2013 IEEE International Conference on Control Applications (CCA)
Part of 2013 IEEE Multi-Conference on Systems and Control
Hyderabad, India, August 28-30, 2013
Robust Flight Control of a Typical RLV during Re-entry Phase
Hema Prathap, V.Brinda and S.Ushakumari
Abstract—Due to the inherent nonlinearities of Reusable
Launch Vehicle (RLV) dynamics, its changing properties
during flight and the engineering difficulties to predict its
aerodynamics with high levels of fidelity, flight control requires
strategies that allow to cope up with the non-linearity of the
model and assure robustness in the presence of inaccuracies
and changes in configuration. This paper presents a flight
control strategy based on dynamic inversion controller which is
designed for the re-entry phase of Reusable Launch Vehicle. In
order to solve the robustness problem of regular explicit
Nonlinear Dynamic Inversion (NDI) control law, the
Incremental Nonlinear Dynamic Inversion (INDI) control law
is proposed. Sensitivity to model mismatch is eliminated by
feeding back state acceleration in INDI approach. The
improved control law design is validated for re-entry phase of
RLV for nominal and aerodynamic perturbation cases.
Analysis of simulation results reveal that the robustness of the
control law is increased.
I. INTRODUCTION
Space exploration using RLV even though reduces
overall operational cost, atmospheric reentry always pose a
major challenge. On reentry, various stringent constraints
like heat flux and structured load constraints reduces the
vehicle path into a narrow corridor. Again, the system is
highly non-linear and is having highly complex actuator
characteristics. Advanced control theory is the right option
to address these issues for perfect tracking of guidance
commands.
For simple controllers, gain scheduling has proven to
be an effective method for dealing with the non-linear
nature, where the individual gains are interpolated online.
Despite its popularity, the gain scheduling technique is an
adhoc methodology with several issues popping up such
as the number of operating points to be considered, no
theoretical guarantee of stability for the interpolated gain
and so on. Such procedures have worked well in the past,
but launch vehicle capabilities and performance
requirements have increased to the point that traditional
control designs often do not yield acceptable
performance. A popular technique, which serves as a
universal gain scheduling controller, thus avoiding the
tedious gain scheduling process, is dynamic inversion
(DI). The dynamic inversion methodology offers several
advantages in comparison to the methods that include
asymptotic stability of error dynamics there by leading to
F. HemaPrathap is M.Tech Student in College of Engineering,
Trivandrum,India (e-mail: hemapinchu@gmail.com).
S. V.Brinda is Head, Control Design Division, VSSC, India (e-mail:
v_brinda@vssc.gov.in).
T. C.Ushakumari,AssociateProfessor,Dept. of Electrical & Electronics
Engg.,College of Engg.Trivandrum,India(e-mail: ushalal2002@gmail.com).
978-1-4799-1559-0/13/$31.00 ©2013 IEEE
perfect tracking. However this technique is not robust to
modeling errors and parametric uncertainties in general
since inversion of the nominal model does not lead to
exact cancelation of the non-linearity. A robust generic
flight control system that can easily be implemented to a
new type of RLV using a primitive aerodynamic model
can significantly reduce the consumption of resources for
control system design. Currently, control techniques exist
that are generic in nature, including nonlinear dynamic
inversion (NDI) [1]. For re-entry control purposes, NDI
uses an aerodynamic model to linearise the dynamics of
an RLV. The resulting linear system is in principle the
same for all RLVs, given that the aerodynamic model is
correct. NDI, however, suffers from the major drawback
that performance is lost and unstable situations can occur
in case of model mismatch. Several successful attempts
have been made to identify and eliminate the flaws of
NDI with respect to robustness. Many of the attempts
have focused on combining NDI with robust control
techniques using ȝ analysis and H1 synthesis, as in [2]
and [3]. In these papers, a control law has been found
with significant benefits over regular NDI. No or little
gain scheduling was required and statements concerning
the robustness could be made. However, not all
uncertainties are taken into account or they are covered by
lumped uncertainties hence introducing conservatism.
The obvious alternative solution to make the controller
less sensitive to model mismatch is to make the controller
less dependent on the model.
A controller which incorporates all uncertainties, non-
conservative and less sensitive to aerodynamic model is
designed for a typical RLV model. Such a controller has
already been described in [4]-[7]. Unlike most of the
other dynamic inversion based design techniques, the
robust DI control method pursued here is implicit and less
dependent on the onboard model. The implicit dynamic
inversion controller designed is incremental version and
does not need the complete aerodynamic model of RLV
but only the control surface efficiency with feedback of
accelerations and effector positions. In [5], the concept of
feeding back angular accelerations is derived by first
rewriting the rotational dynamic equations of motion into
an incremental form and then applying regular NDI,
resulting in incremental nonlinear dynamic inversion
(INDI).
In this paper, both NDI as well as INDI controllers have
been designed for a typical RLV and the effectiveness of both
controllers for nominal and off-nominal (with perturbations
given to aerodynamic coefficients) conditions are verified.
716
 II. ROTATIONAL DYNAMICS OF RLV
ªc1QR + c 2 PQ º ªc 3 f p + c 4 f r º
« » « »
The body rate equations of a Reusable Launch Vehicle in (
f R (X ) = «c5 PR − c 6 P 2 − R 2 )» + «c 7 f q »
(8)
Reentry phase are given by «c8 PQ − c 2 QR » «c f + c f »
¬ ¼ ¬ 4 p 9 r¼
P = c1QR + c 2 PQ + c 3 L A + c 4 N A
Q (
 = c PR − c P 2 − R 2 + c M ) (1) ªc 3g p + c 4 g r º
5 6 7 A
« »
g R (X ) = «c 7 g q
(9)
R = c8 PQ − c 2 QR + c 4 L A + c 9 N A »
«c g + c g »
LA, MA, NA are rolling pitching and yawing moments and are ¬ 4 p 9 r¼
given by,
Where
ªL A º ªb Cl Total º
«M » = q S «c C » ªf p º ª b C lȕclean ȕ º
« mTotal »
« A»
«b C »
(2) «f » = qS« c C » (10)
«¬ N A »¼ « q» « m clean »
¬ nTotal ¼ «b C
«¬ f r »¼ ȕ»
and ¬ n ȕclean ¼

ªc1 º ªI zz (I yy − I zz ) − I 2xz º ªg p º ª bC lįA bC lįR bC l įE º

« » «g » = qS«cC »
«I xz (I zz + I xx − I yy )»
«c » « q» « m įA cC m įR cC m įE » (11)
« 2» «¬ g r »¼ « bC bC n įE »¼
«c 3 » «I » ¬ n įA bC n įR
1 « zz »
« »=
(
«c 4 » I xx I zz − I xz
2
) «I xz »
(3)
« 2 »
«I xz + I xx (I xx − I yy )»
« c8 » III. DYNAMIC INVERSION CONTROLLER
« »
¬«c9 ¼» «I »
¬ xx ¼ Today’s prevailing paradigm for flight control design is
based on the divide-and-conquer approach common to many
ªc 5 º ª(I zz − I xx )º complicated engineering tasks. An airframe is first
«c » = 1 « » partitioned into many separate operating regimes. For each of
« 6 » I «I xz » (4) these regimes, a linearized dynamic model approximates the
«¬c 7 »¼ yy
«¬1 »¼ airframe well, and the tools of linear control theory can be
used to design individual compensators to satisfy closed loop
specifications. Next the individual compensators are stitched
Aerodynamic force equations are given by together with gain schedules to cover the full flight envelope.
An alternative to this is dynamic inversion. With dynamic
ªFA X º ª− C A º inversion the initial step of dividing the design problem into
« » « » separate operating regimes is by passed, instead a nonlinear
«FA Y » = qS ref « CS »
(5)
control law is fashioned which globally reduces the dynamics
«FA » ¬«− C N ¼»
¬ Z¼ of selected controlled variables to integrators. A closed loop
system is then designed to make the control variable exhibit
specified command responses while satisfying the usual
Aerodynamic coefficients are given by, disturbance response and robustness requirements for the
C lTotal = C lȕclean ȕ + C lįA į A + C lįR į R + C lįE į E overall.

C m Total = C m clean + C m įA į A + C m įR į R + C m įE į E A. Development Of Dynamic Inversion Controller

(6)
Consider the general Non Linear system equation :
C n Total = C n ȕclean ȕ + C n įA į A + C n įR į R + C n įE į E
X = f (X ) + [G (X )]U (12)
c
Substituting moment and coefficient equations from Y = h (X ) (13)
(2) and (6) into the body rate equations (1) we get Using Chain Rule of derivatives in (10),

 = f (X) + g (X)U
X R R R c (7)
[ ]
Y = f y (X ) + G y (X ) U c
(14)
Where
ª ∂h º ª ∂h º
Where f Y (X ) = « » f (X ), G Y (x ) = « » G (X )
X R = [P R]
T
Q ∂
¬ ¼X ¬ ∂X ¼
Controller is to be designed such that Y Æ Y* as t Æ ’, Y*
is the commanded value. Consider the following error
dynamics for the system,
E c + KE c = 0 (15)

717
Where E c = Y − Y
*
and K is a positive definite gain
matrix. Using (14) and (15) (23)

[G Y (X )]Uc = b u (16)

[ (
b u = − f Y (x ) − K Y − Y * + Y
* ) ] (17)

Applying (13), (14) to the body rate equations of RLV and

simplifying we get (18)
[g R (X )]Uc = b u
ªc1 QR + c 2 PQ º ªc 3 f p + c 4 f r º ªP − P * º
« » Applying Dynamic Inversion technique and inverting the
« »
«
( »
)
» − «c 7 f q
b u = − «c 5 PR − c 6 P 2 − R 2 » + K d «Q − Q »
* guidance commands we will get P*,Q*,R*
«c PQ − c QR » «c f + c f » « *»
¬ 8 2 ¼ «¬ 4 p 9 r» ¼ «¬R − R »¼ C. Design Validation of Dynamic Inversion Controller

(19) KDP,KDQ,KDR are the proportional gains of Dynamic

Where P*,Q*,R* are commanded values of Roll Pitch and Inversion Controller. Single Value is used for these gains for
Yaw rates. the entire flight regime. And appropriate values are tuned to
From (18) we will get the control Surface deflections, ensure efficient tracking of Guidance Commands. System
performance is verified at Mach 3 of reentry profile.The
U c = g R−1 b u (20) Implemented Dynamic Inversion Controller works
B. Development Of Command Inverter successfully for nominal and off nominal cases. We can see
that the tracking performance varies with perturbations.The
The guidance algorithm generates angle of attack (α),bank performance can be improved by INDI.
angle (σ),sideslip angle (β) commands.Τhe tracking of
guidance commands α, β, σ is achieved by converting it into
equivalent P, Q, R commands and forcing the system to
track the rate commands. So a Dynamic Inversion based
Command Inverter is developed to convert the guidance
commands into equivalent Roll Pitch and Yaw rate
commands.

Figure 1. Command Inverter

Figure 2. System Response for Unperturbed System
We have

(21)

(22)

Figure 3. System Response with + 20% moment coefficient perturbation

718
 IV. INCREMENTAL DYNAMIC INVERSION CONTROLLER
The overall block diagram for INDI controlled system is
shown in fig.(4). Control concept is similar to Model
Reference Adaptive Controller (MARC) In MRAC scheme
the desired performance is expressed in terms of a reference
model which gives desired response to a command signal,
and the actual plant output is made to follow the output of
the reference model. Here the reference model is controlled
by the Nonlinear Dynamic Inversion (NDI) controller, which
forms the Outer Loop Control Law (OLCL). An Incremental
Nonlinear Dynamic Inversion (INDI) controller developed
by feeding back angular accelerations forms the Inner Loop
Control Law (ILCL). This concept is used for modifying the
control surface deflections to account for parametric
uncertainties and modeling errors.
Figure.4 Overall Block diagram for INDI Control System
A. Incremental Dynamic Inversion Controller Design
NDI in flight control provides the commanded control
surface deflections as a function of the error of control
variables. At each execution of the flight control laws by the
flight control computer, the complete deflections of the
control surfaces are computed. As a variation, it is possible
to only compute the increments of control surface
deflections by taking the influence of the acting control
surface deflections into account. This concept has been used
to reduce the impact of model mismatch. For use in flight
control, it requires rewriting the rotational dynamic
equations of motion into an incremental form, which is
discussed in this section. The implicit dynamic inversion
controller discussed here is incremental version and does not
need the complete aerodynamic model of the RLV. It only
needs the control surface efficiency with feedback of
accelerations and effector positions.
Consider a dynamic system as following,
x = f ( x) + g ( x, u )
(24)
y = h (x )
Where ‘x’ denotes the state vector of RLV, ‘u’ is the control
input vector and ‘y’ is the controlled output vector.
719
Let [x0, u0] denotes some previous state from the recent past
and the corresponding state derivative satisfies,
x 0 = [ f ( x 0 ) + g ( x 0 , u 0 )] ( 25 )
A standard Taylor series expansion provides the first order
approximation of the above equation for x and u in the
neighborhood of [x0, u0] as following,
x = [ f ( x0 ) + g ( x0 , u 0 )] (26)
∂
+ [ f ( x) + g ( x, u)] x= x0 ,u =u0 (x − x0 ) + ∂ [g ( x, u)] x= x0 ,u=u0 (u − u0 )
∂x ∂u
Define new variables using linear definition,
A0 = ∂ [ f ( x ) + g ( x, u )] | x = x 0 , u = u 0
∂x
B0 = ∂ [g ( x, u ] | x = x 0 , u = u 0 (27)
∂u
Then, (28)
x = x 0 + A0 (x − x0 ) + B0 Δu
And system output dynamics can be expressed as ,
∂h( x)
y = x = h x [x 0 + A0 ( x − x 0 ) + B0 Δu ] (29)
∂x
y − h x B 0 Δu = h x [x 0 + A(x − x 0 )] ; h x B0 = B h (30)
B h Δ u = y − h x [x 0 + A 0 ( x − x 0 )] (31)
With a sufficient control update rate, x approaches x0 and the
control law becomes,
Δu = Bh−1 [ y des − hx [x 0 + A0 (x − x0 )]] (32)
Finally, actuator deflection command is,
U c = u0 + Δu (33)
The control law in (32) does not require the direct
nonlinear feedback term f (x) needed in the regular explicit
NDI model. The sensitivity to RLV aerodynamic model,
uncertainty and perturbation is decreased. However, the
control does need the state derivatives and current effector
position.
B. Controller Implementation
For RLV, there are only three control inputs
[δ A δ E δ R ]T (three aerodynamic surfaces), and it is
impossible to control every output directly. Here [α β σ ]
are chosen as the outputs to be controlled finally. Direct
controlling of [α β σ ] cannot be accomplished by
deflecting the control surfaces. In this study, the whole
control system is divided into two loops, the Outer Loop
Control Law (OLCL) and the Inner Loop Control Law
(ILCL). [Įc,ȕc,ıc] , which are the desired [Į,ȕ,ı], forms the
input to OLCL. Command inverter will generate the
corresponding [P*,Q*,R*] which in turn forms the input to
ILCL.
The controller outputs the required control surface 5

deflections, uc so as to follow the commanded inputs.

4
For inner loop (INDI), the control law is derived as, using NDI
desired profile

[
Δδ A = (c3 g p + c4 g r ) P − P0 − K1 (P − P0 ) − K 2 (Q − Q0 ) − K3 (R − R0 )
−1
] 3

Beta (deg)
−1
[
Δδ∈ = (c7 g q ) Q − Q 0 − K11 ( P − P0 ) − K 21 (Q − Q0 ) − K31 ( R − R0 ) ] (34) 2

−1
[
Δδ R = (c4 g P + cq g r ) R − R0 − K111 ( P − P0 ) − K 211 (Q − Q0 ) − K 311 ( R − R0 ) ] 1
(34)

With sufficient control update rate, incremental control 0

290 291 292 293 294 295 296 297 298 299 300
inputs are, -15
Time(sec)

x 10

Δδ A = (c3 g p + c 4 g r ) P − P0 [ ]
4
−1 using INDI
3 desired profile

= (c g ) [Q − Q ]
−1
Δδ ∈
2
7 q 0 (35) 1

= (c g + c g ) [R − R ]

Beta (deg)
−1
Δδ R 4 P q r 0
0

-1

For outer loop (NDI), the control law becomes, -2

-3

ª − cos α sin β − sin α sin β º ª • • º -4

ª ΔP º « 1 » «α − α 0 »
290 291 292 293 294 295 296 297 298 299 300

cos β cos β
Time(sec)

«ΔQ » = « sin α 0
» • •
− cos α » « β − β 0 » (36)
Fig.7b. Sideslip Angle Tracking Performance NDI & INDI
« » « « »
«¬ ΔR »¼ «
cos α sin α » «σ• − σ• 0 »
0
« cos β cos β »¬ ¼ 20
¬ ¼
15 using NDI
V. INCREMENTAL DYNAMIC INVERSION CONTROL desired profile
VALIDATION
S ig m a (d e g )

10
The INDI controller was designed and the inner loop and
outer loop gains were tuned to get good tracking of guidance
commands with less settling time. For higher values of outer 5

loop gains, Ko(greater than 6), the response was having over
shoot but less error. For lower values of inner loop gains, Ki 0
290 291 292 293 294 295 296 297 298 299 300
(less than 5), the steady state error was more. For Time(sec)
Ko=diagonal(5,6,6) and Ki=diagonal(6,8,8) the controller 4
x 10
-15

showed good tracking performance with less settling time

3.5
and near zero steady state error (fig.7 & fig.8).
3
27
using NDI
2.5
S ig m a (d e g )

desired profile using INDI

26
2 desired profile
25
Alpha (deg)

1.5
24
1
23
0.5
22
0
290 291 292 293 294 295 296 297 298 299 300
21
Time(sec)
290 291 292 293 294 295 296 297 298 299 300
Time(sec) Fig.7c.Bank Angle Tracking Performance NDI &INDI
21.8
using INDI
desired profile
21.6 The controller performance was assessed and compared
for NDI and INDI for nominal and aerodynamic perturbation
Alpha (deg)

21.4
cases through simulations in MATLAB. When the NDI
21.2 controller failed to track the desired alpha, beta and sigma
profiles for perturbations, the INDI could track them almost
21
perfectly (Fig.7).
20.8
290 291 292 293 294 295 296 297 298 299 300
Time(sec)

Fig.7a. Angle of Attack Tracking Performance NDI &INDI

720
 Fig.8 shows the variation in [P,Q,R] variables within designed. INDI concept uses angular accelerations
the inner loop, for reaching the commanded [P*,Q*,R*] feedback in which the rotational dynamics equations are
values. Off-nominal NDI is not approaching the desired re written into an incremental form and then NDI is
set [P*,Q*,R*]. Whereas P,Q and R values for off- applied, resulting in INDI. INDI requires less RLV state
nominal INDI tries to follow the nominal desired profile information, but results in better robust performance than
of (P*,Q*,R*). From the tracking performance of NDI regular NDI. Furthermore INDI requires significantly less
and INDI for perturbed aerodynamic data given in fig.7 & model information in both qualitative and quantitative
fig.8, tt can be concluded that the proposed INDI sense than NDI. INDI controller designed with state
controller ensures sufficient robustness to the system acceleration (derivative) feedback captures the changes of
under nominal and off nominal conditions. RLV model due to aerodynamic perturbation effectively
0.3 and ensures better tracking performance compared to
0.25
NDI.
0.2
NDI & INDI nominal
P va lues (rad/sec )

NDI 50% perturbation

INDI 50% perturbation
VII. REFERENCES
0.15

[1]. Slotine, J., and Li, W., Applied Nonlinear Control,

0.1
Prentice–Hall, Upper Saddle River, NJ, 3rd ed.,
0.05
1991, pp. 207–271
0

[2]. Reiner, J., Balas, G. J., and Garrard, W. L., “Flight

-0.05
0 20 40 60
Number of inner loop iterations
80 100 120
Control Design Using Robust Dynamic Inversion
Fig.8a. Roll rate (P)
and Time-Scale Separation,” Automatica, Vol. 32,
No. 11, 1996, pp. 1493–1502.
0.6

0.5
[3]. Juliana, S., Chu, Q. P., Mulder, J. A., and van
0.4
Baten, T. J., “The Analytical Derivation of Non-
Q values (rad/sec)

linear Dynamic Inversion Control for Parametric

0.3

Uncertain System,” AIAA Guidance, Navigation,

0.2

and Control Conference and Exhibit, AIAA,

0.1
NDI & INDI nominal
NDI 50% perturbation
Reston, VA, 2005
0 INDI 50% perturbation

-0.1
[4]. Lee H. P., Reiman S. E., Dillon C. H., and Youssef
0 20 40 60 80 100 120
Number of inner loop iterations H. M., “Robust Nonlinear Dynamic Inversion
Fig.8b. Pitch rate (Q) Control for a Hypersonic Cruise Vehicle,” AIAA
0.18
Guidance, Navigation and Control Conference.
0.16
[5]. S. Sieberling, Q. P. Chu, and J. A. Mulder, “Robust
0.14
Flight Control Using Incremental Nonlinear
R v alues (rad/s ec)

0.12

0.1
Dynamic Inversion and Angular Acceleration
0.08
Prediction”, Journal of Guidance, Control, and
NDI & INDI nominal
0.06 NDI 50% perturbation Dynamics, Vol. 33, No. 6, pp. 1732-1742, Nov-
0.04
INDI 50% perturbation
Dec 2010.
0.02

0
[6]. H. B. Chen, and S. G. Zhang, “RobustDynamic
-0.02
0 20 40 60 80 100 120
Inversion Flight Control Law Design”, IEEE
Number of inner loop iterations
Transaction, 2008
Fig.8c.Yaw rate(R) [7]. Bacon B. J., and Ostroff A. J., “Reconfigurable
Flight Control Using Nonlinear Dynamic Inversion
with a Spacial Accelerometer Implementation,”
VI. CONCLUSIONS AIAA Guidance, Navigation, and Control
A Nonlinear Dynamic Inversion (NDI) controller was Conference and Exhibit, AIAA, Reston, VA, 2000.
initially designed for the system and it gives satisfactory [8]. C. Tournes and C. D. Johnson, “Reusable Launch
performance under nominal conditions. But the tracking Vehicle Guidance and Control using Subspace
performance varies with perturbations. In order to Stabilization Control Techniques” Proceedings of
improve the robustness of the controller an Incremental AIAA Atmospheric Flight Mechanics Conference
Nonlinear Dynamic Inversion (INDI) Controller is and Exhibit, August 2003.

721