLUS ANALYSIS
• '!24%5240   ;= WHICH CONTAINS THE DESCRIPTION OF THE UNAUGMENTED
()2- MODEL AND OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE FLIGHT CONTROL LAWS
• '!24%5240   ;= WHICH CONTAINS THE DESCRIPTION OF THE ORIGINAL 2)$%
2OBUST )NVERSE $YNAMICS %STIMATION &LIGHT #ONTROL ,AWS FOR THE ()2- DESIGNED
BY $%2! WITHIN &-!' 

)T IS IMPORTANT TO POINT OUT THAT ONE OF THE AIMS OF &-!' IS TO BRING NEW METHODS
FROM RESEARCHERS TO THE CLEARANCE OF FLIGHT CONTROL LAWS THEREFORE NEW IDEAS ARE
WELCOMED ON HOW TO DEFINE WORST CASES THE REASONS WHY AND HOW ROBUSTNESS SHOULD BE
MEASURED )N THIS WAY THE LIMITED CLEARANCE STUDY ON THE ()2-PLUS SHOULD BE
  $ATE &EBRUARY TH 
'!24%5240   ! V
!DD 2EF #)2! #2 3)6  

CONSIDERED AS A FIRST APPROACH OF RESEARCHERS TO THE CLEARANCE PROBLEM THAT WILL CERTAINLY
BE A GOOD EXPERIENCE FOR THEM AS IT WILL HELP THEM TO UNDERSTAND WHAT IS CURRENTLY DONE
IN INDUSTRY AND WHY

)N !PPENDIX ! THE LAYOUT OF THE ANALYSIS REPORTS PROPOSED BY 3!!" IS REPORTED 4HIS
LAYOUT PROVIDE GUIDELINES TO THE PARTICIPANTS ON HOW TO PRESENT THEIR RESULTS IN ORDER TO
OBTAIN A UNIFORM PRESENTATION FROM EACH OF THE PARTICIPANTS
  $ATE &EBRUARY TH 
'!24%5240   ! V
!DD 2EF #)2! #2 3)6  

 &LIGHT ENVELOPE AND MODEL UNCERTAINTIES FOR THE ANALYSIS

&IGURE  TAKEN FROM ;= SHOWS THE ()2-PLUS &LIGHT %NVELOPE &%  WITH THE 2)$%
CONTROL LAWS MODIFIED AS DESCRIBED IN ;=

&IGURE  &LIGHT ENVELOPE OF THE ()2-PLUS WITH 2)$% CONTROL LAWS

4AKING INTO ACCOUNT THE LIMITED TIME AVAILABLE TO PERFORM THE ANALYSIS OF THE ()2-PLUS
MODEL AT THE SECOND MEETING OF &-!' IT HAS BEEN AGREED TO RESTRICT THE ANALYSIS TO
THE DISCRETE SET OF FLIGHT CONDITIONS DEFINED IN 4ABLE  AND SHOWN IN &IGURE  IN ORDER TO
REDUCE THE ANALYSIS EFFORT &OR ALL OF THE FLIGHT CONDITIONS IN 4ABLE  SEVERAL FLIGHT CASES
SHOULD BE TAKEN INTO ACCOUNT 4HESE FLIGHT CASES ARE ALL THE EQUILIBRIUM CONDITIONS IN
STRAIGHT AND LEVEL FLIGHT AND IN PULL UP MANOEUVRES CHARACTERISED BY DIFFERENT VALUES OF
!O! AND LOAD FACTORS UP TO THE MAXIMUM !O! OR LOAD FACTOR ! TYPICAL STEP TO BE USED
IN THE ()2-PLUS ANALYSIS FOR THE !O! GRIDDING IS ∆α  °

&# .O &# &# &# &# &# &# &# &#
-        
H ;FT=        
4ABLE  3ET OF POINTS IN THE FLIGHT ENVELOPE FOR TESTING OF NON LINEAR RESPONSE CRITERION
  $ATE &EBRUARY TH 
'!24%5240   ! V
!DD 2EF #)2! #2 3)6  

)T SHOULD BE NOTED HERE THAT IN REALITY INDUSTRY NEEDS TO CLEAR THE &LIGHT #ONTROL ,AWS IN
THE WHOLE &% AND THAT REDUCING THE ANALYSIS TO A LIMITED NUMBER OF SELECTED FLIGHT
CONDITIONS IS ONLY DONE FOR THE ()2-PLUS DUE TO THE TIME LIMITATIONS !S AN EXAMPLE
FOR AN AIRCRAFT WITH A FLIGHT ENVELOPE SIMILAR TO THE ()2- A TYPICAL CLEARANCE ANALYSIS
WOULD BE PERFORMED ON A GRID IN THE FLIGHT ENVELOPE -H  WITH TYPICAL STEPS ∆-  
∆H   FT 2ESEARCHERS ARE ANYWAY INVITED TO PROPOSE METHODS BY WHICH A GLOBAL
ANALYSIS CAN BE PERFORMED IE AN ANALYSIS ALLOWING CLEARANCE OF WHOLE SETS OF FLIGHT
CONDITIONS THE ENTIRE ENVELOPE IN THE LIMIT IN ONE SHOT INSTEAD OF SINGLE POINTS ONE AT A
TIME

!T THE SECOND MEETING OF &-!' IT HAS BEEN DECIDED THAT SEPARATE LONGITUDINAL AND
LATERAL DIRECTIONAL ANALYSIS SHALL BE PERFORMED

4HE SET OF LINEARISED MODELS TO BE TAKEN INTO ACCOUNT ARE THOSE OBTAINED IN STRAIGHT AND
LEVEL FLIGHT CONDITIONS AND IN PULL UP MANOEUVRES WITH THE GIVEN !O! GRID SPACING 
WITHIN THE FLIGHT ENVELOPE &% 4HE VARIATION OF THE MODELS DUE TO THE MODEL
UNCERTAINTIES LISTED IN 3ECTION  HAS TO BE CONSIDERED

4HE ()2-PLUS MODEL CONTAINS SEVERAL UNCERTAIN PARAMETERS 4HEY ARE DEFINED IN
3ECTION  OF ;= TOGETHER WITH THEIR NOMINAL VALUES AND THEIR UNCERTAINTY RANGES
&OR THE SCOPE OF THE CURRENT ANALYSIS A RATING OF THE UNCERTAIN PARAMETERS OF THE
()2-PLUS MODEL HAS BEEN GIVEN BOTH FOR LONGITUDINAL AND FOR LATERAL DIRECTIONAL ONES
4HE RATING IS INTENDED TO REDUCE THE NUMBER OF PARAMETERS TO BE TAKEN INTO ACCOUNT
DURING A PRELIMINARY ANALYSIS OF LIMITED TIME LENGTH
0ARAMETERS RATED AS CATEGORY  ARE THE MOST RELEVANT FOR CLEARANCE AND THEREFORE THEY
-534 BE TAKEN INTO ACCOUNT IN THE ANALYSIS FROM THE BEGINNING 0ARAMETERS RATED AS
CATEGORY  ARE LESS RELEVANT AND THEIR VARIATION CAN BE IGNORED DURING A PRELIMINARY
ANALYSIS 4ABLE  PRESENTS THE LIST OF UNCERTAIN PARAMETERS CLASSIFIED INTO PITCH AXIS AND
THE LATERAL AXES AND THE TWO CATEGORIES FOR EACH AXIS &OR THE MEANING AND DEFINITION OF
THE PARAMETERS IN 4ABLE  SEE ;=
  $ATE &EBRUARY TH 
'!24%5240   ! V
!DD 2EF #)2! #2 3)6  

0ITCH AXIS ,ATERAL $IRECTIONAL AXIS

CATEGORY  CATEGORY  CATEGORY  CATEGORY 
MOST RELEVANT LESS RELEVANT MOST RELEVANT LESS RELEVANT
8#' MASS 9#' CLδ4$
)Y :#' )X CLδ#$
CMα )XZ )Z CLδ2
CMδ43 CMδ#3 CLβ CNδ4$
CMQ CNβ CNδ#$
CNR CNδ2
CLP
CLR
CNP
4ABLE  )MPORTANCE OF UNCERTAIN PARAMETERS IN THE CLEARANCE ANALYSIS

&OR THE NOMINAL VALUES AND RANGES OF THE UNCERTAINTIES SEE ;= .OTE THAT THE REDUCTION
FACTOR IN 4ABLE  HAS TO BE APPLIED TO THE RANGES OF AERODYNAMIC UNCERTAINTIES WHEN
SEVERAL OF THEM ARE APPLIED SIMULTANEOUSLY

3IMULTANEOUS NUMBER OF W  2EDUCTION FACTOR

AERODYNAMIC UNCERTAINTIES ON UNCERTAINTY RANGE
 
 
 
 
4ABLE  7EIGHTS ON SIMULTANEOUS AERODYNAMIC TOLERANCES

2EGARDING THE FIGURES IN THE TABLE AND THE CLASSIFICATION OF THE UNCERTAINTIES INTO TWO
CATEGORIES OF DECREASING RELEVANCE TO CLEARANCE THE FOLLOWING SHOULD BE NOTED !
PROBLEM IN ITSELF IS TO ESTABLISH WHICH UNCERTAINTIES SHOULD BE IN WHICH CATEGORY FOR AN
AIRCRAFT 4HIS IS INDICATED BY INDUSTRY AS AN IMPORTANT ISSUE ON WHICH RESEARCHERS ARE
INVITED TO GIVE AN ANSWER WITHIN &-!'  !IRCRAFT DESIGNERS USUALLY HAVE A GOOD
IDEA WHICH PARAMETERS MATTER FIRST FROM THEIR EXPERIENCE WITH EARLIER PROJECTS SECOND
FROM THEIR UNDERSTANDING OF THE AIRCRAFTS LINEARISED EQUATIONS OF MOTIONS AND ASSOCIATED
TRANSFER FUNCTIONS )T IS COMMON PRACTICE TO SUPPORT THIS KNOWLEDGE WITH A PRELIMINARY
ANALYSIS WITH ONLY ONE UNCERTAINTY AT A TIME IN ORDER TO CONFIRM THE DEGREE OF
IMPORTANCE OF EVERY UNCERTAINTY AND THEN TO REPEAT THE ANALYSIS WITH DIFFERENT SETS OF
  $ATE &EBRUARY TH 
'!24%5240   ! V
!DD 2EF #)2! #2 3)6  

SIMULTANEOUS UNCERTAINTIES TO WHICH THE REDUCTION FACTORS OF 4ABLE  ARE APPLIED 7ITHIN
THIS ANALYSIS IT IS REASONABLE TO ASSUME THAT NO MORE THAN  UNCERTAINTIES AT A TIME SHOULD
BE CONSIDERED )NDEED INCREASING THE NUMBER OF SIMULTANEOUS UNCERTAINTIES WOULD LEAD
TO SMALLER VALUES OF THE REDUCTION FACTOR IN 4ABLE  SUCH THAT THE UNCERTAINTY SET AROUND
THE NOMINAL POINT WOULD BE VERY SMALL AND THEREFORE THE ANALYSIS WOULD GIVE RESULTS NOT
SIGNIFICANTLY DIFFERENT FROM THOSE OBTAINED IN THE NOMINAL CONDITION

! GENERIC DEFINITION OF THE UNCERTAINTIES IS THE FOLLOWING

,ET N BE THE NUMBER OF UNCERTAIN PARAMETERS TO BE TAKEN INTO ACCOUNT IN SOME CRITERION
&OR THE I TH UNCERTAIN PARAMETER DEFINE AS ΠI THE INTERVAL IN WHICH THE PARAMETER CAN
VARY ACCORDING TO THE DEFINITION IN 3ECTION  OF ;= 4HEN LET
Π  IF THE I TH UNCERTAINTY IS NOT AN AERODYNAMIC PARAMETER
Π = I

 WΠ  IF THE I TH UNCERTAINTY IS AN AERODYNAMIC PARAMETER

I W

BE THE UNCERTAINTY RANGE TO BE USED IN THE ANALYSIS FOR THE I TH PARAMETER WHICH IS
REDUCED ACCORDING TO THE SCALING FACTORS GIVEN IN 4ABLE  IF THE PARAMETER IS AN
AERODYNAMIC UNCERTAINTY &OR EXAMPLE IF THE I TH UNCERTAIN PARAMETER IS CMα5NC AND
THREE AERODYNAMIC UNCERTAIN PARAMETERS ARE CONSIDERED SIMULTANEOUSLY THEN
ΠI  ;   =
W  
ΠIW  WΠI  
;   =  ;   =
4HE COMPLETE UNCERTAINTY SET IS ΠΠW×…×ΠNW⊂2N IE THE HYPER RECTANGLE IN WHICH
THE VECTOR OF N UNCERTAIN PARAMETERS VARIES
&INALLY LET π∈Π BE A PARTICULAR VALUE OF THE VECTOR OF UNCERTAIN PARAMETERS IN THE
UNCERTAINTY SET Π
  $ATE &EBRUARY TH 
'!24%5240   ! V
!DD 2EF #)2! #2 3)6  

 7ORST CASE STABILITY MARGIN CLASS 

#RITERION PROPOSED IN ;=

)DENTIFY ALL FLIGHT CASES IN TERMS OF - !O! DYNAMIC PRESSURE OR ALTITUDE WHERE THE
.ICHOLS PLOT STABILITY MARGIN BOUNDARIES SEE &IGURE  AND &IGURE  OF ;= ARE
VIOLATED MOST IE DEFINE THE WORST CASE TOLERANCE COMBINATION

.OTE THAT ALTHOUGH FOR CLEARANCE PURPOSES ONLY VIOLATIONS OF THE BOUNDARIES ARE OF
INTEREST ON THE OTHER HAND FOR ANALYSIS AND UNDERSTANDING PURPOSES THE WORST CASE
COMBINATION IS OF INTEREST ANYWAY EVEN IF THE BOUNDARIES ARE NOT VIOLATED

&ORMULATION OF REQUIREMENTS IN &-!'

4HE FORMULATION OF THE TWO REQUIREMENTS AS STATED IN ;= IS REPEATED HERE FOR CLARITY OF
PRESENTATION .OTE THAT AT LEAST THE SINGLE LOOP ANALYSIS MUST BE PERFORMED FOR
()2-PLUS -ULTI LOOP ANALYSIS IS ALSO DESIRABLE ALTHOUGH IT CAN BE ACCEPTED THAT IT IS
NOT PERFORMED FOR THE ()2-PLUS DUE TO TIME LIMITATIONS
A 3INGLE LOOP ANALYSIS
4HE OPEN LOOP .ICHOLS PLOTS OF THE FREQUENCY RESPONSE OBTAINED BY BREAKING THE LOOP AT
THE INPUT OF EACH ACTUATOR ONE AT A TIME WHILE LEAVING THE OTHER LOOPS CLOSED SHOULD
AVOID THE REGION SHOWN IN &IGURE  .OTE THAT WHEN PERFORMING THE FREQUENCY RESPONSE
A GAIN OF  NEEDS TO BE INCLUDED ON THE INPUT OR THE OUTPUT TO OBTAIN THE CORRECT PHASE
RESPONSE 4HIS REQUIREMENT SHOULD BE SATISFIED FOR EACH CONTROL LOOP .OTE THAT THE
2)$% CONTROL LAWS OF THE ()2-PLUS ONLY USE SYMMETRICAL THRUST SYMMETRICAL AND
DIFFERENTIAL TAILPLANE AND RUDDER FOR CONTROL WHILE SYMMETRICAL AND DIFFERENTIAL CANARDS
NOSE SUCTION AND DIFFERENTIAL THRUST ARE NOT USED
  $ATE &EBRUARY TH 
'!24%5240   ! V
!DD 2EF #)2! #2 3)6  

&IGURE  'AIN AND PHASE EXCLUSION ZONES ON .ICHOLS PLOT FOR SINGLE LOOP ANALYSIS
.OTE THAT THIS TEST ONLY REQUIRES CHECKING WHETHER THE TRANSFER FUNCTION DOES CROSS OR
DOES NOT CROSS THE EXCLUSION REGION

B -ULTI LOOP ANALYSIS

4HE CLOSED LOOP SYSTEM SHOULD BE ABLE TO WITHSTAND THE APPLICATION OF SIMULTANEOUS AND
INDEPENDENT GAIN AND PHASE OFFSETS AT THE INPUT OF EACH ONE OF THE ACTUATORS WITHOUT
BECOMING UNSTABLE 4HE CORRESPONDING PERTURBATION MATRIX 0 WILL BE OF THE FORM
0  DIAG+E Jϕ +E Jϕ
7HERE +I AND ϕI ARE GAIN AND PHASE OFFSETS RESPECTIVELY TAKING VALUES IN THE REGION
SHOWN IN &IGURE  .OTE THAT 0 SHOULD BE PLACED IN SERIES IN FRONT OF THE ACTUATORS
GIVING AN UNCERTAIN GAIN SCALING IN THE RANGE ;  = AND A MAXIMUM PHASE DELAY OF
 DEG ON THE INPUT TO THE ACTUATORS 0 IS OF DIMENSION  BY  SINCE FOUR CONTROLS ARE
USED IN THE 2)$% CONTROL LAWS SYMMETRICAL THRUST SYMMETRICAL TAILPLANES DIFFERENTIAL
TAILPLANES AND RUDDER
  $ATE &EBRUARY TH 
'!24%5240   ! V
!DD 2EF #)2! #2 3)6  

&IGURE  'AIN AND PHASE OFFSETS INCLUDING TOLERANCES

.OTE ALSO THAT IN &-!' THE ABOVE REQUIREMENTS WERE CHECKED WITH IDENTICAL VALUES
OF GAIN AND PHASE OFFSETS ON EACH OF THE LOOPS IN ORDER TO AVOID TESTING A LARGE NUMBER OF
DIFFERENT COMBINATIONS 4HE MINIMUM SET OF POINTS TO TEST WERE THE FOUR CORNERS OF THE
REGION IN &IGURE 

%XPLANATION OF THE CRITERION PROPOSED IN &-!'

7ITH RESPECT TO THE REQUIREMENTS FORMULATED IN &-!'  IT IS ASKED HERE TO IDENTIFY
FOR EACH FLIGHT CASE IN TERMS OF - ALTITUDE DYNAMIC PRESSURE AND !O! AND FOR EACH
CONTROL LOOP THE WORST CASE VARIATION IE THE COMBINATION OF APPLIED UNCERTAINTIES THAT
INDUCES THE WORST STABILITY MARGIN AND FOR THE FLIGHT CASES WHERE THE BOUNDARIES ARE
VIOLATED THE WORST VIOLATION OF THE GIVEN BOUNDARIES
(ERE A DIFFERENCE TO THE REQUIREMENTS IN &-!' EXISTS 4HE TEST IS NOT ONLY A
PASSFAIL TEST .OW IT IS FURTHER REQUIRED TO GIVE A MEASURE OF THE AMOUNT OF NON
COMPLIANCE OR DISTANCE TO NON COMPLIANCE 4HEREFORE A SUITABLE DEFINITION OF THE
STABILITY MARGIN SAY ρ IS REQUIRED TO IDENTIFY THE WORST CASE

3EVERAL DIFFERENT POSSIBILITIES FOR THE DEFINITION OF ρ EXIST AND WILL BE LISTED BELOW AS
EXAMPLES
 THE FIRST POSSIBILITY IS TO USE CLASSICAL 3)3/ MEASURES OF STABILITY MARGINS SUCH AS
SEPARATE GAIN AND PHASE MARGINS 4HIS IMPLIES THAT FOR THE ADDED OFFSET CRITERION
GAIN OFFSETS AND PHASE OFFSETS SHOULD BE INSERTED SEPARATELY .OTE THAT SINCE THESE
  $ATE &EBRUARY TH 
'!24%5240   ! V
!DD 2EF #)2! #2 3)6  

MEASURES OF STABILITY ONLY GIVE AN INDICATION OF THE MARGIN ALONG THE AXES IT CAN
BE MISLEADING TO RELATE STABILITY ROBUSTNESS TO THESE MARGINS WHEN THE ACTUAL
PERTURBATION OR UNCERTAINTIES CAUSE BOTH GAIN AND PHASE VARIATIONS
 A SECOND POSSIBILITY IS TO ASSIGN A NORMALISED STABILITY MARGIN OF UNITY TO THE REGIONS
SHOWN RESPECTIVELY IN &IGURE  AND &IGURE  AND TO SCALE THE REGION OF PERTURBATION
BY PRESERVING ITS ASPECT RATIO 3MALLER REGIONS WILL HAVE A MARGIN LESS THAN ONE AND
GREATER REGIONS WILL HAVE A MARGIN GREATER THAN ONE 4HE STABILITY MARGIN ATTAINED
WILL BE DEFINED BY THE BOUNDARY OF THE GREATEST REGION AROUND THE CRITICAL POINT IN THE
.ICHOLS DIAGRAM THAT IS NOT CROSSED BY THE SET OF .ICHOLS PLOTS OF THE OPEN LOOP
SYSTEM FOR THE SINGLE LOOP TEST OR THE BOUNDARY OF THE GREATEST REGION FOR WHICH ALL
THE INTERNAL PERTURBATIONS DO NOT DESTABILISE THE SYSTEM FOR THE MULTI LOOP TEST  !N
EXAMPLE IS PRESENTED IN &IGURE  FOR THE SINGLE LOOP TEST !N HYPOTHETICAL TRANSFER
FUNCTION CONTINUOUS LINE IS PLOTTED IN THE .ICHOLS DIAGRAM AGAINST THE STABILITY
MARGIN BOUNDARY DEFINED IN THE CRITERION WHICH IS DRAWN WITH A BOLD LINE 4HE
EXAMPLE TRANSFER FUNCTION CROSSES THE BOUNDARY AND THEREFORE VIOLATES THE
REQUIREMENTS ! SECOND REGION OF THE SAME SHAPE AS THE CRITERION BOUNDARY IS
PLOTTED IN THE FIGURE 4HIS IS THE GREATEST REGION HAVING THAT SHAPE THAT IS NOT CROSSED
BY THE TRANSFER FUNCTION LINE 4HE STABILITY MARGIN AT THE CRITERION REGION WITH BOLD
BORDERS IS TAKEN AS UNITY 4HE STABILITY MARGIN AT THE INNER REGION IS DEFINED BY THE
RATIO
/" °
r3 = ≅ ≅ 
/! °
4HIS IS THE STABILITY MARGIN OF THE TRANSFER FUNCTION IN &IGURE  .OTE THAT FROM
SIMILARITY OF TRIANGLES THE STABILITY MARGIN CAN BE EQUIVALENTLY COMPUTED
$"
AS r 3 = 
#!
  $ATE &EBRUARY TH 
'!24%5240   ! V
!DD 2EF #)2! #2 3)6  

&IGURE  $EFINITION OF A POSSIBLE STABILITY MARGIN BY SCALING THE EXCLUSION REGION

 A FURTHER POSSIBILITY IS TO DEFINE AN ALTERNATIVE MEASURE FOR THE STABILITY MARGIN

RELATED TO REGIONS WITH SHAPES DIFFERENT FROM THE ONES IN &IGURE  AND &IGURE  3UCH
ALTERNATIVE MEASURES HAVE BEEN PRESENTED FOR EXAMPLE BY -R &IELDING IN ;= SEE
&IGURE  BELOW  AND -R (YDE IN ;=

&IGURE  !LTERNATIVE DEFINITION OF EXCLUSION REGION FOR STABILITY MARGIN COMPUTATION

  $ATE &EBRUARY TH 
'!24%5240   ! V
!DD 2EF #)2! #2 3)6  

!LTHOUGH NEW IDEAS ON ALTERNATIVE DEFINITIONS OF STABILITY MARGIN MEASURES ARE LOOKED
FOR AND ENCOURAGED A BASIC DEFINITION HAS BEEN SELECTED TO BE USED FOR THE ANALYSIS OF
THE ()2-PLUS IN ORDER TO FACILITATE THE COMPARISON OF THE RESULTS FOR THE VARIOUS
ANALYSIS TEAMS 4HE SELECTED MEASURE IS THE ONE DESCRIBED AT THE POINT  ABOVE
!LTERNATIVE MEASURES OF STABILITY MARGIN SHOULD BE USED IN ADDITION AND NOT AS
REPLACEMENTS OF THIS BASIC MEASURE

(AVING DEFINED A SUITABLE MEASURE FOR THE STABILITY MARGIN ρ3 THE CLEARANCE TEST REDUCES
TO SOLVING THE FOLLOWING PROBLEM
&OR EACH TRIM CASE OBTAINED BY TRIMMING THE AUGMENTED ()2-PLUS IN A LEVEL FLIGHT OR A
PULL UP WITH !O! STEPS OF ° IN EVERY FLIGHT CONDITION &#I IN 4ABLE  FIND AT THE INPUT
OF EACH ACTUATOR
r WC = MIN r 3
Π

p WC = ARG MIN r 3
Π

IE THE WORST CASE STABILITY MARGIN AND THE VALUE OF THE VECTOR OF UNCERTAIN PARAMETERS
WHERE THE WORST CASE IS ATTAINED
3EPARATE LONGITUDINAL AND LATERAL DIRECTIONAL ANALYSES CAN AND SHOULD BE PERFORMED 4HE
UNCERTAIN PARAMETERS TO TAKE INTO ACCOUNT ARE AT LEAST THE CATEGORY  PARAMETERS OF
4ABLE 
.OTE THAT FOR CLEARANCE OF FLIGHT CONTROL LAWS THE ABOVE PROBLEM IS ONLY OF INTEREST
WHEN ρWC   IE WHEN THE STABILITY MARGIN BOUNDARY IS VIOLATED "UT AS SAID BEFORE
FOR ANALYSIS AND UNDERSTANDING PURPOSES THE SOLUTION TO THE ABOVE PROBLEM IS OF INTEREST
ALSO WHEN THE BOUNDARIES ARE NOT VIOLATED )NDEED GIVEN THE WORST CASE STABILITY MARGIN
PROBLEM THE PROBLEM OF FINDING THE TRIM CASES WHERE THE BOUNDARIES ARE VIOLATED IT IS A
TRIVIAL ONE SINCE IT ONLY REQUIRES TO CHECK IF ρWC  
4HEREFORE FOR THE ()2-PLUS ANALYSIS IT IS PROPOSED FIRST TO SOLVE THE MORE GENERAL
PROBLEM OF THE WORST CASE STABILITY MARGIN AND THEN TO HIGHLIGHT THE VIOLATIONS TO THE
CLEARANCE BOUNDARIES
  $ATE &EBRUARY TH 
'!24%5240   ! V
!DD 2EF #)2! #2 3)6  

 7ORST CASE UNSTABLE EIGENVALUES CLASS 

#RITERION PROPOSED IN ;=

)DENTIFY THE WORST CASE UNSTABLE EIGENVALUES

%XPLANATION
)T IS REQUIRED TO IDENTIFY THE FLIGHT CASES IN TERMS OF - !O! DYNAMIC PRESSURE OR
ALTITUDE WHERE UNSTABLE EIGENVALUES IE THOSE WITH POSITIVE REAL PART ARE FOUND AND FOR
WHAT TOLERANCE COMBINATION THESE EIGENVALUES HAVE THE LARGEST VALUE OF THE REAL PART
#ATEGORY  UNCERTAINTIES AS DESCRIBED IN 3ECTION  MUST BE TAKEN INTO ACCOUNT

.OTE THAT THE BOUND ON THE REAL PART OF THE UNSTABLE EIGENVALUES VARIES ACCORDING TO THE
FOLLOWING ,ET λ  α  Jω AN EIGENVALUE OF THE LINEARISED MODEL THE REAL PART OF λ α
SHOULD SATISFY SEE &IGURE  
a  =   IF w ∈ Ω = {w  w ≥ RAD  S}

a < a  = LN    IF w ∈ Ω  = {w   < w < RAD  S}
a = LN    IF w ∈ Ω  = {}
 

&IGURE  "OUNDARIES FOR THE WORST CASE UNSTABLE EIGENVALUE REQUIREMENT

  $ATE &EBRUARY TH 
'!24%5240   ! V
!DD 2EF #)2! #2 3)6  

,ET
Λ p = {l (p ) = a (p )+ Jw (p )} p ∈ Π
THE SET OF EIGENVALUES OF THE LINEARISED MODEL OF THE AUGMENTED ()2-PLUS WHICH
DEPENDS ON THE PARTICULAR VALUE OF THE UNCERTAINTY VECTOR π WITHIN THE UNCERTAINTY SET Π
DEFINED AS IN 3ECTION  &OR EACH FREQUENCY RANGE ΩI LET
Λ I2 + p = {a (p ) w (p )∈ Ω I a (p ) ≥ a I } p ∈ Π  I = 
AND
lI2 +  MAX
p = MAX Λ I2 + p
RESPECTIVELY THE SET COMPOSED OF THE REAL PARTS OF THE EIGENVALUES THAT DO NOT SATISFY THE
REAL PART REQUIREMENT AND THE MAXIMUM REAL PART OF UNSATISFACTORY EIGENVALUES ATTAINED
AT π
4HE CRITERION CONSISTS OF FINDING FOR EACH FREQUENCY RANGE ΩI 
lI WC = MAX lI2 + p
  MAX
Π

p I WC = ARG MAX lI2 +

  MAX
p
Π

FOR ALL THE FLIGHT CONDITIONS IN 4ABLE  FOR WHICH ΛI2 IS NOT EMPTY IE FOR WHICH AT LEAST
ONE UNSTABLE EIGENVALUE EXISTS

.OTE THAT FOR REAL EIGENVALUES THE DEFINITION OF WORST CASE AS MAXIMUM REAL PART AMONG
THE POSITIVE EIGENVALUES IS QUITE STRAIGHTFORWARD &OR COMPLEX EIGENVALUES DIFFERENT
DEFINITIONS OF WORST CASES COULD HAVE BEEN CHOSEN SUCH AS THE MAGNITUDE OF THE
COMPLEX EIGENVALUE (ERE THE MAXIMUM POSITIVE REAL PART HAS BEEN SELECTED BECAUSE IT
CAN BE DIRECTLY LINKED TO THE EXISTING HANDLING QUALITIES REQUIREMENT ON THE MINIMUM
TIME TO DOUBLE AMPLITUDE OF UNSTABLE MODES

&INALLY IT IS GENERALLY OF INTEREST TO IDENTIFY WHICH EIGENVALUE IS UNSTABLE PHUGOID

SHORT PERIOD ETC  4HIS IS OF INTEREST AS IN ONE REGION OF THE FLIGHT ENVELOPE IT MAY BE
MODE ! AND IN ANOTHER REGION MODE " 2ESEARCHERS ARE INVITED TO PROPOSE METHODS TO
SOLVE THIS PROBLEM ALTHOUGH IT IS NOT A MANDATORY TASK FOR THE ()2-PLUS CLEARANCE
ANALYSIS


4HE SPLITTING OF THE REQUIREMENT IN THREE DIFFERENT FREQUENCY REGIONS REFLECTS THE DIFFERENT REQUIREMENTS
ON THE VARIOUS MODES
  $ATE &EBRUARY TH 
'!24%5240   ! V
!DD 2EF #)2! #2 3)6  

 !VERAGE 0HASE 2ATE  ABSOLUTE AMPLITUDE CRITERION CLASS 

#RITERION PROPOSED IN ;=

4O SHOW THAT THERE ARE NO 0)/ TENDENCIES IN PITCH AND ROLL THE FOLLOWING REQUIREMENTS
SHOULD BE FULFILLED FOR THE GIVEN SET OF UNCERTAINTIES
A 4HE AVERAGE PHASE RATE VALUES OF THE FREQUENCY RESPONSE OF PITCHBANK ATTITUDE TO
STICK FORCE SHOULD DEMONSTRATE AT LEAST LEVEL  HANDLING AND THEREFORE NOT LIE OUTSIDE
THE ,EVEL  BOUNDARIES OF THE PHASE RATE CRITERION
B /NLY FOR THE PITCH AXIS ADD THE FOLLOWING REQUIREMENT AS THE SECOND PART OF THE
CRITERION 4HE ABSOLUTE AMPLITUDE OF THE FREQUENCY RESPONSE OF PITCH ATTITUDE TO STICK
FORCE AT  DEGREES SHOULD BE LESS THAN D" ;DEGLBS= EQUIVALENTLY D"
;DEG.= 
!LL CASES WHERE THESE REQUIREMENTS ARE VIOLATED MUST BE IDENTIFIED
&OR DEFINITION OF THE AVERAGE PHASE RATE AND THE CRITERION BOUNDARIES SEE BELOW 

%XPLANATION
4HE CRITERION PARAMETERS ARE DEFINED FROM THE TRANSFER FUNCTION OF PITCH ATTITUDE TO
LONGITUDINAL STICK FORCE 4&LONG AND OF BANK ANGLE TO LATERAL STICK FORCE 4&LAT FOR THE ROLL
AXIS 4HE TRANSFER FUNCTIONS HAVE TO BE COMPUTED FROM THE LINEARISED SYSTEM AT FLIGHT
CONDITIONS OF STEADY STATE STRAIGHT AND LEVEL FLIGHT ONLY G FLIGHT 
.OTE THAT THE INPUT VARIABLE FOR BOTH TRANSFER FUNCTIONS IS THE PILOT STICK FORCE 4HE RATIO
OF STICK FORCE TO STICK DEFLECTION IN MILLIMETRES IS GIVEN IN 4ABLE  TAKEN FROM ;= .OTE
THAT IN THE 3IMULINK MODEL OF THE ()2-PLUS THE PILOT DEMANDS IN PITCH AND ROLL AXIS ARE
DEFINED RESPECTIVELY AS PITCH RATE DEMAND AND VELOCITY VECTOR ROLL RATE DEMAND BOTH IN
DEGREES PER SECOND THEREFORE A GAIN SHOULD BE APPLIED BETWEEN THE PILOT INPUT IN
MILLIMETERS OF THE STICK AND THE DEMAND IN DEGREES PER SECOND OF ANGULAR RATES 4HE LAST
COLUMN OF 4ABLE  CONTAINS THE PROPOSED GAIN FOR ROLL COMMANDS 4HE GAIN IN THE LATERAL
AXIS HAS BEEN CHOOSEN AS THE RATIO OF THE MAXIMUM REQUIRED ROLL RATE °S TO THE
MAXIMUM LATERAL STICK DEFLECTION  MM BOTH DEFINED IN ;= &OR LONGITUDINAL PILOT
COMMANDS A GAIN SCHEDULING WITH DYNAMIC PRESSURE IS PROPOSED 4HIS GAIN SCHEDULING
PRESENTED IN &IGURE  IS BASED ON THE VALUES CONTAINED IN 4ABLE  COMPUTED SO THAT THE
STEP RESPONSE TO A FULL PILOT STICK COMMAND IN PITCH GIVES A SATISFACTORY RESPONSE FOR THE
FLIGHT CONDITIONS OF 4ABLE  )T SHOULD BE KEPT IN MIND THAT THESE GAINS WERE NOT INCLUDED
IN THE 2)$% CONTROLLER AND THAT DURING &-!' THE ()2- &#3 REQUIREMENTS WERE
CHECKED WITHOUT THESE GAINS 4HEREFORE THEIR VALUES SHOULD BE CONSIDERED AS FIRST
PROPOSALS TO BE USED IN THE TEST AND A SENSITIVITY ANALYSIS TO THE VARIATION OF THESE GAINS
COULD BE PERFORMED BY ANALYSIS TEAMS
  $ATE &EBRUARY TH 
'!24%5240   ! V
!DD 2EF #)2! #2 3)6  

)NCEPTOR $EFLECTION AMPLITUDE 3TICK FORCES &#3 GAIN

,ONGITUDINAL STICK  TO  MM POSITIVE AFT  .MM 3EE 4ABLE 
AND &IGURE 
,ATERAL STICK  TO  MM POSITIVE RIGHT  .MM  °SMM
4ABLE  3TICK CHARACTERISTICS

&LIGHT CONDITION $YNAMIC PRESSURE ;KGM= &#3 GAIN FOR

LONGITUDINAL STICK ;°SMM=
&# E 
&# E 
&# E 
&# E 
&# E 
&# E 
&# E 
&# E 
4ABLE  &#3 GAIN FOR LONGITUDINAL STICK COMMAND AT SPECIFIED FLIGHT CONDITIONS SORTED
BY DYNAMIC PRESSURE 

&IGURE  'AIN SCHEDULING OF LONGITUDINAL STICK COMMAND WITH DYNAMIC PRESSURE

  $ATE &EBRUARY TH 
'!24%5240   ! V
!DD 2EF #)2! #2 3)6  

4HE MAGNITUDE OF THE AVERAGE PHASE RATE !02 IS DEFINED AS

!02   ΦFC ΦFC FC   ΦFC  ° FC
WHERE FC IS THE FREQUENCY IN (ERTZ AT ° PHASE ΦFC  ° AND ΦFC IS THE PHASE
ANGLE IN DEGREES AT DOUBLE FC 4HE EXAMPLE PLOT SHOWN IN &IGURE  MEETS THESE CRITERIA

&IGURE  0ARAMETERS OF THE !VERAGE 0HASE 2ATE  !BSOLUTE AMPLITUDE CRITERION

4HE GAIN AT ° OF PHASE IS  D" THUS MEETING THE SECOND REQUIREMENT FOR PITCH
AXIS AND THE AVERAGE PHASE RATE IS
!02        °(Z
ASSUMING THAT FC IS  (Z AND THAT THE PHASE AT  (Z IS ° IN THE EXAMPLE SHOWN 
0LOTTING THIS VALUES OF FC AND !02 ON &IGURE  SHOWS THAT THIS SYSTEM MEETS LEVEL 
  $ATE &EBRUARY TH 
'!24%5240   ! V
!DD 2EF #)2! #2 3)6  

&IGURE  !VERAGE 0HASE 2ATE #RITERION BOUNDARIES

-ATHEMATICALLY THE CRITERION CAN BE SET AS FOLLOWS

$EFINE THE UNCERTAINTY SET Π AS IN 3ECTION  &OR EACH FLIGHT CONDITION &#I DEFINED IN
4ABLE  FIND THE SET
3  [π∈Π SUCH THAT 4&LONG SATISFIES REQUIREMENTS A AND B 
RESPECTIVELY 4&LAT SATISFIES REQUIREMENT A ]
  $ATE &EBRUARY TH 
'!24%5240   ! V
!DD 2EF #)2! #2 3)6  

 #LONK CRITERION CLASS 

#RITERION PROPOSED IN ;=

5SE COMBINED PULLROLL MANOEUVRES TO IDENTIFY FLIGHT CONDITIONS WHERE NON LINEARITIES
CAUSE STABILITY PROBLEMS SUCH AS !O! OR !O3 DEPARTURE

#LONK CRITERION BY 3!!"

4HE AIM IS TO MAXIMISE A PARTICULAR RESPONSE PARAMETER BY FINDING THE WORST CASE IN
TERMS OF THE RESPONSES TO THE COMBINED PITCH AND ROLL STICK COMMANDS 4HIS IS KNOWN TO
BE GOVERNED BY THE RATE OF APPLICATION OF EACH COMMAND AND THE RELATIVE PHASING OF THE
TWO COMMAND INPUTS AND HENCE A SIMPLE SEARCH SEQUENCE IS EXECUTED
4HE CLONK CRITERION DEFINES A COMBINED PITCH AND ROLL MANOEUVRE AIMED AT TESTING !O!
MARGIN FROM DEPARTURE 4HE CLONK MANOEUVRE IS DEFINED BY THE SEQUENCE OF COMMANDS
DESCRIBED BELOW AND IN &IGURE 
4HE INPUTS TO THE MANOEUVRE ARE PILOT STICK COMMANDS RESEMBLING SQUARE WAVES IE THE
STICK TRAVELS FROM A LIMIT IN ONE DIRECTION TO THE OPPOSITE STOP IN THE OTHER DIRECTION
4HEREFORE THE PILOT INPUTS FOR THE MANOEUVRE ARE DEFINED IN TERMS OF THE PHYSICAL
DISPLACEMENT OF THE STICK WHICH FOR THE ()2-PLUS IS MEASURED IN MILLIMETERS AS GIVEN
IN 3ECTION  IN 4ABLE  AND &IGURE  4HE GAINS IN 4ABLE  AND &IGURE  SHOULD BE
APPLIED BETWEEN THE PILOT INPUT IN MILLIMETERS OF THE STICK AND THE DEMAND IN DEGREES PER
SECOND OF ANGULAR RATES !S SAID IN 3ECTION  THEIR VALUES SHOULD BE CONSIDERED AS FIRST
PROPOSALS TO BE USED IN THE TEST
&IGURE  SHOWS GENERIC TIME HISTORIES OF THE RELEVANT VARIABLES INVOLVED INTO THE
DEFINITION OF THE MANOEUVRE 4HE DESCRIPTION OF THE CLONK MANOEUVRE IS GIVEN IN THE
FOLLOWING
• 3TART SIMULATION
• #LONK  -OVE LONGITUDINAL STICK AFT δ3% THE SOLID LINE IN THE UPPER PLOT OF &IGURE
 AT  MMS UNTIL THE BACKWARD LIMIT IS REACHED AND ROLL STICK LEFT δ3! THE
DASHED LINE IN THE UPPER PLOT OF &IGURE  AT  MMS UNTIL THE MAXIMUM LEFT
COMMAND IS REACHED 7HILE MAINTAINING THE MAXIMUM PITCH COMMAND THE ROLL
COMMAND IS RELEASED AT  MMS AFTER THE LEFT STOP HAS BEEN REACHED AND UNTIL THE
NEUTRAL ROLL STICK POSITION IS REACHED AGAIN
• #LONK  !PPLY MAXIMUM STICK FORWARD MOVE IT AT  MMS AND MAXIMUM ROLL
STICK RIGHT MOVE IT AT  MMS AT T 2ELEASE ROLL COMMAND AT  MMS AFTER THE
RIGHT STOP HAS BEEN REACHED AS IN CLONK 
• #LONK  7HEN THETA DOT CHANGES SIGN FROM  TO  APPLY MAXIMUM STICK AFT AND
ROLL STICK LEFT T  MOVING THEM AT  MMS AND  MMS RESPECTIVELY 2ELEASE
ROLL COMMAND AT  MMS AFTER THE STOP HAS BEEN REACHED AS IN CLONK 
  $ATE &EBRUARY TH 
'!24%5240   ! V
!DD 2EF #)2! #2 3)6  

• #LONK  7HEN THETA DOT CHANGES SIGN FROM  TO  APPLY MAXIMUM STICK FORWARD
AND ROLL STICK RIGHT T  MOVING THEM AT  MMS AND  MMS RESPECTIVELY
2ELEASE ROLL COMMAND AT  MMS AFTER THE STOP HAS BEEN REACHED AS IN CLONK 
• #LONK  IS EQUAL TO #LONK 
• 3TOP EXCITATION STICK TO NEUTRAL POSITION IN PITCH AND ROLL IN ONE OF THE FOLLOWING
CASES
• AFTER  CYCLES OF CLONKS IE AT T THE FIRST CYCLE IS FROM T TO T 
• WHEN THE AIRCRAFT EXITS THE FLIGHT ENVELOPE DEFINED IN &IGURE 
• WHEN THE !O! MARGIN IS LESS THAN ZERO WHERE THE !O! MARGIN IS DEFINED AS
a M IN p T = MIN{(a 500%2 − a p T ) (a p T − a ,/7%2 )}
ARG 

AND THE UPPER AND LOWER !O! LIMITS ARE ° AND ° RESPECTIVELY FOR ()2-PLUS
ACCORDING TO 40   g (ERE IT IS EXPLICITLY EXPRESSED THAT THE RESULT OF THE
SIMULATION DEPENDS ON THE PARTICULAR VALUE OF THE UNCERTAINTY VECTOR π∈Π FOR
WHICH THE SIMULATION IS RUN
• )F THE EXCITATION IS STOPPED AFTER  CYCLES OF CLONKS THE STICK IS RELEASED AND THE
SIMULATION CONTINUES FOR  SECONDS

&IGURE  $EFINITION OF THE CLONK MANOEUVRE

  $ATE &EBRUARY TH 
'!24%5240   ! V
!DD 2EF #)2! #2 3)6  

T IS PROPOSED TO BE  S T IS PROPOSED TO BE  S T TO T AND FURTHER ARE DEFINED

IMPLICITLY BY THE CONDITION THAT THE DERIVATIVE OF θ CHANGES ITS SIGN ZERO CROSSING
CONDITION  4IMES T T AND T ARE FURTHER CHARACTERISED BY THE CONDITION THAT PITCH
ATTITUDE REACHES A MAXIMUM BEFORE DECREASING AGAIN T AND T ARE TIMES WHERE THE PITCH
ATTITUDE REACHES A MINIMUM

.OTE THAT THE VALUES FOR T T STICK DISPLACEMENT RATES THE NUMBER OF CYCLES AND THE
TIME TO CONTINUE THE SIMULATION AFTER THE STICK RELEASE ARE GIVEN ON THE BASIS OF THE
EXPERIENCE OF APPLICATION OF THE CLONK CRITERION TO OTHER AIRCRAFT BUT MIGHT NEED TO BE
CHANGED FOR THE ()2-PLUS AFTER A FIRST ANALYSIS OF THE AIRCRAFT BEHAVIOUR 7ORST CASE
MIGHT ALSO BE DEPENDENT ON THESE PARAMETERS HENCE IT IS OF INTEREST TO VARY THESE
PARAMETERS 0RIMARILY DIFFERENT VALUES OF T AND ROLL COMMAND RELEASE RATES EG  
 AND  MMS COULD BE TESTED

4HE CRITERION MUST BE CHECKED FOR ALL THE FLIGHT CONDITIONS IN 4ABLE  )NITIAL CONDITIONS
OF THE MANOEUVRE ARE  G STRAIGHT AND LEVEL FLIGHT NO PULL UP  !LL THE CATEGORY 
UNCERTAINTIES DEFINED IN 4ABLE  SHOULD BE CONSIDERED IN THE ANALYSIS 4HROTTLE SHOULD BE
MAINTAINED TO THE INITIAL TRIM VALUE THROUGHOUT THE MANOEUVRE 4O AVOID TOO HIGH PITCH
ATTITUDE THE AIRCRAFT COULD ALSO BE TRIMMED AT A GLIDE PATH

2EPORT MINIMUM !O! MARGIN RELATIVE TO THE !O! LIMITS 4HE REQUIREMENT IS SATISFIED IF
THE MINIMUM !O! MARGIN IS POSITIVE AND IT IS NOT SATISFIED IF THE MINIMUM !O!
MARGIN IS ZERO OR NEGATIVE
-ATHEMATICALLY IT IS REQUIRED TO FIND
a M IN = MIN MIN a M IN p (T )
ARG MIN ARG 
Π T

p WC = ARG MIN MIN a M

Π T
ARG IN p (T )
FOR EACH FLIGHT CONDITION IN 4ABLE 
  $ATE &EBRUARY TH 
'!24%5240   ! V
!DD 2EF #)2! #2 3)6  

 ,ARGEST EXCEEDANCE OF ANGLE OF ATTACK AND NORMAL LOAD FACTOR LIMITS CLASS  

#RITERION PROPOSED IN ;= AND 

)DENTIFY ALL FLIGHT CASES WHERE IN THE PULL UP MANOEUVRES DEFINED BELOW THE POSITIVE
!O!.Z LIMITS RESPECTIVELY ° AND G ARE EXCEEDED 4HIS SHALL BE DONE FOR THE
NOMINAL CASE AND FOR THE UNCERTAINTY CASE (ERE THE COMBINATION OF UNCERTAINTIES MUST
BE IDENTIFIED WHICH YIELDS THE LARGEST EXCEEDANCE

%XPLANATION
4WO AIRCRAFT RESPONSES SHALL BE ASSESSED A FULL STICK RAPID PULL AND A PULL IN S 4HE
PILOT COMMANDS ARE SEE &IGURE  
 ! FULL STICK RAPID PULL IE A  MMS STICK RATE ON THE LONGITUDINAL STICK THAT
BRINGS THE STICK FROM THE INITIAL POSITION TO THE MAXIMUM AMPLITUDE IN THE AFT
DIRECTION
 ! PULL IN  SECONDS IE A RAMP COMMAND THAT BRINGS THE STICK FROM THE INITIAL
POSITION TO FULL AFT LONGITUDINAL STICK IN  SECONDS

&IGURE  0ILOT COMMANDS FOR TESTING LARGEST EXCEEDANCE OF !O! AND NZ LIMITS
"OTH COMMANDS MUST BE APPLIED FROM A TRIM CONDITION OF STRAIGHT AND LEVEL FLIGHT AND
THE SIMULATION SHOULD BE RUN FOR  SECONDS
  $ATE &EBRUARY TH 
'!24%5240   ! V
!DD 2EF #)2! #2 3)6  

&OR THE ABOVE COMMANDS A NOMINAL TRAJECTORY MUST BE FIRST GENERATED FOR EACH FLIGHT
CONDITION IN 4ABLE  AND BOTH PERFORMANCE VARIABLES RESPECTIVELY !O! α AND NORMAL
LOAD FACTOR NZ 4HE NOMINAL TRAJECTORY IS THE RESPONSE TO THE ABOVE PILOT COMMANDS
WHEN ALL UNCERTAINTIES ARE SET TO ZERO
4HE CRITERION REQUIRES IDENTIFICATION OF THE LARGEST EXCEEDANCE IF THERE IS ANY OF THE
POSITIVE !O!NZ LIMIT FOR THE NOMINAL AND THE UNCERTAINTY CASE

$EFINE THE UNCERTAINTY SET Π AS IN 3ECTION  .OTE THAT π UNCERTAINTIES SET TO ZERO
REPRESENTS THE NOMINAL CASE
,ET αTπ THE ANGLE OF ATTACK RESPONSE TO THE PILOT COMMAND WHICH DEPENDS ON THE
UNCERTAINTY VECTOR π
4HEN LET
α$Tπ  αTπ °
AND
α%8#π  MAXT≤S α$Tπ 
THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN !O! AND ITS UPPER LIMIT AND THE MAXIMUM VALUE OF THIS
DIFFERENCE RESPECTIVELY .OTE THAT A NEGATIVE α%8#π INDICATES THAT THE !O! LIMIT HAS
BEEN SATISFIED WHILE A POSITIVE ONE INDICATES EXCEEDANCE OF THE LIMIT
4HE CRITERION CONSISTS IN SOLVING FOR EACH FLIGHT CONDITION IN 4ABLE  THE FOLLOWING
OPTIMISATION PROBLEM
a %8# WC = MAX a %8# (p )

Π

p WC = ARG MAX a %8# (p )

Π

4HE CRITERION IS SATISFIED AT THE GIVEN FLIGHT CONDITION IF α%8#WC IS NEGATIVE

.OTE THAT IT IS ALSO OF INTEREST TO ESTABLISH FOR EACH FLIGHT CONDITION IF AT LEAST IN THE
NOMINAL CASE UNCERTAINTIES SET TO ZERO THE CRITERION IS SATISFIED IE TO CHECK IF
α%8#   
4HE ABOVE CRITERION ALSO APPLIES TO THE NORMAL LOAD FACTOR RESPONSE NZ
  $ATE &EBRUARY TH 
'!24%5240   ! V
!DD 2EF #)2! #2 3)6  

 2EFERENCES

;= +ORTE 5 0ROPOSAL ON #LEARANCE 2EQUIREMENTS FOR &-!'  IN

'!24%52&-!' 32  -INUTES OF THE SECOND MEETING OF '!24%52
&-!'  3EPTEMBER 
;= '!24%52 &-!'  -INUTES OF THE SECOND -EETING OF '!24%52 &-!'
.%!4 &-!' 32   /CTOBER 
;= -OORMANN $ "ENNET $ 4HE ()2-PLUS !IRCRAFT -ODEL AND #ONTROL ,AWS
$EVELOPMENT '!24%5240   3EPTEMBER 
;= -UIR % ET AL 2OBUST &LIGHT #ONTROL $ESIGN #HALLENGE 0ROBLEM &ORMULATION AND
-ANUAL THE (IGH )NCIDENCE 2ESEARCH -ODEL ()2-  '!24%5240   !PRIL

;= -UIR % ()2- $ESIGN #HALLENGE 0RESENTATION $OCUMENT 4HE 2OBUST )NVERSE
$YNAMICS %STIMATION !PPROACH '!24%5240   !PRIL 
;= &IELDING # !PPLICATION OF µ ANALYSIS TO &LIGHT #ONTROL 3YSTEMS IN '!24%52
&-!' 32  -INUTES OF THE FIRST MEETING OF '!24%52 &-!'  !PRIL

;= (YDE 2 2ELATION BETWEEN .ICHOLS EXCLUSION REGIONS AND COPRIME FACTOR
UNCERTAINTY IN '!24%52&-!' 32  -INUTES OF THE SECOND MEETING OF
'!24%52 &-!'  /CTOBER 
;= '!24%52 &-!'  -INUTES OF THE THIRD MEETING OF '!24%52 &-!'
.%!4 &-!' 32  &EBRUARY 
;= '!24%52 &-!'  3ELECTED CRITERIA FOR CLEARANCE OF THE ()2-PLUS FLIGHT
CONTROL LAWS '!24%5240   ! 6ERSION  $ECEMBER 
  $ATE &EBRUARY TH 
'!24%5240   ! V
!DD 2EF #)2! #2 3)6  

! 4HE PROPOSED LAYOUT OF THE ANALYSIS REPORTS

4HE OBJECTIVE OF THIS SECTION IS TO PROVIDE GUIDELINES TO THE PARTICIPANTS ON HOW TO

PRESENT THEIR RESULTS )T IS INTENDED THAT THIS WILL RESULT IN A UNIFORM PRESENTATION OF THE
RESULTS FROM EACH OF THE PARTICIPANTS 4O HELP THE PARTICIPANTS STANDARD DOCUMENT
LAYOUTS ARE AVAILABLE IN -3 7ORD  AND ,A4E8 FORMATS 4HEY CAN BE RETRIEVED FROM
THE 7IDE !REA .ETWORK UNDER THE DIRECTORY
PROJECTSGARTEUR?WANNEAT?ARCHIVEWP?MODELSHIRMPLUS

 4ITLE PAGE AND PREAMBLE

4ITLE TABLE OF CONTENTS LIST OF FIGURES LIST OF TABLES LIST OF SYMBOLS AND ABBREVIATIONS
ETC

 3UMMARY
4HE SUMMARY SHOULD PROVIDE A SHORT DESCRIPTION OF THE APPLIED ANALYSIS TECHNIQUE AND
SOME GENERAL COMMENTS ON THE ACHIEVED RESULTS

 )NTRODUCTION
4HE INTRODUCTION IS MOSTLY STANDARD FOR ALL ANALYSIS TECHNIQUES IT DESCRIBES THE
FRAMEWORK '!24%52 &- !' IN WHICH THE WORK WAS SET UP AS WELL AS ITS OVERALL
OBJECTIVES

 $ESCRIPTION OF THE MODELS USED

()2- (7%- ANDOR !$-)2% "RIEF DESCRIPTION AND REFERENCE TO MORE DETAILED
PAPERS %XPLAIN WHY THE MODELS WAS CHOSEN

 $ESCRIPTION OF THE APPLIED ANALYSIS TECHNIQUE

%XPLAIN THE METHOD AND ITS POTENTIALS
• $O THE METHOD HAVE SOME PARTICULAR FEATURES
• !RE THERE CASES THE METHOD NOT CAN HANDLE
• $O THE METHOD HANDLE LINEAR ANDOR NON LINEAR SYSTEMS
• (OW ARE NON LINEAR EFFECTS TREATED
• 7HAT ASSUMPTIONS ARE MADE AND HOW DO THEY AFFECT THE RELIABILITY OF THE METHOD
• )S THE METHOD APPLICABLE AS A QUICK CHECK OF CLEARANCE CRITERIA )E TO BE USED
EARLIER IN THE DESIGN
• )S THE METHOD FASTER THAN CONVENTIONAL METHODS
• )S THE METHOD MORE RELIABLE THAN CONVENTIONAL METHODS
  $ATE &EBRUARY TH 
'!24%5240   ! V
!DD 2EF #)2! #2 3)6  

• $OES THE METHOD GIVE BETTER COVERAGE THAN CONVENTIONAL METHODS

• )S IT POSSIBLE TO FIND ANY CRITICAL MANOEUVRES
• (OW ARE UNCERTAINTIES MASS CG POSITION AERODYNAMIC COEFFICIENTS TREATED
• #AN THE RESULTS BE EASILY VISUALISED
4HE METHOD NEED TO BE STRAIGHTFORWARD AND QUITE EASY TO UNDERSTAND TO GET ACCEPTANCE
FROM THE INDUSTRY AND THE CLEARANCE AUTHORITIES

 $ESCRIPTION OF THE ANALYSIS CYCLE

4HIS CHAPTER SHOULD DESCRIBE THE STEPS NECESSARY TO COMPLETE THE ANALYSIS
• )S IT POSSIBLE TO AUTOMATE THE ANALYSIS CYCLE
• 7HAT EFFORT AND COMPETENCE IS NEEDED DURING THE ANALYSIS CYCLE

 2ESULTS OF THE ANALYSIS TECHNIQUE

4HE RESULTS ARE DEPENDENT ON THE USED ANALYSIS TECHNIQUE 3OME OF THE QUESTIONS UNDER
g% SHOULD BE ANSWERED HERE 4HE BENEFITS OF THE METHOD SHOULD BE QUANTIFIED &IGURES
SHOULD BE USED TO DEMONSTRATE RESULTS ACHIEVED
• $OES THE METHOD GIVE THE SAME ANSWERS AS CONVENTIONAL METHODS
• $OES THE METHOD FIND WORST CASES
• $OES THE METHOD FIND HIDDEN WEAKNESSES OF THE &#,
• (OW WELL IS THE ENVELOPE COVERED
• 7HAT CLEARANCE CRITERIA WERE CHECKED
• )S THE METHOD FASTEREASIER THAN CONVENTIONAL METHODS

 #ONCLUSIONS
4HIS CHAPTER SHOULD COMMENT ON OVERALL ASPECTS OF THE ANALYSIS METHOD 3PECIFIC STRONG
AND WEAK POINTS OF THE METHOD SHOULD BE DISCUSSED 0OSSIBLE FUTURE IMPROVEMENTS OF
THE METHOD SHOULD BE INDICATED

 2EFERENCES AND !PPENDICES

4HE STYLE OF REFERENCING SHOULD FOLLOW THE SAME STYLE AS IN &-!'  3EE FOR EXAMPLE
40  

2EMARKS

4HE PROPOSED LAYOUT IS A DRAFT AND SUBJECT FOR CHANGES AS THE PROJECT GOES ON !NY
COMMENTS ARE WELCOMED