Thesis - J E Coote 2003

S TRATEGIES FOR ROTORCRAFT
V IBRATION R EDUCTION AND T ESTING
by
Jonathan Eyre Coote
A dissertation submitted to the University of Bristol in accordance with the requirements

for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy in the Faculty of Engineering,
Department of Aerospace Engineering, September 2003
Copyright
c 2003 University of Bristol
39,605 Words
Abstract
In this thesis, recent developments in model reference adaptive control, smart materials
technology, modal testing and finite element modelling, have been investigated and tested
for the purpose of reducing vibration in rotorcraft. Rotorcraft experience significant levels
of vibration, resulting in increased parts and maintenance costs, unreliability, discomfort,
and noise, whilst also limiting performance.
A survey is presented of the causes of rotorcraft vibration, and of various established meth-
ods of minimisation. The current state of development of smart materials is also surveyed,
with a review of research into their application on rotorcraft.
Three new variants of an adaptive model reference control algorithm are proposed, for the
purpose of controlling vibration reduction devices. These were compared with existing
schemes on a servomotor rig, and found to produce significant improvements in stability
and tracking.
The technique of dynamic substructuring was explored as a method of testing uncertain

components in conjunction with a numerical model, so as to simulate the full structure. A
proof-of-concept demonstration was performed on a custom-built tuneable electric circuit.
A modal test of a Lynx helicopter fuselage was conducted using the new Interleaved Spectral
Excitation Technique, and the results compared with conventional methods. The reliability
of the testing process was itself examined, comparing multiple datasets collected from tests
of the same structure. Test data were compared with analytical data generated by finite
element modelling, and the Error Matrix Method was used to update the analytical model
and improve correlation with the test.
To my parents
ii
Acknowledgements
I would like to thank my supervisor Nick Lieven for his expert advice, guidance and enthu-
siasm. I would also like to thank QinetiQ for their financial support, in particular Graham
Skingle for informative discussions and the opportunity to work in the QinetiQ labs.
I am very grateful for all the support and advice received from friends and colleagues in the
department, especially Taqi Khan, Yacine Amraoui, Graham Hill, Jody Pang, and the staff
of the avionics and aero labs.
Finally, I thank my family and friends, who have helped and supported me in so many ways.
This work was funded by EPSRC/CASE award from QinetiQ Ltd., Farnborough.
iii
Author’s Declaration
I declare that the work in this thesis was carried out in accordance with the Regulations of
the University of Bristol. The work is original except where indicated by special reference
in the text, and no part of the thesis has been submitted for any other academic award.
Any views expressed in this thesis are those of the author.
Jonathan Eyre Coote
iv
Contents
Abstract i
Acknowledgements iii
Declaration iv
List of Figures x
List of Tables xiv
List of Abbreviations and Symbols xv
1 Introduction 1
1.1 Scope of work . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
1.2 Structure of thesis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
2 Review of rotorcraft vibration causes and methods of reduction 3

2.1 Overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2.2 Introduction to rotorcraft vibration issues . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2.3 Design approaches to vibration reduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
2.4 Vibration reduction systems . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
2.4.1 Vibration avoidance methods . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
2.4.2 Local vibration reduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
2.4.3 Isolation or suppression of rotor hub vibration . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
2.4.4 Active methods of vibration reduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
2.5 An introduction to smart materials . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
2.5.1 Piezoelectric materials . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
2.5.2 Shape memory alloys . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
2.5.3 Magnetostrictive materials . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
2.5.4 Electrostrictive materials . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
2.5.5 Magnetorheological and electrorheological fluids . . . . . . . . . . 12
2.6 Active blade control developments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
2.6.1 Small-scale prototypes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
v
Contents
2.6.2 Full-scale prototypes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18

2.7 Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
3 Control 20
3.1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
3.2 Discussion of control approaches . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
3.2.1 Feedback control methods . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
3.3 Feedforward control methods . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27
3.3.1 Model reference adaptive control . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28
3.4 Chosen approach . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29
3.5 MCS stability . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32
3.6 Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36
3.7 Figures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37
4 Modification and parameter optimisation of the MCS algorithm 39

4.1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39
4.2 Optimisation of MCS parameters . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39
4.2.1 Genetic algorithm optimisation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40
4.2.2 Simulated annealing optimisation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41
4.3 Modifications to MCS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43
4.4 Existing controller variants . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45
4.4.1 PID controller . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45
4.4.2 Conventional MCS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45
4.4.3 GCMCS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46
4.4.4 GLMCS-S . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47
4.4.5 GLMCS-C . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47
4.4.6 SPS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47
4.4.7 EMCS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50
4.5 New controller variants . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50
4.5.1 HOTMCS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50
4.5.2 GLMCS-N . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51
4.5.3 BUMCS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 52
4.6 Concluding remarks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 53
4.7 Figures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 55
5 Practical testing of controller variants on a DC servomotor 57

5.1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 57
5.2 Setup for control system tests on DC servomotor . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 57
5.3 Results . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 58
5.3.1 Performance of standard MCS controller . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 58
5.3.2 Comparison of performance of all MCS variants . . . . . . . . . . 59
vi
Contents
5.3.3 Specific characteristics of the variants . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 60

5.3.3.1 GCMCS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 60
5.3.3.2 GLMCS-S . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 60
5.3.3.3 GLMCS-C . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 61
5.3.3.4 SPS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 61
5.3.3.5 EMCS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 61
5.3.4 Performance of new variants . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 61
5.3.4.1 HOTMCS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 61
5.3.4.2 GLMCS-N . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 62
5.3.4.3 BUMCS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 62
5.4 Conclusions and further work . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 63
5.5 Figures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 64
6 Dynamic substructuring 76
6.1 Introduction to dynamic substructuring . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 76
6.2 Theoretical description . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 78
6.3 Design and build of resonant circuit . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 79
6.4 Applying dynamic substructuring to 2-DOF resonant circuit . . . . . . . . 82
6.4.1 Development of numerical model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 82
6.4.2 Modal test of circuit . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 83
6.4.3 Modal test of substructured system . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 83
6.5 Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 84
6.6 Figures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 85
7 Modal test of Lynx fuselage 92

7.1 The INSET method . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 92
7.2 Hardware overview and experimental setup . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 94
7.2.1 Data acquisition and processing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 94
7.2.2 Excitation setup . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 94
7.2.3 Response measurement setup . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 95
7.3 Comparison of results . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 95
7.4 Time-domain results . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 96
7.5 Shaker FRFs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 96
7.6 Averaging the results . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 96
7.7 Modal list and modeshapes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 97
7.8 Comparison of results . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 97
7.9 Effect of changing the forcing amplitude . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 99
7.10 Conclusions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 99
8 Finite element modelling and updating of a Lynx fuselage 112

8.1 Background . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 112
vii
Contents
8.1.1 Analytical considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 112

8.1.2 Experimental considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 113
8.2 Scope of work . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 114
8.3 Theory . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 114
8.3.1 General finite element method . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 114
8.3.2 Model reduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 114
8.3.3 The Modal Assurance Criterion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 116
8.3.4 Correlation of modes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 117
8.3.5 The Coordinate Modal Assurance Criterion . . . . . . . . . . . . . 118
8.3.6 Error Matrix Method . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 118
8.4 Results . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 120
8.4.1 Baseline build state . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 120
8.4.1.1 Model configuration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 120
8.4.1.2 Modal frequencies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 120
8.4.1.3 Modal vectors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 121
8.4.2 Intermediate build state . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 121
8.4.2.1 Comparing between build states . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 121
8.4.2.2 Comparing between repeated tests of intermediate build
state . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 122
8.4.3 Application of the Error Matrix Method . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 122
8.4.3.1 Error localisation and update of baseline FE model with
test data . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 122
8.4.4 Iterative updating of baseline FE model with test data . . . . . . . . 122
8.5 Commentary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 123
8.5.1 Comments on baseline results . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 123
8.5.2 Comparisons between the baseline and intermediate build test data . 125
8.5.2.1 Examination of differences between the build states . . . 125
8.5.2.2 Examination of differences between the equivalent tests . 126
8.5.2.3 Comment on the comparison of COMACs . . . . . . . . 126
8.5.3 Error localisation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 127
8.5.4 Model updating . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 128
8.5.4.1 Single-stage EMM update . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 128
8.5.4.2 Iterative EMM update . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 129
8.6 Concluding remarks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 130
8.7 Figures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 131
9 Conclusions and recommendations for further work 158

9.1 Conclusions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 158
9.2 Further work . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 160
A Norm definition 162
viii
Contents
B Definition of SPR condition 163
C Stability definitions 165

C.1 Classical stability . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 165
C.2 Practical stability . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 166
C.3 Passivity theory . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 167
References 169
ix
List of Figures
3.1 Feedback control system schematic . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37

3.2 Feedforward control system schematic . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37
3.3 Model reference adaptive control architecture . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38
4.1 Flowchart of SA optimisation process . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 55

4.2 SA optimisation of MCS controller parameters . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 56
5.1 Photograph of gust rig, actuated by controlled DC servomotor . . . . . . . 64

5.2 Comparison of PID and MCS tracking performance at start of test run . . . 64
5.3 Comparison of PID and MCS tracking performance at end of test run . . . . 65
5.4 Effect of adaption rate on tracking error per cycle . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 65
5.5 Adaption of MCS gains with reference to cyclic tracking error . . . . . . . 66
5.6 PID and standard MCS control signal voltages with various adaption rates,
showing saturation limits . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 66
5.7 Work integral comparison of PID and MCS controllers . . . . . . . . . . . 67
5.8 Summary of integrated tracking error achieved with various controllers . . . 67
5.9 Summary of total actuator work associated with various controllers . . . . . 68
5.10 Summary of general performance metric achieved by various controllers . . 68
5.11 Comparison of GCMCS gains with MCS gains . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 69
5.12 Comparison of MCS and GLMCS-S gains . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 69
5.13 Comparison of GLMCS-C and MCS controller gain progression . . . . . . 70
5.14 Controller gains for MCS and SPS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 70
5.15 Comparison of MCS and SPS control signals . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 71
5.16 Comparison of MCS and EMCS gains . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 71
5.17 Comparison of MCS and EMCS demanded control signal . . . . . . . . . . 72
5.18 Gain adaption comparison between MCS and GLMCS-N . . . . . . . . . . 73
5.19 Comparison of tracking error trace portions using MCS and GLMCS-N . . 74
5.20 Control signal for MCS and GLMCS-N, showing saturation limits . . . . . 74
5.21 Gain adaption history of MCS and BUMCS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 75
5.22 Comparison of MCS and BUMCS demanded control signal . . . . . . . . . 75
6.1 Summation amplifier configuration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 85
x
List of Figures
6.2 Inverting amplifier configuration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 85

6.3 Differentiating amplifier configuration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 85
6.4 Lowpass filter implementation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 86
6.5 Circuit block layout diagram . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 86
6.6 Integrating amplifier configuration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 87
6.7 Mass/spring/damper system . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 87
6.8 Predicted FRF of SDOF circuit . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 88
6.9 Photograph of 2-DOF circuit network . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 89
6.10 Simulated 2-DOF mass/spring/damper system . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 89
6.11 Diagram showing interconnections between modular circuits and PC . . . . 89
6.12 Measured FRF of numerical model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 90
6.13 Measured and regenerated circuit FRF . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 90
6.14 Comparison of individual and dynamically substructured FRFs . . . . . . . 91
6.15 Comparison of predicted and measured FRF of dynamically substructured
system . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 91
7.1 Illustration of frequency spectra distribution between shakers . . . . . . . . 101

7.2 Tail shaker attachment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 102
7.3 Nose shaker attachment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 102
7.4 Starboard engine shaker mounting . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 103
7.5 Sample of response signals at beginning of test . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 103
7.6 Shaker transfer functions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 104
7.7 Shaker transfer function coherences . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 104
7.8 Example of effects of averaging on a point FRF . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 105
7.9 Effects of averaging on coherence of a point FRF . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 105
7.10 Screenshot of first modeshape produced in ICATS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 106
7.11 Comparison of lateral point FRFs at port engine exhaust . . . . . . . . . . 107
7.12 Comparison of vertical FRFs with excitation at tail boom and response at
port engine inlet . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 108
7.13 Comparison of vertical FRFs with excitation at tail boom and response at
starboard engine inlet . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 108
7.14 Comparison of vertical FRFs with nose excitation and port engine inlet re-
sponse . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 109
7.15 Comparison of vertical point FRFs at the nose . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 109
7.16 Comparison of vertical point FRFs at the tail boom . . . . . . . . . . . . . 110
7.17 Effect of changing forcing amplitude on lateral FRFs with starboard engine
excitation and tail boom response . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 110
7.18 Effect of changing forcing amplitude on lateral point FRFs at the starboard
engine . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 111
7.19 Effect of changing forcing amplitude on vertical tail boom FRF . . . . . . . 111
xi
List of Figures
8.1 View of Lynx airframe . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 131

8.2 Full finite element model, undeflected . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 132
8.3 Full undeflected wireframe FE model showing test nodes and wireframe . . 132
8.4 MAC plot of uncorrelated test and FE modes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 134
8.5 MAC plot of correlated test and FE modes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 134
8.6 Principal MAC between baseline test and FE results, shown by component
direction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 135
8.7 MAC of correlated omnidirectional response magnitudes . . . . . . . . . . 135
8.8 COMAC plot of correlated modes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 136
8.9 COMAC between baseline test and FE results plotted as nodal deflections . 136
8.10 COMAC between baseline test and FE indicated by marker size . . . . . . 137
8.11 Scatterplot between correlated test and FE baseline modes 1-4 . . . . . . . 137
8.12 Scatterplot between correlated test and FE baseline modes 5-8 . . . . . . . 138
8.13 Scatterplot between correlated test and FE baseline mode 9 . . . . . . . . . 138
8.14 Full FE modeshapes 1-6 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 139
8.15 Full FE modeshapes 7-12 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 140
8.16 Baseline FE (blue) and test (green) modeshapes 1-6 . . . . . . . . . . . . . 141
8.17 Baseline FE (blue) and test (green) modeshapes 7-9 . . . . . . . . . . . . . 142
8.18 MAC between uncorrelated baseline test and Inter1a test results . . . . . . 144
8.19 Correlated MAC between baseline test and Inter1a test results . . . . . . . 144
8.20 COMAC between baseline and Inter1a tests . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 145
8.21 COMAC between baseline and Inter1a tests, as nodal displacements . . . . 145
8.22 Uncorrelated MAC between baseline and Inter1b test results . . . . . . . . 146
8.23 Correlated MAC between baseline and Inter1b test results . . . . . . . . . . 146
8.24 COMAC between baseline and Inter1b tests . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 147
8.25 COMAC between baseline and Inter1b tests, as nodal displacements . . . . 147
8.26 Uncorrelated MAC between Inter1a and Inter1b tests . . . . . . . . . . . . 148
8.27 Correlated MAC between Inter1a and Inter1b tests . . . . . . . . . . . . . 148
8.28 COMAC between Inter1a and Inter1b tests . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 149
8.29 COMAC between Inter1a and Inter1b tests, as nodal displacements . . . . . 149
8.30 Comparison of COMACs between various paired datasets . . . . . . . . . . 150
8.31 Comparison of NCOMACs between various paired datasets . . . . . . . . . 150
8.32 Plot of COMAC between baseline FE and baseline test . . . . . . . . . . . 151
8.33 EMM indication of magnitude of local proportional stiffness error between
baseline FE and test. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 152
8.34 EMM indication of magnitude of local proportional mass error between
baseline FE and test. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 152
8.35 Uncorrelated MAC between EMM-updated FE model and test, baseline case. 153
8.36 Correlated MAC between EMM-updated FE model and test, baseline case. . 153
8.37 MAC of all correlated modes before iterative updating . . . . . . . . . . . 154
xii
List of Figures
8.38 Initial MAC of correlated modes selected to update the model . . . . . . . 155
8.39 Normalised average COMAC . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 155
8.40 Normalised distribution of COMAC across the nodes by iteration . . . . . . 156
8.41 Normalised absolute frequency error . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 156
8.42 MAC of selected correlated modes after iterative updating . . . . . . . . . 157
8.43 MAC of all correlated modes after iterative updating . . . . . . . . . . . . 157
xiii
List of Tables
7.1 List of modes identified from new INSET tests . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 102

7.2 Node significance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 103
8.1 Summary of datasets examined . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 131

8.2 List of uncorrelated FE and test modes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 133
8.3 Frequency and damping of uncorrelated test modes . . . . . . . . . . . . . 143
8.4 Comparison of frequencies before and after single-stage EMM updating . . 152
8.5 Maximum values of COMAC and NCOMAC for test datasets . . . . . . . . 154
xiv
List of Abbreviations and Symbols
Abbreviations
ACSR Active Control of Structural Response
BUMCS Biased Updating Minimal Control Synthesis
COMAC Coordinate Modal Assurance Criterion
DAVI Dynamic Antiresonant Vibration Isolator
DC Direct Current
DOF Degree(s) of freedom
eCOMAC Enhanced Coordinate Modal Assurance Criteria
EMCS Extended Minimal Control Synthesis
EMM Error Matrix Method
ER Electrorheological
ES Electrostrictive
FE Finite Element
FIR Finite impulse response
FRF Frequency Response Function(s)
GA Genetic Algorithm
GCMCS Gain Corridor Minimal Control Synthesis
GFRP Glass Fibre Reinforced Plastic
GGS General Gains Scaling
GLMCS-C Campbell’s Gain Leakage Minimal Control Synthesis
GLMCS-N Newly-proposed Gain Leakage Minimal Control Synthesis
GLMCS-S Sebusang’s Gain Leakage Minimal Control Synthesis
HHC Higher Harmonic Control
HOTMCS Higher Order Term Minimal Control Synthesis
IBC Individual Blade Control
xv
IIR Infinite impulse response

INSET Interleaved Spectral Excitation Technique
MAC Modal Assurance Criterion
MCS Minimal Control Synthesis algorithm
MR Magnetorheological
MRAC Model Reference Adaptive Control
MS Magnetostrictive
N Number of blades
NCOMAC Normalised-variance Coordinate Modal Assurance Criteria
PE Piezoelectric
PID Proportional-Integral-Derivative
PMN Lead magnesium niobate
PR Positive Real
RPM Revolutions Per Minute
SA Simulated annealing
SEREP System Equivalent Reduction Expansion Process
SGS Selective Gains Scaling
SMA Shape Memory Alloy
SPR Strictly Positive Real
SPS Saturation protection scheme
xvi
Symbols
αGLMCS−S Time-varying GLMCS-S controller parameter
ūi Saturation limit of the ith control signal
βGLMCS−S Time-varying GLMCS-S controller parameter
∆ Unit timestep interval
EMCS parameter to adjust switching characteristics
γ A finite constant; a tuning parameter; HOTMCS parameter
ĥ(w, t) Nonlinear part of h(w, t)
x̂(t) Internal state vector of state estimator system
ŷ(t) Output state vector of state estimator system
∆K̄ GCMCS feedback gain bound
∆K̄r GCMCS forward gain bound
∆K Stiffness error matrix
∆M Mass error matrix
Λ Diagonal matrix of eigenvalues of A
ω Vector of modal frequencies, rad/s
φai ith analytical modal vector
φmi ith measured modal vector
ρ GCMCS perturbation bound parameter
τ GCMCS perturbation bound parameter
θ Parameter vector
πT (s) Probability of occurrence of system state s when in thermal equilibrium at
temperature T
ρsps SPS parameter
τGGS Scaling parameter used in the GGS modification to MCS
A System matrix
At Transfer system characteristic matrix
B Actuator gain matrix
Bc Plant input coefficient matrix
Be Disturbance gain matrix
Bt Transfer system characteristic matrix
C System state observation matrix
xvii
Ce Compensator matrix
D System input/output coupling matrix
d(t) Disturbance signal
E Matrix of eigenvectors of A
e(t) Vector of system output errors
ey (t) State estimator output error
F State estimator convergence matrix
f FE vector of applied force
f(t) Vector of force, displacement or acceleration measurements
G Gain matrix
Go (t) Time-varying matrix of optimal state feedback gains
Ge (s) Plant error transfer function matrix
ge (s) Transfer function for a single freedom
h(w, t) Nonlinear arbitrary function
I Identity matrix
K FE stiffness matrix
K(t) Feedback signal gain matrix
K0 GCMCS feedback gain at previous timestep
Kr (t) Reference signal gain matrix
K0r GCMCS reference gain at previous timestep
KGCMCS (t) GCMCS feedback gain matrix
KGGS (t) GGS feedback gains
KGLMCS−C Vector of GLMCS-C gains
K±
MCS
GLMCS-C gain sign function
Kk Feedback gain matrix at timestep k
K rk Reference gain at timestep k
KrGCMCS (t) GCMCS reference gain matrix
KrGGS (t) GGS reference gains
KrSPS (t) SPS reference gain
Krik ith column of reference gain matrix at timestep k
Kik (t) ith column of feedback gain matrix at timestep k
M FE mass matrix
Mred Reduced FE mass matrix
xviii
nr (t) Reference signal noise

nx (t) Plant measurement noise
O Zero matrix
P(t) Solution of matrix Ricatti equation
Q Optimal control weighting matrix
Q1 Positive semidefinite weighting matrix
R Optimal control weighting matrix
r(t) Reference signal vector
rr (t) Realisable reference signal
rk Reference vector signal at discrete timestep k
S Optimal control weighting matrix
S1 Positive semidefinite weighting matrix
T State estimator convergence matrix
u(t) Vector of control inputs
ut Transfer system control signal
w(t) Compound vector of system state and reference signal
w(t) State vector of system to be substructured
x(t) Vector of internal system states
xk Plant state vector at discrete timestep k
Y(s) Vector of system outputs
y(t) Vector of system output states
ye k Plant output error vector at discrete timestep k
z(t) Vector of system modal states
φb Unity-normalised modal vector
ζ Damping ratio
ai Filter denominator coefficient
bi Filter numerator coefficient
c Equivalent damping; damping coefficient
cd Constant determining break frequency of derivative action
ci Constants used in discrete HOTMCS regression of terms
COMACf COMAC for the f th freedom
E(s) Energy of system state s
F Applied forcing signal; Fitness function
xix
F (s) Closed-loop transfer function

f (t) Time domain impulse response
Fp (s) Primary excitation
Fs (s) Secondary excitation
G(s) Plant transfer function
H(s) Control system (or filter) transfer function
J Scalar cost index
K Signal gain
k Equivalent stiffness; stiffness; Boltzmann constant
Kd Derivative gain
Ki Integral gain
Kp Proportional gain
Ku Minimum gain causing instability
m Equivalent mass; number of numerically modelled DOF
pi Complex system pole
q Number of degrees of freedom of full system to be substructured
ri Element of vector r
rik ith reference signal at discrete timestep k
S Set of all possible system states
s Laplace operator
Saa (ω) Power spectral density function
Sab (ω) Cross-spectral density function
T Temperature
t Time
tf Final time
Tu Period of unstable oscillation
U Uniformly distributed random variable taking values from 0 to 1
u(t) Control signal
uisat (t) BUMCS saturation value of ith control signal
uiEM CS (t) EMCS control signal vector component
v(t) Saturated control vector
wi Component of w state vector
x(t) 1-DOF plant displacement
xx
xi (t) Element of vector x

xik ith plant state at discrete timestep k
ym Reference model output
yeik Plant output error of ith state at discrete timestep k
yecrit GLMCS-N gain leakage switching threshold parameter
z −1 Unit delay operator
zi Complex system zero
l Order of each system freedom
n Number of degrees of freedom
w Work integral
xxi
Superscripts
† Pseudoinverse matrix
˙ Differentiation with respect to time
ˆ Estimated value
b Unity-normalised quantity
Subscripts
a Analytical; Actuation
d Uncontrolled plant response
e Experimental
k Discrete timestep index
m Master DOF; Measured; Reference model
ms Coupling between master and slave DOF
n Numerically-modelled
p Physically-modelled
r Reference signal
s Slave DOF
xxii
Chapter 1
Introduction
Rotorcraft suffer from significant levels of vibration, which result in many undesirable con-
sequences. Reduction of vibratory loading presents an ongoing design challenge to the heli-
copter industry, with many different methods having been pursued. The emergence of smart
materials technologies, developments in adaptive control, and advances in computational
power for testing and simulation, present new opportunities for development. Appropriate
methods of modal testing are important for the validation of the finite element modelling
methods put to use at the design stage.
1.1 Scope of work
This thesis examines a range of strategies which taken together constitute an integrated
approach to tackling rotorcraft vibration. Existing vibration minimisation methods are first
considered, followed by new active approaches made possible by novel ‘smart’ materials.
Active vibration reduction devices require a controller; control methods are discussed, and
a promising form of model reference adaptive control is further pursued. At the rotorcraft
design stage, accurate modelling is important. Finite element models require modal test
data in order to be validated; this process is carried out and discussed. A further design and
testing tool is the dynamic substructuring technique. Originally used in seismic analysis, it
is considered here as a method which could facilitate modal testing and design.
1.2 Structure of thesis
Chapter 2 describes the causes and effects of vibratory loading, and reviews methods which
have been employed to avoid, isolate, or cancel it. The characteristics of some promising
1
Chapter 1. Introduction
smart materials are intoduced, and a summary is presented of research into their existing
application to this area.
Chapter 3 introduces the topic of control. Required for the implementation of any active
vibration reduction device, it is desirable to formulate a control system which tracks effec-
tively and robustly throughout wide-ranging operating conditions. Various approaches to the
control problem are discussed, followed by a description of the Minimal Control Synthesis
algorithm (MCS), which belongs to the class of model reference adaptive controllers. This
is studied further, having the advantages of being adaptive, requiring no a priori knowledge
of plant dynamics, and having been shown to be stable and robust.
Chapter 4 examines ways of improving the operation of the MCS algorithm. Firstly, con-
troller parameter selection is explored, applying various optimisation techniques to obtain
best performance for a particular test condition. Secondly, existing modifications to MCS
are reviewed, and additional possibilities proposed, with the aim of improving the suitability
of the algorithm for application in physical systems with noise, significant disturbances, and
actuators with limited control authority or bandwidth.
Chapter 5 implements the variants of the MCS controller introduced in Chapter 4, and as-
sesses their effectiveness in controlling the position of a DC servomotor.
Chapter 6 introduces the concept of dynamic substructuring. In this process, a physical

structure is split into a constituent substructure and a numerical model of the remaining
structure. The physical and numerical models are interfaced via a transfer system, and
the resulting arrangement may be used to replace the full structure during tests. For this
method to work well, the numerical model is required to be accurate, executed with adequate
bandwidth, and accurately expressed by tight control of the transfer system. This technique
is investigated using a test circuit and during modal tests of a Lynx helicopter fuselage.
Chapter 7 describes the process of modal testing of a Lynx helicopter fuselage. This was
accomplished via PC-based dSpace real-time signal-processing hardware, and demonstrated
the effectiveness of the recent Interleaved Spectral Excitation Technique (INSET).
Chapter 8 examines the practicalities of reconciling modal test data with predictions from
a finite element model, for the case of the Lynx helicopter fuselage. It is seen that exact
correspondence between the two datasets does not exist, although broad agreement provides
a starting point for updating the finite element model. Methods of updating are discussed,
and a demonstration of the Error Matrix Method illustrates potential of such approaches for
improving finite element modelling.
Finally, Chapter 9 provides an overview of the outcomes of this work as a whole, and con-
siders avenues of futher exploration.
2
Chapter 2
Review of rotorcraft vibration causes

and methods of reduction
2.1 Overview
This chapter will discuss the significance of rotorcraft vibratory loading, its causes, and
various methods of reduction. In the process, design considerations are examined, and con-
ventional vibration reduction strategies are explored. An introduction to smart materials is
then presented, along with a survey of developments in their application to rotorcraft vibra-
tion reduction.
2.2 Introduction to rotorcraft vibration issues
Rotorcraft operate within a harsh vibratory environment, the causes of which are well known
and subject to much attention [1, 2]. Unlike fixed-wing aircraft where the propeller operates
axially, the predominantly edge-wise operation of the main rotor results in an unsteady,
asymmetric and three-dimensional aerodynamic environment. Reverse flow, dynamic stall,
compressibility effects and blade-vortex interaction may occur, passing unsteady loads into
the fuselage via the rotor hub. Other aerodynamic sources of fuselage vibration include
main rotor/fuselage and main rotor/tail rotor airflow interaction; these are supplemented
by higher-frequency powertrain and transmission sources. There are two common flight
regimes which give rise to serious operational vibration: low speed transition flight (with an
advance ratio of ≈ 0.1), and high speed flight. In transitional flight, the rotor blade tip wake
vortices remain close to the rotor disk resulting in severe interaction and harsh vibratory
loading, as well as generating a distinctive slapping noise. At high forward speeds, the
blade wake passes clear of the rotor disk. However, strong oscillatory flapwise and lagwise
3
Chapter 2. Review of rotorcraft vibration causes and methods of reduction
loading occurs due to a combination of compressibility effects at the advancing blade, and
dynamic stall on the retreating blade. In addition, the greater extent of cyclic feathering
required at speed entails significant oscillatory pitch link loads. Such factors may limit the
flight envelope.
The hub loading is essentially periodic. The rotating loads with identical blades are expe-
rienced at integer multiples of N/rev, with the main component at N/rev (where N is the
number of blades), and are transmitted via the hub mounting pylon into the fuselage. N/rev
vertical hub forces and fixed frame yawing moments result from N/rev vertical blade root
shear forces and lagwise moments. However, the fixed frame N/rev pitching and rolling
moments are caused by the (N±1)/rev in-plane blade root radial and lagwise shears as well
as the (N±1)/rev torsional and flapwise root moments. If the blades have dissimilar aerody-
namic, mass or stiffness properties, additional loading at 1/rev arises.
These vibrations result in significant passenger and crew discomfort, increased component
maintenance requirements, decreased reliability, accelerated structural fatigue, and reduced
systems effectiveness. A quiet, ‘jet-smooth’ helicopter would additionally promote greater
public acceptance and be more cost-effective.
2.3 Design approaches to vibration reduction
The rotor system dynamic characteristics are a fundamental aspect of overall performance,
and must be considered at all stages of design. Many design choices combine to determine
dynamic couplings, resultant hub loads, and fuselage forcing, and principally include:
• number of rotor blades;
• blade mass and stiffness distribution;
• blade section geometry and aerodynamics;
• blade tip aerodynamic and aeroelastic properties;
• choice of articulated or semirigid hub; and,
• hub fairing and fuselage clearance.
These factors require detailed modelling and will form a compromise with general perfor-
mance requirements. Vortices shed from the rotor hub region due to sideslip or hub-mounted
devices can impinge on the tailplane resulting in unwanted tail boom forcing of the main
fuselage. This phenomenon may be diminished through the use of fairings on and around
the rotor hub. Some variations from conventional helicopter configuration reassess the tail
rotor: the Eurocopter Fenestron is an example of fairing the fan into the vertical fin, whilst
4
the McDonnell Douglas Notar eliminates the rotor and instead utilises circulation control
around the tail boom to generate yawing moments.
Basic rotor blade dynamic design is important both to reduce overall blade vibratory load-
ing and hence fatigue rate, and also to minimise amplification of rotor blade aerodynamic
vibratory loads during their transmission into the fuselage. Mechanical couplings exist be-
tween flap, lag and pitching motions in designs where their respective hinges are located
at separate distances from the hub centre, and additional couplings can result from the ex-
ploitation of anisotropic materials in the blade design. Until recent times, rotor blades were
designed with constant radial mass and stiffness distributions. This approach was acceptable
in situations of moderate cruise speeds and low flapping offset, although not ideal. Compos-
ite materials have allowed the mass distribution and lag, flapping and torsional stiffnesses
to be tailored with a degree of independence from each other, through locating carbon or
glass fibres in optimal load-bearing orientations at particular blade sectional locations. This
optimisation enables greater separation of blade modes from rotor speed harmonics at the
operating point, thus reducing vibrations transmitted to the fuselage. The advent of powerful
computing capabilities has made possible aeroelastic design optimisation processes, during
which an objective function is minimised through the adjustment of design variables subject
to the nonviolation of specified design constraints. The objective function is defined in terms
of hub vibration and/or blade loading, prespecified constraints commonly refer to aeroelas-
tic stability, blade frequencies and autorotative inertia, whilst the design variables would
be blade geometry, mass and stiffness distributions, and composite ply lay-up orientations
and thicknesses. The minimisation of the objective function may be achieved through var-
ious methods, such as finite-difference gradient descent, genetic algorithms, or simulated
annealing [3, 4], and a survey of such methods may be found in [5]. When an optimum
blade has been designed, manufacturing tolerances must maximise blade similarity, with
blade balancing and tracking adjustments being key to avoiding powerful unbalanced 1/rev
forcing.
Having designed the rotor system, the fuselage dynamics must be accurately predicted, and
iteratively tailored to guarantee separation of resonances from rotor system modes. The
significance of the fuselage response modes is not exclusively derived from overall magni-
tude but is also a function of modeshape, as it is desirable to locate the pilot, passengers or
sensitive equipment at antinodes. The accurate prediction of fuselage modes is not straight-
forward, for reasons explored in Section 8.1.1.
The undercarriage must be designed to minimise the possibility of ground resonance, an

instability which may occur when a fuselage mode coalesces with a regressing blade lag
mode, provided that the fundamental lag mode is less than 1/rev. These conditions may
be encountered while the rotor runs up to operating rpm. If so, the design is not neces-
sarily unacceptable provided that adequate damping exists and that the condition is passed
through expeditiously. In general, undercarriage stiffness and damping may be fine-tuned
5
for the range of operating load conditions and ground contact characteristics; hydraulic or
elastomeric [6] lag dampers are used, at the potential expense of reduced blade fatigue life;
and where possible, rotor mass may be kept low relative to fuselage mass, to be traded off
against power failure kinetic energy requirements. The response of the fuselage itself at
these frequencies is also an important source of damping. An alternative scenario occurs
with supercritical rotors, where fundamental lag plane frequency is greater than once-per-
rev. Here, the regressing lag mode is always beyond 1/rev and therefore not encountered.
The associated disadvantages are greater amplification of 1st harmonic air loads and Corio-
lis loads, as well as a stiffer and heavier blade hinge assembly for achieving a high natural
frequency.
Air resonance is an in-flight instability occurring with interaction between the regressive
flapping mode and the fuselage roll and pitch responses, producing pendulum modes which
couple with the regressive lag frequency. This is only a potential issue with semi-rigid or
bearingless hubs as these transmit roll and pitching moments whilst possessing little inherent
blade lag damping. Usually, if the suppression of ground resonance has been achieved
through increased lag damping, air resonance is not likely to be a problem.
In practice, the accurate modelling and prediction of rotor system characteristics in full con-
sideration of unsteady aerodynamics, aeroelastic effects and nonlinear equations of motion,
represents a challenge [7]. Linearised approximations are often made, and the exact per-
formance is only revealed during testing. Similarly, the prediction of fuselage modes is not
exact; the reconciliation of finite element models and modal test data is an area of active
research (Chapter 8), and even where analysis is accurate, variations in build or operational
configuration may result in significant modal excursions. However, the improvement of ro-
tor blade dynamic modelling and design attracts current interest, examples being [8] which
examines a refined model of composite tailored blades, and [9] which applies a genetic
algorithm method of optimisation to the design of a hingeless rotor blade.
2.4 Vibration reduction systems
There are several strategies for further vibration reduction which may be pursued. The
vibration may be:
1. avoided through changes in aircraft operation;
2. locally cancelled or isolated at significant subsystems;
3. isolated from the fuselage structure or cancelled at the fuselage/rotor system interface;
or,
4. managed at source, through advanced blade control methods.
6
These approaches will be discussed in turn.
2.4.1 Vibration avoidance methods
Some degree of vibration may be sidestepped through changes in operating procedure.

Avoiding sideslipping flight minimises vortex shedding from the hub region onto the tail-
plane, and blade vortex interaction impulsive loading [10, 11] may be lessened by avoiding
descending forward flight if possible. A recent study [12] showed that rotor hub vibratory
loading may be decreased by using the tailplane to apply fixed pitching and rolling moments
to change the fuselage attitude. However, it is not practical to avoid vibratory flight regimes
such as high-speed or transition.
2.4.2 Local vibration reduction
Local vibration reduction may be achieved through the attachment of vibration absorbers,
isolation mountings, or soft mounts; methods involving smart materials are discussed later
in Section 2.6.1. An example of an efficient vibration absorber is found in the Kaman UH-
2, where a battery is used as the tuned mass [13]. The Kaman Dynamic Antiresonant
Vibration Isolator (DAVI) is similar, except using a leveraged mass on a flexing beam to
minimise system weight. A disadvantage of such tuned systems is that their performance is
generally optimal for a single operating RPM unless self-tuning, and are subject to spring
stiffness or mass variability. Active noise cancellation mounts for equipment have been
a subject of recent development activity (e.g. [14]), while soft mounts passively minimise
transmissibility through a lowered mounting spring constant and slight damping.
2.4.3 Isolation or suppression of rotor hub vibration
Isolation of rotor hub vibration from the fuselage is an attractive strategy. The rotor hub may
be soft-mounted from the fuselage, along with the gearbox and engines, as on the Westland
30. The mounting system might also be designed to respond in such a way as to cancel
the imposed hub shears and moments, although it could only be tuned to a single optimal
rotor speed and would require accurate consideration throughout the design process. The
Bell ‘Nodamatic’ system suspends the fuselage from the nodes of a beam attached to the
gearbox, with the beam resonating at the operating frequency and containing elastomeric
damping elements.
Other methods involve appending vibration absorbers to the hub itself. One type of such
absorbers are centrifugal pendulum-type devices, such as the bifilar absorber developed by
Sikorsky [7]. Another type are axially-mounted rotary sprung masses, such as the Westland
7
Flexispring absorber. These reduce lagwise hub forcing at the blade passing frequency. Both
add parasitic mass to the overall structure and are specific to a single frequency. Pendulum
devices are to a degree self-tuning, although frequency is nonlinear with amplitude and
hence sensitive to flight condition, and they suffer from wear and require maintenance. The
Flexispring absorber uses a spring of GFRP, has a ±2.5% operating frequency range, and
no maintenance requirements.
2.4.4 Active methods of vibration reduction
Active methods of vibration reduction use an actuation mechanism to apply controlled loads
or deflect aerodynamic surfaces. The Westland Active Control of Structural Response
(ACSR) scheme significantly outperformed passive systems by using hydraulic actuators
to inject longitudinal forcing into EH101 fixed gearbox mounting struts [15, 16], and has
entered production. It employed an optimal controller which minimised particular frequen-
cies contained in measurements from accelerometers distributed throughout the structure.
Potential weaknesses of such a system is that unmonitored locations may unknowingly suf-
fer elevated vibration levels, and the benefits of the reduced vibration are confined to the
fuselage.
Higher harmonic control (HHC) addresses the rotating-frame hub forcing at (N±1)/rev
through collective and cyclic servoactuation of the swashplate at N/rev superimposed over
primary flight control inputs [17]. HHC has received much interest and analysis, although
being intrinsically limited to frequency-domain control application at harmonics of N/rev
and N±1/rev, it is thus unable to compensate for blade imbalance or dissimilarity. Another
disadvantage stems from the demands it places on the swashplate hydraulic actuators, which
are required to have sufficient authority for low-frequency primary control and yet also pos-
sess high bandwidth for the higher harmonics.
Time-domain control across a continuous frequency spectrum is clearly more desirable for
compensating for unsteady disturbances. This goal may be accomplished by the inclusion of
individual blade control (IBC) actuation, achieved by mounting hydraulic actuators between
the swashplate and the pitch horn, thus superimposing the higher harmonics over the primary
control inputs [18, 19, 20, 21]. The downside of the use of hydraulic actuators in the rotating
frame is the necessity of reliably supplying hydraulic power through slip rings.
In both HHC and IBC, significant power is required to feather the rotor blades dynami-
cally. The payback from pitching the inboard section is comparatively limited due to the
corresponding lesser aerodynamic significance. The cost and weight penalties, along with
certification issues arising from modifying the primary flight control mechanism, have also
meant that despite the potential 90% reduction in vibration, neither HHC or IBC have been
used in production rotorcraft.
8
Improvements to this approach include active blade tips, leading edge flaps, trailing edge
direct lift flaps, or reversal mode servoflaps to induce blade twist. These are to be capable
of multicyclic deployment via an adaptive control methodology, and are to require less ac-
tuation power. This technology demands actuators with significantly increased bandwidth,
and has been the subject of much research since the advent of smart materials technology.
Smart materials also open up new actuation possibilities such as direct blade twist actuation,
stiffness modification, and semiactive damping; the use of smart materials is discussed in
Section 2.5.
Trailing edge servoflaps exploit the torsional flexibility of the rotor blade; upwards deflec-
tions produce an increase in angle of attack. This approach has the advantage of small
control loads with reduced power requirements; if used exclusively for primary control - as
in the Kaman helicopters - it also yields increased aeroelastic stability, reduced vibration
and fatigue, and an automatic lowering of collective pitch with dropping rpm resulting in
more benign power failure characteristics. Trailing edge flaps in general have the poten-
tial to reconfigure a rotor blade in the case of a pitch link or swashplate failure so as to
maintain controllability [22]. It is also in theory possible to use a number of trailing edge
flaps at various spanwise locations in order to achieve control over multiple blade modes
simultaneously; however, this has not yet been been practically investigated. Airworthiness
certification of additional on-blade devices is less serious than with HHC or IBC, provided
that they are separate from primary flight controls.
A different approach to cyclic blade control involves the use of leading edge devices to
control dynamic stall. By altering the geometry it is possible to achieve a reduced adverse
pressure gradient thus delaying the onset of flow separation at high angles of attack. This
geometrically may be in the form of changes of curvature, explored in [23], or the deploy-
ment of leading edge flaps [24]. Compared to trailing edge flaps, leading edge flaps require
significantly higher hinge moments, but are more effective at delaying the stall. A further
type of leading edge device is air jets, which show promise in delaying stall through pro-
moting translaminar mixing of the airflow. This technology is still in the early stages of
development, and poses a challenge for flow modelling, but may find application on rotor
blades in the future. NASA Langley have been developing synthetic actuator jets in the form
of closed cavities driving a reciprocating flow through an orifice, using a oscillating piezo-
electric diaphragm [25, 26]. These are capable of jets of 56 m/s at 100 Vrms, and were run
at various frequencies and duty cycles to influence pitching moment and separation onset.
2.5 An introduction to smart materials
Due to the demanding operational environment of rotor blades, smart materials show much
promise for on-blade actuation. ‘Smart’ structures were initially conceived around the late
9
1980s onwards, and are inspired by the configuration of biological organisms which possess
a basic structural bodyframe, a nervous system for sensing capability, muscles for actuation,
and a brain for adaptive control and signal processing.
For the purposes of this work, smart materials are considered to be those which have the
capacity to actuate, sense, or otherwise vary their characteristics to achieve some purpose
whilst integrated into a structure with a controller. A thoughtful discussion as to how to
define this new field most completely is initiated in [27], and reviews of smart materials
and their properties, design considerations, analysis methods and application examples is
provided in [28] and [29]. A summary of smart technologies considered relevant to vibration
reduction is now given.
A range of smart actuation technologies has recently emerged, including piezoelectric (PE)
materials, shape memory alloys (SMAs), and magnetostrictive/electrostrictive (MS or ES)
materials, with magnetorheological (MR) and electrorheological (ER) fluids opening up
possibilities in damping applications. These will now be briefly described in turn.
2.5.1 Piezoelectric materials
Piezoelectric (PE) materials feature coupling between internal mechanical strain energy and
electrical potential across associated surface electrodes, and are widely available as stacks,
sheets, tubes and blocks. They may be exploited for sensing strains as electrical potentials,
either at discrete locations, or distributed over an area to directly measure modal deflections.
Alternatively as actuators they combine high bandwidth with high energy density, and may
be directly incorporated into structural members as blocks, layers or fibres, performing well
in demanding physical environments such as space and high-g applications. Disadvantages
include low actuation strain of around 1000 µstrain; various stroke-amplification leverage
schemes such as the ‘L-L’ [30] or ‘X-frame’ [31] may be employed with stacked PE layered
actuators (‘piezostacks’) to trade force for displacement, although the related mechanisms
tend to suffer from hinge losses, flexibility and backlash. Alternate geometrical PE configu-
rations such as the C-block [32], unimorph [33] / bimorph [34, 35], torsion plate [36] cylin-
der [37] or bar [38] offer various possibilities for available stroke direction and force. New
types of single-crystal and polymeric PE materials in development [39, 40, 41] hold promise
of actuation strains an order of magnitude greater than currently available. Difficulties may
arise as predicting performance, reliability and fatigue life is complex, requiring electrical,
thermal and mechanical models to be derived from a good understanding of micromechan-
ical behaviour, as yet not exhaustively evaluated. There is also limited experience of the
application of smart materials to solve important vibration issues, with most development
focussed on simple idealised structures.
PE actuators may be employed in a number of configurations. Wafers or composites have
10
been used to alter the twist of the rotor blade by applying forces to the original basic structure
[42, 43]; this approach requires large forces in order to overcome the stiffness of a full-size
blade and typically achieves small deflections. A more promising approach uses PE-actuated
aerodynamic control surfaces. This may be in the form of a trailing-edge flap; a parametric
design study [44] concludes that the flap is optimally 10-20% span, sited centred at 74%
span to minimise control power required, with a nose-heavy static imbalance, a relatively
small chord, with deflections of around ±5 deg. Alternatively, the control surface may take
the form of an all-moving tip, an example being [38].
2.5.2 Shape memory alloys
Shape memory alloys have the ability to ‘memorise’ a shape through an annealing process
(above 500 degC), and recover that shape at raised temperatures. In 1961 a nickel-titanium
alloy called Nitinol was discovered by Buehler et al [45] which had significantly advanced
shape memory characteristics, capable of 100% strain recovery at 8% extensional prestrain.
At room temperature, Nitinol is constituted by a martinsite phase, with a twinned unde-
formed crystal structure which results in a low yield stress and elastic modulus. Initial
plastic deformation results in detwinning and reorienting of the structure, which is reversed
on heating, when an austenitic phase change occurs accompanied by an increase in elastic
modulus and yield stress, and a recovery stress if constrained by an external structure. Thus
SMA wires may be used alternately in opposition to provide bidirectional actuation, heated
by passing an electric current along them. Owing to the necessity of dissipating latent heat
on cooling, there is an actuation bandwidth constraint of the order of 1Hz, although the large
force and stroke available make them attractive where bandwidth is not an issue. They may
also be used to add damping, exhibiting significant stress-strain hysteresis, and there is also
interest in embedding SMA wires into composite materials thereby altering the resonant
frequency of beams. SMAs are highly nonlinear with stress, temperature and strain history,
and therefore require feedback control in order to achieve and maintain required displace-
ments. At present there is no database of SMA performance and fatigue characteristics, and
modelling SMAs is still a challenge.
2.5.3 Magnetostrictive materials
Magnetostrictive (MS) materials exhibit deformations under applied magnetic fields [46,47,
48]. They are alloys of iron with rare earth metals, constituted of internal magnetic domains
which increasingly align themselves with applied magnetic fields of increasing intensity thus
causing an induced extensional strain in the field direction. Extension resulting from applied
fields is known as the Joule effect, and may be used for actuation; conversely, magnetic fields
may be generated by applying stress (the Villari effect) and gives rise to sensor applications.
11
Torsional strain may be induced by applying helical fields (the Wiedemann effect), and the
converse is also possible (the Matteusi effect). The first MS effects were recognised in nickel
in 1840 by James Joule, and other MS cobalt and nickel alloys were subsequently found,
capable of a maximum deformation of around 50µstrain. In the 1970s Terfenol-D (Terbium
Ferrous Naval Ordnance Laboratory Dysprosium) was discovered by Arthur Clark and his
research group at Naval Ordnance Lab, is capable of around 2000µstrain with a bandwidth
in the kHz range, has a Curie temperature of above 380 deg (beyond which no ferromagnetic
properties are retained), and cast in directionally solidified rods or available in powder or
film form. The stress-strain characteristics are nonlinear, with very low hysteresis, although
no exhaustive data presently exists for MS actuators under a full range of test conditions.
2.5.4 Electrostrictive materials
Electrostrictive (ES) materials deform in the direction of an applied electric field, and also
possess anisotropy in the form of a decreased elastic modulus in the field direction while
applied. This effect is due to the field-wise re-alignment of otherwise isotropic randomly-
oriented microstructural electric domains, and is thereby different from PE materials, which
require permanent poling. On removal of the field, instant depolarisation occurs and the
material returns to its original strain geometry with the initial elastic modulus. As the basic
internal domain configuration is random, electric ageing does not occur, and another con-
sequence is that applied strains do not result in electric fields thus ruling out their use in
sensing applications. A useful ES material is lead magnesium niobate (PMN) which has a
high dielectric strength and is improved by 10% doping with lead titanate to form PMN-
PT; the maximum resulting extensional capability is of the order of 1000µstrain [49]. A
nonlinear constitutive model for PMN is described in [50]. ES materials have less than
1% hysteresis but are highly sensitive to surrounding temperature; promising applications
include underwater mechanisms, micropositioning, biomedical probes and ultrasonic mo-
tors [51]. Their stress-strain characteristics are also nonlinear, and as with MS materials,
categorical data is not yet generally available for ES actuators over ranges of test conditions,
and simplified methods of describing their constitutive equations remain to be developed,
although general methods are described in [52].
2.5.5 Magnetorheological and electrorheological fluids
Magnetorheological (MR) and electrorheological (ER) fluids may have their characteristics
changed by subjection to magnetic or electric fields respectively, and an introduction to their
properties may be found in [53, 54]. First described in the late 1940s [55, 56], they mainly
consist of a non-conducting viscous fluid medium into which a suspension of soft magnetic
or dielectric particles has been introduced, although some homogeneous fluids have also
12
been suggested to avoid sedimentation and abrasion issues [57]. On the application of an
electric field to an ER fluid, the particles coalesce into a solid lattice thus forming a Bingham
fluid. This type of fluid is strictly a solid characterised by a low yield stress, other exam-
ples being unhardened concrete, blood, and molten chocolate. ER fluids typically require an
electric field of 3-5 kV/mm and can have yield stresses as high as 5 kPa, whereas MR fluids
require a magnetic field of 150-200 kA/m and may yield at up to 100kPa. For the latter,
particles of 1-10µm diameter high purity iron (Fe) are typically used, being magnetically
multidomained with a low coercivity, and suspended in an organic or aqueous medium,
commonly silicone oil. The change of state may occur in a fraction of a millisecond and
thus opens up control applications in dampers, clutches, brakes, shock absorbers and valves.
ER fluids do not require the bulky coils of MR configurations and hence are not limited by
the associated inductive current rise time lag. On the other hand, MR fluids have superior
temperature stability (-40 deg to 150 deg C), insensitivity to fluid impurities, lower energy
consumption, no requirement for high-voltage power supplies, and significantly higher yield
stress. The balance of these factors has to date favoured MR systems for commercial ex-
ploitation [58].
Nonlinear models of ER and MR fluids are required to describe behaviour. The Bingham
viscoplastic model [59] assumes that the fluid response to strain includes a viscous compo-
nent and a constant friction force yield stress component. This does not accurately predict
viscoelastic fluid response before and around the yield point, and further suggestions have
been made in the form of a modified Bouc-Wen model [60, 61] which accurately predicts
force-displacement and force-velocity hysteresis loops through the use of 14 parameters; an
augmented 6-parameter model [62] which achieves accurate predictions using a nonlinear
combination of linear mechanisms; a nonlinear viscoelastic-plastic model [63] which imper-
fectly characterises yield region response; and a quasi-steady Bingham plastic model [64]
which predicted energy dissipation characteristics well in damper tests, but did not accu-
rately predict the force-velocity behaviour.
A description of a process to find the most effective location of dampers is found in [65].
Some examples of applications include aircraft cabin noise reduction [66] through inclusion
of ER fluid in a panel device with fuzzy logic control of electric field; a MR car suspen-
sion damper [67], which was successfully used for semiactive control of the vibration of a
quarter-car model around resonance; a tuneable sloshing damper for suppressing low fre-
quency structural motions [68]; and a controllable MR helicopter blade lag mode damper
model [69] with a suggested robust control law [70] featuring a 1/rev notch stop filter to
avoid excessive fatigue in forward flight.
13
2.6 Active blade control developments
The concept of actively controlling the rotor blade is not recent, although only lately has
the advent of smart materials made possible new developments. The next sections will
examine full-scale and small-scale blade control developments. The introduction of active
elements to the rotor blade is often approached as an ‘add-on’ to a blade which has already
been dynamically optimised. However, Zhang [71] points out that the interests of dynamic
optimisation and of maximising the effectiveness of smart blade actuation may conflict. He
concludes that the best approach is a hybrid optimisation, and a design study indicated that
the balance lay in favour of effective actuation (in this case, trailing edge flap control).
2.6.1 Small-scale prototypes
The majority of smart rotor research has been conducted through building cheaper and less
risky small-scale models for proof-of-concept validation and control system development.
The disadvantage is that the Mach, Froude and Reynolds numbers do not scale at the same
rate with respect to model size, and centripetal acceleration is also unmatched [72]. There-
fore, if Mach scaling in air is selected, the centripetal loads increase with the inverse of scale
factor, complicating the design and testing of experimental actuation mechanisms.
Early work on small trailing-edge flap rotor blades favoured the use of bimorph-type PE
bender actuators, the first [73] consisting of a bimorph bender cantilevered rearwards from
the spar and actuating a servoflap via a 3-point hinge mechanism linked at its end. Signif-
icant force and authority was demonstrated in low-speed wind tunnel tests, although hinge
friction and backlash diminished its effectiveness. This design was later adapted [74, 75] by
using a moulded rod attached to the end of the bender to interface with a precision-machined
cusp holder, thereby allowing the rod to rotate and slip with a minimum of friction and back-
lash while actuating the flap. This mechanism achieved 10% flap authority in bench tests.
Hall and Prechtl [76] used a similarly located bimorph bender with a method of continu-
ous flexures, and thereby succeeded in eliminating friction and backlash. Deflections of
11.5 deg up to 100 Hz were demonstrated in bench tests, and the authors conclude that if
scaled and impedance-matched, it could produce 5 deg deflection of a flap at 90% span of a
full-scale operational helicopter rotor.
Qiu et al designed and fabricated a functionally-graded bimorph actuator, with the aim of
improving the internal stress distribution of the component. Evaluation of the prototypes
demonstrated improved durability with lower damping and heat generation, achieved at the
cost of reduced displacement output and increased voltage requirements for the same geom-
etry.
An active blade tip concept developed by Bernhard and Chopra [38] involved driving a 10%
14
span tip to ±5 deg in a model hover condition via a bending-torsion coupled PE actuation
beam located spanwise in a hollow midcell of the main rotor blade. As a result, steady rotor
thrust could be modulated by 50% at 8 deg collective pitch. However, later vacuum spin
tests [34] showed a severe degradation in performance at moderate to high rotation speeds.
Fulton and Ormiston [77, 78] achieved flap deflections of ±7.5 deg, albeit at a reduced tip
Mach number of 0.27 with a rotor diameter of 2.23m, the flap sized at 12% span and 10%
chord. A higher tip speed was achieved by Koratkar and Chopra [35], achieving between
±3.5 to 5 deg deflection at 3, 4 and 5/rev and 0-7 deg collective with a tip Mach number of
0.42 and a 5ft diameter rotor. An 8-layered tapered piezobender was used to actuate the flap,
sized at 8% of span and 20% chord, midlocated at 75% span. A disadvantage of the actuator
is a requirement for leading edge mass balancing around the flap section for aerodynamic
stability, compromising overall mass efficiency, although the design substantially met the
requirement of ±4 deg deflection for 95% reduction in predicted vibratory hub loads.
Direct actuation of the rotor blades through surface-bonded piezoceramics or active fibre
composites is another possibility, the ideal solution being a blade with a continuously con-
trollable and deformable geometry for optimum aerodynamic characteristics. Interestingly,
Cesnik and Shin [79] showed that for actively twisting rotor blades, torsional stiffness need
not be reduced in order to achieve adequate response. As long as stiffness local to the active
regions is not restrictive, increases in torsional stiffness of up to 20% can be achieved whilst
increasing actuation by 5%. Chen and Chopra [42, 80] used direct twist actuation with dual-
layer PE patch elements located under the upper and lower skin at +45 deg and -45 deg
orientations respectively. The patch thickness was roughly 4 times that of the fibreglass skin
of the 6ft Froude scale rotor, with coverage from 17.5% to 70% chord. In hover tests with
a tip speed of Mach 0.28, tip twist deflections of ±0.5 deg were seen. A different approach
was used by Barrett et al [81] to control the pitch of a small remote-piloted helicopter;
active twist flexbeams were constructed from ±45deg directionally attached piezoceram-
ics [82] on an aluminium substrate, mounted on the hub with servopaddles attached to the
ends. This allowed blade pitch to be actuated without a swashplate, reducing the part count
from 94 components to 5, cutting parasite drag by 26%, and reducing control system weight
by 40%.
Barrett [83] also showed that by actuating an aerodynamic shell based around a high-
strength main spar, deflections of up to 40 deg are attainable. The shell of a missile fin
is moved by the tip deflection of a wire-extended PE bimorph bender located crossways
in-plane along the span of the fin from root leading edge to tip trailing edge. Careful aeroe-
lastic tailoring is required to ensure stability of angle of attack with changes in airflow speed,
although a collocated PE sensor may be used for position feedback and thus allow closed-
loop control. [84]. However, this methodology has not been applied to rotor blades and is
not thought to be suitable on account of aerodynamic shell flexibility and aeroelastic issues.
A promising new method of integral twist actuation is found in the use of piezocomposites,
15
presented in [85], where PE fibres are embedded within a composite matrix. Following an
initial feasibility study [86] into the use of active twist rotor blades for the Boeing CH-47
Chinook, 61 th scale rotor blades were designed and tested [87,88]. A single active blade was
counterbalanced by a passive blade on a Mach scale 3.079m diameter rotor, with 136.9mm
chord run at 1336 rpm. The piezocomposite material was located in the upper and lower
D-spar, with 35.6% chord coverage, achieved ±0.4 deg tip twist at full speed and 8 deg
collective, whilst incurring a mass penalty of around 16%. Another integral twist blade
was developed by Boeing [89, 90]; a 61 th scale rotor with diameter 2.794m and chord 107.7
was hover-tested in a heavy gas atmosphere at the Langley Transonic Dynamics tunnel for
combined Mach and Froude scaling. The active plies were located in the D-spar from 4.5%
to 44.3% chord, achieving ±0.75 deg quasi-static tip twist, with potential improvement to
the goal of ±2 deg with increases of applied voltage and refinement of active fibre integra-
tion [91]. Parallel work was also conducted in modelling the blades [92].
A different approach to smart actuation employs elastic couplings, whereby a smart actuator
strains a structure which responds with a secondary deflection. An example is the bending-
torsion coupling of a beam in order to produce a twist deflection for actuation of an all-
moving blade tip [38]. However, such systems have the inherent inefficiency of strain energy
storage within the elastic coupler during positive actuation [31].
It has already been seen in Section 2.6.2 that leading edge flaps may be used to control
dynamic stall. Another method involves altering leading edge curvature; a study [23] has
conducted two-dimensional point diffraction interferometry wind-tunnel tests to Mach 0.3
of an oscillating blade section with variable leading edge camber. A brushless servomotor
moved a mandrel by 2mm at the cyclic frequency of around 10Hz to change the curvature
by 320%, and successfully controlled dynamic stall through lowering peak suction levels
and redistributing flow vorticity.
Electromagnetic actuators have also been used in other applications; a Bell OH-58D Kiowa
Warrior helicopter rotor blade (of 17.5 feet diameter) has been fitted with an active trailing
edge flap of 11.3% span, 46% chord centred at 91% radius, and found in hover tests to
be capable of ±6deg electromagnetic actuation at 81% of design speed, tip Mach 0.48.
The average power requirement was 220W, being less than 0.05% of maximum available,
although away from actuator resonance it increased as high as 4kW [93].
Another approach to blade control involves the semiactive control of the stiffness of blade
root material. Controllable orifice devices [94, 95] or ER/MR fluids [70, 96] could provide
this functionality, and [97] numerically demonstrates that if successfully implemented for
a 4-bladed BO-105 helicopter, cyclic variations in blade flap and lag stiffness of 18% and
15% of respective baseline values would reduce a weighted composite quadratic vibration
index by 91%. A separate numerical study [69] showed that when employing lag mode MR
dampers, their nonlinear characteristics could be managed with a robust control law, whilst
16
fatigue loading was reduced by 1/rev notch filtering of the feedback control loop.
PE materials may be driven at high frequency (>5kHz) to be used as motors. Inchworm

motors [98] have been suggested as general purpose on-blade actuators [99, 100] although
to date have not been applied in active rotor applications.
SMAs have been also been used to actuate rotor blade control surfaces. Their bandwidth is
presently not acceptable for cyclic control inputs, but they show promise for other applica-
tions. The process of blade tracking adjustment is usually performed manually and itera-
tively, consisting of repositioning rotor blade trailing edge tabs to compensate for structural,
inertial or aerodynamic dissimilarities and the associated significant 1/rev vibratory load-
ing. SMAs have been shown [101] to be able to actuate these tabs online, opening up the
possibility of smoother operation, relaxed manufacturing tolerances, and reduced fatigue,
downtime and costs. SMAs have also been suggested for controlling collective pitch [102],
in a study in which they were used to deflect a trailing edge flap of a 28-inch model he-
licopter rotor whilst in flight. A study of the use of SMAs to control the deflection of a
honeycomb plate structure robustly, with potential rotorcraft applications, is found in [103].
A regulation controller was used with proportional/derivative and feedforward action in con-
junction with a robust compensator to combat SMA hysteresis and increase accuracy and
stability. Accurate control was achieved, although at a bandwidth too low for any rotorcraft
applications other than tracking tab adjustment.
The devices listed so far have operated on the rotor system with the aim of reducing vibra-
tions at source. Established methods of reducing vibration locally once transmitted to the
fuselage have been discussed in Section 2.4.2. Many new varieties of vibration damping
which make use of smart materials have emerged. Constrained layers of viscoelastic ma-
terial may be piezoactuated to provide controllable energy dissipation, and has also been
proposed for rotor blade damping [104, 105]. Electrorheological fluids have also been ap-
plied to the problem, one study examining the use of panels containing ER fluids actuated by
a fuzzy logic controller [66]. PE shunt techniques involve finding the optimum location for
the placement of a PE patch to suppress particular modes of vibration [106, 107], and con-
necting the electrodes into an electronic circuit designed to dissipate the generated energy in
a controllable way. The circuit may take the form of a resonant shunt system consisting of
a resistor in series with a resonant capacitor/inductor subcircuit, or alternatively, electrical
switching techniques may be used to periodically disconnect the shunt [108, 109]. A broad
range of control techniques exist for the actuation of smart devices, and are discussed in
general terms in Chapter 3.
17
2.6.2 Full-scale prototypes
In 1922 Pescara used a trailing edge flap, and the helicopters designed by Charles Kamen in
the 1940s onwards used servoflaps for 1/rev primary control. Servoflap configurations have
the advantages of increased aeroelastic stability, diminished response to unsteady aerody-
namic loading reducing vibration and blade fatigue rates, and inherent easing of collec-
tive on the occurrence of power loss. Active flaps were investigated for HHC in the Mul-
ticyclic Controllable Twist Rotor [110], which used a servoflap deployed by swashplate-
driven pushrods to ±6 deg at 4/rev, successfully reducing control loads and blade flapwise
loading.
The earliest experimental examination of a trailing edge lifting flap was the McDonnell Dou-
glas Active Flap Rotor model [111], which had a 12’ diameter rotor and a cam-following
cable mechanism for actuating the flap. The flap input phase could be shifted by rotating
the cam, although only a single fixed multicyclic waveform could be tested for each in-
terchangeable cam, precluding closed loop control. This feasibility research was followed
up with the development of piezostack actuation mechanisms, the precise details of which
transpired to be of critical importance for achieving the required large stroke amplification
with minimal losses [112, 30]. Bidirectional lever arm [113] and dual X-frame [31] con-
cepts were successively explored. The bidirectional L-L lever arm actuator prototype [30]
demonstrated a stroke of 1.87mm, performing consistently in vacuum whirl tests at full-
scale centripetal loadings of 710g and beyond. The X-frame actuator has ±2 deg predicted
operational deflection over 18% span and 25% chord, mid-located at 83% span, to be pur-
sued for further testing on the 34’ diameter MD900 Explorer rotor. When resizing these
actuators for full-scale service, the X-frame requires a 2D in-plane scaling to maintain the
geometry of the mechanism, whereas the bidirectional actuator scales linearly. A prestressed
unidirectional lever mechanism was investigated to actuate a trailing edge flap in a 16 th scale
CH-47 Chinook blade, the flap having an 11.5% span, 20% chord coverage, and hinged at
27.5% of flap chord for aerodynamic balance. Deflections of ±3.9 deg were accomplished
at the hover with a tip Mach number of 0.63.
A second full-scale active flap development program at Eurocopter [114] is also based
around a piezostack actuator, in this case located in a parallelogram frame stroke ampli-
fication mechanism. For the EC-135 helicopter, a target trailing edge flap deflection of ±8
deg implied actuator requirements of 1mm stroke and 2kN force. An actuator was tested for
block force under 800g centripetal loading, and a blade segment with a flap of 15% chord
and 10% full blade span, employing 4 actuators, was examined in two-dimensional wind
tunnel tests up to Mach 0.74 at fixed and 1/rev varying angles of attack and flap deflections
of ±2 deg, and it was indicated that flap deflections of ±5 deg are possible throughout all
test conditions. The same actuator has been tested to deploy leading edge flaps in a demon-
stration model with 10 deg droop capability and 10% chord, extending the lift curve by 17%
18
and increasing the static stall angle of attack by 2.5%.
Another study of leading edge flap actuation [115] produced a levered-arm piezostack ac-
tuated full-scale leading edge flap. Proof-of-concept low-speed wind-tunnel tests were con-
ducted of a blade section containing the 25% chord flap up to Mach 0.10. Flap droop of
2-7deg was achieved over 0-24 Hz.
2.7 Summary
The careful design of a helicopter rotor system is the first step to smoother flight. Smart or
passive damper methods exist for reducing vibrations locally on having entered the fuselage;
various hub attachment methods have been developed to prevent oscillatory loading from
transmission beyond the rotor system; and most recently, development effort has focussed
on generating a minimum of loading in the first place, through the concept of an active rotor.
Active rotors may be actuated through leading or trailing edge flaps, all-moving blade tips,
or by integrally twisting, and potential exists for further control through the use of semi-
active controllable smart dampers or stiffness elements. These devices promise to reduce
vibratory loading by as much as 95%, and could confer reduced fatigue, cost, noise, pas-
senger and crew discomfort, while increasing flight performance, manoeuvrability, airframe
and equipment reliability, and would promote greater public acceptance of rotorcraft.
At the present time, the capabilities of smart materials are continuing to improve. Many
small-scale model developments have investigated a range of concepts, although there have
been few full-scale development programmes. However, McDonnell-Douglas/Boeing have
been developing a piezostack X-frame-actuated trailing-edge flap for flight testing on an
MD900 Explorer, while Eurocopter are investigating a parallelogram frame trailing-edge
flap actuator on an EC135.
The present development in single-crystal piezoelectric materials, and their incorporation

into stack actuators with levered stroke amplification mechanisms, will enable the actuation
of single or multiple trailing-edge flaps with the force and stroke required to reduce vibratory
loading by a factor of ten. The design process will then feature combined optimisation of
blade dynamics and flap sizing for maximum effectiveness.
19
Chapter 3
Control
3.1 Introduction
This chapter will discuss the development of adaptive control for the purpose of active ro-
torcraft vibration reduction.
Such control systems take many forms, but share a basic structure, consisting of a sensor
to detect the vibration, a controller to suitably process sensor signals, and an actuator to
influence the mechanical response of the system [116]. Actuators may be classified into
active and semi-active types. While both types may exert force, the former are capable
of imparting mechanical energy and generating secondary dynamic responses, whereas the
latter may only passively store or dissipate energy.
There are two contexts which are of particular interest. The first is the generation of a signal
to drive an active actuator or semi-active component in a way which reduces a measure of
vibration: possible devices have been reviewed in Chapter 2. Secondly, the technique of dy-
namic substructuring (discussed in Chapter 6) requires a controller to ensure that a transfer
system faithfully enacts numerically-modelled forces, velocities or accelerations, whilst be-
ing subject to significant disturbances. Particular aspects of these two applications are now
highlighted, after which various approaches to general control problems are reviewed. The
chapter will then introduce the Minimal Control Synthesis (MCS) algorithm [117], which
is subsequently further investigated. The potential benefits of such an approach are that the
controller requires no preknowledge of the plant characteristics, has proven robustness, and
performs well in comparison with other methodologies [118, 119]. Known drawbacks are
that controller gains can wind up in practice, and are not necessarily bounded, leading in
practical implementations to control signal saturation and potential instability. These issues
are addressed in Chapter 4.
The requirements of a vibration reduction system controller are robustness and adaptability.
20
Chapter 3. Control
As the method of rotorcraft primary flight control is likely to remain via the swashplate,
any failure or deterioration of effectiveness of a secondary flight control system is, while
undesirable, unlikely to be catastrophic, and therefore the burden of proving appropriate
levels of reliability is eased. The precise dynamics of the system will be unknown, and will
vary with service, configuration, and damage. As well as periodic air-load disturbances,
aperiodic control inputs and gust events will act on the system.
The controller used in the dynamic substructuring process is required to track accurately
in order to generate representative results. This is made less straightforward by a probable
lack of knowledge of transfer system characteristics and test specimen dynamics. Measure-
ment noise is likely, and further, not all the states of the specimen or transfer system will
necessarily be measured or measureable.
3.2 Discussion of control approaches
The field of control system design is broad and encompasses a wide variety of techniques.
However, controllers may be subdivided into feedforward and feedback categories.
Various notations exist for the definition of systems. Signals and transfer functions may
be described in the time domain in continuous or discrete form, using derivative terms or a
series of historic timesteps respectively. Laplace transformation of time-domain definitions
enables linear systems to be conveniently described in transfer function form. A more recent
approach favoured by ‘modern’ control theory is the use of state-space variable representa-
tion, which allows the application of established matrix methods in order to derive useful
results concerning system characteristics.
3.2.1 Feedback control methods
Feedback controllers are formulated without recourse to information relating to the primary
excitation of the controlled structure. For a single channel implementation, the measured
structural response signal Y (s) is processed by the controller/actuator system to generate
the force Fs (s). This force, along with the primary excitation force Fp (s) (representing an
unwanted source of vibratory stimulus), acts on the structure, which responds to yield Y (s),
as illustrated in Figure 3.1.
The response in the system illustrated would be:
Y (s) = G(s) [Fp (s) − H(s)Fs (s)] (3.1)
21
Chapter 3. Control
allowing the system transfer function to be expressed as:
Y (s) G(s)
= (3.2)
Fp (s) 1 + G(s)H(s)
The closed-loop poles of this equation are given by the roots of the characteristic equation
1 + G(s)H(s) = 0 . (3.3)
These poles can be assigned to the complex numbers p1 , p2 , . . . , pn , and similarly, the roots
of G(s) = 0 are considered as the zeros and can be assigned to z1 , z2 , . . . , zn . pn and zn
therefore appear either as real quantities or complex conjugate pairs. Equation 3.2 may then
be factorised into
Y (s) K(s − z1 )(s − z2 ) . . . (s − zn )

= = F (s) . (3.4)
Fp (s) (s − p1 )(s − p2 ) . . . (s − pn )
where K is a gain. If Fp (s) is an impulse force, represented by the Dirac delta function with
a Laplace transform of unity, expanding Equation 3.4 into partial fractions and taking the
inverse Laplace-transform yields the time domain response
X
n
f (t) = an epn t (3.5)
1
From this it is clear that for the system impulse response to decay to zero, all the poles
are required to be strictly negative, to appear on the left hand side of plots of the complex
s-plane. If this is satisfied, it implies that any bounded input produces a bounded output and
may thus be considered asympotically stable (Appendix C). In cases where poles are purely
complex, the system is stable in the sense of Lyapunov [120].
A popular method of choosing values for the feedback compensator H(s) is found in PID
control. This generates the control signal as a function of the plant output error value,
integral and derivative, and has been in widespread industrial use since its inception. The
gains used may be chosen from a wide variety of methods, some examples being the Ziegler-
Nichols tuning method [121], the refined Ziegler-Nichols method [122], the Gain-Phase
margin method [123,124], an optimisation method [125], the Internal Model Control method
[126], and combined PID/adaptive control well-suited to nonlinear systems [127].
The system characteristics may be manipulated using ‘classical’ techniques. Root locus de-
sign focuses on the s-plane placement of existing and additional poles and zeros, as derived
in Equation 3.4. Frequency domain methods such as Bode or Nyquist plots examine the
open loop gain and phase at different frequencies, and apply compensators to ensure that
gain is less than unity where there is 180 deg phase shift. An inherent disadvantage of such
22
Chapter 3. Control
frequency response methods is a dependence on having a stable open-loop response.
An alternative expression of the same condition is illustrated by the Nyquist diagram, being
a polar plot of open-loop frequency domain response.
The Nyquist criterion may then be used to assess stability: a closed-loop system with neg-
ative feedback is only stable if this plot avoids open-loop poles on the imaginary axis, en-
closes the right-half plane, and avoids encircling the point (−1, 0). This is additionally
useful because proximity of a response to (−1, 0) can be used to assess relative stability,
and a ‘robust’ system is thus designed by maximising this in order to be minimally affected
by changes or uncertainties in operation which are common in many scenarios [128]. In
general, the robust control approach aims to produce a fixed-gain controller with minimum
sensitivity to load disturbance, measurement noise and model uncertainty whilst achieving
satisfactory performance. H∞ loop-shaping is one such approach [129, 130, 131], which
requires the ∞-norm (Appendex A) of the transfer function from disturbances, noise and
uncertainties, to the control signal and plant output, to be small.
For multichannel implementations, a state variable approach allows matrices of transfer

functions to be conveniently expressed. A linear time-invariant system with a vector x(t) of
internal states and y(t) measured output states may be formulated as
ẋ(t) = Ax(t) + Bu(t) (3.6)

y(t) = Cx(t) + Du(t) (3.7)
u(t) = r(t) − Gy(t) (3.8)
where the mechanical system input u(t) is the difference between the reference signal r(t)
to be followed and the measured system output y(t) weighted by a matrix of feedback gains.
Combining Equations 3.6, 3.7 and 3.8 gives the system response as

ẋ(t) = A − B [I + GD]−1 GC x(t) + B [I + GD]−1 r(t) . (3.9)
It is therefore desirable to ensure that the eigenvalues of the matrix coefficient of x(t) in
Equation 3.9 are in the left hand side of the complex s-plane, and ought to represent a
design improvement over the eigenvalues of A [120].
State variable feedback systems apply a transformation to the measured output states in
order to attain the internal states, so that the maximum number of signals may be utilized to
23
Chapter 3. Control
produce the feedback signal. This is achieved by inverting Equation 3.7 to give
x(t) = C−1 [y(t) − Du(t)] (3.10)
which requires C to be known, square and invertible. Where this is not the case, the states
may be reconstructed from a limited number of observations by a state estimator or ob-
server. Such observers monitor the input and output to a system, with the aim of converging
observer block output onto the output of the unknown system. The measureable internal
states of the observer may then be used as estimates of the unmeasureable internal states of
˙ and output ŷ(t) as
the controlled system. Define such an estimator with internal states x̂(t)
˙
x̂(t) = Ax̂(t) + Bu(t) (3.11)
ŷ(t) = Cx̂(t) (3.12)
The state estimator output error is then
ey (t) = y(t) − Cx̂(t) (3.13)
In order to converge the estimator error to zero, the sum of squared errors eTy ey may be
minimised by altering the estimator internal states in the direction of the negative derivative
of eTy ey with respect to x̂. Thus:
eTy ey = yT y − yT Cx̂ − x̂T CT y + x̂T CT Cx̂ (3.14)
which gives the desired derivative as

∂ eTy ey
= 2CT Cx̂ − 2CT y = −2CT (y − Cx̂) (3.15)
∂x̂
allowing the observer of Equation 3.11 to become
˙
x̂(t) = Ax̂(t) + Bu(t) + T (y(t) − Cx̂(t)) (3.16)
where T = FCT , F being a matrix which determines the convergence properties of the ma-
24
Chapter 3. Control
trix. The designed rate of convergence is a compromise. Rapid adaption results in possible
oversensitivity to noise. Slower adaption rates are more accurate, but if very slow will not
adequately track time-varying system characteristics. With statistical knowledge of the na-
ture of any noise present, an optimum Kalman filter design [132] exists which minimises
the mean square difference between the state variables of the two systems.
Optimal control aims to minimise a cost index relating to system performance, formulated
in such a way as to quadratically take into account both tracking performance and controller
effort, for example:
Ztf

J= yT (t)Qy(t) + uT (t)Ru(t) dt + yT (tf )Sy(tf ) (3.17)
0
where {Q, R} are defined as positive-definite symmetric weighting matrices, and y is the
plant output vector, to be minimised. tf is a final time at which a terminal cost condition is
included. The controlled system may be written in the reduced form
y(t) = Cx(t) (3.18)
then the cost function may be expressed as
Ztf
T
J= x (t)Q1 x(t) + uT (t)Ru(t) dt + xT (tf )S1 x(tf ) (3.19)
0
where Q1 and S1 are state variable weighting matrices, now positive semi-definite reflecting
that the number of internal states generally exceeds the number of outputs [116]. It has
been shown [133] that to minimise this cost function for the system of Equation 3.6, a time
varying state feedback gain Go (t) may be used, so
u(t) = Go (t)x(t) (3.20)
where
Go (t) = −R−1 BT P(t) (3.21)
and P(t) is the solution of the matrix Ricatti equation
Ṗ(t) = −Q1 − AT P(t) − P(t)A + P(t)BR−1 BP(t) (3.22)
This set of equations may be solved by backstepping through the solution space from the
25
Chapter 3. Control
final value P(tf ) = S with a dynamic programming architecture, and is consequently com-
putationally challenging for nonlinear systems with many states; however, in linear systems
with constant coefficients and a quadratic cost function, a solution of Equation 3.22 will
yield a controller with constant state feedback gains [134]. It has additionally been shown
that the resulting stability margins are healthy in the SISO case and for weighted MIMO
cases [135, 136].
This method as described above therefore assumes that the system has known and measur-
able state variables. Where particular states are not accessable, a Kalman filter may be used
to estimate them.
Modal control is an alternative methodology. The system outputs are reformulated in terms
of modal coordinates. The system modes may either be ‘physical space’ modes of displace-
ments, or ‘state space’ modes exhibited by the system state vector. The aim of the approach
is to exploit independence between the recast system modes so as to control each separately.
There is thus a requirement for zero viscous damping in the system response if orthogonal
modes are to result, although proportional damping remains a possibility. It is assumed here
that this requirement is satisfied, allowing the state-space matrix A to be diagonalised. Re-
ferring again to the system described by Equation 3.6, an alternative set of system states z(t)
may be defined as
z(t) = E−1 x(t) (3.23)
with E as a matrix of the eigenvectors of A
A = EΛE−1 (3.24)
where Λ is the diagonal matrix of the corresponding eigenvalues.
Equation 3.6 may then be rewritten as
ż(t) = E−1 AEz(t) + E−1 Bu(t) (3.25)
but as E−1 AE = Λ, this becomes
ż(t) = Λz(t) + E−1 Bu(t) (3.26)
The elements of z are thus independent of each other as Λ is diagonal.
In practice, mechanical systems have distributed parameters and posess an infinite number
of modes. However, in the majority of cases, systems tend to be dominated by a small
number of significant modes, and may therefore be modelled by a finite number of modal
responses, with accuracy increased arbitrarily by the addition of further modes. Where prior
26
Chapter 3. Control
knowledge of the system dynamics does not exist, a Karman observer may be used, although
if a large number of modes are used, sensitivity to measurement error may become a limiting
factor. Where a limited number of discrete sensors are used on distributed parameter sys-
tems, spatial aliasing of modes may occur. Distributed sensors, such as piezoelectric patches
(Chapter 2) may avoid this problem by measuring modal deflections directly, although these
are not yet in common usage.
Predictive control makes explicit use of historic and anticipated system performance over a
time horizon which extends into future timesteps [137], a nonlinear example being [138].
This approach may be combined with H∞ loop-shaping or optimal control methods [139]
where such a time horizon may exist.
The gain scheduling approach involves tuning the controller for a discrete subspace of op-
erating conditions. Process measurements are then used to configure the gains online to the
most appropriate condition. Local linearisation of plant parameters allows linear techniques
to calculate scheduled gains for nonlinear systems. This approach implies that the oper-
ating conditions may be easily manipulated by the engineer to enable a tuning process to
take place, or that the system is fully understood and the gains may be confidently precal-
culated. In the case of helicopter vibration the conditions are functions of less reproducible
or forseeable variables such as construction, usage, service history and damage, making this
approach less practical.
3.3 Feedforward control methods
Feedforward controllers differ from feedback controllers in that prior knowledge relating to
the excitation is assumed to be available. This may take the form of any signal correlated
to the primary excitation force, such as measured strains of waves propagating through
connecting members, or a measurement of the rotational speed of rotary systems. In Figure
3.2 this is shown as R(s), which results in the primary excitation force Fp (s). The goal of
feedforward control is to configure the control system response H(s) so as to equal the path
transfer function P (s) and thus directly counteract it to eliminate vibrational response. For
the case where the excitation signal is sinusoidal, the controller response need only equal the
structural response at a single frequency. This condition must however be an accurate match;
for a 20 dB attenuation of structural response, P (s) must match H(s) to within ±0.6 dB in
amplitude and about ±4 deg in phase [140]. Where measurement noise is present in the
R(s) signal to the controller, perfect cancellation of the excitation may no longer take place
and the controller is no longer optimum. According to the orthogonality principle [141],
the mean square value of Y (s) is mimimised when Y (s) is completely uncorrelated with
the noisy excitation signal R(s). The coherence between the two signals thus provides
a technique for establishing the best possible reduction in response, derived in [116] and
27
Chapter 3. Control
defined as
|Srd (ω)|2
Coherence = 1 − , (3.27)
Srr (ω)Sdd (ω)
with Saa (ω), Sab (ω) denoting power and cross spectral density functions respectively, the r
subscript referring to the excitation signal, and the d subscript denoting uncontrolled system
response.
In practice, the transfer function of the mechanical system is rarely known exactly, and will
commonly vary slowly with time or other factors to result in deteriorating performance if
the feedforward compensator is fixed. This may be avoided if the filter is adaptive and
continuously tuned to the plant dynamics. Finite Impulse Response (FIR) filters are often
used for this task, the output of which is a weighted sum of regressing time-domain signal
values. Infinite Impulse Response (IIR) filters may also be used and typically are more
compact. However, they are potentially unstable as a result of zeros in the denominator,
and care must be taken if using them with adaptive coefficients. Their respective discrete
transfer functions are shown in Equations 3.28 and 3.29.
HFIR (z) = b0 + b1 z −1 + b2 z −2 + · · · + bn−1 z 1−n (3.28)
b0 + b1 z −1 + b2 z −2 + · · · + bnb −1 z 1−nb
HIIR (z) = (3.29)
1 + a1 z −1 + a2 z −2 + · · · + ana −1 z 1−na
where z −1 denotes the unit delay operator, ai and bi are filter coefficients, and n is the length
of the filter. These filter coefficients can then be set to minimise a quadratic cost function of
the unwanted system response, via a gradient descent algorithm applied to each coefficient
seperately; one such method is the filtered-x LMS algorithm [142].
3.3.1 Model reference adaptive control
Model Reference Adaptive Controllers (MRACs) update forward and feedback gains ac-
cording to the plant input, output, and output error between the plant and a reference model
defined to produce the desired performance, as shown in Figure 3.3.
Neural networks may be used to determine controller gains in model reference adaptive con-
trollers [143]. This can introduce new issues regarding adaptive stability. Lyapunov stability
is not always attainable but a concept of practical stability may be achieved as defined in
Appendix C. Alternatively, to achieve conventional stability and improved performance,
28
Chapter 3. Control
control may be switched between other schemes, such as neural networks, and conventional
linear controllers, according to a monitoring scheme [144].
The MIT (Whitaker’s) rule [145,146] is an early example of MRAC, defining a cost function
J as
1
J(θ) = e2 (3.30)
2
where θ is the parameter vector and e is the vector of the errors between system and reference
model outputs. θ is then adjusted in the direction of negative gradient of J:
dθ dJ de
= −γ = −γe (3.31)
dt dθ dθ
This method assumes that the parameters change more slowly than the system states. γ acts
as a tuning parameter, with high values eventually producing oscillations and instability.
3.4 Chosen approach
The scheme studied in this work is the Minimal Control Synthesis algorithm (MCS) [117],
a form of MRAC, and will be summarised below. This has been selected as it is adaptive,
robust, stable, and requires no a priori knowledge of plant parameters.
The plant dynamics can be described in state-space form as:
ẋ(t) = Ax(t) + Bu(t) + Be d(t)

y(t) = Cx(t) (3.32)
where x(t) ∈ <ln×1 are the internal states, y(t) ∈ <n×1 are the observed degrees of freedom,
and u(t) ∈ <n×1 , l is the order of each system freedom, and n is the number of degrees
of freedom. The plant is considered to be linear time-invariant, with all other factors being
grouped into the d(t) term.
Similarly, define the reference plant to possess the same structure:
ẋm (t) = Am xm (t) + Bm r(t)

ym (t) = Cm xm (t) (3.33)
29
Chapter 3. Control
For physical systems in general, l = 2 and the plant parameter structures will take the form:
" #
O(l−1)n,n I(l−1)n
A =
A1 ...... Al
" #
O(l−1)n,n
B = Be Bc =
Bc Ka
" #
O(l−1)n,n
Be =
In
" #
O(l−1)n,n I(l−1)n
Am =
Am1 ...... Aml
" #
O(l−1)n,n
Bm = (3.34)
<n×n
where Bc ∈ <n × n, Ai ∈ <n×n , l = 2 (for most physical situations) and n =number of

degrees of freedom.
The control signal u(t) is
u(t) = Kx(t) + Kr r(t) (3.35)
where r ∈ <n×1 .
Under the MCS scheme, the gains are updated according to:
Z t
K(t) = α ye xT dt + βye xT
Z0 t
Kr (t) = α ye rT dt + βye rT (3.36)
0
where α and β are scalar controller parameters.
The compensated error signal ye (t) is obtained from the difference between the reference
model and the plant, according to:
30
Chapter 3. Control
ye (t) = Ce xe (t) (3.37)

xe (t) = xm (t) − x(t) (3.38)
Ce = BTe P (3.39)
PAm + ATm P = −Q , Q > 0 (3.40)
where Q is diagonal positive definite, thus leading Ce , the compensator matrix of the form
Ce = [Ce1 Ce2 . . . Cei ] where Cei ∈ <n×n to be also diagonal positive definite. Ce is
introduced to ensure that the triple {Ce , Am , Be } is SPR in accordance with the Kalman-
Yakubovitch lemma [147].
The value of α and β determine the rate at which the MCS gains adapt to the plant dynamics,
and may be empirically chosen [117, Appendix A4] by setting them to 1 and 0.1 respectively,
assessing system performance, and iteratively increasing or decreasing them collectively
by factors of ten in order to attain the highest adaption rate which does not give rise to
fluctuations resulting from noise or limited actuator bandwidth.
For actual implementations in real-time applications, it is useful to convert this system to

discrete form via a zero-order hold such that:
xk+1 ≈ xk + ∆ẋk
≈ (I + ∆A)xk + (∆B)uk (3.41)
with
ẋk ≈ e−cd ∆ ẋk−1 + cd [xk − xk−1 ] (3.42)
used to approximate derivative action, ∆ representing the timestep interval, and cd being a
constant which determines the frequency beyond which the differential action ceases so as
to limit high-frequency gain.
The controller gains become
Kk = Kk−1 + βyek xTk − σyek−1 xTk−1 (3.43)

Krk = Krk−1 + βyek rk − σyek−1 rTk−1
σ = β − α∆ (3.44)
∆ = constant sampling interval
31
Chapter 3. Control
3.5 MCS stability
The stability and robustness of the controller has been approached using hyperstability and
passivity analyses [148, 149]. The concept of hyperstability was first fully expounded in
[150] and further discussed in [147]. It refers to the simultaneous stability of families of
feedback systems which consist of a linear time invariant block on the forward signal path,
and a nonlinear time varying block on the negative feedback path. If the forward loop block
is strictly positive real, and the feedback block (with input v and output w) satisfies the
Popov integral inequality:
Ztf
vT w dt ≥ −γ 2 (3.45)
0
for γ ∈ < then the feedback system is asymptotically hyperstable.
The hyperstability proof [148] is strictly only satisfied for single-input-single-output sys-
tems, has featured non-rigorous treatment of plant high-frequency gain, and restricted the
amplitude of variation of plant parameters.
The passivity approach of Desoer and Vidyasagar [151] is an alternative route to proving
stability. If it can be shown that the complete forward error dynamics are SPR (Appendix
B) and that the error feedback dynamics are passive (Appendix C), then the system will be
proven to be asymptotically stable.
The forward dynamics will firstly be considered. From Equations 3.32, 3.33, 3.35, 3.37 the
error dynamics are given by:
ẋe = Am xe + (Am − A − BK)x + (Bm − BKr )r − Be d (3.46)
On account of the structure of the coefficient matrices, the substitutions

Φ = B−1 T −1
c Be (Am − A) − Ka K Bc Bmc − Ka Kr
T
w = xT rT
d0 = −B−1
c d
ue = Φw + d0
produce
ẋe = Am xe + Be Bc ue (3.47)
32
Chapter 3. Control
Using Equations 3.37 and 3.47, the transfer function matrix Ge (s) relating ye to ue is
Ge (s) = Ce (sI − Am )−1 Be Bc (3.48)
It is now assumed that both the reference model dynamics Am and the output error matrix
Ce have been chosen so as to have no coupling between any freedoms. Because the lowest
block entry of Be is I with the other entries non-zero, Equation 3.48 may be rewritten as
Ge (s) = ge (s)Bc (3.49)
with ge being the SPR transfer function (Appendix B) for each freedom. Then, the forward
error dynamics are
ye (s) = ge (s)Bc ue (s) (3.50)
The input coefficient matrix Bc has already been assumed to be real positive definite sym-
metric. As a result its Schur decomposition can be written as
1 1
Bc = UT ΛU = UT Λ 2 Λ 2 U (3.51)
where UT U = In and Λ is diagonal positive definite. Thus Equation 3.50 becomes
1 1
ye (s) = UT Λ 2 ge (s)Λ 2 Uue (s) (3.52)
From passivity theory [151](Appendix section C.3), ge (s) being SPR implies that ue 7→ ye
is also SPR.
Now, the feedback dynamics will be considered.
If the feedback dynamics are to be passive it is required that
Z
yTe (−Φw)dt ≥ −γ 2 (3.53)
where γ is a finite constant. The MCS adaption law is
33
Chapter 3. Control

Φ = Φα + Φβ = Φ1 , Φ2 . . . Φ(l+1)n (3.54)
Φi = Φαi + Φβi (3.55)
with integral and proportional components as
Φ̇αi = −αi ye wi and Φβi = −β i ye wi (3.56)
where {αi , β i } are constant diagonal positive definite adaption weights. Inequality 3.53
then becomes
(l+1)n Z
X
yTe (−Φi wi )dt ≥ −γ 2 (3.57)
i=1
(l+1)n Z (l+1)n Z
X T X
Φ̇αi α−1
i Φαi dt + ΦTβi β −1
i Φβi dt ≥ −γ
2
(3.58)
i=1 i=1
Therefore
(l+1)n (l+1)n (l+1)n

X 1 X 1 X
T −1
Φαi αi Φαi − −1
Φαi (0)αi Φαi (0) + ΦTβi β −1
i Φβi dt ≥ −γ
2
(3.59)
i=1
2 i=1
2 i=1
This will always be satisfied due to the quadratic positive definite nature of the terms, thereby
indicating that the feedback dynamics are passive, and that the MCS scheme is asymptoti-
cally stable.
Further implications may be drawn out. It is seen that d0 7→ ye is dissipative, so it follows

that if d0 ∈ Ln2T then ẏe ∈ Ln2T , ye ∈ Ln2T ∩ Ln2 and as t → ∞, ye → 0. Φ is guaranteed
to be bounded, implying by Equation 3.47 that the controller gains are also bounded. If
d0 ∈ Ln2 but not Ln2T , then ye remains bounded but may show significant transient errors,
and no bounds are placed on the controller gains [152](see Appendix C.3).
The gains K and Kr are now extracted from Φ as introduced in Equation 3.47. Differentating
this expression and equating with the imposed structure in Equation 3.54 gives
34
Chapter 3. Control

Φ̇ = −Ka K̇ K̇r

d d
= −Ka (α1 ye w1 + β 1 ye w1 ) . . . (α(l+1)n ye w(l+1)n + β (l+1)n ye w(l+1)n )
dt dt
(3.60)
By comparison,
d
K̇i = α0i ye xi + β 0i (y xi ) (3.61)
dt e
d
K̇ri = α0i ye ri + β 0i (ye ri ) (3.62)
dt
where
α0i = K−1 0 0
a αi = diag[αi1 . . . αin ] (3.63)
β 0i = K−1 0 0
a β i = diag[β i1 . . . β in ] (3.64)
x = [x1 . . . xln ]T (3.65)
r = [r1 . . . rn ]T (3.66)
K = [K1 . . . Kn ] (3.67)
Kr = [Kr1 . . . Krn ] (3.68)
In order to fulfil the requirement that {αi , β i } be diagonal positive definite, the {α0i , β 0i }
coefficients will have the same signs as the corresponding coefficients along the diagonal
actuator gain matrix Ka . By selective inclusion of inverters on the control signals, it is
always possible to achieve a positive Ka . In many applications it will be acceptable to
assign the same adaptive weights to all controller gains, reducing the {α0 , β 0 } matrices to
the scalars {α, β}. Equations 3.61 and 3.62 may then be integrated and reduced to the final
form:
35
Chapter 3. Control
Zt
K(t) = α ye xT dt + βye xT (3.69)
0
Zt
Kr (t) = α ye rT dt + βye rT (3.70)
0
3.6 Summary
In this chapter, a summary of common control techniques and approaches has been pre-
sented. The Minimal Control Synthesis (MCS) control scheme is described, being a form of
model reference adaptive control with potential application to vibration reduction systems
and to dynamic substructuring transfer system control.
A passivity-based stability proof of MCS is described. This leads to the conclusion that MCS
is stable, with bounded gains if the disturbance term is bounded within Ln2T . Disturbance
signals in Ln2 are seen to give rise to unbounded gains, which in a physical system would
saturate the control signal, preventing intended operation and threatening stability.
36
Chapter 3. Control
3.7 Figures
Mechanical system
transfer function
Primary F p (s) Y(s)

+ G(s) system response
excitation -
F s(s)
H(s)
Secondary
excitation
Control system
transfer function
Figure 3.1: Feedback control system schematic
Primary path Plant

F p (s)
Excitation Response
P(s) + G(s)
R(s) - Y(s)
F s (s)
H(s)
Control system
transfer function
Figure 3.2: Feedforward control system schematic
37
Chapter 3. Control
y(t)
Reference model
r(t) u(t) x(t) + xe(t)

Reference gain + Plant -
-
Feedback gain
Adaption scheme
Figure 3.3: Model reference adaptive control architecture
38
Chapter 4
Modification and parameter optimisation

of the MCS algorithm
4.1 Introduction
The formulation and basic performance of the Minimal Control Synthesis (MCS) algorithm
has been discussed in Chapter 3. It was concluded that while MCS is an effective adaptive
control strategy for unmodelled systems, it is necessary to take further precautions to ensure
that controller gain windup and actuator saturation do not compromise satisfactory opera-
tion. MCS requires no prior knowledge of the plant dynamics. However, it is necessary to
select values for the controller parameters α and β, which determine the gain adaption rate,
and thereby affect the system characteristics. A manual, iterative method is commonly used
(Section 3.4), although formal performance-based methods are not found in the literature.
This chapter falls into two main sections. In the first, methods of optimising controller pa-
rameters will be examined. The second examines the MCS algorithm itself, reviews previous
modifications, and proposes new modifications, with the aim of suppressing gain wind-up
whilst maintaining satisfactory performance.
4.2 Optimisation of MCS parameters
Two separate stochastic optimisation methods have been studied for optimising the selection
of the MCS gains. Each aims to reduce a cost function based on the performance of the
controller to an overall minimum.
The advantage of such approaches over deterministic methods (e.g. gradient descent) lies
in their ability to find a global minimum cost within a noisy error surface and multiple local
39
Chapter 4. Modification and parameter optimisation of the MCS algorithm
minima. This optimisation task features a noisy cost function surface, as the exact result
from each test will vary slightly.
These methods are now described in turn.
4.2.1 Genetic algorithm optimisation
Genetic algorithms (GAs) are formulated so as to mimic the process of natural selection
[153, 154]. Natural selection operates when the success of an organism in reproducing
is a function of the fitness of the organism. The fittest members of the population thus
pass disproportionately more of their genes and characteristics into the next generation than
do the weakest members, resulting in the evolution of a population with gradually rising
average fitness.
To apply this process as a numerical optimisation tool, a function to be maximised is first

defined as the fitness function. The parameters which are to be varied are identified, and a
method of coding coordinate sets within this solution space into individual gene strings is
formulated. A population of ‘individuals’ - points in the solution space - is randomly gener-
ated, and form the starting point of the iterative process which follows. The fitness of each
individual is assessed by the fitness function, and individuals are selected from the current
generation to populate the next generation according to some function of their fitness, so
that in general terms, fitter individuals are more likely to pass into the next generation. The
new population is then mutated: random changes are made to all individuals with a low
probability. The individuals are then paired up and ‘bred’ with each other, swapping some
genetic (ie parameter) information to form new individuals. The cycle is then repeated from
the selection stage.
The fitness function F was chosen to be the inverse of integrated squared tracking error eR
between the circuit output signal y and the reference plant output ym
1 1
F = R
= R tf (4.1)
e (ym − y)2dt
0
which was to be optimised by varying the parameters α, β and γ as described by Equation

4.34, and where tf was 10 seconds. The time taken to get a fitness value for each indi-
vidual thus placed limits on the number of evaluations possible with a limited time. Each
parameter was coded into a 6-bit binary gene via a mapping. The nature of the mapping
determined the range of values of interest of the parameter, as well as whether the parame-
ter was to vary exponentially or linearly. These genes were concantenated to form a 12-bit
chromosome, describing the location of the individual within the solution space. Remainder
stochastic sampling without replacement was used as the selection method, and mutation
40
was accomplished by flipping each binary digit of genetic information with a probability of
0.001. Reproduction was accomplished by grouping individual solutions into pairs, select-
ing a random crossover site along the corresponding pair of chromosomes, and swapping the
chromosome segments created between the two. An initial population of 30 was used, and
iterated until the average fitness showed no improvement for a set number of generations.
While this method adequately optimised various test functions, several disadvantages were
encountered with this method when applied to the controller parameter optimisation task.
Due to the 10 second duration of each fitness evaluation, there was a practical limit on
the size of the population. It was found that the amount of variety within the solution
population declined rapidly after 10-20 generations due to the exceptional fitness of one or
two highly reproductive individuals, and then the individuals had insufficient diversity to
continue searching new areas of the solution space. Various measures were taken in order to
prevent this. Ranking methods for repopulation were used, in which individuals repopulate
the next generation with a number of offspring corresponding to that individual’s fitness
ranking. The rate of mutation was increased by a factor of 10. The least fit individual from
each generation was guaranteed a place in the subsequent. These measures were partially
successful at promoting diversity, but have the effect of compromising the ability of the
algorithm to search for solutions [154].
This method was not further pursued, as better results were found using an alternative opti-
misation strategy, simulated annealing.
4.2.2 Simulated annealing optimisation
Simulated annealing (SA) optimisation is based on analogy with the physical process of
annealing [154]. This involves the heating of a metallic substance until the internal grain
structure becomes homogeneous prior to melting, and then lowering the temperature slowly
to allow recrystallisation. If cooled quickly, a glassy state may be formed, which thermo-
dynamically is a higher-energy configuration than the minimum-energy single-crystal state.
Slow cooling allows states with lower energy to be found through natural random atomic
motion, and if a single crystal is formed, the optimum state has been in effect chosen from
a large number of higher-energy states.
The probability πT (s) of the system being in a given state s with associated energy E(s)
when in thermal equilibrium at temperature T is given by the Boltzmann distribuation
−E(s)
e kT
πT (s) = P −E(w)
(4.2)
e kT
w∈S
41
where k is the Boltzmann constant and S is the set of all possible states.
This distribution does not explain how thermal equilibrium is reached; this is simulated by
the iterative Metropolis [155] algorithm, which was applied in the context of SA by [156]:
perturb the system from state sold with energy E (sold ) to a new state snew and associated
energy E (snew ) according to some random perturbation function. This new state is accepted
or rejected according to the Metropolis criterion: the new state is automatically accepted if
E (snew ) ≤ E (sold ), otherwise it is accepted with a probability of
E (sold )−E(snew )
p(accept snew >sold ) = e kT (4.3)
which may be restated as: accept the new state if and only if
E (snew ) ≤ E (sold ) − T × ln(U) (4.4)
where U is a uniformly distributed random variable ranging between 0 and 1.
This process may be exploited by substituting the energy function with a cost function. A
number of implementation options then remain as to initial temperature and state, cool-
ing schedule, state perturbation function, definition of thermal equilibrium, and criteria for
recognising freezing. A summary flowchart is shown in Figure 4.1.
The choice of initial temperature was chosen such that the initial proportion of perturbed
random initial states accepted was in the region of 0.5 to 0.7 . If the initial temperature
is too high, the acceptance ratio will be higher and result in slower convergence, whereas
an initial temperature which is too low may not enable the solution state to escape a local
minimum.
For each temperature, thermal equilibrium is obtained by iterating the process of condition-
ally allowing the solution point to move according to random perturbations. As the ideally
infinite number of such iterations is impractical, a nominal 100D iterations are performed
for every such temperature epoch, where D is the dimension of the cost function.
Having reached thermal equilibrium for a given temperature, the lowest-cost state seen at
any point thus far is recorded. The temperature is lowered according to the cooling schedule,
which in this work was chosen to be a temperature reduction of 1 to 10%.
The temperature is lowered repeatedly until the solution is frozen. This was judged to be
when the best solution found had not improved by a given small margin within a certain
number of temperature epochs.
The perturbation function was an important factor in the effectiveness of the method, deter-
mining the nature of the exploration of the solution space. Different functions have been ex-
42
plored, principally categorised into fixed radius and linear adjustment functions. The former
perturbs the system state by the addition of a randomly-oriented fixed length perturbation
vector to the system state parameters, whereas the latter selects a single system parameter
and varies it randomly to an extent which may be confined to the present parameter value
locality or which may cover the full allowable range. An improved function was developed
based on the fixed radius type, except with a length normally distributed around a chosen
value. It was found that setting this length value to around 1% of the extent of the solution
space resulted in a good balance between solution mobility and the ability to hone in on
small areas.
SA optimisation was applied to finding the optimum MCS parameters for tracking a test
circuit. The test circuit is described in Section 6.3. The cost function was chosen as the
integral error of squared tracking error eR ie
Z tf
Cost = e =R
(ym − y)2 dt (4.5)
0
with tf as 8 seconds, ym as the reference model output, and y as the circuit output signal.
The results of this optimisation are shown in Figure 4.2. The terminal values of α and β
were found to be 583.3 and 29.8 respectively. Higher values than these resulted in control
instability, heavily penalised by a greatly increased cost function, and lower values resulted
in slower adaption and poorer tracking. The ratio between β and α is slightly greater than
the 1:10 rule of thumb suggested in [117], indicating that the SA process is capable of
improving controller performance beyond conventional setup methods. It is recognised that
this result is potentially dependant on the test duration; in longer tests, error occuring during
the initial period of controller adaption becomes less significant, resulting in less pressure
for high values of controller parameters and a decreased liklihood of long-term controller
gain wind-up. Nevertheless, this test demonstrates the feasibility of using a SA algorithm to
optimise controller parameters.
4.3 Modifications to MCS
In the following sections, the minimal control synthesis algorithm (MCS) is under investi-
gation as a potential adaptive control methodology for the actuation of vibration reduction
devices. The range of such possible devices encompasses rotor blade trailing edge flaps,
active rotor blade twisting or bending, semiactive lag damping devices, or structures in-
corporating actuated elements as in the Westland ACSR scheme; these are discussed more
fully in Chapter 2. These various methods may exploit conventional hydraulic or electromo-
tive actuation, or new technologies which apply piezoelectric, magnetorheological, magne-
tostrictive and other materials (see Section 2.5). Such methods may well result in actuators
43
with significant nonlinear and time-varying characteristics. The structural dynamic response
of the airframe varies with load, service history and age, and is unique owing to variations
in materials, build and configuration consistency. These factors point to an adaptive control
methodology, and MCS has consequently been selected.
While MCS has been shown to perform successfully on many systems (eg [152]), it pos-
sesses some undesirable characteristics:
• having adapted to the plant, the controller gains continue to wind up gradually in re-
sponse to continued non-zero tracking errors. This continues until the onset of relative
high-frequency instability which is well-known to result from high gains;
• the stability proof (Section 3.5) makes the assumption that plant parameter variations
occur on a longer timescale than the adaptive process. If plant parameter variations
are continually rapid, or, if the controller gain adaption rates are too small, this is
violated [148]; and,
• The passivity stability proof (Section 3.5) implies that whilst MCS is globally asymp-
toticaly stable, the gains may not necessarily be bounded, possibly leading to a sat-
urated control signal. The proof assumes that the control signal is not saturated, and
therefore stability may not be guaranteed if the gains are allowed to continue to adapt.
With the aim of prevending saturation, windup, and inappropriate adaption rates, a number
of existing and proposed schemes and methods have been investigated. The mechanism by
which these schemes have been implemented is via experimental tests on DC servomotor
positional control, described later in Chapter 5.
The existing control system variants tested were:
• PID with Ziegler-Nichols tuning, for comparison purposes (see Section 4.4.1);
• Conventional MCS;
• Gain Corridor MCS (GCMCS);
• Gain Leakage MCS as proposed by Sebusang (GLMCS-S) [157];
• Gain Leakage MCS as proposed by Campbell (GLMCS-C) [158];
• Saturation Protection Scheme proposed by Sebusang (SPS) [157]; and
• Extended MCS (EMCS) [117].
Newly proposed control system variants tested were:
• MCS with higher order terms (HOTMCS);
• A new form of Gain Leakage MCS (GLMCS-N); and,
44
• Biased Updating MCS (BUMCS).
In the following sections, these schemes will be described, followed by a description of the
test and a discussion of the results.
4.4 Existing controller variants
4.4.1 PID controller
A standard PID controller was implemented, and tuned using Ziegler-Nichols tuning [121].
In order to reflect the model reference control context, the input error signal to the PID
controller was the difference between the reference plant and the controlled plant, as defined
in Equation 4.6.
Zt
dye (t)
u(t) = Kp ye (t) + Ki ye (t)dt + Kd (4.6)
dt
0
ye (t) = ym (t) − y(t) (4.7)
where ym is the reference model output and y is the plant output, and Kp , Ki and Kd are the
proportional, integral and derivative gains respectively.
The Ziegler-Nichols tuning process can be summarised as follows:
1. Set Ki and Kd to zero, and increase Kp while monitoring tracking performance, until
the onset of growing oscillatory instability. Let this value of Kp be Ku .
2. Measure the time period of the oscillation, label this Tu .
3. The gains are then set to the following values:
Kp = 0.6Ku (4.8)
1.2Ku
Ki = (4.9)
Tu
Kd = 0.075Ku Tu (4.10)
4.4.2 Conventional MCS
This is the original formulation of the MCS scheme, as detailed in Chapter 3.
45
4.4.3 GCMCS
The Gain Corridor MCS (GCMCS) implementation constrains the allowable adjustment
range of the controller gains on the basis that rapid adjustment is accompanied by rapid
changes in the estimated plant matrices, as calculated by:
B̂ = Bm K−1
r ∀ Kr 6= 0 (4.11)
Â = Am − B̂K (4.12)
Then the MCS gain bounds are found by:

†

|∆K| = B̂ ∆Â + ∆B̂K0 (4.13)
†
0
|∆Kr | = B̂ ∆Bm − ∆B̂p Kr (4.14)
where K0 , K0r denote the gains from the previous timestep, and the ’†’ superscript refers to
the pseudoinverse. The GCMCS bounds are given by:
† 0
|∆K̄| = |B̂ ||∆Â(I + ρ)−1 + ∆B̂K̄ | (4.15)
† 0
|∆K̄r | = |B̂ ||∆B̂(I + τ )−1 − ∆B̂K̄r | (4.16)
Here, ρ and τ are user-selected parameters which are chosen to describe worst-case noise
perturbation bounds, ie:
|nx | ≤ ρ|x| (4.17)

|nr | ≤ τ |r| (4.18)
where nx and nr are the plant measurement noise and reference signal noise respectively, so
ρ and τ are diagonal matrices with positive entries.
Next, the gain bounds MCS and GCMCS bounds are compared to check if the MCS gain
changes are greater than the GCMCS gain changes. If so, the change in gains is limited by
the GCMCS bounds as below:
KGCMCS = K0 ± ∆K̄ (4.19)

KrGCMCS = K0r ± ∆K̄r
46
If the MCS gain bounds lie within the GCMCS bounds, the gains evolve as usual.
4.4.4 GLMCS-S
The Gain Leakage MCS algorithm (GLMCS-S) as introduced in [157] operates by leaking
the adaptive weights α and β according to the output error ye , such that:
αGLM CS−S = |ye | αM CS (4.20)

βGLM CS−S = |ye | βM CS
In practice, fixed adaptive weights can be used until system transients have died down, at
which point the leakage equations may be used.
4.4.5 GLMCS-C
A separate gain leakage algorithm (GLMCS-C) proposed in [158] involves modifying the
forward and feedback MCS gains KMCS as below:
|ye |
−
KGLMCS−C = KMCS − K± µ e
MCS L
L


 +1 ∀KMCS > 0 (4.21)
±
KMCS = 0 KMCS = 0


−1 ∀KMCS < 0
where KGLMCS−C is the vector of new adaptive gains, {µL , L } are constants, and the sign
function, K±
MCS
, is included to ensure that the leakage term operates on the gains in the
correct sense.
4.4.6 SPS
One form of saturation protection scheme (SPS) as introduced in [157] was also investigated,
the aim of which was to ensure system stability in times of control signal saturation.
The first scheme tested is an adjustment to ensure that the controller gains reflect the true
47
controller states at saturation. The equivalent saturated practical system is:
ẋ = Ax + Bu (4.22)
u = Kr r + Kx
v = sat(u)
where v is the realisable controller output. The approach in this scheme is to condition the
reference signal in order that u = v. This is achieved through the introduction of a realisable
reference signal rr :
ẋ = Ax + Bv (4.23)
v = Kr rr + Kx
leading to:
rr = r + K−1
r (v − u) (4.24)
giving a new overall system:
ẋ = (A + BK)x + BKr rr (4.25)

u = Kx + Kr r
v = sat(u)
A user-tuned parameter ρsps can be added to generalise the process; the larger the value, the
smaller the attenuation of the reference signal on saturation:
rr = r + (Kr + ρsps I)−1 (v − u) (4.26)
where 0 ≤ ρ ≤ ∞ giving the corresponding closed-loop system as:
ẋ = (A + B[I − Kr (Kr + ρsps I)−1 ]K)x (4.27)

+BKr [I − (Kr + ρsps I)−1 Kr ]r + BKr (Kr + ρsps I)−1 v
u = Kx + Kr r
v = sat(u)
48
which results in the following effective forward gain at saturation:

−1 v − u
KrSPS = Kr 1 + (Kr + ρsps I) (4.28)
r
Two other similar methods were also proposed [157] for conditioning the controller gains.
In the General Gains Scaling method (GGS), in the event that the control signal reaches
saturation, the controller gains are scaled back uniformly until the control signal becomes
realisable, thus:
1
KGGS = K (4.29)
τGGS
1
KrGGS = Kr
τGGS

ui
τGGS = max
vi
with τGGS acting as a scaling parameter.
The other method is Selective Gains Scaling (SGS), in which the Kx term components which
are saturation-enhancing, ie of the same polarity as the control signal, are scaled back in the
same way as above, whilst leaving the other components unaltered. Thus for a single-DOF
system:
X
l
Kx = ki xi (4.30)
i=1
If m of these terms contribute to controller saturation then the plant input becomes:
!
1 X
m X
l−m
v= kj xj + Kr r + kj xj (4.31)
τSGS j=1 j=1
with τSGS found through considering the scaling required to reduce just the saturation-
enhancing components of u until saturation no longer occurs:
1 v−u
= P
m +1≤1 (4.32)
τSGS
kj xj + Kr r
j=1
1
This results in a saturated feedforward gain of KrSGS = K,
τSGS r
saturation-enhancing feed-
49
1
back gains of kjSGS = k
τSGS j
and non-saturation-enhancing gains of kjSGS = kj .
4.4.7 EMCS
Extended MCS [117] is intended to mitigate the effects of external disturbances of signifi-
cant magnitude and bandwidth compared with the actuator authority. It consists of an addi-
tional decentralised component to the standard MCS control signal which smoothly deploys
in order to counteract large disturbances, as below:
y ei
uiEM CS = uiM CS + ūi (4.33)
|yei | +
where ūi is the saturation limit of the ith control signal and 0 < ūi .
4.5 New controller variants
4.5.1 HOTMCS
A new modification proposed here is the addition of a higher order term to the standard
MCS controller gain equations to form Higher Order Terms MCS (HOTMCS), which gives:
Zt
d ye xT
K(t) = α ye xT dt + βye xT + γ
dt
0
(4.34)
Zt T
d ye r
Kr (t) = α ye rT dt + βye rT + γ
dt
0
For discrete implementation this may be generalised to
Kk+1 = Kk + c1 yek xTk + c2 yek−1 xTk−1 + c3 yek−2 xTk−2

(4.35)
Krk+1 = Krk + c1 yek rTk + c2 yek−1 rTk−1 + c3 yek−2 rTk−2
where the constants ci can be chosen so as to approximate the continuous form in Equations
4.34 as follows.
First-order finite difference approximations are made, such that for a continuous function
50
q(t),
qk = q(∆k) (4.36)
Z tf X
k−1
q(t)dt ≈ (∆qi ) (4.37)
0 i=0
d 1
(q(t)) ≈ qk − q(k−1) (4.38)
dt ∆
where ∆ is the timestep and the final time tf = k∆. Thus,

Z k∆ Z (k−1)∆
(q(k∆))dt ≈ (qk−1 )dt + ∆qk−1 (4.39)
0 0
d d 1
(q(k∆)) ≈ (q((k − 1)∆)) + (qk − 2qk−1 + qk−2 ) (4.40)
dt dt ∆
These relations are applied to the integral and derivative terms in Equation 4.34, allowing
the Equations 4.35 to be written as
1
c1 = ∆α + β + γ
∆
2
c2 = −β − γ
∆
1
c3 = γ (4.41)
∆
The extra term is motivated towards achieving accelerated gain adaption in the presence of
rapidly changing error terms. A potential associated disadvantage is an increased rate of
gain windup in noisy systems if no anti-windup schemes are in place. Such schemes feature
in the following sections, and could be applied in conjunction.
4.5.2 GLMCS-N
The GLMCS-N leakage algorithm is proposed here in the light of the other leakage schemes
detailed in the previous subsections, the aim being to prevent wind-up. For a single-DOF
system, the vector of standard MCS controller gains is adjusted as below:
51
{α, β, γ, φ}GLM CS−N = LGLM CS−N {α, β, γ, φ}M CS (4.42)

!

− y ye

ecrit
LGLM CS−N = 1−e (4.43)
where yecrit is set to a magnitude of ye which is satisfactory and tolerable.
This may be adapted to systems possessing multiple DOF by replacing ye with a suitable
p-norm of the ye vector, in which 1 ≤ p ≤ ∞.
The rationale behind this scheme is to prevent wind-up by reducing the rate of gain adaption
during periods of satisfactory tracking performance and converged gains. If the plant pa-
rameters then shift, the tracking error ye will increase, and when ye is approximately around
the same magnitude as yecrit , the adaption rate parameters smoothly return to the original
values. In this way, the controller retains the ability to adapt to shifts in plant dynamics
whilst reducing unnecessary gain adjustments.
4.5.3 BUMCS
Biased Updating MCS (BUMCS) is proposed as an alternative approach to achieving the

same objectives as GLMCS-N. As discussed in Section 3.5, the controller gains may not
necessarily be bounded despite being the scheme being assymptotically stable. Owing to
practical limitations of actuator output, control signal saturation is a realistic prospect, and
its occurrence invalidates the stability proof. Therefore it is desirable to introduce a contin-
gency control scheme to take over from MCS when the control signal saturates. In this way,
the performance of the original MCS scheme may be attained when possible, and when not,
stability is to remain guaranteed.
The BUMCS modification is only active during periods of control signal saturation. It selec-
tively allows each individual control gain to be updated only in the direction of decreasing
gain magnitude. It is thus required to divide the gains into components relating to separate
control signals:
Krk = [Kr1k Kr2k . . . Krnk ] (4.44)

Kk = [K1k K2k . . . K(ln)k ] (4.45)
where the k subscript is the timestep index, the feedback gain matrix Kk ∈ <n×ln with com-
ponent vectors Kik ∈ <n×1 , and the reference gain matrix Krk ∈ <n×n and has component
52
vectors Krik ∈ <n×1 . Again, n is the number of DOF, and l is the order of each DOF.
Similarly, divide ye , r and x:
yek = [ye1k ye2k . . . yenk ]T (4.46)

rk = [r1k r2k . . . rnk ]T (4.47)
T
xk = [x1k x2k . . . x(ln)k ] . (4.48)
Then:

KriMCS = KriBUMCS + α∆yeik−1 rik−1 + β yeik rik − yeik−1 rik−1 (4.49)
k k−1
n o

KriBUMCS = KriMCS ∀ {|uik | ≤ uisat } ∪ KriBUMCS ≤ KriBUMCS (4.50)
k k
n k
k−1
o

KriBUMCS = KriBUMCS ∀ {|uik | > uisat } ∩ KriBUMCS > KriBUMCS (4.51)
k k−1 k k−1
for the forward gains and

KiMCS = KiBUMCS + α∆yeik−1 xik−1 + β yeik xik − yeik−1 xik−1 (4.52)
k k−1
n o

KiBUMCS = KiMCS ∀ {|uik | ≤ uisat } ∪ KriBUMCS ≤ KriBUMCS (4.53)
k k
n k
k−1
o

KiBUMCS = KiBUMCS ∀ {|uik | > uisat } ∩ KiBUMCS > KiBUMCS (4.54)
k k−1 k k−1
for the feedback gains, where uisat is set at the saturation value of the relevant corresponding
control signal.
4.6 Concluding remarks
The Mimimal Control Synthesis algorithm has been further developed in order to increase
suitability for vibration reduction applications.
In the first part of this chapter, genetic algorithm and simulated annealing optimisation tech-
niques were used to optimise the selection of the controller parameters α and β, in order to
minimise the tracking error of a controlled analogue electric circuit. This resulted in less
tracking error than was found when applying the established manual trial-and-error tech-
nique. The optimal ratio between the two parameters in this test was found to be α ≈ 20β
representing a departure from α = 10β as suggested in the literature. It was acknowl-
edged that this result was sensitive to the necessarily limited duration of the test; longer
tests incur greater gain wind-up, requiring lower gain adaption rates to avoid the onset of
53
instability. In addition, the optimisation procedures were time-consuming and required a

large number of evaluations. However, the test does demonstrate the advantage of a formal
optimisation procedure for applications with limited timescale of gain adaption. When the
plant is linear time-invariant without disturbance, the ideal controller gains are static, and
any {α, β} ∈ <+ result in asymptotic convergence of MCS gains to these values, with the
consequence that the tracking error is independent of controller parameter. Nevertheless,
in realistic systems, plant nonlinearities, parameter shifts, and signal noise will produce a
non-zero disturbance term. The adaption rate of the plant then becomes important, with
high rates affecting whether the controller gains adapt slowly over many reference cycles,
or whether the gains adapt within each reference cycle. If the latter is the case, tracking
performance is enhanced, although with accelerated wind-up or instability requiring the use
of additional anti-windup schemes as previously discussed. The choice of adaption rates is
therefore significant and worth optimising.
The second part of this chapter has proposed three new variants of the MCS algorithm with
the aim of suppressing or preventing controller gain windup and control signal saturation,
whilst maintaining satisfactory performance. These were developed in the light of a re-
view of other modifications in the literature, prompted by insights into their operation. In
Chapter 5, these variants are tested on a typical industrial application in order to assess their
effectiveness.
54
4.7 Figures
Set T to initial value
Try 20 perturbations to random states
Is acceptance ratio OK? No Adjust T
Yes
Set and evaluate initial system state
Perturb current system state
Evaluate new resulting state
Set new state as

Yes Accept new state?
current state
No
Has equilibrium been achieved? No
Yes
Is system state frozen? Decrease T
Finish: solution found
Figure 4.1: Flowchart of SA optimisation process
55
Progress of SA optimisation of MCS parameters

850
Cost function
800
750
700
650
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14
600
550
alpha
500
450
400
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14
32
30
beta
28
26
24
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14
Number of temperature epochs
Figure 4.2: SA optimisation of MCS controller parameters
56
Chapter 5
Practical testing of controller variants on

a DC servomotor
5.1 Introduction
A review of variants of the Minimal Control Synthesis (MCS) algorithm was introduced in
Chapter 4. This chapter will discuss the evaluation of these variants as applied to the task of
controlling a DC servomotor to track a reference signal.
5.2 Setup for control system tests on DC servomotor
The control systems were built in the MATLAB/Simulink [159] environment on a Win-
dows 2000 PC and implemented using a dSpace 1103 data acquisition board assisted by
ControlDesk software, running at a sampling frequency of 1kHz. The control signal out-
put was connected to the motor drive torque demand input, and the position of the motor
was obtained by means of a shaft encoder interfaced with dSpace. The motor itself was an
MT40-ZD4 brushed DC servomotor with a torque-control personality module, and used as
part of a gust generator rig to dynamically position a pair of wind-tunnel-mounted aerofoils
to precise schedules of incidence to the oncoming airflow. The rig is shown in Figure 5.1;
the pushrod continues down to join onto the motor horn.
The reference signal was a 1.5 Hz square wave between motor shaft azimuths of -90 and 90
degrees. The reference plant was defined as a critically damped second order system, having
a repeated pole at s = −12π in order to achieve desirable yet realistic tracking performance;
this was modelled in discrete state-space form as:
57
Chapter 5. Practical testing of controller variants on a DC servomotor
xk+1 = Axk + Buk (5.1)

yk = Cxk (5.2)
" #
xk
xk = (5.3)
xk−1
" #
1.9365 −0.9379
A = (5.4)
1 0
B = 1 (5.5)
" #
0.0014 0
C = (5.6)
0 0.0014
(5.7)
For the calculation of ye in Equation 3.37, the derivative of x is required; this may be ap-
proximated as
ẋk = e−a∆ ẋk−1 + cd (xk − xk−1 ) (5.8)
where cd is a limiting frequency above which derivative action subsides [117].
Each controller was run for a period of at least 100 seconds, and the adaption rate parameters
α and β were set to a value of 3 and 0.3 for all the tests except where otherwise indicated,
these values being empirically chosen as the highest at which rapid adaption and good per-
formance was achieved without high frequency oscillation occuring.
The tracking error and actuator work were monitored to assess performance; the controller
gains were also recorded to establish the degree of wind-up present.
5.3 Results
To begin this section, the characteristics of the standard MCS adaptive controller will be
introduced in comparison to PID control. Performance metrics will then be presented for a
range controller variant configurations, followed by specific observations and conclusions.
5.3.1 Performance of standard MCS controller
The tracking of a PID controller is shown compared to the standard MCS controller in
Figures 5.2 and 5.3; Ziegler-Nichols tuning resulted in the PID gains Kp = 0.222, Ki =
58
0.6906 and Kd = 0.0192.
The MCS adaption rate parameters in this case were chosen to be α = 3, β = 0.3. The
effect of different levels of adaptive gains on error per reference signal cycle throughout the
run is shown in Figure 5.4. During the process of initial adaption, the controller gains vary
rapidly to their optimum values, but then continue to wind up at a slower rate afterwards, as
seen in Figure 5.5. This is the issue which many of the controller variants seek to address.
Higher settings of adaption rate result in faster initial adaption, but more rapid wind-up
and increased likelihood of actuator saturation. The standard MCS control signal for three
different choices of adaption rate is shown in Figure 5.6. During initial testing, the adaption
rates used in the first MCS trace were selected as being the highest effective values for
which no high frequency graunching was audible by the end of the test. It is noticable
that saturation events occurred with all controllers owing to the rapid dynamic response
demanded, a highly realistic situation. Saturation occurs more seriously as the adaption
rates are increased.
Another performance measure of practical importance is the integral of the energy imparted
or dissipated by the actuator, termed here as the work integral w:
ZT
w= |uẏ| dt (5.9)
0
or in discrete form:
X
N
w= |u (yk − yk−1)| (5.10)
i=1
where N in this case is the number of timesteps of assessment. Assuming a linear actuator
torque transfer function, this is proportional to the energy flow through the actuator, and is
plotted in Figure 5.7 for the same PID and MCS cases as Figure 5.6.
The higher controller gains clearly have the understandable but undesirable effect of boost-
ing the actuator power requirements by several orders of magnitude, emphasising the need
to prevent wind-up.
5.3.2 Comparison of performance of all MCS variants
A general summary of the the relative performances over the 100-second test is presented
in Figures 5.8 and 5.9, which show the integrated tracking error and actuator work integral
respectively. A more general performance index plotted in Figure 5.10 takes into account
both these aspects of controller operation by examining the product of the total actuator
59
work and total tracking error.
The goal of MCS variants is to achieve good tracking while preventing gain windup and
ensuring stability during actuator saturation. In the context of vibration reduction systems,
minimising actuator work is an additional important constraint where available power is
limited.
It is seen that the tracking performance of the standard MCS controller is unbeaten except
by the EMCS scheme, with all other variants performing worse. Looser tracking would be
expected to occur whenever the controller gain adaption is restricted. However, in terms of
reducing actuator workload, the variants are nearly all successful, some achieving very large
reductions. Looking at Figure 5.10, nearly all the variants represent large improvements.
Whilst the SPS scheme comes out top in terms of having the smallest work/tracking error
product, the preferred scheme for other applications will depend on the particular trade-off
between tracking performance required and the actuator power available.
5.3.3 Specific characteristics of the variants
5.3.3.1 GCMCS
This variant is chiefly intended to suppress gain wind-up and related actuator saturation.
Figure 5.11 compares the controller gain progression with that of MCS for ρ = τ = I,
and in this test appears generally unsuccessful at this objective. The gain wound up more
quickly than the original version of MCS.
The gain bounds defined in Equation 4.13 are calculated from the estimated plant matrices
and the gains of the previous timestep. The rationale is that the gain bounds are wide when
shifts of plant dynamics occur, and narrow at all other times. However, the plant dynamics
are estimated from the controller gains themselves, and are therefore contaminated with the
same errors, which originate from plant measurement noise and reference signal noise.
5.3.3.2 GLMCS-S
Figure 5.12 shows a comparison of the gain progression for this variant. The gain escalation
is not improved; the higher rate of Kr and K windup is due to the unbounded multiplication
of the adaption rate parameters by |ye | in Equation 4.20. This scheme shares with other
schemes the feature of reducing adption rate as tracking improves, but lacks a mechanism
of limiting it.
60
5.3.3.3 GLMCS-C
The gain progression for this controller was similar to that of the standard MCS, as illus-
trated by Figure 5.13 for the case = 3, µ = 0.01, and did not represent a significant
improvement. By the definition in Equation 4.21, if the controller gains are converged onto
the ideal value for a linear time-invariant plant with no signal noise, the tracking error ye
will tend to zero. But in doing so, KGLMCS−C is then reduced from the converged MCS gain,
resulting in increased tracking error. Thus while the scheme may reduce gain wind-up to
some extent, it will not be capable of complete controller gain convergence to values which
allow perfect tracking.
5.3.3.4 SPS
This method was the most successful at minimising the product of demanded actuator work
and integrated tracking error. Figures 5.14 and 5.15 show the controller gain progression
and control signal demanded relative to the actuator limits. The gains shown are the MCS
gains before modification by the SPS scheme, and because the modified SPS gains do not
feature in the calculation of the MCS gains for future timesteps, the gains shown are very
similar.
5.3.3.5 EMCS
The EMCS tracking has already been shown to be the only variant outperforming standard
MCS tracking, by virtue of smoothly switching in an additional large control signal com-
ponent in response to the particularly large ye excursions expected with tracking a square
wave. This variant does however suffer from wind-up similar to that of MCS (Figure 5.16
where = 1, Usat = 10v), and may benefit from being combined with an additional scheme
which addresses this.
5.3.4 Performance of new variants
5.3.4.1 HOTMCS
This variant did not perform well in the motor tests, despite having shown promise in pre-
vious tests on a resonant circuit. The derivative action of the additional γ term in Equation
4.34 results in increasing gain with frequency of the ye xT and ye rT terms. At frequencies
beyond the fastest plant dynamics, plant responses will be low, as will be their contribution
to the derivative term. But signal noise may be broadband, and thus even small high fre-
quency components can overwhelm the plant signals. The solution is to apply a lowpass
61
filter to the last term in Equation 4.34, with a corner frequency set above that of the fastest
dynamics. This mitigates signal noise, but undermines one of the main advantages of MCS
by reintroducing the requirement of prior knowledge of the plant. Nevertheless, in most sit-
uations, approximate knowledge of the plant will exist, and may allow the prior introduction
of a lowpass filter in order to apply this scheme.
The gains and control signal in this case were similar to those associated with standard
MCS; it was noted that higher values of γ led to worse performance, in accordance with the
anticipated noise amplification.
5.3.4.2 GLMCS-N
Figure 5.18 shows this method successfully eliminating wind-up of the forward gain Kr and
the second feedback gain k2 , whilst strongly suppressing the escalation of k1 , configured
with the additional parameters yecrit = 30. A corresponding comparison of the resulting
tracking errors for a time segment towards the end of the test is given in Figure 5.19; the
loss in performance is relatively minor. Figure 5.20 shows the size of the control signal
being generally contained to realisable magnitudes.
In contrast with the comments made about the other leakage schemes GLMCS-S and GLMCS-
C (Sections 5.3.3.2 and 5.3.3.3), the leakage factor in this new scheme is both applied to the
controller parameters, and, smoothly switched according to tracking error. This has resulted
in an effective scheme which may be applied to any implementation of MCS. As with all
other MCS variants, the introduction of an additional parameter yecrit requires that extra in-
formation is incoorporated into the controller. However, out of all the additional parameters
required by the other control schemes in the literature, yecrit is perhaps the most straightfor-
ward to determine, because it is based on a definition of satisfactory performance rather than
on any internal system characteristics.
5.3.4.3 BUMCS
This new variant succeeded in eliminating all gain wind-up throughout the duration of the
test (Figure 5.21), as well as greatly reducing the degree of control signal saturation (Fig-
ure 5.22. The generally lower and fluctuating gains reduce tracking performance (Figure
5.8), but this would be less of an issue in systems with less constrained actuator bandwidth
because the gains would be able to adapt further prior to saturating the control signal.
The practical bounding of controller gains, the use of the full actuator authority, and proven
stability in practical implementations, make this scheme the most attractive for use in sit-
uations where gain wind-up is unacceptable. An effective way of using the original MCS
scheme is to lock in the gains after a period of initial adaption, thus guaranteeing stability
62
and performance. However, BUMCS allows continuous on-line use without gain lock-in
or unbounded wind-up, and opens up applications in which sudden or gradual plant shifts
are automatically compensated for; for example, flight control systems of aircraft with com-
ponent failures or battle damage, or vibration reduction of helicopter rotor blades whilst
shifting between operating conditions.
5.4 Conclusions and further work
The combined qualities sought of the various controller variants were non-increasing gains
(for long-term stability and limiting of control signal saturation), acceptable tracking per-
formance, and low actuator power requirements. This could be achieved through use of
the standard MCS controller with an agent locking the gains on observing the attainment
of satisfactory tracking, although this forgoes the benefits of continued adaption to slowly
varying plant properties.
The BUMCS variant opens up the possiblity of continuous on-line adaptive controller op-
eration, provided that performance is acceptable where actuator bandwidth constrains gain
adaption. All other schemes suffered from wind-up, and would require gain lock-in to guar-
antee stability in practical situations. This would be a promising choice for vibration su-
pression of time-varying plants.
The GLMCS-N variant offers near-elimination of wind-up, superior tracking performance

to BUMCS, and a control signal generally kept below saturation, and would make a bet-
ter choice in cases where performance is more critical and where actuator authority is not
restrictive.
The other variants were less successful at wind-up prevention, and presented a range of
trade-offs between low tracking error and low control signal work, the optimum combination
of which would depend on the specific nature of the application in question.
Two principle applications for the schemes considered here are for actuation of a rotorcraft
vibration reduction device - such as a trailing edge rotor blade flap - and to control a transfer
system for the dynamic substructuring of mechanical components. The vibration control
device might additionally peform primary flight control, although reliability issues would
be likely to confine such application to emergency use only. Therefore, certification for
the control scheme will not be as arduous, and widen the choice of scheme beyond the
BUMCS variant, being the only fully gain-bounded scheme. GLMCS-N would then be
the scheme of choice. A combination of BUMCS with GLMCS-N would maintain gain-
boundedness while improving tracking, and the introduction of the HOTMCS derivative
term along with suitable filtering would accelerate adaption to discrete plant shifts as well
as improve tracking. Such systems would be a promising avenue of further study.
63
5.5 Figures
Figure 5.1: Photograph of gust rig, actuated by controlled DC servomotor
Tracking comparison at start of run: PID controller

150
xm
100 PID x
Motor azimuth, degrees
50
−50
−100
−150
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4
MCS controller
150
xm
100 MCS x, alpha=3, beta=0.3
50
−50
−100
−150
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4
Time, sec
Figure 5.2: Comparison of PID and MCS tracking performance at start of test run
64
Tracking comparison at end of run: PID controller

150
xm
100 PID x

50
−50
−100
−150
96 96.5 97 97.5 98 98.5 99 99.5 100
MCS controller
150
xm
100 MCS x, alpha=3, beta=0.3
50
−50
−100
−150
96 96.5 97 97.5 98 98.5 99 99.5 100
Time, sec
Figure 5.3: Comparison of PID and MCS tracking performance at end of test run
Comparison of PID and standard MCS xe integral per cycle

35
PID xe integral per cycle
MCS xe integral per cycle, alpha=3, beta=3
MCS xe integral per cycle, alpha=1, beta=0.1
30 MCS xe integral per cycle, alpha=0.3, beta=0.03
25
Integrated xe per cycle
20
15
10
0
0 50 100 150
Cycle number
Figure 5.4: Effect of adaption rate on tracking error per cycle
65
Adaption of MCS controller gains, alpha=0.3, beta=0.03

35
30
xe integral per cycle

25
20
15
10
0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70
Number of cycles
0.4
0.2
−0.2
K(2)
−0.4
K(1)
Kr
−0.6
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50
Time, sec
Figure 5.5: Adaption of MCS gains with reference to cyclic tracking error
20
Fixed PID
−20
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5 5
MCS: α=0.3, β=0.03
20
−20
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5 5
20
MCS: α=1, β=0.1
−20
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5 5
20
MCS: α=3, β=0.3
−20
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5 5
Time, sec
Figure 5.6: PID and standard MCS control signal voltages with various adaption rates,
showing saturation limits
66
Actuator work integral per cycle for PID and MCS with various adaption rates
3
10
2
10
Actuator work integral per cycle, volt deg

1
10
0
10
−1
10
−2
10
−3
10 PID
MCS: α=0.3, β=0.03
MCS: α=1, β=0.1
MCS: α=3, β=0.3
−4
10
0 50 100 150
Number of reference cycles
Figure 5.7: Work integral comparison of PID and MCS controllers
Log of tracking error integral for various control variants
EMCS, alpha=0.3, beta=0.03, epsilon=1, u_sat=10v

EMCS, alpha=0.3, beta=0.03, epsilon=0.5, u_sat=10v
MCS, alpha=3, beta=0.3
MCS, alpha=0.3, beta=0.03
HOTMCS alpha=0.3, beta=0.03, gamma=5e−6
GLMCS−C, alpha=0.3, beta=0.03, mu=0.01, epsilon=1
GCMCS, alpha=0.3, beta=0.03, rho=1, tau=1
SPS, u_sat=10v
PID
GLMCS−N, alpha=0.3, beta=0.03, ye_crit=0.3
SPS, u_sat=5v
MCS limited to half max torque, alpha=0.3, beta=0.03
GLMCS−N, alpha=0.3, beta=0.03, ye_crit=10
GLMCS−S, alpha=0.3, beta=0.03
BUMCS, alpha=0.3, beta=0.03
SPS, u_sat=1v
MCS limited to tenth max torque, alpha=0.3, beta=0.03
GLMCS−C, alpha=0.3, beta=0.03, mu=1, epsilon=3
7 7.5 8 8.5 9 9.5 10
Log of tracking error integral
Figure 5.8: Summary of integrated tracking error achieved with various controllers
67
Log of actuator work integral for various control variants
SPS, u_sat=1v
SPS, u_sat=5v
SPS, u_sat=10v
PID
9 9.5 10 10.5 11 11.5 12 12.5 13 13.5 14
Log of actuator work integral
Figure 5.9: Summary of total actuator work associated with various controllers
Log of product of actuator work integral and integral tracking error for various control variants
SPS, u_sat=1v
SPS, u_sat=5v
SPS, u_sat=10v
PID
18 19 20 21 22 23 24
Log(Work Integral * tracking error integral)
Figure 5.10: Summary of general performance metric achieved by various controllers
68
Comparison of MCS and GCMCS gain windup

0.6
0.4
Kr
0.2
0 MCS
GCMCS
−0.2
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
0.5
MCS
GCMCS
0
K(1)
−0.5
−1
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
0.4
MCS
0.2 GCMCS
K(2)
−0.2
−0.4
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
Time, sec
Figure 5.11: Comparison of GCMCS gains with MCS gains
Comparison of MCS and GLMCS−S gain windup

10
5
Kr
0
MCS
GLMCS−S
−5
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
0.5
MCS
GLMCS−S
0
K(1)
−0.5
−1
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
20
MCS
GLMCS−S
0
K(2)
−20
−40
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
Time, sec
Figure 5.12: Comparison of MCS and GLMCS-S gains
69
0.6
0.4
Kr
0.2
0 MCS
GLMCS−C
−0.2
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
0.5
MCS
GLMCS−C
0
K(1)
−0.5
−1
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
0.4
MCS
0.2 GLMCS−C
K(2)
−0.2
−0.4
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
Time, sec
Figure 5.13: Comparison of GLMCS-C and MCS controller gain progression
Comparison of MCS and GLMCS−C gain windup

0.6
0.4
Kr
0.2
0 MCS
SPS
−0.2
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
0.5
MCS
SPS
0
K(1)
−0.5
−1
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
0.4
MCS
0.2 SPS
K(2)
−0.2
−0.4
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
Time, sec
Figure 5.14: Controller gains for MCS and SPS
70
Plot of MCS and SPS control signal demand, showing saturation limits
300
MCS
SPS
250 Upper saturation limit
Lower saturation limit
200
150
Control signal demanded, volts
100
50
−50
−100
−150
−200
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
Time, sec
Figure 5.15: Comparison of MCS and SPS control signals
0.6
0.4
Kr
0.2
0 MCS
EMCS
−0.2
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
0.5
MCS
EMCS
0
K(1)
−0.5
−1
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
0.4
MCS
0.2 EMCS
K(2)
−0.2
−0.4
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
Time, sec
Figure 5.16: Comparison of MCS and EMCS gains
71
Plot of MCS and EMCS control signal demand, showing saturation limits
400
MCS
EMCS
Upper saturation limit
300 Lower saturation limit
200
100
−100
−200
−300
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
Time, sec
Figure 5.17: Comparison of MCS and EMCS demanded control signal
72
Comparison of MCS and GLMCS−N gain windup

0.6
0.4
MCS
Kr
0.2 GLMCS−N
−0.2
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
0.5
MCS
GLMCS−N
0
K(1)
−0.5
−1
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
0.4
MCS
0.2 GLMCS−N
K(2)
−0.2
−0.4
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
Time, sec
Figure 5.18: Gain adaption comparison between MCS and GLMCS-N
73
Comparison of tracking error traces using MCS and GLMCS−N

60
40
20
Tracking error
−20
−40
−60
MCS
GLMCS−N
−80
95 95.5 96 96.5 97 97.5 98 98.5 99 99.5 100
Time, sec
Figure 5.19: Comparison of tracking error trace portions using MCS and GLMCS-N
Plot of MCS and GLMCS−N control signal demand, showing saturation limits
300
MCS
GLMCS−N
200
150
100
50
−50
−100
−150
−200
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
Time, sec
Figure 5.20: Control signal for MCS and GLMCS-N, showing saturation limits
74
Comparison of MCS and BUMCS gain windup

1
MCS
BUMCS
0.5
Kr
0
−0.5
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
0.5
0
K(1)
−0.5 MCS
BUMCS
−1
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
0.5
MCS
BUMCS
K(2)
−0.5
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
Time, sec
Figure 5.21: Gain adaption history of MCS and BUMCS
Plot of MCS and BUMCS control signal demand, showing saturation limits
300
MCS
BUMCS
200
150
100
50
−50
−100
−150
−200
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
Time, sec
Figure 5.22: Comparison of MCS and BUMCS demanded control signal
75
Chapter 6
Dynamic substructuring
This chapter will introduce the concept and development of dynamic substructuring, and
consider the potential for application to the helicopter design process.
A demonstration of the dynamic substructuring process has been conducted on a 2-DOF

custom-built analogue resonant circuit, and the results are presented here.
6.1 Introduction to dynamic substructuring
Dynamic substructuring allows a physical model of a full structure to be replaced by one of a

constituent substructure, which is coupled in real-time to a numerical model of the remaining
system. The coupling takes the form of a mechanically actuated interface, controlled so as
to replicate the response as predicted by the numerical model of the superstructure. The
resulting numerical-experimental system is referred to as the substructured model.
The origins of the technique are to be found in the analysis of civil engineering structures,
an introduction being found in [160]. Structural testing is required to validate design rules
and methods, and structural integrity. A full-scale structure may be tested, although in this
case excitation options are either limited to rotary eccentric mass vibrators or other inertial
methods, or environmental loads, such as wind, traffic or seismic activity. Scaled models
are more convenient for shaker table testing, although this may lead to distorted model char-
acteristics. In order to model strain distributions correctly, the geometric scale is matched to
the modelling scale, but this may for example lead to beam flanges consisting of plate steel
with a higher yield stress and lower ductility, thus resulting in imperfect scaling of buckling
and yield parameters [160]. As a result, most modern structural testing is performed at full
or very large scale.
Seismic testing is ideally performed on shaker tables which provide the required inertial
loading, although few tables are large enough to conduct full-scale tests. For large mod-
76
Chapter 6. Dynamic substructuring
els or where a shaker table is not available, an alternative strategy is sometimes pursued.
Pseudodynamic testing [161, 162] involves applying forces to the structure to simulate the
inertial loads, requiring them to be numerically modelled. The test structure is usually full-
scale and hydraulically actuated against a reaction wall, giving rise to large hydraulic pump-
ing requirements which may be met by applying the loads quasi-statically over an extended
time-scale. The pseudodynamic testing method does not capture rate-dependent effects, and
requires accurate modelling of inertial forces.
Substructuring is a technique for modelling only part of a structure. The substructure may
be coupled to a numerical model and additional substructures, and is particularly useful in
the analysis of structures which are modular or substantially self-similar [163]. This has
been combined with the pseudo-dynamic method for large structures [164], and when used
on a shaker table in real-time, dynamic substructuring may capture both inertial loading and
rate dependent effects for manageably-sized substructures of interest.
Now that adequate computing power and flexible digital signal processing hardware are
widely available, dynamic substructuring has the potential for application in new areas with
faster dynamics, such as aerospace structures. This could include dynamic testing of partial
structures such as a helicopter rotor interfaced with a numerical fuselage model, or of re-
configured weapons pylons mounted on a numerical superstructure. Tests for rotor/fuselage
instabilities such as ground resonance could be conducted with the rotor or fuselage only,
enabling a greater degree of test control.
Dynamic substructuring is potentially limited by several factors. For large structures, actua-
tor rate and power requirements may be high, whereas for smaller lighter structures, actuator
bandwidth may limit the frequency range available for testing. Complex numerical models
require substantial processing power, especially if tested with a small timestep. The move-
ment of the substructure interface is required to be accurately synchronised with that of the
numerical model. This calls for a control system capable of close tracking whilst rejecting
the significant disturbances constituted by the varying substructure forces on the interface.
In order to ensure the validity of results, it is necessary to verify that the transfer system
output is accurately tracking the output of the numerical model; this may be accomplished
through the introduction of an error index. This index could take the form of a cumulative
output difference, for example, and an error threshold may be set which indicates whether
sufficient tracking is attained. Having established that numerically modelled quantities are
being faithfully replicated, the resulting measured dynamics are clearly only as valid as the
numerical model itself.
77
6.2 Theoretical description
The dynamic response of a structure may be described as
ẇ(t) = h(w, t) (6.1)
where w ∈ <2q is the system state vector, q is the degree of freedom of the full system
(assuming second order dynamics), and h(w, t) is a nonlinear arbitrary function. In general
it is desirable to gain insight into the response of the substructured system to an excitation
r(t). Equation 6.1 may be reformulated in terms of linear and nonlinear components:
ẇ(t) = Hw(t) + Gr(t) + ĥ(w, t) (6.2)
where ĥ(w, t) is the nonlinear part of h(w, t), while H and G are matrices describing linear
characteristic dynamics. Having chosen which freedoms are to be modelled numerically,
the state vector w is split into numerical and physical components, wn and wp respectively,
giving:
( ) " #( ) " #( ) ( )
w˙n (t) Hnn Hnp wn (t) Gnn Gnp rn (t) ĥn (w, t)
= + +
ẇp (t) Hpn Hpp wp (t) Gpn Gpp rp (t) ĥp (w, t)
(6.3)
where wn ∈ <2m , wp ∈ <(2q−2m) , m is the number of numerically modelled degrees of

freedom, and the n and p subscripts refer to numerically and physically modelled dynamics
respectively. Assuming a direct application of the reference forces to their relevant free-
doms, {Gnp , Gpn } are zero and {Gnn , Gpp } are diagonal. In the numerical dynamics, the
Hnp wp coupling term may then be mapped to experimental force, displacement or accelera-
tion measurements f(t) ie
Hnp wp 7→ Rf(t) (6.4)
where f(t) ∈ <q , R ∈ <2m×2q . The numerical model in Equation 6.3 then becomes:

ẇn (t) = Hnn wn (t) + Gnn rn (t) + ĥn (w, t) + Rf(t) (6.5)
78
Values of f(t) are recorded from experiment, allowing the numerical simulation to proceed.
It then remains to implement a transfer system so as to reproduce the numerical system state
vector accurately at an interface to the physical system.
The transfer system may be considered to take the form
ẋ(t) = At x(t) + Bt ut (t) + If(t) (6.6)
where x ∈ <2nc is the transfer system state vector, At ∈ <2nc ×2nc and Bt ∈ <2nc ×p are
the transfer system characteristic dynamic matrices, ut (t) ∈ <p is the control signal, nc is
the number of freedoms coupled between the numerical and physical models, and p is the
number of control inputs. f(t) is in this case assumed to be a vector of forces, coupling
the transfer system to the physical system, and represents an unknown disturbance to the
transfer system dynamics. For this reason an adaptive controller is preferable.
6.3 Design and build of resonant circuit
In order to assess the effectiveness of varying control schemes in practical applications, a

modular analogue resonant electric circuit was designed and built. Being small, relatively
inexpensive, and compact, desk-top experimentation and PC interfacing would be conve-
nient. In addition, it could also have further uses for simulation of systems or acting as an
analogue compensator, although these applications have not been further explored here.
The circuit was designed such that each module would simulate the equation of a 1-DOF
mass/spring/damper system:
mẍ + cẋ + kx = F (6.7)
where {x, F } are voltage signals, and m, c, k are equivalent mass, damping and stiffness
terms. This is done by reformulating Equation 6.7 into
F m c
x= − ẍ − ẋ. (6.8)
k k k
This can then be implemented using analogue electronic devices as follows [165]. Summa-
tion is accomplished by using an op-amp in the configuration shown in Figure 6.1, where
79
any number of inputs may be attached, four being shown. This has transfer function

Rsf Rsf Rsf Rsf
Vout =− Vin1 + Vin2 + + Vin . (6.9)
Rs1 Rs2 Rs3 Rs4 n
Gains are achieved as shown in Figure 6.2. The equivalent transfer function is
Vout Rf
=− (6.10)
Vin R
Figure 6.3 shows a differentiating op-amp configuration. The equivalent transfer function is
Vout
= −Rd Cd s (6.11)
Vin
Finally, Figure 6.4 shows how the lowpass filter was constructed, having a transfer function
of
Vout 1
= (6.12)
Vin (1 + sRlpf Clpf )2
These transfer functions encapsulate idealised component behaviour, which may not neces-
sarily be exhibited. Op-amp bias, offset and temperature drift may be an issue depending
on the exact type selected, and at high frequencies, passive components may no longer be
considered as pure resistances or capacitances, as inductive effects become more significant.
Saturation can occur if the voltage signal exceeds the range of the op-amp, and if the signal
is too small, the circuit can become sensitive to electromagnetic interference. The op-amp
slew rate limitation clips the gradient of excessively rapid signal components, resulting in
amplitude-dependent output. Instability may also occur if the feedback resistance of the
op-amp is set to a similar magnitude or less than the input resistance. However, these issues
were prevented from adversely affecting performance largely by: choosing precision laser-
trimmed Burr-Brown OPA177 op-amps, which required no biasing; and working with low
voltages (generally ≤1V) and moderate frequencies (less than 100 Hz).
A schematic is shown in Figure 6.5, detailing the meaning of the various voltage signals as
they pass through the circuit, and the component values which give rise to them. For sim-
plicity, some component values in the double differentiation path have been duplicated, and
may be adjusted together without any loss of flexibility. The closed loop transfer function is
therefore:

2
Rsf Rd2 Rf2 1 Cd2 Rsf Rd Rf 2 Cd Rs2 Rf 3 Rs1 Rf 4
X=s X −s X+ F1 + F2
R12 Rs4 R2 Rs3 R3 R4
(6.13)
80
This may be solved to give the natural frequency fn (in Hz) and the damping ratio ζ as
√
R1 Rs4
fn = p (6.14)
2πRd Rf 1 Cd Rsf
p
Rf 2 R1 Rsf Rs4
ζ = (6.15)
2Rf 1 R2 Rs3
and the steady state gains from the force inputs as
X Rs2 Rf 3
= (6.16)
F1 R3
X Rs1 Rf 4
= . (6.17)
F2 R4
(6.18)
If a mass/spring system is to be simulated, as shown in Figure 6.7, then this may be achieved
by setting
Rsf Rd2 Cd2 Rf2 1 m
2
= (6.19)
R1 Rs4 k
and
c Rsf Rd Cd Rf 2
= . (6.20)
k R2 Rs3
As the circuit configuration uses differentiators, it features increasing gain with frequency,
resulting in amplification of high-frequency noise. Uncompensated, the frequency response
is in practice limited by the op-amp gain roll-off. However, it is desirable to further limit the
open-loop high-frequency response with the addition of a simple lowpass filter as described
above.
An alternative formulation exists which makes ẍ the subject of Equation 6.7, and imple-
ments it using a configuration involving integration op-amps. This configuration is shown
in Figure 6.6, and has a transfer function as in Equation 6.21 below.
Vout (s) 1
=− (6.21)
Vin (s) RCs
However, this implementation was not pursued, having the drawback that the infinite low-
frequency gain of the integrators would limit the lower frequency range of operation, and
be succeptible to ‘rigid body’ drift instability without additional equivalent stiffness to an
external voltage level.
Before construction, the circuit was simulated using Proteus ISIS software; Figure 6.8 shows
the predicted frequency response function between applied voltage and voltage output.
81
6.4 Applying dynamic substructuring to 2-DOF resonant

circuit
The testing procedure was broken down into several steps:
• develop numerical model of a simulated superstructure;
• identify the circuit modal characteristics;
• identify the characteristics of the circuit when interfaced as a substructure with the
numerical superstructure; and,
• confirm that the resulting behaviour is predicted by theory.
An additional step would need to be carried out if the transfer system is known to be difficult
to contol accurately. However, in this case, as the transfer system is the connection between
the electronic data acquisition hardware output and circuit op-amp input, it has effectively a
simple gain response, and there is no necessity to use a control system to achieve accurate
tracking. The limiting factor is instead the unit timestep delay associated with the discrete
digital system. The effects of this are only manifest as the Nyquist frequency of 1kHz is
approached, itself an order of magnitude clear of the fastest dynamics.
6.4.1 Development of numerical model
The numerical model was chosen to simulate an SDOF mass/spring/damper cascade, as

shown in Figure 6.7 except interfaced with the second circuit module. The full arrangement
is depicted in Figure 6.11.
The numerical model was chosen to have a resonance at 55 Hz with 2% damping, and was
generated in the discrete state-space form
xk+1 = Axk + Buk (6.22)

yk = Cxk + Duk (6.23)
where
" #
0.91301 −0.95750
A = (6.24)
1 0
h i
B = 1 0 (6.25)
h i
C = 0.52225 0.52225 (6.26)
D = [0] . (6.27)
82
This performance was confirmed in a modal test, carried out with a sampling frequency of
2kHz using a sine sweep excitation over a testing range of 0.1Hz to 500Hz: the FRF is
shown in Figure 6.12.
6.4.2 Modal test of circuit
The 2-DOF circuit network is shown in Figure 6.9, configured to simulate the mass-spring-
damper system shown in Figure 6.10.
The circuits were initially interfaced to a PC via the sound card input and output and the
MATLAB software environment, requiring no additional hardware. However, although the
system was capable of dual channel sampling at 44.1kHz in large buffered data blocks, it
was found that the maximum closed loop execution frequency was limited to 48 Hz due to
buffer access delays, and there was a built-in highpass input filter with an effective cut-off
at around 10 Hz, leaving such a method impractical.
The circuits were then interfaced to a Windows PC via a National Instruments PCI-6024E
data acquisition card posessing 16 analogue inputs and 2 analogue outputs and capable of
sampling at 200kS/s. The control loop was implemented in C++, and when closed, executed
at a rate of 7kS/s, being limited by the Windows interupt signal generation rate. However,
it was found that because the Windows operating system does not operate with real-time
kernels, slightly uneven data acquisition took place, evidenced by irregular time-stamping
of acquired data. This was not overcome by setting the task execution priority to the highest
level.
The data acquisition method used for the testing was a PC-installed dSpace 1103 board,
working in conjunction with the MATLAB/Simulink programming environment and run-
ning at 2kHz real-time. A modal test of the circuit assembly in the range 0.1 Hz to 500 Hz
showed an FRF as in Figure 6.13. This FRF was analysed and two component modes ex-
tracted using the circle-fit method [166]. The regenenerated mode is plotted superimposed.
6.4.3 Modal test of substructured system
The circuit was subjected to a modal test with the numerically-modelled freedom interfaced
to it (as depicted in Figure 6.11).
In Figure 6.14 the resulting FRF is compared with that of the physical and numerical ele-
ments individually. When coupled, the notch in circuit response confirms that the numerical
model is resonating and acting as a physical vibration absorber.
A further assessment of this measured FRF for the physical-numerical model is now made.
83
Having identified the circuit characteristics, the combined response is in theory predictable.
A fully numerical model was built of the identified circuit coupled with the original simu-
lated freedom. Figure 6.15 compares the FRF of this system with the FRF actually mea-
sured. General agreement is seen, although with a degree of divergence between the traces
at frequences higher than the numerical resonance. This inaccuracy is likely a result of two
factors. The first is error incurred while estimating circuit modal parameters. The second
is due to mild circuit nonlinearities which may arise when the numerical model is strongly
resonating.
When the technique of dynamic substructuring is applied to complex structures, nonlinear

characteristics may well prevent the use of standard numerical modelling methods as used
above. Parameter identification then becomes impractical or unreliable, precluding fully
numerical modelling techniques. It is in such situations that substructuring might offer a
solution.
6.5 Summary
Dynamic substructuring is a recent technique whereby a known part of a physical entity un-
der test is substituted with a numerical model and a means of interface, thus rendering a full
test unnecessary. Having originated in the field of seismic engineering, substructuring has
become more feasible for systems with faster dynamics with the recent advances in readily-
available computing power. Potential constraints of the method include requirements for
high-power high-bandwidth actuators, and adequate computing speed for large models with
fast dynamics, although both of these continue to become less restrictive.
This technique may well be valuable during the rotorcraft design process. The rotor could be
tested with the hub mounted on an actuated platform which incorporates fuselage dynamics.
Greater understanding could be built up of fuselage finite element modelling through the
physical testing of smaller substructures.
A proof-of-concept demonstration was carried out. A 2-DOF analogue electric circuit was
designed and assembled as a suitable reconfigurable bench-top test subject, with other possi-
ble areas of application as well. A SDOF numerical model was formulated, and dynamically
coupled with the circuit so as to simulate a larger physical system. The circuit modal pa-
rameters were then estimated so as to be able to predict the combined dynamics. Finally, the
predicted FRF was compared with the measured FRF, and approximate agreement was seen.
Sources of error were the process of circuit parameter estimation, and mild circuit nonlin-
earities. However, this error highlights the usefulness of dynamic substructuring when a
comprehensive numerical model is not pre-existing.
84
6.6 Figures
Rs1
V in Rsf
Rs2
V in
Rs3
V in -
V out
+
Rs4
V in
Figure 6.1: Summation amplifier configuration
Rf
R
V in -
+
V out
Figure 6.2: Inverting amplifier configuration
Rd
Cd
V in -
+ V out
Figure 6.3: Differentiating amplifier configuration
85
Rlpf Rlpf
V in V out
Clpf Clpf
Figure 6.4: Lowpass filter implementation
X -sR dC dX sR dC dRf1 X/R 1 -s 2Rd2C d2Rf1 X/R 1
Differentiation: Negative gain: Differentiation: Negative gain:

Rd, C d R1, Rf1 Rd, C d R1, Rf1
s 2Rd2C d2Rf1 2X/R 12

Negative gain:
R2, Rf2
sR dC dRf2 X/R 2
-F 1Rf3 /R3
F1
Negative gain:
Input force R3, Rf3
F2 Negative gain:
Force exerted by other
coupled DOF R4, Rf4
-F 2Rf4 /R4
Lowpass filter: Summation:

Rlpf, C lpf Rs1, Rs2, Rs3, Rs4, Rsf
-s 2Rsf Rd2C d2Rf1 2X/(R 12Rs4) - sRsf RdC dRf2 X/(R 2Rs3) +
Rs2Rf3 F 1/R3 + Rs1Rf4 F 2/R4 = X
( For |s|<<R plf-1C lpf-1 ie well below lowpass filter

corner frequency)
Figure 6.5: Circuit block layout diagram
86
Ci
Ri
V in -
+ V out
Figure 6.6: Integrating amplifier configuration
k F 1,F 2
c
x
Figure 6.7: Mass/spring/damper system
87
Figure 6.8: Predicted FRF of SDOF circuit
88
Figure 6.9: Photograph of 2-DOF circuit network
k1 k2
m1 m2
c1 c2
Figure 6.10: Simulated 2-DOF mass/spring/damper system
Numerically modelled on PC, independently of

observing and forcing the first circuit module
PC applying
voltage excitation First circuit module Second circuit Single simulated
and measuring (1 DOF) module (1 DOF) freedom
response
Figure 6.11: Diagram showing interconnections between modular circuits and PC
89
Measured FRF of numerically−modelled freedom

2
10
1
10
0
10
−1
10
Gain
−2
10
−3
10
−4
10
−5
10
−1 0 1 2 3
10 10 10 10 10
Frequency (Hz)
Figure 6.12: Measured FRF of numerical model
Comparison of regenerated and measured circuit FRF

1
10
0
10
Gain
−1
10
Circuit alone
Regenerated from identified circuit model
−2
10
0 1 2
10 10 10
Frequency (Hz)
Figure 6.13: Measured and regenerated circuit FRF
90
Measured and predicted FRFs
1
10
0
10
Gain
−1
10
Numerical freedom
Circuit alone
Coupled circuit and numerical model
−2
10
1 2
10 10
Frequency (Hz)
Figure 6.14: Comparison of individual and dynamically substructured FRFs
Actual and predicted FRF of substructured simulation
0
10
Gain
−1
10
Coupled circuit and numerical model

Predicted coupled behaviour
1 2
10 10
Frequency (Hz)
Figure 6.15: Comparison of predicted and measured FRF of dynamically substructured

system
91
Chapter 7
Modal test of Lynx fuselage
This chapter describes the process of conducting a modal test on a Lynx fuselage. Such
testing is essential for the validation of finite element models and for ensuring that fuselage
resonances do not coincide with rotor system modes.
The INSET (Interleaved Spectral Excitation Technique) [167] method is described as a

recently-formulated technique for acquiring more accurate data in large, damped structures.
The results of a vibration test conducted using a multipurpose real-time data acquisition
hardware/software package are presented, and compared with previous test data for the same
structure obtained using a different approach and hardware.
7.1 The INSET method
In the method, the shaker output channels are each allocated unique discrete spectra in such
a way that all frequencies of interest are covered. In this application, the discrete spectra of
a white noise signal have been dealt out evenly among the channels, as illustrated in Figure
7.1.
The next step is to minimise the peak-rms ratios of the individual channels. This is achieved
through the following process:
1. inverse Fourier transform the ‘comb’ of spectra into the time domain to form a com-
plex signal;
2. clip the complex magnitude back to the rms value, maintaining unchanged phase;
3. Fourier transform signal to frequency domain;
4. leaving phase information unchanged, set the combed spectra to unity, and all others
to zero; and,
92
Chapter 7. Modal test of Lynx fuselage
5. iterate above steps until peak-rms ratio is satisfactory, and then return to time domain.
Having generated signal blocks in this way, they can then be output to the shakers and
the structural response recorded. For testing, the signal block is surrounded by additional
copies of the block with a fade-in factor applied to allow the structure response to spool up to
steady-state amplitudes; the inherent periodicity of the original block ensures that the signal
remains continuous and smooth at the joins between the blocks. Another consequence of the
block periodicity is that linear structural responses will all be periodic within the duration of
the block as well, eliminating the requirement to compensate for the leakage of incomplete
cycles with application of windowing functions.
Because any particular frequency spectra of excitation is output via only one shaker at a
time, it is necessary to repeat the test with the excitation signal rotated around the shakers.
In this way, the signal which in the first test was output to shaker 1 is now output to shaker
2, 2 to 3, and 3 to 1 in the 3-shaker case, thus ensuring that in the end all points will have
been excited by all shakers at all spectra of interest.
Having completed a series of tests with the signals rotated around all the shakers, the process
is repeated with new forcing signals in order to provide additional results for averaging.
In order to arrive at the FRFs from the time domain responses, some additional postpro-
cessing is required; this requires the structure to be linear, because excitation energy at a
given frequency is assumed under linear theory to be wholly responsible for the structural
response at that frequency. For each individual rotation of the test, the FRFs are calculated
between every shaker and every response in the usual way, as in Equation 7.1
Sf x
H1 =
Sf f
Sxx
H2 = (7.1)
Sxf
H1
Coherence =
H2
where Saa and Sab denote auto-spectra and cross-spectra, and subscripts x and f denote the
response and forcing signals respectively.
However, these FRFs are only valid for the spectra at which the shaker of interest has ex-
citation components; the other spectra are used to produce FRFs to other shakers. Thus a
sparse comb of valid FRFs is extracted. The gaps are filled by examination of the equivalent
FRF resulting from the next rotation of the test, and thus a full valid FRF is obtained in each
shaker/response combination. These FRFs are then averaged across all the complete tests
performed to yield a final result.
93
7.2 Hardware overview and experimental setup
7.2.1 Data acquisition and processing
The implementation of INSET (Interleaved Spectral Excitation Technique) and of the test
itself was carried out using a PC with 256 Mb RAM and a 650 Mhz Pentium 3 processor,
running Windows NT. The dSpace ds1005 modular data acquisition hardware was used,
which enables 32 channels of both analogue input and output to be processed in real-time
via an independent processor unit external to the PC. A Simulink model was written and
compiled onto the hardware, and then the test was run from a MATLAB script, interfacing
with the hardware via the MLIB command library provided. Also provided with dSpace
was the ControlDesk program; this was used for signal monitoring as part of the setting-up
process.
7.2.2 Excitation setup
The excitation was produced by four LDS400-series shakers. The dSpace system provided
four analogue ±10 V outputs at a range of fixed sample times; these were then lowpass-
filtered and taken to power amplifiers. The amplifiers employed current feedback to main-
tain current flowing through the shaker armatures as fixed multiples of the amplifier voltage
inputs, thus minimising the impact of the shaker dynamics on the achievement of the desired
shaker force signal. The achieved force was returned as a signal indicating the armature cur-
rent, thereby providing a reliable measurement of force and a method of assessing the shaker
transfer characteristics.
The nose and tail shakers were mounted on fixed platforms, shown in Figures 7.2 and 7.3.
The remaining two shakers were suspended with base masses to provide lateral forcing to
the rear of the engines, with the starboard engine shaker shown in Figure 7.4.
The frequency composition of the excitation signals was a flat noise spectrum between 3.2
Hz and 100 Hz with a peak-to-rms ratio of less than two. The lower limit was chosen to
avoid exciting shaker suspension frequencies, and the upper limit was selected as most of
the interesting structural responses were known to occur in this range. It was important
to ensure that there was no steady-state component to the signals, as it would result in a
runaway escalation of current in the suspended shakers on failing to sustain the demanded
steady force.
94
7.2.3 Response measurement setup
The accelerations of the structure were measured at 12 points by strain-gauge cantilever

bridge accelerometers and the signal passed into the dSpace hardware, which had a fixed
ADC input range of ±10 V. The actual magnitude of the input signals typically ranged from
0.06 V to 0.02 V, with offsets of up to 0.08 V. While not taking maximum advantage of the
ADC range, this nevertheless provided good resolution, as the sensitivity of the ADC was
to within the nearest 0.3 mV. After initial tests, the inputs to the dSpace unit were low-pass
filtered in order to prevent aliasing of frequency components present above the Nyquist fre-
quency. To begin with, this was not thought to be necessary for several reasons: with a linear
structure, high frequencies should not be present in the signal, as no excitation energy is at
these frequencies; also, even if nonlinearities did result in the passing up of energy to higher
frequencies, the Nyquist limit of the ADC in many of the tests was double the highest fre-
quency excited thus providing some margin in this event. However, simple signal noise did
carry high frequency components, possibly contributed to by unavoidable cable runs close to
the power amplifier electronics, and so a test was done with a Nyquist frequency of 500Hz;
this did show a slight improvement in the low-frequency results, motivating the addition of
128Hz low-pass filters. No magnitude or phase compensation was required for the filtered
signals, as the same filtering was applied to both the force and the response measurements,
thereby cancelling out on calculating the FRF (Frequency Response Function(s)).
Having included the filters and conducted a short single-average test run, it was found that
the resultant FRF were poorly defined, leading to a brief investigation into the response
signal-noise ratio. By comparing the rms of the response signals in the two cases of stan-
dard structure excitation and then zero structure excitation, it was found that the signal-noise
ratio varied from <1 to ≈ 34 with a median of ≈ 9, depending on the accelerometer loca-
tion. However, this is not expected to portray the whole situation, as the power amplifier, a
potential source of noise, was inactive while the zero-excitation response signals were being
monitored, so it is possible that these ratios are flattering. In any case, the resultant standard
approach taken was to ensure that tests contained a suitable volume of averages, statistically
minimising noise effects.
7.3 Comparison of results
This section will present a selection of new averaged results alongside results supplied by
QinetiQ. The QinetiQ FRFs were obtained at a previous time through the same INSET
technique, and correlate closely with contemporaneous multi-point random tests in [167]
and [168].
95
7.4 Time-domain results
A typical example of the signals acquired from the 12 accelerometers is given in Figure 7.5.
The data shown is taken from an early part of a test where the shaker demand signal is being
gradually increased to the desired level. It can be seen that there is a significant variation in
the offsets and magnitudes between the signals. This is not important given that the ADC
resolution has been shown to be sufficient.
7.5 Shaker FRFs
Due to the nature of the shaker and power amplifier system, the achieved forcing signal
would not be expected to follow the force demand system exactly, even in this case where
feedback is used to flatten the shaker transfer frequency characteristics. This is not necessar-
ily important, because the calculation of the structure FRFs makes use of the achieved force
signal rather than the force demanded. However, if the shaker system was such that it greatly
absorbed or amplified particular frequencies, the resulting lack or excess of excitation energy
might distort the FRFs due to heightened sensitivity to noise or to high-amplitude nonlinear-
ity; hence it is desirable to ensure that the transfer characteristics are relatively even across
the frequency range.
To this end, the shaker transfer functions and coherences have been plotted in Figures 7.6
and 7.7, derived from 16 test averages.
Their coherences indicate that the FRFs are accurate. Their frequency characteristics are
even, so it can be concluded that they achieve a force spectrum close enough to the demand
signal.
One feature of interest is the small local disturbance at 50 Hz, accompanied by a slight drop
in coherence. This is of no concern, and caused by electromagnetic interference from the
power amplifiers.
7.6 Averaging the results
A brief example is given here to show the necessity of averaging a number of tests. Figures
7.8 and 7.9 compare dual-average and multi-average FRF plots for a given shaker and re-
sponse node. This particular data was recorded with a signal block length of 2048 samples
at a rate of 200 samples per second, describing the point response in the vertical direction at
the nose shaker.
96
7.7 Modal list and modeshapes
Having assembled all the frequency response plots, they were then analysed using the ICATS
modal analysis package. The ’Global-M’ method [169] was used: modes were identified via
a global algorithm based on a singular value decomposition of the system matrix, which was
expressed in terms of measured FRF properties. A global eigensolution then provides the
required modal properties.
The identified modes are listed in Table 7.1. During the analysis, it was found that for some
modes, the Nyquist circle-fit was accurate across all the FRFs, but for most modes, only a
proportion of the FRFs had well-defined Nyquist plots at the given frequency. Also, due
to the complex nature of the structure, many nodes were quite damped and close together,
making the identification less clear-cut. The modes listed are not expected to be exhaustive,
but cover the principal modes observed as well as some which were less observable.
Once the nodes were identified, animations of mode shapes were produced. Figure 7.10
illustrates the first modeshape as an example. The nodes have physical significance as set
out in Figure 7.2.
7.8 Comparison of results
In this section, the test results will be compared with results previously generated by Qine-
tiQ. Initially, a number of runs were performed in order to determine which parameters (eg
sampling rate, blocksize) yielded best results. Their importance was found to be secondary
to that of the number of runs averaged per result. Accordingly, the data from the best 10 test
runs, consisting of a combined total of 67 averages, have been averaged together. This re-
quired resampling down to a common frequency set. In order to ensure that all the unparsed
data contributed, rather than merely using the coincident frequency datapoints, very light
smoothing was applied to the FRFs. This was achieved using an 8th order Blackman-Harris
window with compensation for the fixed phase lag. Because the different test run results
were based on varying quantities of averaged results, they were weighted by the number of
averages constituting them.
Some comparisons between previous QinetiQ results and the recent test results will now be
presented. H1 , H2 and coherence data are shown for the new results, and compared with the
H1 data supplied. There are various considerations regarding the choice of the H1 and/or the
H2 transfer function, as defined in Equations 7.1. Near resonance, the locally diminished
force signal is more likely to be corrupted by noise, therefore making H2 a generally better
choice, although near antiresonance, the response signals will be small and more easily
corrupted making H1 preferable. Where there is minimal measurement noise, they should
97
be very similar, yielding an almost-unity coherence. These are therefore useful tools in
assessing the quality of data recorded [166].
Figure 7.11 shows the vertical point FRFs at the port engine exhaust. The shape and mag-
nitudes of the plots match well, and coherence is good except around a local antiresonance,
where signal noise will have masked the small-amplitude structural response. The resonant
frequencies differ by up to 1 Hz from the QinetiQ data; this would reflect slight unintentional
differences in the test setup and is seen consistently throughout all the FRFs.
Figure 7.12 shows good agreement at the lower modes, and with both results sets showing
less certainty at frequencies much above the 35 Hz resonance.
Figure 7.13 presents a similar cross-FRF to Figure 7.12 except with the acceleration mea-
sured at the starboard engine. In an interesting contrast, the test shows good data above the
35 Hz resonance, although the QinetiQ data would appear to remain less orderly. This hints
towards structural inconsistancies between the testing sessions, and is further corroborated
by intermittent rattling sounds from the port engine which were observed during preliminary
tests but not in those subsequent.
Figure 7.14 matches well, with good phase agreement. The drop in coherence from 47 Hz
upwards would appear to indicate a nonlinear feature of the structure, as the FRF quality is
worse in all results here. A 50 Hz mains interference feature is also apparent.
Figure 7.15 shows a particularly noise-free test FRF. The two data sets do differ to a signif-
icant degree; as the data is accurate, this can be taken to be clearly indicative of a shift in
structural response between tests.
Figure 7.16 is another FRF with very good coherence; the coherence only dips at the strong
19 Hz antiresonance, and even then only slightly. Being the tail point FRF, the signal runs
were able to be kept further away from the power amplifier, which explains why there is no
50 Hz drop in coherence.
Overall then, it would seem that the FRFs agree well, with differences attributable more
to shifts in structural characteristics or changes in forcing amplitude than in the testing
methodology. The QinetiQ data seems to define some areas of low amplitude response
with greater accuracy, judging from the FRF shape and smoothness; this could be because
appropriate accelerometer amplifiers were not on hand to lessen the impact of measurement
noise for the recent tests. It is therefore concluded that the dSpace/MATLAB/Simulink setup
is a viable and attractive route to acquiring frequency response information.
98
7.9 Effect of changing the forcing amplitude
During preliminary stages of testing, a brief investigation was carried out to discover to
what extent the magnitude of forcing affected the quality and shape of the resulting FRFs.
To this end, two identical test runs were carried out, except with one run having a forcing
amplitude reduced by 60% . The other parameters were fixed: 8 averages were taken with
4096 samples per signal block, acquired at 400 samples per second, FRF spectral spacing
of 0.0977 Hz.
It was expected that the test with lighter forcing might provide sharper and more accu-
rate FRF definition around high-magnitude resonances, with the disadvantage of increased
response signal acceptability to noise, and therefore FRF degradation around deep antires-
onances. Heavy forcing would then provide better antiresonance data, but incurring the
penalty of large response amplitudes at resonances, bringing out any amplitude-dependent
nonlinearities. If there was any freeplay in the structure, a larger amplitude of forcing would
yield more linearised results through lessening the proportion of the displacement trajectory
which passes through the zero-stiffness region, thereby drawing nearer to linearity.
The results themselves seem to point towards these effects. Figure 7.17 compares the effect
of forcing amplitude on the lateral FRF with starboard engine excitation and tail boom re-
sponse. The lighter forcing has produced stronger resonances, at slightly higher frequencies,
but where the gain descends below 10−3 , the antiresonance is not described as successfully
as with the stronger forcing, presumably due to noise on the weak response signal.
Figure 7.18 shows another comparison, a lateral point response at the starboard engine.
As before, the frequencies obtained with the lighter forcing are higher, and the resonances
reach higher magnitudes. The frequency shift might be explained by cubic softening of
the stiffness at larger displacements. Cubic softening is most often observed in scenarios
where a degree of buckling occurs, and might therefore be expected in an efficient aerospace
construction containing load-bearing panels in shear or compression, but further work would
be necessary to confirm this mechanism.
Figure 7.19 shows a comparison vertical point FRF at the tail boom. Again, the FRF reso-
nances are larger under lighter excitation, the first one by 20%, and a frequency shift of up
to 51 Hz has occurred on all modes. The coherence is again generally improved.
7.10 Conclusions
In this chapter the Interleaved Spectral Excitation Technique (INSET) has been shown to
produce results in agreement with previous tests on a Lynx helicopter fuselage using the
same method and using multi-point random testing, and thus is further validated as a useful
99
way of achieving a more even distribution of excitation energy through large damped test
structures.
The conclusions drawn from this exploration are primarily that stronger forcing provides
better all-round definition of the FRF with a slight penalty in establishing exact mode fre-
quency and amplitude, and has led to the conducting of all other tests at the higher forcing
amplitude. Of secondary interest is the exact nature of the nonlinear mechanism which
leads to the FRF distortion, but from the data available it can only be speculated that cubic
softening and freeplay have a part in the matter.
The slight shift in resonances seen between these recent tests and the previous QinetiQ tests
is not believed to be any indication of error. Instead, as the tests produced clean data with
high coherences in both cases, it must be concluded that the structural responses have shifted
or are dependent on amplitude.
100
Figure 7.1: Illustration of frequency spectra distribution between shakers
101
Figure 7.2: Tail shaker attachment
Figure 7.3: Nose shaker attachment
Mode Frequency (Hz) Damping (%) Mode Frequency (Hz) Damping (%)
1 17.44 5.99 13 37.70 1.39
2 17.50 8.14 14 38.90 3.16
3 18.51 2.58 15 40.53 11.34
4 20.07 4.41 16 42.64 3.49
5 20.46 4.39 17 45.73 5.91
6 22.24 1.51 18 46.28 4.09
7 24.22 5.64 19 47.02 1.13
8 26.67 4.19 20 49.39 2.51
9 32.96 3.44 21 49.50 0.81
10 34.03 6.66 22 50.09 1.43
11 36.99 5.24 23 51.12 0.86
12 37.33 1.05
Table 7.1: List of modes identified from new INSET tests
102
Figure 7.4: Starboard engine shaker mounting
0.8
0.6
0.4
Signal voltage, v
0.2
−0.2
−0.4
−0.6
0 2 4 6 8 10 12
Time, s
Figure 7.5: Sample of response signals at beginning of test
Node number Location

53 Underneath of nose
218 Tail boom
272 Starboard engine inlet
700 Port engine inlet
1014 Starboard engine exhaust
1019 Port engine exhaust
Table 7.2: Node significance
103
72
Shaker 1 H1
Shaker 1 H2
70 Shaker 2 H1
Shaker 2 H2
Shaker 3 H1
Shaker 3 H2
68 Shaker 4 H1
Shaker 4 H2
66
Magnitude gain
64
62
60
58
56
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70
Frequency, Hz
Figure 7.6: Shaker transfer functions
0.995
0.99
0.985
0.98
Value
0.975
0.97
0.965
0.96
Shaker 1 FRF coherence

0.955 Shaker 2 FRF coherence
0.95
0 10 20 30 40 50 60
Frequency, Hz
Figure 7.7: Shaker transfer function coherences
104
−1
10
−2
10
Gain
−3
10
−4
10
H1, 2 averages
H2, 2 averages
H1, 16 averages
H2, 16 averages
−5
10
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
Frequency, Hz
Figure 7.8: Example of effects of averaging on a point FRF
0.9
0.8
0.7
0.6
Value
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
Coherence, 2 averages
Coherence, 16 averages
0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
Frequency, Hz
Figure 7.9: Effects of averaging on coherence of a point FRF
105
Figure 7.10: Screenshot of first modeshape produced in ICATS
106
0
10
Gain magnitude
−1
10
−2
10 Qinetiq H1
Test H1
Test H2
−3
10
15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55
0
Phase angle, degrees
−50
−100
Qinetiq H1
−150 Test H1
Test H2
−200
15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55
1
Coherence
0.5
0
15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55
Frequency, Hz
Figure 7.11: Comparison of lateral point FRFs at port engine exhaust
107
0
10
Gain magnitude
Qinetiq H1
Test H1
−5
Test H2
10
15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55
500
−500 Qinetiq H1
Test H1
−1000 Test H2
−1500
15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55
1
Coherence
0.5
0
15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55
Frequency, Hz
Figure 7.12: Comparison of vertical FRFs with excitation at tail boom and response at port
engine inlet
−1
10
Qinetiq H1
Gain magnitude
Test H1
−2
10 Test H2
−3
10
−4
10
15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55
500
−500 Qinetiq H1
Test H1
Test H2
−1000
15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55
1
Coherence
0.5
0
15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55
Frequency, Hz
Figure 7.13: Comparison of vertical FRFs with excitation at tail boom and response at
starboard engine inlet
108
−2
10
Gain magnitude
−3
10
Qinetiq H1
−4
10 Test H1
Test H2
−5
10
15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55
200
Qinetiq H1
−200 Test H1
Test H2
−400
15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55
1
Coherence
0.5
0
15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55
Frequency, Hz
Figure 7.14: Comparison of vertical FRFs with nose excitation and port engine inlet re-
sponse
−1
10
Gain magnitude
−2
10
−3
10 Qinetiq H1
Test H1
Test H2
−4
10
15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55
200
Qinetiq H1
150 Test H1
Test H2
100
50
0
15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55
1
Coherence
0.5
0
15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55
Frequency, Hz
Figure 7.15: Comparison of vertical point FRFs at the nose
109
−1
10
Gain magnitude
−2
10
−3 Qinetiq H1
10
Test H1
Test H2
−4
10
15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55
200
−200 Qinetiq H1
Test H1
Test H2
−400
−600
15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55
1
Coherence
0.5
0
15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55
Frequency, Hz
Figure 7.16: Comparison of vertical point FRFs at the tail boom
Qinetiq H1
10
−1 Test H1, light forcing
Test H2, light forcing
Gain magnitude
Test H1, strong forcing

−2
10 Test H2, strong forcing
−3
10
−4
10
15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55
Qinetiq H1
500 Test H1, light forcing

−500
−1000
15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55
1
Value
0.5
Test coherence, light forcing

Test coherence, heavy forcing
0
15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55
Frequency, Hz
Figure 7.17: Effect of changing forcing amplitude on lateral FRFs with starboard engine
excitation and tail boom response
110
0
10 Qinetiq H1
Gain magnitude
−1
−2
10
−3
10
15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55
0
−50
−100 Qinetiq H1
−150
−200
15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55
0.95
Value
0.9
0.85
15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55
Frequency, Hz
Figure 7.18: Effect of changing forcing amplitude on lateral point FRFs at the starboard
engine
−1
10
Gain magnitude
−2
10
Qinetiq H1
−3
15 20 25 30 35 40 45 H2, strong50forcing
Test 55
0
−50
−100
Qinetiq H1
−150 Test H1, light forcing
−200 Test H1, strong forcing
15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55
1
0.9
Value
0.8
0.7
15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55
Frequency, Hz
Figure 7.19: Effect of changing forcing amplitude on vertical tail boom FRF
111
Chapter 8
Finite element modelling and updating of

a Lynx fuselage
This chapter describes the process of comparing finite element (FE) models of a Lynx fuse-
lage with corresponding modal test data for various different build states, and performing
initial updating.
8.1 Background
The process of designing and commissioning lightweight aerospace structures requires that
their dynamic structural behaviour is well understood and acceptable for service. This is
particularly important in the case of rotorcraft, where the designer must ensure that fuse-
lage response frequencies do not coincide with rotor, gearbox, engine, or any other driving
frequencies throughout the range of operating conditions.
In order to be able to predict the dynamic behaviour of complex structures, FE modelling is

required. Models can be built up from a knowledge of the intended or measured structural
geometry and material properties. However, in order to be confident of the results, compar-
ison with test data is essential. In practice, reconciling analytical and test data for complex
structures is often not straightforward. Analytical and experimental considerations of doing
so are now discussed.
8.1.1 Analytical considerations
The accuracy of finite element models is limited by the accuracy to which the structure may
be described; the mechanical properties of structural elements and particularly joints are
uncertain, non-linear, inconsistent between different builds and batches of materials, and
112
Chapter 8. Finite element modelling and updating of a Lynx fuselage
dependent on temperature, time and stress history. Simplifications are made when using
approximated elements to represent the structure, and element discretisation may need to
be chosen carefully in regions of significant nonlinear spatial stress gradients. Damping is
often assumed to be negligeable, thus producing non-complex modes; theoretical prediction
of damping is generally not feasible owing to the factors already mentioned. Where damping
is required in the finite element model, it may be measured for particular modes or frequency
ranges in practical tests, and fed back into the equivalent analytical model, an example being
[170]. It is often assumed that there are no internal stresses in the model: unaccounted pre-
stress causes initial deformation, and consequent stress-stiffening changes dynamic response
in the same way as the pitch of tensioned wires in stringed instruments changes with axial
loading [171].
8.1.2 Experimental considerations
The test dataset is also subject to imperfections. Whilst spatial discretisation and frequency
limitations of test data precludes completeness of information, measurement noise and trans-
ducer limitations erode quality, although this may often be mitigated through suitable signal
processing.
Rotational forcing and displacements are usually omitted due to the practical complexity
involved, halving the information potentially available.
The boundary conditions of the test subject may be hard to guarantee: rigid clamps may
flex, and suspension systems will introduce extra modes of vibrations instead of replicating
free-body conditions.
Care must be taken with the sensor and shaker placement; if placed at or near vibration
nodes, the corresponding modes may be missed or swamped by measurement noise. In
the tests, sensors were already manually sited. Otherwise, algorithms exist to locate the
sensors so as to maximise: the amount of independent information obtained (Effective In-
dependence method [172, 173]); measured strain energy (Energy Matrix Rank Optimisation
method [174]); or, measured kinetic energy (Energy Optimisation Technique [175]).
The time available for the testing may place pressure on the number of averages which may
be taken to reduce the impact of random noise. Data storage and management considerations
may have the same affect, as well as making it desirable to reduce the sampling frequency
and thus the measured frequency range.
A major assumption throughout the whole process is that the structural response is linear. To
ensure that this is the case, it may be necessary to strip out or fasten down all loose fittings
and joints, which might otherwise introduce higher-order or piecewise stiffness functions, or
in the worst cases present significant variation in the ideally invariant test structure. Another
113
strong motivation for this is to minimise damping, and thus reduce the amount of energy
required to adequately excite the entire structure. Lower levels of damping also ease the
process of extracting modal data from close resonances, which might otherwise be coupled
with adjacent modes.
8.2 Scope of work
For the purpose of this work, NASTRAN finite element models of the Lynx Mk 7 fuselage
posessing around 64,000 degrees of freedom were supplied by QinetiQ along with modal
test data taken at 87 translational freedoms. Analytical predictions and test data for differ-
ent structural configurations were compared using a variety of assessment techniques, and
differences between the correlated datasets have been examined with a view to identifying
areas of model error and updating the model.
The particular fuselage to which the test data corresponds, is a time-expired ex-service struc-
ture, with all superfluous fittings removed or secured in order to minimise damping and
noise. A view of the airframe in a slightly more advanced build state is shown in Figure
8.1. Tests were conducted with the fuselage at a baseline build state, without gearboxes or
tail rotor, and also at an ‘Intermediate One’ build state, at which the tail rotor gearbox was
included both in the tests and the finite element model. The results of two separate tests
at the ‘Intermediate One’ state were compared to gain an insight into the variability of the
testing procedure. The datasets are summarised in Table 8.1.
8.3 Theory
This section will discuss various methods which may be used to correlate and compare finite
element results with those obtained from structural dynamic testing.
8.3.1 General finite element method
This will not be discussed here, although descriptions may be found in [176], [177], [178],
[179], [171].
8.3.2 Model reduction
For large structures, test measurements are generally taken at a subset of nodes represented
in the finite element model. This makes comparison of modal vectors difficult, and it is
114
therefore desirable to be able to reduce the order of the analytical matrices down to that of
the test.
There are several methods by which model reduction may be achieved, the most common
being static (or Guyan) reduction, dynamic reduction, Improved Reduction System, and
System Equivalent Reduction Expansion Process (SEREP) [178]. The method used here
has been static reduction [180], which is now described.
In static reduction, the mass, stiffness, states and forces M, K, x and f are partioned into
submatrices and subvectors corresponding to master degrees of freedom, slave degrees of
freedom, and coupling terms in the case of M and K. The master degrees of freedom are
to be retained and represented as accurately as possible by the reduced model, and the slave
freedoms are eliminated from it.
The dynamics of the full undamped model may be described by:
Mẍ + Kx = f (8.1)
where M,K ∈ <n×n , x,f ∈ <n×1 , and n is the number of freedoms in the full model.
This may be rearranged into:
" #( ) " #( ) ( )
Mmm Mms ẍm Kmm Kms xm fm
+ = (8.2)
Msm Mss ẍs Ksm Kss xs 0
where ‘m’, ‘s’ and ‘ms’ relate to master, slave and cross-coupled freedoms. If the inertia
terms for the slave freedoms are neglected, the second set of equations becomes:
Ksm xm + Kss xs = 0 (8.3)
This is used to eliminate xs from Equation 8.2 which becomes:
Mred ẍred + Kred xred = fred (8.4)
where
115
Mred = Mmm
−1
Kred = Kmm − Kms Kss Ksm
xred = xm
fred = fm
which may then be used for further analyses.
8.3.3 The Modal Assurance Criterion
The Modal Assurance Criterion (MAC) is a measure of the similarity of paired modal vec-
tors regardless of differences in scaling, introduced in [181]. For a measured mode φmj and
an analytical mode φak , the MAC is defined as:
2
T
φmj φak
MACjk = (8.5)
φTak φak φTmj φmj
The resulting value ranges from zero to unity: zero indicating no consistent correspondence,
unity indicating that the vectors can be exactly scaled onto each other.
If the modal vectors are inconsistent it could be due to a number of reasons:
• the modes compared are different eigensolutions, implying that they should be or-
thogonal with zero MAC;
• the analytical modes could be calculated from an inaccurate FE model;
• the system could be non-stationary, with changing mass or stiffness during the testing
process;
• the system could be nonlinear, with different modal responses resulting from changes
in excitation amplitude or combination;
• there could be measurement noise on the experimental modes, caused by noisy fre-
quency response measurement; or,
• the process of extracting modal parameters from the experimental frequency response
data may be inaccurate.
If the MAC is near one, the compared modes are seen as consistent. However, this result
would also be explained by a range of reasons:
116
• the modes could represent the same vector with different scale factors, indicating that
the FE and test data agree well;
• the modes could possess inadequate spatial resolution, thus failing to highlight areas
of disagreement;
• the modes could be a response to an excitation other than the desired input, present in
both the analytical and the experimental results, for example an unbalanced rotating
mass; or,
• the modes could consist of coherent noise which could randomly be aligned with the
analytical modal vector, or aligned through the bias of a modal parameter extraction
technique as applied to noisy data.
The MAC may be used for several purposes. Initially, when comparing analytical and test
data, it is necessary to establish which modes are equivalent, and although the eigenfre-
quency is a rough indicator, it is preferable to pair up modes in such a way as to maximize
the MAC between them. For assessing the overall match between two sets of correlated
modes, a full matrix containing the MAC between all possible analytical and experimental
mode pairings may be generated as in Equation 8.5. The leading diagonal of this matrix is
then hoped to be close to unity, with near-zero values at all other entries.
8.3.4 Correlation of modes
An important step in the comparison of analytical and test data is the pairing of modes
deemed to be equivalent to each other for the purposes of further analysis, known as modal
correlation.
There is no best choice of correlation criteria: methods exist based on MAC, COMAC
(Section 8.3.5), Pseudo-Orthogonality Checks [182], Relative Error Method amongst others,
but the method used here is based on the MAC. For each mode in turn from the first dataset,
the mode in the second dataset is identified for which the MAC between them is highest.
If for the mode in the second dataset, the highest MAC is attained also with the original
mode, the pair is accepted; if not, it is discarded and unused. A further criteria imposed on
mode pairs is that the MAC must be greater than 0.6; smaller MACs are deemed to indicate
insufficient agreement.
An alternative usage of the MAC is to pair each test mode up with the analytical mode which
gives the largest MAC. This can result in analytical modes featuring more than once, and
produces in general more pairings. The number of pairings is important as it affects the out-
come of the COMAC calculations, being a form of variance. In addition, this method adds
arguably unjustified weighting to the duplicated FE modes when the COMAC is calculated,
and is not necessarily physically justified.
117
8.3.5 The Coordinate Modal Assurance Criterion
The Coordinate Modal Assurance Criterion (COMAC) [183] is aimed at identifying which
measured degrees of freedom contribute to lowering the MAC. If φamf and φxmf are the
modal coefficients for the f th of F examined freedoms in the mth pair of M correlated
analytical and experimental modal vectors, the scalar COMAC for freedom f is given by
Equation 8.6.
2
P
M

φamf φxmf
m=1
COMACf = n o P
M n o (8.6)
P
M
φamf φ∗am φxmf φ∗xm
f f
m=1 m=1
In the above formulation, a nodal COMAC approaching unity indicates well-correlated re-
sults at that node, whereas values tending towards zero indicate that the node does not fit in
well with the various modal vectors.
A useful modification involves normalising all the modes to unity, and subtracting the re-
sulting COMAC from unity, in order that the value obtained for each node is an indication
of its error contribution, insensitive to differences in scaling. This is known as the Enhanced
COMAC (eCOMAC) [184], defined in Equation 8.7.
M
P
d \
φamf −φ xm
f
eCOMACf = m
2M
φa m (8.7)
φd
amf = f
|φam |
φx m
[
φ xmf = f
|φxm |
The eCOMAC has been used as the preferred measure throughout this report, referred to
hereafter simply as the COMAC.
8.3.6 Error Matrix Method
The Error Matrix Method (EMM) is an error localisation and updating method designed
to determine the regions and magnitudes of discrepancies between the experimental and
finite element models, described in [185] and [186]. It does not explicitly presume that the
analytical and FE mass matrices are identical when calculating the stiffness error matrix,
or that when calculating the stiffness error matrix, that the mass matrices are identical, but
there is an implicit link. A general survey of updating methods may be found in [187].
118
This method is applied to yield a stiffness error matrix as below:

∗−1 ∗−1
∆K ≈ Ka Ka − Kx Ka (8.8)
−1
K∗a = φa ωa−2 φTa (8.9)
−1
K∗x = φx ωx−2 φTx (8.10)
where ω 2 , φ, and K are the frequencies (as a diagonal matrix), modeshapes matrix and stiff-
ness matrix respectively, with the a and e suffices denoting analytical and experimental data,
n being the number of freedoms with data available for m modes, and with ∆ indicating an
error matrix.
The formulation for the mass error matrix is:

−1 −1
∆M ≈ Ma M∗a − M∗x Ma (8.11)
−1
Ma∗ = φa φTa (8.12)
−1
M∗x = φx φTx (8.13)
in the same notation, with M as a mass matrix.
These measures may be used to highlight regions of error; the largest (or rms) entry for each
row of the M or K matrix may be plotted at each node as a deflection or scaled marker. They
may be used to update the analytical mass and/or stiffness matrices by:
Kaupdated = Ka + c∆K (8.14)
Maupdated = Ma + c∆M (8.15)
where c is a constant chosen to control the extent to which the matrices are changed.
119
Alternatively, the updating may be performed using the error matrix generated from a subset
of the modes, such that φa and φx in Equation 8.13 is size n × ms where ms is the number
of modes selected for updating.
The updated finite element model may then be reprocessed, and the sequence iterated.
Examples of practical applications of this method are found in [188,189,190,191,192]. [193]

finds the accuracy and convergence of the method potentially sensitive to modal and DOF
incompleteness, as well as to noise.
8.4 Results
This section will present the FE and modal test results, and compare them with each other. A
single FE model corresponding to the baseline build configuration was available for analysis.
Test data for the same case has been compared with the analytical data. In addition, two
further sets of test data have been examined which apply to a different build state.
The results of the various correlation techniques applied are divided into sections by fuse-
lage build state, followed by a section contrasting the build states between each other. Fi-
nally, results using the Error Matrix Method for error localisation and model updating are
presented.
Where COMACs are presented, these are according to the unity-normalised enhanced CO-
MAC formulation described in Equation 8.7.
8.4.1 Baseline build state
8.4.1.1 Model configuration
The baseline build state corresponds to the fuselage without engines or gearboxes. The
FE model geometry is shown in Figure 8.2. The test geometry wireframe model is shown
superimposed on the FE model in Figure 8.3.
8.4.1.2 Modal frequencies
The uncorrelated modal frequencies for the FE analysis and the test are listed in Table 8.2.
The uncorrelated unity-normalised modes are compared using the Modal Assurance Crite-
rion (MAC) in Figure 8.4. The test and FE modes are then correlated using the method
described in Section 8.3.4, and the full resulting MAC is shown in Figure 8.5 and split into
120
its directional components in Figure 8.6 to further illustrate the physical response. The MAC
of the correlated omnidirectional response magnitudes in the same case is shown in Figure
8.7, where the 3 accelerations at each node have been converted to single radii with direc-
tional information discarded. The unity-normalised Coordinate Modal Assurance Criteria
(COMAC) for the correlated modes is plotted in Figure 8.8. To give an idea of the locations
where the COMAC indicates discrepancy, the COMAC is plotted as deflections of associ-
ated nodes in Figure 8.9. In Figure 8.10, the COMAC is displayed as spheres at the nodes
with radius calculated from the x, y and z components.
The correlated modes were also examined using scatterplots, plotting every test node deflec-
tion against the equivalent FE deflection for a particular modeshape. These are shown for
all the test modes in Figures 8.11 to 8.13.
8.4.1.3 Modal vectors
Having removed the rigid body modes, the first twelve modal vectors are shown plotted in
Figures 8.14 and 8.15.
The FE results were compared with the test results, by considering only the FE nodes mea-
sured by the test nodes, and plotting deflections for just the correlated modes. These are
found in Figures 8.16 and 8.17.
8.4.2 Intermediate build state
The results of this section refer to experimental data obtained from the Lynx fuselage in
the ’Intermediate One’ configuration. This is a modification of the baseline configuration
which includes the tail rotor gearbox mass. Two tests were conducted on the fuselage in
this configuration to produce dual sets of frequency response data, ‘Inter1a’ and ‘Inter1b’,
which would therefore be expected to be similar but not identical.
The modal data for all the tests is presented in Table 8.3.
8.4.2.1 Comparing between build states
Initially, the Inter1a test results are compared with the baseline test, to see the effect of the
addition of the gearbox. Figures 8.18, 8.19 and 8.20 show the uncorrelated MAC, correlated
MAC, and COMAC, with the COMAC showed as a set of nodal displacements in Figure
8.21. The latter is followed by an analogous plot of the NCOMAC in Figure 8.31.
The same results are shown for a comparison between the baseline test and the Inter1b test
results in Figures 8.22-8.25.
121
8.4.2.2 Comparing between repeated tests of intermediate build state
In the same way, the Inter1a and Inter1b tests are compared in Figures 8.26 to 8.29.
Figure 8.30 shows a series of different COMACs plotted adjacently. The baseline FE data is
compared with the baseline and two intermediate sets of test results, and the test results are
also compared with each other.
8.4.3 Application of the Error Matrix Method
8.4.3.1 Error localisation and update of baseline FE model with test data
The Error Matrix Method (EMM) was used to obtain error matrices for the comparison
between the baseline FE model and the related test data. These were then used to adjust the
mass and stiffness matrices of the FE model in order to update the dynamic model, and the
effect this had is presented.
The error matrices were calculated, and displayed as local proportional changes in stiffness
and mass at the nodes in Figures 8.33 and 8.34. The uncorrelated and correlated MAC of the
updated model are shown in Figures 8.35 and 8.36 and should be compared with Figures 8.4
and 8.5 which depict the same information before updating. The frequencies of the updated
modal are compared in Table 8.4.
8.4.4 Iterative updating of baseline FE model with test data
An investigation into iterative updating using the EMM method was also carried out. 100
EMM updates were iterated with c = 0.0001 in Equation 8.15, using a selection of six
highly-correlated modes for the updating. Figures 8.37 and 8.38 show the original MAC
between all the correlated modes, and the MAC of the selected correlated modes used for
updating the model.
Figure 8.39 shows how the averaged COMAC changes between updating iterations, nor-
malised to unity by the averaged COMAC at the outset. Figure 8.40 examines the COMAC
at each iteration in more detail. Each coloured trace describes the normalised COMAC
value at each node for a particular iteration, with the nodes ordered by COMAC value for
clarity. The colour of the trace indicates the number of the iteration: the first iterations are
dark red, ranging through deep blue for the final stages. Figure 8.41 examines the frequency
convergence/divergence between the correlated FE and test modes.
After updating, the MAC of the selected correlated modes is described in Figure 8.42, and
the overall MACs between the two datasets is shown in Figure 8.43.
122
8.5 Commentary
This commentary examines the results presented in the previous section. They will be as-
sessed with reference to the objective of achieving agreement between analytical predictions
and test data, locating regions where they agree less closely, and updating the model accord-
ingly. A second emerging objective has been to develop methods for comparing the data in
the most accessible and revealing way possible in the face of large quantities of information.
8.5.1 Comments on baseline results
As mentioned already, the baseline fuselage build state consists of the fuselage stripped
bare of rotors, engines, gearboxes and furnishings, and would therefore be a starting point
for checking agreement with analytical predictions on account of being the simplest case.
Figures 8.2 and 8.3 illustrate the complexity of the FE modelling task. The FE model con-
tains 63792 degrees of freedom and comprises of 20695 elements. The test data were ob-
tained by using 87 accelerometers, measuring all linear accelerations at each of the 29 test
nodes. Where modal data is presented, the low-frequency rigid-body suspension modes
have been previously eliminated.
To start with, the FE modal frequencies (as listed in Table 8.2) agree with those produced
by QinetiQ from the same model, confirming the validity of the FE model importation and
processing methods used. They also appear to match reasonably well with the test frequen-
cies. Of interest is the closeness of the first two FE frequencies. These correspond to the
tail boom bending modes in the lateral and vertical axes. Their closeness stems from the ro-
tational symmetry of the tail boom cross-section. The test results are similar, but separated
slightly more. Also worth attention is the third mode, in the locality of a 20 Hz rotor blade
forcing frequency.
Of greater significance than the bare frequency comparison is the comparison between the
modal vectors themselves. The correlated MAC in Figure 8.5 shows that most of the modes
are in reasonable agreement. An interesting feature arising from the correlation method (as
discussed in Section 8.3.4) is that the 12th test mode is correlated with the 4th FE mode,
despite the large frequency difference between them strongly suggesting that they are un-
related. This could have been prevented through the use of a frequency-based correlation
precondition, but it is notable that the correlation is quite strong between the two. This is
anticipated to be due to spatial aliasing between the limited sensor coverage and the denser
modeshape features, and suggests that the process of sensor placement could be further op-
timised. In addition, the assumption that all axes of linear acceleration are best measured at
all nodes is not necessarily correct; with pre-knowledge of expected responses, alternative
placements might achieve better modal characterisation, although it is recognised that this
123
would further complicate the procedure.
The presentation of the MACs divided up by directional component (Figure 8.6) gives indi-
cations as to which planes the modal vectors mainly lie. It is seen that in every mode, there is
a component-wise MAC which is higher than the overall MAC. The difference between the
two approaches reflects the extent to which the mode coincides with one of the coordinate
system axes.
As an experiment into manipulating the directionality of the information and lessening the
impact of noise at non-significant nodes, the modal vectors were converted from the 29 linear
displacements per axis into 29 displacement magnitudes, by taking the Euclidean norm and
discarding the directional information to produce a displacement radius at each node. These
were then correlated, and the ensuing MAC is shown in Figure 8.7. The MACs are much
increased by this approach, because just the most significant directions dominate at each
node thus reducing the effects of noise in directions of faint response. The disadvantage
is that the MACs between non-paired modes are also exaggerated as less information is
available. This method of analysis has not been further pursued.
Figures 8.8, 8.9 and 8.10 show a COMAC which is generally small, indicating good corre-
lation (see Section 8.3.5 for details). Some discrepancy is shown by the growing values of
COMAC spreading from the base of the tail boom to the tail tip, perhaps suggesting that the
FE stiffness could be improved around the tail boom root, or, less probably, that the mass
towards the end of the tail is in error. This would also be due to coupling between the close
tail modes. COMACs are least in the x (longitudinal) direction; this is a consequence of the
length of the structure causing the lower-frequency modes to tend to be in lateral and ver-
tical bending or longitudinal torsion, and hence to have small responses in the longitudinal
direction.
The modal scatterplots (Figures 8.11 to 8.13) give a more visual description of how the
correlated MAC values are to be interpreted; they show how well the nodal displacements
conform to the overall modal scaling factor gradient, and also which directions are most
important. The lower-frequency modes conform quite tightly, notwithstanding a small num-
ber of out-lying nodes, whereas the higher modes are aligned more loosely. Looking at the
MAC values alone does not reveal this as clearly, due to the way in which the out-lying
nodes cause the variance to be exaggerated.
The full-model FE modeshapes (Figures 8.14 and 8.15) show a predominance of bending
modes laterally and vertically, compounded with tail boom rotational response. Modes 5
and 7 show visually how the fuselage door cut-outs have resulted in locally-increased tor-
sional and shear flexibility, and all modes up to the 10th show the tail as moving with large
amplitude. If therefore there were to be any areas where small errors in modelling the mass
could have a large effect, it would be at the tail. The same would apply with stiffness errors
at the horizontal tailplane joint and in the boom.
124
To visually check that these agree well with the test modeshapes, they were reduced down
to the scale of the test wireframe and shown in Figures 8.16 and 8.17, and this reinforces
what has already been seen from the MACs. The ninth and last mode is the 12th test mode
correlated with the 4th FE mode as previously discussed; although this mode pairing is not
physically justified by their response frequencies, it is now apparent why their MAC was
high. Most of the fuselage moves little in both the modes, whereas the large tail motion is
very similar in both.
8.5.2 Comparisons between the baseline and intermediate build test

data
A study is now made between the test results for the different build states, with the aim
of being able to identify the shifts of behaviour which result from the altered structure.
In addition, the results are hoped to reveal not only where on the structure the behaviour is
different, but also the area of the structure which gives rise to the different behavior. Changes
in mass or stiffness may not necessarily be most reflected by local behavioural changes, but
result in global frequency shifts and redirection of the entire modal vector.
Three sets of data are compared: the test of the baseline configuration, and two independent
tests of the fuselage in the intermediate build state, dubbed ’Inter1a’ and ’Inter1b’. In the
intermediate build, the tail rotor and gearbox have been added to the baseline configuration,
and the two latter tests are of the same configuration around the same time, but at different
occasions with different equipment setups. Inter1a and Inter1b are also examined together
to give insights into the variability inherent in the testing process, which is often assumed to
be beyond question for the purpose of comparisons with analytical data.
8.5.2.1 Examination of differences between the build states
The list of the modes identified from the three sets of test data (Table 8.3) show a trend of
lowered frequencies in the intermediate build case due to the added mass. The first four
modes still match quite closely, but beyond that, it is not obvious which modes correspond
until the modal vectors are compared. More modes are listed in the intermediate case be-
cause only resonances at less than 100 Hz were identified for analysis, and the extra mass
lowered additional modes into the range.
The following comparison of modal vectors, whilst indicating which modes are the most
similar, is not intended to imply that corresponding vectors are inherently identical. All the
vectors will have been affected, to greater or lesser extents depending on their baseline am-
plitudes at the tail rotor and gearbox attachment locations. Another effect could be tail boom
stress stiffening from the additional gravitational loading of the added masses; further tests
125
would be required in order to isolate this, perhaps by repeating the test with the intermediate
build fuselage banked over by 90 or 180 degrees if suspension methods allow.
Figures 8.18 and 8.19 illustrate the way in which only a handful of the modes remain rea-
sonably unchanged in nature and correlate well. Using just the modes which were matched
up (in the latter Figure), the COMAC has been calculated. Because the number of modes
used here (six) is less than in previous COMAC calculations (nine for the baseline test and
FE analysis) the value of the COMAC appears larger, or more specifically, would be larger
for for the same dataset in inverse proportion to the ratio of the number of nodes used. The
significance of this observation is that comparing overall values would not be appropriate,
although it remains valid to note which nodes contribute most and least. Here, it is seen that
most of the values are relatively low apart from 3 adjacent bars, which correspond to the x,
y and z components at the tip of the tail, sugesting that even the modal vectors which are
least affected by the addition of the extra mass are nevertheless locally changed around the
tail. This is seen in the spatial depiction of the same data in Figure 8.21.
The subsequent Figures 8.22 to 8.25 shows a very similar picture, comparing the baseline
test and Inter1b test results. As Inter1a and Inter1b are equivalent tests on the same structure,
these results would ideally be identical to those discussed in the previous paragraph, but
some differences are seen. The first five correlated modes have been paired up in the same
way, but the sixth is correlated differently and the seventh did not feature. This last mode
also shows significant spatial aliasing, and the associated frequency separation (Table 8.3)
comfirms that this pairing is not likely to be physically meaningful.
8.5.2.2 Examination of differences between the equivalent tests
Figures 8.26 to 8.29 compare the results from the equivalent tests Inter1a and Inter1b. All
differences are purely attributable to the variability of the process of setting up the test,
measuring the frequency response functions and identifying the modal parameters.
As the results are similar, nearly all the modes correlate with corresponding modes. The only
exceptions are modes 11 and 14 of the Inter1a test data. Inter1a mode 11 is only separated
in frequency by 0.21 Hz from Inter1a mode 12, and their modal vectors seem only very
slightly different as quantified by their MAC values. If these are indeed separate modes,
their vectors are insufficiently defined in the spatial domain to distinguish them.
8.5.2.3 Comment on the comparison of COMACs
If COMACs between various paired sets of data are to be compared, it must be recognised
that each COMAC is a function not only of the quality of the correspondence of modal
vectors used in its calculation, but also of the number of correlated modes for which data is
126
compared. This is because the COMAC is essentially a measurement of the variance of n

samples of nodal displacement at a node, with n as the number of modal vectors available
after correlation. If nodal displacement is considered to be a normally distributed random
variable, according to the central limit theorem, the variance of a set of samples is inversely
proportional to the number of samples.
In order to fairly compare COMACs which have been generated from differing numbers of
correlated mode pairs, it is proposed that the COMAC be modified by multiplying by n to
produce the ‘NCOMAC’.
An example of what this achieved is presented in Table 8.5. This shows the maximum
COMAC and NCOMAC found at any node in the baseline, Inter1a and Inter1b test datasets;
these all occurred in the z direction at the tailplane tip node.
If this process is applied to the COMAC data in Figure 8.30 it becomes Figure 8.31, which
clearly shows a different error scaling for each dataset.
8.5.3 Error localisation
It has already been concluded that the COMACs (plotted together in Figure 8.30) point to
observed differences between modal vectors in the tail area.
To clarify the regions of observed modal vector error between the baseline test and FE
results, the three COMACs for each freedom at each node have had their Euclidean norm
taken and displayed as the radius of a sphere drawn with its centre at the node, superimposed
on the wireframe (Figure 8.32).
The stiffness and mass error matrices which cause these discrepancies, according to the
Error Matrix Method (EMM), are shown in a similar fashion in Figures 8.33 and 8.34. The
radius of each sphere is the Euclidean norm of an error component in each direction; these
error components were themselves Euclidean norms of the corresponding rows in the error
matrix so as to take account of coupling terms.
The stiffness plot does not seem physically accurate, as it implies that stiffness errors are at
the tip of the tail, as opposed to at the root of the tail boom. The mass error matrix plot makes
more sense; an error in mass at the tail tip could well produce the differences observed.
Another possible explanation is that the region of the horizontal tailplane outboard tip may
contain FE modelling errors, suggested by uneven deflections in the 5th, 6th, 7th and 10th
FE elastic modes (Figures 8.14 and 8.15). As the tip displacements are used for comparison
with test data, a small local irregularity will tend to have more significant consequences
when incorporated into the reduced model.
Considering the derivation of the EMM presented in [185], it is stated that for the calculation
127
of ∆K (or ∆M), it need not be assumed that the analytical mass (or stiffness) matrix is iden-
tical to the experimental. However, the implied direct reference via the modal vectors and
frequencies which is subsequently described in the reference might suggest a slightly dif-
ferent way of looking at the error matrices. It is expected that if, for example, the analytical
and experimental models had very similar mass matrices but dissimilar stiffness matrices,
the resulting ∆K would be accurate, as the calculation implicitly requires the mass matrices
to be similar. However, for the resulting ∆M the same does not apply, so ∆M would not be
as meaningful as ∆K.
In the case here, it is necessary to determine the source of the error. A reasonable starting
assumption might be that the test data is more accurate than the FE data, being based on
actual observed behavior. If the error was to be considered as mainly mass- or stiffness-
related, it is easier to model and verify that the elemental masses in the FE model are correct
than it is to do the equivalent for the stiffness, so a stiffness error would be more likely.
However, in this case, the EMM would indicate that the error is mass related. The stiffness
error at the tail tip does not explain the general error at the tip, which might imply that it is
erroneous as a result of having been based on the indirect assumption that the mass matrices
are similar. If it could be safely assumed that the mass matrices were most in error and that
the stiffnesses were similar, Figure 8.34 could be viewed with more confidence than Figure
8.33.
8.5.4 Model updating
Some experiments were conducted to determine useful ways of applying the EMM updating
technique. A single-stage method and an iterative method were tried.
8.5.4.1 Single-stage EMM update
Figures 8.5 and 8.36 show the MAC before and after updating; the 1st, 7th, 8th and 9th cor-
related modes have been improved significantly. This update was accomplished by adding
a fraction of the error matrices onto the FE mass and stiffness matrices, the fraction being
0.004, with the error matrices calculated using only the first two modes.
The errors in frequency, as shown in Table 8.4, are sharply reduced for the first two modes,
and relatively unchanged elsewhere, further indicating convergence.
In this example the method has been successful. An area of further work would be the
development of a formal process of selecting appropriate modes and updating coefficients
in such a way as to guarantee a positive outcome; it has been found that model convergence
can be sensitive to these factors.
128
8.5.4.2 Iterative EMM update
An investigation was conducted exploring the possibility of repeating the single-stage up-
dating process detailed above in the hope that the FE model would converge onto the test
results. As in the single-stage process, there were many different possible choices which
could be made regarding the updating fraction (c in Equation 8.15) and which modes were
selected, as well as additional options in terms of how many times each particular mode is
updated, and the order in which different modes are approached.
The model was updated using 100 iterative applications of the EMM updating equation,
each with an updating fraction of 0.0001 (c in Equation 8.15). The modes selected to update
the model were modes 1, 2, 3, 5, 7 and 8, being those showing good correlation in the
plot of the MAC between the test and the initial FE model (Figure 8.37) and are displayed
separately in Figure 8.38.
To quantify progress, the COMAC at each stage was averaged across the nodes, and nor-
malised by the COMAC of the original FE model (Figure 8.39). This shows a progressive
reduction of COMAC error punctuated by occasional rapid step changes. Although the
terminal COMAC is higher than the initial, it can be seen that with the addition of appropri-
ate conditions for accepting successive updating stages, the lowered values obtained partly
through the process could be retained.
The nodal distribution of the changes in COMAC is depicted in Figure 8.40, showing the
range at initial (in dark red) to final (in dark blue) iterations. In the graph, the nodes are
ordered so as to give distributions of increasing COMAC for clarity. The initial iterations
(red to yellow) show that while the COMAC increases at some nodes, it decreases for the
strong majority. After some sharp changes, the seperated yellow and green to light-blue
ranges of traces show a worse distribution, with less than half the nodes benefiting from the
updating. By the end, it has improved slightly, although not beyond the initial state.
In frequency terms, Figure 8.41 shows how well the frequencies compare for each corre-
lated mode updated. Initially, three out of the seven modes are diverging, but by the end,
all except Mode 8 are convergent. Here, as well as in other similar tests conducted, the
convergence/divergence is seen to be somewhat piecewise as the solution progressed, but as
mentioned previously, this could potentially be overcome by selective acceptance of updates
or adjustment of the updating parameter according to the local solution gradient.
Comparison of Figures 8.42 and 8.38 show a strong improvement in the MAC of the first
three modes selected for updating. Two of the other three improve less dramatically, and the
remaining one worsens marginally. Comparing the effect of the updating on the model as a
whole, the change between Figures 8.43 and 8.37 is also very positive. Not only are MACs
improved, but the mode pairing resulting from the correlation process matches different
combinations of modes to each other; most notably, the physically inaccurate pairing of the
129
12th test mode with the 4th FE mode has given way to a more realistic mutual pairing of the
4th modes.
8.6 Concluding remarks
The modal test results were found to agree broadly with the finite element predictions. Areas
of local modal vector discrepancy were identified using the COMAC. However, confidence
is limited in the EMM-predicted location of model property differences, with the results
seeming erratic.
The variability of the process of dynamic testing and modal extraction was identified through
analysis of a repeated test on an unchanged structure. It was found to be small, but poten-
tially significant if multiple close modes were to be compared.
The ability of the spatial distribution of the accelerometers to describe sufficiently differing
modes was assessed, and it was found that the mode pairs 8/9 and 11/12 (baseline case)
were nearly indistinguishable from each other. Spatial aliasing was also observed in the test
data between baseline mode 12 and the 7th mode for the intermediate build case, resulting
in high measures of correlation despite widely differing frequency and damping ratio mea-
sures. It is concluded that further optimisation of sensor placement may yield fuller mode
characterisation.
The Error Matrix Method was used to update the FE model, resulting in significantly im-
proved agreement. Both single-step and iterative schemes were explored, and it was con-
cluded that successful updating is achievable, although strongly dependent on the details of
the procedure.
Further testing could establish the degree to which the tail boom is affected by stress stiff-
ening due to the added rotor and gearbox mass in the intermediate build.
Further work would be necessary in order to apply more advanced methods of error locali-
sation and to update the model using alternative methods more heavily based on physically
significant criteria.
In recognition of the dependence of COMAC values on the number of modes used in its
calculation, the ‘NCOMAC’ refinement has been proposed which allows COMAC values to
be compared in cases with differing numbers of constitutive modes.
130
8.7 Figures
Figure 8.1: View of Lynx airframe
Dataset Name Description

FE baseline Finite Element model and results for the baseline build case
Test baseline Modal test results for the baseline build case
Test Inter1a First set of modal test results for the ‘Intermediate One’ build case
Test Inter1b Second set of modal test results for the ‘Intermediate One’ build case
Table 8.1: Summary of datasets examined
131
Figure 8.2: Full finite element model, undeflected
Figure 8.3: Full undeflected wireframe FE model showing test nodes and wireframe
132
Mode Number FE frequency Test frequency Test damping

1: 13.29 Hz 12.45 Hz 0.7 %
2: 13.95 Hz 13.29 Hz 0.5 %
3: 19.63 Hz 18.52 Hz 0.8 %
4: 22.86 Hz 19.84 Hz 0.7 %
5: 35.19 Hz 32.67 Hz 1.6 %
6: 38.56 Hz 36.91 Hz 1.1 %
7: 47.02 Hz 50.36 Hz 2.4 %
8: 56.18 Hz 52.36 Hz 1.9 %
9: 58.23 Hz 54.87 Hz 1.8 %
10: 63.92 Hz 64.76 Hz 1.9 %
11: 70.39 Hz 67.88 Hz 1.2 %
12: 71.38 Hz 98.49 Hz 2.2 %
Table 8.2: List of uncorrelated FE and test modes
133
MAC
1
1
0.9
2
3 0.8
4 0.7
5
0.6
Baseline FE
6
0.5
7
0.4
8
9 0.3
10 0.2
11
0.1
12
0
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
Baseline test
Figure 8.4: MAC plot of uncorrelated test and FE modes
Correlated MAC
1
1
0.9
2
0.8
3
0.7
5 0.6
Baseline FE
6 0.5
7 0.4
0.3
8
0.2
10
0.1
4
0
1 2 3 5 6 7 8 10 12
Baseline test
Figure 8.5: MAC plot of correlated test and FE modes
134
MACS for correlated baseline test and extracted FE modeshapes from full FE model
1
0.9
0.8
0.7
0.6 x
y
z
0.5 All
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
0
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Figure 8.6: Principal MAC between baseline test and FE results, shown by component
direction
Correlated MAC
1
2
0.9
0.8
3
0.7
0.6
4
Baseline FE
0.5
6
0.4
0.3
7
0.2
0.1
8
0
2 3 4 6 7 8
Baseline test
Figure 8.7: MAC of correlated omnidirectional response magnitudes
135
Plot of COMAC between baseline FE results and baseline test data as nodal displacements
0.25
0.2
0.15
COMAC
0.1
0.05
0
106 153 155 160 173 202 211 218 224 236 238 268 272 339 359 364 379 414 426 446 50 508 53 65 696 700 731 744 97
Test node id (x,y and z)
Figure 8.8: COMAC plot of correlated modes
Figure 8.9: COMAC between baseline test and FE results plotted as nodal deflections
136
Figure 8.10: COMAC between baseline test and FE indicated by marker size
Scatter plot between correlated mode pair 1 Scatter plot between correlated mode pair 2
0.3 0.3
0.2 0.2
FE mode 1 @ 13.29 Hz
0.1 0.1
0 0
−0.1 −0.1
−0.2 X nodes −0.2 X nodes

Y nodes Y nodes
−0.3 Z nodes −0.3 Z nodes
MSF fit MSF fit
−0.4 −0.4
−0.2 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 −0.4 −0.2 0 0.2 0.4
Test mode 1 @ 12.45 Hz Test mode 2 @ 13.29 Hz
0.6 0.25
0.2
0.4
0.15
0.2 0.1
0 0.05
X nodes 0 X nodes
Y nodes Y nodes
−0.2
Z nodes −0.05 Z nodes
MSF fit MSF fit
−0.4 −0.1
−0.5 0 0.5 −0.1 0 0.1 0.2 0.3
Figure 8.11: Scatterplot between correlated test and FE baseline modes 1-4
137
0.3 0.06
0.04
0.2
0.02
0.1 0
0 −0.02
X nodes −0.04 X nodes
Y nodes Y nodes
−0.1
Z nodes −0.06 Z nodes
MSF fit MSF fit
−0.2 −0.08
−0.2 −0.1 0 0.1 0.2 −0.1 −0.05 0 0.05 0.1
0.2 0.15
0.15
FE mode 10 @ 63.92 Hz
0.1
0.1
0.05 0.05
0 0
−0.05 X nodes X nodes
Y nodes Y nodes
−0.05
−0.1 Z nodes Z nodes
MSF fit MSF fit
−0.15 −0.1
−0.1 −0.05 0 0.05 0.1 −0.1 −0.05 0 0.05 0.1
Figure 8.12: Scatterplot between correlated test and FE baseline modes 5-8
Scatter plot between correlated mode pair 9

0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
X nodes
Y nodes
0
Z nodes
MSF fit
−0.2
−0.1 0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4
Test mode 12 @ 98.49 Hz
Figure 8.13: Scatterplot between correlated test and FE baseline mode 9
138
Figure 8.14: Full FE modeshapes 1-6
139
Figure 8.15: Full FE modeshapes 7-12
140
Figure 8.16: Baseline FE (blue) and test (green) modeshapes 1-6
141
Figure 8.17: Baseline FE (blue) and test (green) modeshapes 7-9
142
Mode Test baseline Test Inter1a Test Inter1b

1: 12.45 Hz 0.7 % 9.79 Hz 0.6 % 9.76 Hz 0.6 %
2: 13.29 Hz 0.5 % 10.28 Hz 0.6 % 10.24 Hz 0.6 %
3: 18.52 Hz 0.8 % 14.56 Hz 0.7 % 14.46 Hz 0.7 %
4: 19.84 Hz 0.7 % 18.88 Hz 1.1 % 18.84 Hz 0.6 %
5: 32.67 Hz 1.6 % 22.81 Hz 1.7 % 22.51 Hz 1.6 %
6: 36.91 Hz 1.1 % 23.98 Hz 1.7 % 23.53 Hz 1.9 %
7: 50.36 Hz 2.4 % 27.33 Hz 1.4 % 26.95 Hz 2.1 %
8: 52.36 Hz 1.9 % 31.82 Hz 4.7 % 30.79 Hz 5.4 %
9: 54.87 Hz 1.8 % 42.91 Hz 1.9 % 42.14 Hz 2.3 %
10: 64.76 Hz 1.9 % 55.37 Hz 1.2 % 54.61 Hz 2.3 %
11: 67.88 Hz 1.2 % 62.99 Hz 2.4 % 62.26 Hz 2.7 %
12: 98.49 Hz 2.2 % 63.20 Hz 2.5 % 66.01 Hz 2.8 %
13: 66.86 Hz 3.0 %
14: 87.50 Hz 1.6 %
Table 8.3: Frequency and damping of uncorrelated test modes
143
MAC
1
1
2 0.9
3
0.8
4
0.7
5
6 0.6
Inter1a test
7
0.5
8
9 0.4
10
0.3
11
0.2
12
13 0.1
14
0
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
Baseline test
Figure 8.18: MAC between uncorrelated baseline test and Inter1a test results
Correlated MAC
1
1
0.9
0.8
3
0.7
0.6
4
Inter1a test
0.5
8
0.4
0.3
9
0.2
0.1
12
0
2 3 4 5 7 11
Baseline test
Figure 8.19: Correlated MAC between baseline test and Inter1a test results
144
Plot of COMAC between baseline test and Inter1a test

0.4
0.35
0.3
0.25
COMAC
0.2
0.15
0.1
0.05
0
106 153 155 160 173 202 211 218 224 236 238 268 272 339 359 364 379 414 426 446 50 508 53 65 696 700 731 744 97
Figure 8.20: COMAC between baseline and Inter1a tests
Figure 8.21: COMAC between baseline and Inter1a tests, as nodal displacements
145
MAC
1
1
0.9
2
3 0.8
4 0.7
5
0.6
Inter1b test
6
0.5
7
0.4
8
9 0.3
10 0.2
11
0.1
12
0
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
Baseline test
Figure 8.22: Uncorrelated MAC between baseline and Inter1b test results
Correlated MAC
1
1
0.9
3 0.8
0.7
4
0.6
Inter1b test
8 0.5
0.4
9
0.3
11
0.2
0.1
7
0
2 3 4 5 7 11 12
Baseline test
Figure 8.23: Correlated MAC between baseline and Inter1b test results
146
Plot of COMAC between baseline test and Inter1b test

0.35
0.3
0.25
0.2
COMAC
0.15
0.1
0.05
0
106 153 155 160 173 202 211 218 224 236 238 268 272 339 359 364 379 414 426 446 50 508 53 65 696 700 731 744 97
Figure 8.24: COMAC between baseline and Inter1b tests
Figure 8.25: COMAC between baseline and Inter1b tests, as nodal displacements
147
MAC 1
1
0.9
2
0.8
3
4 0.7
5
0.6
Inter1b test
6
0.5
7
0.4
8
9 0.3
10
0.2
11
0.1
12
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 0
Inter1a test
Figure 8.26: Uncorrelated MAC between Inter1a and Inter1b tests
Correlated MAC
1
1
0.9
2
3 0.8
4 0.7
5
0.6
Inter1b test
6
0.5
7
0.4
8
9 0.3
10 0.2
11
0.1
12
0
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 12 13
Inter1a test
Figure 8.27: Correlated MAC between Inter1a and Inter1b tests
148
Plot of COMAC between Inter1a and Inter1b test datasets

0.05
0.045
0.04
0.035
0.03
COMAC
0.025
0.02
0.015
0.01
0.005
0
106 153 155 160 173 202 211 218 224 236 238 268 272 339 359 364 379 414 426 446 50 508 53 65 696 700 731 744 97
Figure 8.28: COMAC between Inter1a and Inter1b tests
Figure 8.29: COMAC between Inter1a and Inter1b tests, as nodal displacements
149
Comparison of COMACs from different dataset combinations
0.25
COMAC
0.2
0.15
Inter1 test a Vs b
0.1
FE base Vs Test Inter1b

0.05
FE base Vs Test Inter1a

0
106 153 155 160 173 202 211

218 224 236 238 268 272 339 FE base Vs Test base
359 364 379 414 426 446 50 508 53 65 696 700 731 744 97
Figure 8.30: Comparison of COMACs between various paired datasets
Comparison of NCOMACS from different dataset combinations
1.8
1.6
NCOMAC
1.4
1.2
0.8
0.6 Inter1 tests a&b

0.4
FE Baseline Vs Test Inter1b
0.2
0 FE Baseline Vs Test Inter1a

106 153 155 160 173 202
211 218 224 236 238 268
272 339 359 364 379 414 FE Baseline Vs Test Baseline
426 446 50 508 53 65
696 700 731 744 97
Figure 8.31: Comparison of NCOMACs between various paired datasets
150
Figure 8.32: Plot of COMAC between baseline FE and baseline test
151
Figure 8.33: EMM indication of magnitude of local proportional stiffness error between
baseline FE and test.
Figure 8.34: EMM indication of magnitude of local proportional mass error between base-
line FE and test.
Mode Number Baseline Test Baseline FE Updated Baseline FE ∆ abs freq error
1: 12.45 Hz 13.38 Hz 12.77Hz -66.1%
2: 13.29 Hz 14.02 Hz 13.62 Hz -54.2%
3: 18.52 Hz 19.72 Hz 19.72 Hz 0.0%
5: 32.67 Hz 35.62 Hz 35.63 Hz 0.3%
6: 36.91 Hz 39.51 Hz 39.53 Hz 0.9%
7: 50.36 Hz 48.08 Hz 48.09 Hz -0.2%
8: 52.36 Hz 58.46 Hz 58.46 Hz 0.0%
Table 8.4: Comparison of frequencies before and after single-stage EMM updating
152
MAC
1
1
0.9
2
3 0.8
4 0.7
5
Updated Baseline FE
0.6
6
0.5
7
0.4
8
9 0.3
10 0.2
11
0.1
12
0
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
Baseline test
Figure 8.35: Uncorrelated MAC between EMM-updated FE model and test, baseline case.
Correlated MAC
1
1
0.9
2
0.8
3
0.7
Updated Baseline FE
5 0.6
6 0.5
7 0.4
0.3
8
0.2
9
0.1
4
0
1 2 3 5 6 7 8 10 12
Baseline test
Figure 8.36: Correlated MAC between EMM-updated FE model and test, baseline case.
153
Correlated MAC before updating

1
1
0.9
2
0.8
3
0.7
FE data before updating
5 0.6
6 0.5
7 0.4
0.3
8
0.2
9
0.1
4
0
1 2 3 5 6 7 8 10 12
Test data
Figure 8.37: MAC of all correlated modes before iterative updating
Datasets compared Number of correlated modes COMAC NCOMAC

Baseline against Inter1a 6 0.36 2.16
Baseline against Inter1b 7 0.28 1.96
Inter1a against Inter1b 12 0.0465 0.558
Table 8.5: Maximum values of COMAC and NCOMAC for test datasets
154
Correlated MAC of selected modes before iterative updating

1
1
0.9
0.8
2
Correlated FE modes before updating
0.7
0.6
3
0.5
4
0.4
0.3
5
0.2
0.1
6
0
1 2 3 4 5 6
Correlated test modes
Figure 8.38: Initial MAC of correlated modes selected to update the model
First−iteration−normalised average COMAC

1.6
1.4
1.2
Normalised COMAC average
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0
0 20 40 60 80 100 120
Iteration
Figure 8.39: Normalised average COMAC
155
Distribution of first−iteration−normalised COMAC values at successive iterations

(Initial iterations in dark red, through to final iterations in dark blue.)
3
2.5
2
COMAC index
1.5
0.5
0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90
Nodes, sorted by COMAC value
Figure 8.40: Normalised distribution of COMAC across the nodes by iteration
Normalised frequency error at each iteration for each correlated mode pair
1.8
Mode 1
Mode 2
1.6 Mode 3
Mode 5
Mode 7
Mode 8
1.4
1.2
Normalised frequency error
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
Iteration number
Figure 8.41: Normalised absolute frequency error
156
Correlated MAC after iterative updating

1
1
0.9
0.8
Correlated FE modes after updating 2
0.7
0.6
3
0.5
4
0.4
0.3
5
0.2
0.1
6
0
1 2 3 4 5 6
Correlated test modes
Figure 8.42: MAC of selected correlated modes after iterative updating
Correlated MAC after updating

1
1
0.9
2
0.8
3
0.7
4 0.6
Updated FE data
5 0.5
6 0.4
0.3
7
0.2
8
0.1
9
0
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 10
Test data
Figure 8.43: MAC of all correlated modes after iterative updating
157
Chapter 9
Conclusions and recommendations for

further work
This chapter summarises the conclusions drawn from the various results of this work. The
second section discusses some of the issues arising from this work, and presents new avenues
of exploration.
9.1 Conclusions
The survey of rotorcraft vibration causes and reduction showed that recent trends in smart
materials improvements will enable a number of new vibration reduction methods to be
implemented. The deployment of aerodynamic surfaces on the rotor, in particular trailing-
edge flaps, appears to be the most effective active approach, offering a tenfold reduction in
vibratory loading. Such methods require elaborate stroke amplification mechanisms in order
to make use of piezostack actuators, and careful design is required to ensure a minimum
of hinge losses occurs whilst operating in around 700g of centripetal acceleration. The
main challenge has been in achieving adequate flap deflection, although new single-crystal
piezomaterials show five times the strain energy density of existing piezomaterials and look
set to increase greatly the effectiveness of such an approach.
The exploration of the adaptive Minimal Control Synthesis (MCS) algorithm showed it to
adapt and track well. The controller gains tend to wind up and can be theoretically un-
bounded, giving rise to control signal saturation in practical situations; several variations had
previously been suggested with the aim of suppressing this behaviour. Three new schemes
were proposed, and applied to the positional control of a DC servomotor along with the other
schemes. Two of the three new schemes, BUMCS and GLMCS-N, represented significant
improvements over existing variants: the former completely halted wind-up while using
the full range of authority available, and the latter greatly supressed it with superior track-
158
Chapter 9. Conclusions and recommendations for further work
ing performance. BUMCS therefore opens up the MCS algorithm to continuously adaptive
online use without the destabilisation associated with gradual wind-up. The third scheme
proposed here, HOTMCS, did not perform as well, but this is expected to be due to the noise
sensitivity of the new derivative term. It is concluded that while the tracking performance
of the original MCS scheme is hard to beat, BUMCS is the scheme of choice owing to the
necessity of wind-up prevention in continuously adaptive applications.
The manual trial-and-error procedure for selecting the MCS adaption rate parameters α and
β was seen as an area for possible optimisation. To this end, genetic algorithms and sim-
ulated annealing techniques were applied to reduce the integrated tracking error of a test
on a custom-built circuit. The simulated annealing approach was more effective than the
genetic algorithm approach, requiring less cost function evaluations in order to find a global
minimum, but this is expected to be a consequence of the implementation specifics rather
than a general result. The optimum parameter values found did result in an improvement
over iterative manual parameter selection. However, both optimisation processes were time-
consuming, and the optimum value found would be different for tests of longer duration,
so unless the controller is required to operate adaptively for a known and fixed term, man-
ual selection remains a satisfactory method. If the controlled plant is linear time invariant
with no disturbances, the performance of the controller once the gains have converged is
independent of the adaption rate parameters, so precise value selection is not crucial. If
however there are external disturbances, or the plant is nonlinear, the choice of adaption
parameters affects whether the controller gains adapt slowly over many reference cycles, or
whether the gains adapt throughout each reference cycle. If the latter is the case, tracking
performance is enhanced, although with accelerated wind-up or instability requiring the use
of additional anti-windup schemes as previously discussed. The choice of adaption rates
therefore becomes significant and worth optimising.
The dynamic substructuring of the test circuit showed the feasibility of the method for sys-
tems with dynamics faster than the seismic subjects mostly featured in the literature. This
method shows potential for reshaping the process of rotorcraft dynamic design and testing,
in that the rotor may be tested without the fuselage (or vice versa) whilst replicating realistic
dynamics. The additional flexibility would enable, for example, the properties of a virtual
fuselage to be changed at the touch of a button halfway through a substructured rotor test.
The challenges of such a process will principally lie in constructing and interfacing a trans-
fer system with adequate actuation force and bandwidth, and in controlling it to track the
numerical model accurately enough for the results to be valid up to the highest frequency
required.
The modal test of the Lynx fuselage revealed that the process has grounds for improve-
ment. Two tests of the same structure under the same conditions produced varying results,
a consequence of operator subjectivity while extracting parameters from modal test FRFs.
However, the recently-developed Interleaved Spectral Excitation Technique (INSET) was
159
applied and shown to agree with the transfer functions obtained from previous multi-point
random tests, albeit with a slight shift in frequencies attributable to structural nonlinearity
(as seen by amplitude-dependent behaviour). INSET has the advantage of spreading the ex-
citation energy more evenly throughout the test structure, thus lessening the occurrence of
large-amplitude responses and possible emergent nonlinearity or damage. The amplitude-
dependence of the structure was demonstrated, with possible cubic softening taking place.
The finite element (FE) model of the Lynx fuselage broadly correlated with the test results.
However, modes associated with tail boom bending did not align well. This is expected to be
due to FE modelling errors, exacerbated by heightened sensitivity owing to boom axisym-
metry. Some other modal vectors, notably the 7th baseline test and 12th ‘inter1’ test modes,
correlated highly in spite of widely separated eigenfrequencies. Such misleading correlation
stems from spatial aliasing, and indicates that the practice of hand-picking response mea-
surement locations is best optimised in order to characterise the modes more revealingly. In
the process of comparing COMAC values between correlations based on different numbers
of modes, it was found necessary to introduce a new measure, the NCOMAC, in order to
normalise the effect of different quantities of data on variance, and hence on the COMAC.
9.2 Further work
The MCS variants introduced show improvements over existing schemes as already dis-
cussed. Tests on a wider range of systems would further support these results. Further test-
ing of HOTMCS with lowpass filtering of the error signal may reveal performance benefits
unseen in the servomotor tests.
If MCS is to be applied to strongly nonlinear or noisy systems, such as shape memory alloy
actuators for online rotor blade trim tab tracking, the choice of adaption rate parameters
may strongly affect performance. It would be advantageous to be able to relate optimum
adaption rates to a knowledge of the plant nonlinearities, or frequency content of the noise.
The control systems were implemented on a PC with data acquisition hardware. While
being convenient for initial testing and assessment, it would be desirable to implement an
MCS-based controller on a small digital signal processor complete with preset parameters
or a method of simple reconfiguration. This may run more expeditiously, with none of the
overheads associated with Windows PCs or development environments, would be less bulky,
and may be built into controlled structures.
Following on from the dynamic substructuring of the test circuit, the process could be re-
peated with a physical test subject with similarly rapid dynamics. This would introduce
additional complexity to the task of controlling the output of the transfer system. A strongly
nonlinear test subject and limited actuation authority would then place further demands on
160
the transfer system controller; if this were conducted at sampling frequencies of kHz with
multiple freedoms and complex numerical dynamics, it could be concluded that the tech-
nique is ready for industrial application.
The modal testing process was seen to be subject to variance on account of the necessity
of including a human operator at the parameter extraction stage. Even if this problem was
solved, the variation of structural properties with temperature, age, loading, service, con-
figuration, build and damage implies that the performance of structures will be highly indi-
vidual in any case. Rather than exactly identifying particular structures, design approaches
towards minimising the sensitivity of modal response to such factors would result in greater
and more robust separation of resonances.
The success of the Error Matrix Method (EMM) of finite element model updating was found
to be sensitive to a number of parameters. Further investigation might result in an algorith-
mic application of the method in any given situation for optimal results. Direct comparison
of EMM with other updating techniques, as applied to a range of varied situations, would
establish relative effectiveness.
The importance of static loading during modal testing could be investigated. When tested,
the fuselage was statically suspended from the rotor hub. However, in operation, the aero-
dynamic moments produced by the tail rotor and tailplane would induce stress-stiffening
effects and shift the modal characteristics, potentially resulting in an increased level of vi-
bration. Further tests could confirm the extent of this effect, and could be compared with
finite element model predictions to assess the accuracy of the model.
161
Appendix A
Norm definition
The p-norm of a vector x is defined as

" # p1
X
kxkp = xpi (A.1)
i
with common choices of p being 1, 2 (for the Euclidean norm), and ∞.
162
Appendix B
Definition of SPR condition
Definition 1
A rational transfer function G(s) of the complex variable s = σ + jω with real coefficients
is positive real (PR) if and only if the following conditions hold:
• G(s) has no poles in the open right half of the s-plane;
• any poles at infinity or on the imaginary axis are distinct with associated null or posi-
tive residues; and,
• for all real w for which s = jω are not poles of G(s), <(G(jω) ≥ 0.
Definition 2
The same function G(s) is strictly positive real (SPR) if it has both no poles in the closed
right half plane, and if <(G(jω)) ≥ 0.
Property 1
If G(s) = n(s)/d(s) is a PR function, then:
1. n(s) and d(s) have real coefficients.
2. 1/G(s) is also a PR function.
3. n(s) and d(s) are Hurwitz polynomials (i.e. they verify the Hurwitz criterion and their
zeros have negative real parts).
4. The order of n(s) does not differ from the order of d(s) by more than ±1.
163
Chapter B. Definition of SPR condition
Property 2
If G1 (s) and G2 (s) are SPR functions, then:
1. α1 G1 (s) + α2 G2 (s) is positive real, if α1 ,α2 ∈ <+ > 0.

1
2. 1+G1 (s)G2 (s)
is positive real.
164
Appendix C
Stability definitions
C.1 Classical stability
( [134, pp344-346]). Consider the unperturbed continuous-time system
ẋ = f(x, t) t ≥ 0 (C.1)
which has an equibilibrium condition at the origin for all t ≥ 0 .
Definition 1
The equilibrium point at the origin is stable, or stable in the sense of Lyapunov, if for any
given value of ν > 0 there exists a number δ(ν, t0 ) > 0 such that if kx(t0 )k < δ, then the
resultant motion x(t) satisfies kx(t)k < ν for all t > t0 .
Definition 2
The origin is an asymptotically stable equilibrium point provided that it is both stable and
that there exists a number δ 0 (t0 ) > 0 such that whenever kx(t0 )k < δ 0 (t0 ) the resultant
motion satisfies Limt→∞ kx(t)k = 0.
If δ and δ 0 are not functions of t0 , then the origin is said to be uniformly stable and uniformly
asymptotically stable respectively. If δ 0 (t0 ) can be made arbitrarily large then the origin is
said to be globally asymptotically stable.
Definition 3
Let the perturbed system be

ẋ = f(x, t) + p(x, t) (C.2)
If there is a fixed finite constant K such that kpk ≤ K for every t then the input is said to be
bounded. If for every bounded input, and for arbitrary initial conditions x(t0 ), there exists a
165
Chapter C. Stability definitions
scalar 0 < δ(K, t0 , x(t0 )) such that the resultant state satisfies kxk ≤ δ, then the system is
bounded input, bounded output state (BIBS) stable.
Definition 4
Let p be a bounded input with Km as the least upper bound. If there exists a scalar η such
that for every t the output satisfies kyk ≤ ηKm , then the system is bounded input, bounded
output (BIBO) stable.
C.2 Practical stability
Concepts of practical stability [143] may be more admissive when total convergence to an
equilibrium point is not achieved.
Definition 5
Define Q to be a bounded set containing the origin, and Q0 as a subset of Q. Let x(t, x0 , t0 )
be the solution to Equation C.2 satisfying x(t0 , x0 , t0 ) = x0 . Let P be the set of all pertur-
bations satisfying kp(x, t)k ≤ δ for all t ≥ 0 and for all x, where δ ≥ 0. If for each p in P,
each x0 in Q0 and each t0 ≥ 0, x(t, x0 , t0 ) is in Q for all t ≥ 0, then the equilibrium at the
origin is said to be practically stable.
Definition 6
Strong practical stability is an analogy to classic asymptotic stability. Let V (x) be a scalar
function with continuous first partial derivative for all x such that as kxk → ∞, V (x) → ∞.
Let V˙x denote the time derivative of V along the trajectory of x. If V˙x ≤ −ν for all x outside
Q0 , for all p in P, for all t ≥ 0, and if V (x) ≤ V (z) for all x in Q0 and all z outside Q, then
the system has strong practical stability.
166
C.3 Passivity theory
From [152, Appendix 2] the following concepts are defined:
Definition 1
The Ln2T norm of a signal f : <n≥0 7→ <n , f(t) is denoted kf(t)k2T and defined by:
 T  12
Z
kf(t)k2T =  kf(t)k2 dt (C.3)
0
and the Ln2 norm denoted kf(t)k2 is defined as LimT →∞ kf(t)k2T .
Definition 2
We say that f : <≥0 7→ < belongs to the normed L2 -space if and only if kf(t)k2T < ∞.
Definition 3
Let u,y ∈ Ln2 and T > 0, then the inner product is defined ∀ T > 0 as
Z∞
hu | yiT = uT (t)y(t) dt (C.4)
0
Definition 4
A system with input u and output y is passive if there exists a β ∈ < such that
hu | yiT ≥ β . (C.5)
Definition 5
The system is input strictly passive if there exists β ∈ < and δi > 0 such that
hu | yiT ≥ δi kuk22T + β . (C.6)
Definition 6
The system is output strictly passive if there exists β ∈ < and δo > 0 such that
hu | yiT ≥ δo kyk22T + β . (C.7)
Property 1
167
When G is a linear time invariant operator, if G is passive (strictly passive) then G is PR

(SPR).
Property 2
Let G : Ge → Ge , and let K denote a time varying gain K : Ge → Ge such that:
(Ku)(t) = k(t)u(t) (C.8)
where k ∈ <, ∀t ∈ <+ and k(t) is a bounded function then:
1. if G is passive then KGK is also passive.
2. if G is strictly passive and if k(t) is bounded away from zero then KHK is strictly
passive.
168
References
[1] Bielawa, R. L., Rotary Wing Structural Dynamics and Aeroelasticity, AIAA Educa-
tion Series, Washington, DC (1992).
[2] Johnson, W., Helicopter Theory, Dover, New York (1994).
[3] Yuan, K. A. and Friedmann, P. P., “Structural Optimization for Vibration Reduc-
tion of Composite Helicopter Rotor Blades with Advanced Geometry Tips Subject to
Multidisciplinary Constraints”, Proceedings of the 51st AHS Forum, 937–956 (1995).
[4] Yuan, K. A. and Friedmann, P. P., “Aeroelasticity and Structural Optimization of
Composite Helicopter Rotor Blade with Swept Tips”, Technical Report NASA CR
4665, NASA (1995).
[5] Friedmann, P. P., “Helicopter Vibration Reduction Using Structural Optimization
with Aeroelastic/Multidisciplinary Constraints - a Survey”, Journal of Aircraft, 28,
8 (1991).
[6] Panda, B.; Eychalowycz, E. and Tarzanin, F. J., “Application of Passive Dampers to
Modern Helicopters”, Smart materials and Structures, 509–516 (1996).
[7] Done, G. and Balmford, D., Bramwell’s Helicopter Dynamics, Butterworth-
Heinemann, Linacre House, Jordan Hill, Oxford OX2 8DP, 2nd edition (2001).
[8] Jung, S. N.; Nagaraj, V. T. and Chopra, I., “Refined Structural Dynamics Model for
Composite Rotor Blades”, AIAA Journal, 39, 339 (2001).
[9] Akula, V. R. and Ganguli, R., “Updating for Helicopter Rotor Blade Using Genetic
Algorithm”, AIAA Journal, 41, 554 (2002).
[10] Lowson, M. V., “Progress Towards Quieter Civil Helicopters”, Aeronautical Journal,
96, 209 (1992).
[11] Lowson, M. V., “Focusing of Helicopter BVI Noise”, Journal of Sound and Vibration,
190, 477 (1996).
[12] Gandhi, F. and Sekula, M. K., “Helicopter Vibration Reduction Using Fixed-System
Auxiliary Moments”, American Helicopter Society 58th Annual Forum (2002).
[13] Ellis, C. W. and Jones, R., “Application of an Absorber to Reduce Helicopter Vibra-
tion Levels”, Journal of the American Helicopter Society (1963).
[14] Ichchou, M. N.; Jemai, B.; Bellon, L. and Jezequel, L., “Active Rubber Mounts by
Means of Piezoelectric Actuators, Experimental Work”, Smart Materials and Struc-
tures, 10, 1095 (2001).
169
References
[15] Staple, A. E. and Wells, D. M., “The Development and Testing of an Active Control
of Structural Response System for the EH101 Helicopter”, Proceedings of the 16th
European Rotorcraft Forum, III.6.1.1–11 (1990).
[16] Staple, A. E. and MacDonald, B. A., “Active Vibration Control System”, US Patent
(1993).
[17] McHugh, F. J. and Shaw, J., “Helicopter Vibration Reduction with Higher Harmonic
Blade Pitch”, Journal of the American Helicopter Society, 26–35 (1978).
[18] Guinn, K. F., “Individual Blade Control Independent of a Swashplate”, Journal of the
American Helicopter Society, 25–31 (1982).
[19] Ham, N. D., “A Simple System for Helicopter Individual Blade Control Using Modal
Decomposition”, Vertica, 4, 23 (1980).
[20] Ham, N. D., “Helicopter Individual-Blade-Control and its Applications”, Proceed-
ings of the 39th AHS Forum, 613–623 (1983).
[21] Jacklin, S. A.; Leyland, J. A. and Blaas, A., “Full-Scale Wind Tunnel Inves-
tigation of a Helicopter Individual Blade Control System”, Proceedings of 34th
AIAA/ASME/ASCE/AHS/ASC Structures, Structural Dynamics and Materials Con-
ference, AIAA-93-1361-CP, 576 (1993).
[22] Celi, R., “Stabilization of Helicopter Blades with Severed Pitch Links Using Trailing-
Edge Flaps”, Journal of Guidance, Control and Dynamics, 26, 585 (2003).
[23] Chandrasekjara, M. S.; Wilder, M. C. and Carr, L. W., “Compressible Dynamic Stall
Control Using Dynamic Shape Adaptation”, AIAA Journal, 39, 2021 (2001).
[24] Lorkowski, T.; Jänker, P.; Hermle, F.; Storm, S.; Christmann, M. and Wetermann, M.,
“Development of a Piezoelectrically Actuated Leading Edge Flap for Dynamic Stall
Delay”, Paper G–20 (1999).
[25] Pack, L. and Joslin, R., “Overview of Active Flow Control at NASA Langley Re-
search Center”, Proceedings of SPIE, 3326, 202 (1999).
[26] Gregory, I. M., “Presentation Summarising Research at Nasa Langley”, Presentation
at University of Bristol on 8/11/03 (2003).
[27] Spillman, Jr, W. B.; Sirkis, J. S. and Gardiner, P. T., “Smart Materials and Structures:
What are They?”, Smart Materials and Structures, 247–254 (1996).
[28] Chopra, I., “Review of State of Art of Smart Structures and Integrated Systems”,
AIAA Journal, 40, 2145 (2002).
[29] Barsoum, R. G. S., “Active Materials and Adaptive Structures”, Smart Materials and
Structures, 117–122 (1997).
[30] Lee, T. and Chopra, I., “Design of Piezostack-Driven Trailing-Edge Flap Actuator for
Helicopter Rotors”, Smart Materials and Structures, 10, 15 (2001).
[31] Prechtl, E. F. and Hall, S. R., “Design of a High Efficiency, Large Stroke, Electrome-
chanical Actuator”, Smart Materials and Structures, 8, 13 (1999).
170
References
[32] Clement, J. W.; Brei, D.; Moskalik, A. J. and Barrett, R., “Bench-Top Character-
ization of an Active Rotor Blade Flap System Incorporating C-Block Actuators”,
Proceedings of 39th AIAA Structural Dynamics and Materials Conference (1998).
[33] Cattafesta, III, L. N.; Garg, S. and Shukla, D., “Development of Piezoelectric Actua-
tors for Active Flow Control”, AIAA Journal, 39, 1562 (2001).
[34] Ben-Zeev, O. and Chopra, I., “Advances in the Development of an Intelligent He-
licopter Rotor Employing Smart Trailing-Edge Flaps”, Smart Materials and Struc-
tures, 5, 11 (1996).
[35] Koratkar, N. A. and Chopra, I., “Wind Tunnnel Testing of a Mach-Scaled Rotor
Model with Trailing-Edge Flaps”, Smart Materials and Structures, 10, 1 (2001).
[36] Barrett, R., “All-Moving Active Aerodynamic Surface Research”, Smart Materials
and Structures, 4, 65 (1995).
[37] Kim, J. and Kang, B., “Performance Test and Improvement of Piezoelectric Torsional
Actuators”, Smart Materials and Structures, 10, 750 (2001).
[38] Bernhard, A. P. F. and Chopra, I., “Analysis of a Bending-Torsion Coupled Actuator
for a Smart Rotor with Active Blade Tips”, Smart Materials and Structures, 10, 35
(2001).
[39] Park, S. E. and Shrout, T. R., “Ultrahigh Strain and Piezoelectric Behavior in Relaxor-
Based Ferroelectric Single Crystals”, Journal of Applied Physics, 82, 1804 (1997).
[40] Shrout, T. R.; Park, S.-E.; Shepard, J.; Hackenberger, L. B.; Pickrell, D. and Hack-
enberger, W. S., “Recent Advances in Piezoelectric Materials”, Proceedings of SPIE
Far East and Pacific Rim Symposium on Smart Materials, Structures, and MEMS,
Invited paper (1997).
[41] Fukada, E., “History and Recent Progress in Piezoelectric Polymers”, IEEE Transac-
tions on Ultrasonics, Ferroelectrics and Frequency Control, 47, 1277 (2000).
[42] Chen, P. and Chopra, I., “Wind Tunnel Testing of a Smart Rotor with Individual
Blade Twist Control”, Journal of Intelligent Materials, Systems and Structures, 414–
425 (1997).
[43] Derham, R. and Hagood, N., “Rotor Design Using Smart Materials to Actively Twist
the Blades”, Proceedings 52nd American Helicopter Society Annual Forum (1996).
[44] Milgram, J. and Chopra, I., “A Parametric Design Study for Actively Controlled Trail-
ing Edge Flaps”, Journal of the American Helicopter Society, 110–119 (1998).
[45] Buehler, W. J.; Wiley, R. C. and Wang, F. E., “Nickel-Based Alloys”, US Patent
317485123 (1965).
[46] Koon, N. C.; Williams, C. M. and Das, B. N., “Giant Magnetostriction Materials”,
Journal of Magnetism and Magnetic Materials, 100, 173 (1991).
[47] Cullen, J. R., “Materials with Large Magnetostrains”, Scripta Metallurgica et Mate-
rialia, 33, 1849 (1995).
171
References
[48] Uchida, H.; Matsumura, Y.; Uchida, H. and Kaneko, H., “Progress in Thin Films of
Giant Magnetostrictive Alloys”, Journal of Magnetism and Magnetic Materials, 239,
540 (2002).
[49] Balckwood, G. H. and Ealey, M. A., “Electrostrictive Behavior in Lead Magnesium
Niobate (PMN) Actuators, Part I: Material Properties”, Smart Materials and Struc-
tures, 2, 124 (1993).
[50] Piquette, J. C. and Forsythe, S. E., “A Nonlinear Material Model of Lead Magnesium
Niobate (PMN)”, Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 101, 289 (1997).
[51] Damjanovic, D. and Newnham, R. E., “Electrostrictive and Piezoelectric Materials
for Actuator Applications”, Journal of Intelligent Material Systems and Structures,
3, 190 (1992).
[52] Hom, C. L. and Shankar, N., “A Constitutive Model for Relaxor Ferroelectrics”,
Proceedings of the 1999 Society of Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineers’ North
American Symposium on Smart Structures and Materials (1999).
[53] Bossis, G.; Lacis, S.; Meunier, A. and Volkova, O., “Magnetorheological Fluids”,
Journal of Magnetism and Magnetic Materials, 252, 224 (2002).
[54] Phulé, P. P., “Magnetorheological (MR) Fluids: Principles and Applications”, Smart
Materials Bulletin, 7–10 (2001).
[55] Winslow, W. M., Journal of Applied Physics, 20, 1137 (1949).
[56] Rabinow, J., AIEE Transactions, 67, 1308 (1948).
[57] Kohl, M., “Fluidic Actuation by Electrorheological Microdevices”, Mechatronics, 10,
583 (2000).
[58] Lord Corporation, Website: http://www.rheonetic.com.
[59] Shames, I. H. and Cozzarelli, F. A., Elastic and Inelastic Stress Analysis, Prentice
Hall, Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey.
[60] Spencer, Jr, B. F.; Dyke, S. J.; Sain, M. K. and Carlson, J. D., “Phenomenological
Model of a Magnetorheological Damper”, ASCE Journal of Engineering Mechanics,
123, 230 (1997).
[61] Yang, G.; Spencer, Jr, B. F.; Carlson, J. D. and Sain, M. K., “Large-Scale MR Fluid
Dampers: Modelling and Dynamic Performance Considerations”, Engineering Struc-
tures, 24, 309 (2002).
[62] Kamath, G. M. and Wereley, N., “Nonlinear Viscoelastic-Plastic Mechanism-Based
Model of an Electrorheological Damper”, AIAA Journal of Guidance, Control and
Dynamics, 20, 1125 (1997).
[63] Li, W. H.; Yao, G. Z.; Chen, G.; Yeo, S. H. and Yap, F. F., “Testing and Steady State
Modelling of a Linear MR Damper under Sinusoidal Loading”, Journal of Smart
Materials and Structures, 9, 95 (2000).
[64] Lindler, J. and Werely, N. M., “Quasi-Steady Bingham Plastic Analysis of an Elec-
trorheological Flow Mode Bypass Damper with Piston Bleed”, Smart Materials and
Structures, 12, 305 (2003).
172
References
[65] Chen, S. H. and Yang, G., “A Method for Determining Locations of Electro-
Rheological Dampers in Structures”, Smart Materials and Structures, 12, 164 (2003).
[66] Choi, S. B.; Seo, J. W. and Kim, J. H., “An Electrorheological Fluid-Based Plate for
Noise Reduction in a Cabin: Experimental Results”, Journal of Sound and Vibration,
239, 178 (2001).
[67] Yao, G. Z.; Yap, F. F.; Chen, G.; Li, W. H. and Yeo, S. H., “MR Damper and its
Application for Semi-Active Control of Vehicle Suspension System”, Mechatronics,
12, 963 (2002).
[68] Sakamoto, D.; Oshima, N. and Fukuda, T., “Tuned Sloshing Damper Using Electro-
Rheological Fluid”, Smart Materials and Structures, 10, 963 (2001).
[69] Kamath, G. M.; Wereley, N. M. and Jolly, M. R., “Analysis and Testing of a Model
Scale Magnetorheological Fluid Helicopter Lag Mode Damper”, Journal of the Amer-
ical Helicopter Society, 44, 234 (1999).
[70] Marathe, S.; Handhi, F. and Wang, K. W., “Helicopter Blade Response and Aerome-
chanical Stability with a Magnetorheological Fluid Based Lag Damper”, Journal of
Intelligent Materials, Systems and Structures, 9, 272 (1998).
[71] Zhang, J., Active-Passive Hybrid Optimization of Rotor Blades with Trailing Edge
Flaps, Ph.D. thesis, Pennsylvania State University (2001).
[72] Friedmann, P., “Rotary-Wing Aeroelastic Scaling and its Implications for Adaptive
Materials Based Actuation”, SPIE 6th Symposium on Smart Structures and Materials,
Conference on Smart Structures and Materials, Conference on Smart Structures and
Integrated Systems, 3668, 60 (1999).
[73] Spangler, R. L. and Hall, S. R., “Piezoelectric Actuators for Helicopter Rotor Con-
trol”, Proceedings of 31st Structures, Structural Dynamics and Materials Conference
(1990).
[74] Walz, C. and Chopra, I., “Design, Fabrication and Testing of a Scaled Rotor with
Smart Trailing Edge Flaps”, US Army Res. Office 1st Workshop on Smart Structures
(1993).
[75] Walz, C. and Chopra, I., “Design and Testing of a Helicopter Rotor Model with Smart
Trailing Edge Flaps”, 35th AIAA/ASME/ASCE/AHS/ASC Structures, Structural Dy-
namics and Materials Conference and AIAA/ASME/AHS Adaptive Structures Forum
(1994).
[76] Hall, S. R. and Prechtl, E. F., “Development of a Piezoelectric Servoflap for Heli-
copter Rotor Control”, Smart Materials and Structures, 5, 26 (1996).
[77] Fulton, M. V. and Ormiston, R. A., “Hover Testing of a Small-Scale Rotor with on-
Blade Elevons”, American Helicopter Society 53rd Annual Forum, 249–273 (1997).
[78] Fulton, M. V. and Ormiston, R. A., “Small-Scale Rotor Experiments with on-Blade
Elevons to Reduce Blade Vibratory Loads in Forward Flight”, American Helicopter
Society 54th Annual Forum (1998).
[79] Cesnik, C. E. S. and Shin, S., “On the Twist Performance of a Multiple-Cell Active
Helicopter Blade”, Smart Materials and Structures, 10, 53 (2001).
173
References
[80] Chen, P. C. and Chopra, I., “Hover Test of a Smart Rotor with Induced Strain Actuator
of Blade Twist”, AIAA Journal, 35, 6 (1997).
[81] Barrett, R.; Schliesman, M. and Frye, P., “Design, Development and Testing of a Mini
Solid State Adaptive Rotor”, SPIE 4th Symposium on Smart Structures and Materials,
231–242 (1997).
[82] Barrett, R., “All-Moving Active Aerodynamic Surface Research”, Smart Materials
and Structures, 4, 65 (1995).
[83] Barrett, R.; Gross, R. S. and Brozoski, F., “Missile Flight Control Using Active Flexs-
par Actuators”, Smart Materials and Structures, 5, 121 (1996).
[84] Barrett, R., “Active Aeroelastic Tailoring of an Adaptive Flexspar Stabilator”, Smart
Materials and Structures, 5, 723 (1996).
[85] Bent, A. A. and Hagood, N. W., “Piezoelectric Fiber Composites with Interdigitated
Electrodes”, Journal of Intelligent Material Systems and Structures, 8, 903 (1997).
[86] Derham, R. C. and Hagood, N. W., “Rotor Design Using Smart Materials to Actively
Twist Blades”, American Helicopter Society 52nd Annual Forum, 1242–1252 (1996).
[87] Rodgers, J. P.; Hagood, N. W. and Weems, D., “Design and Manufacture of an In-
tegral Twist-Actuated Rotor Blade”, 38th AIAA/ASME/ASCE/AHS/ASC Structures,
Structural Dynamics and Materials Conference and AIAA/SME/AHS Adaptive Struc-
tures Forum (1997).
[88] Rodgers, J. P. and Hagood, N. W., “Preliminary Mach-Scale Hover Testing of an
Integral Twist-Actuated Rotor Blade”, SPIE 5th Symposium on Smart Structures and
Materials, Conference on Smart Structures and Integrated Systems, 3329, 291 (1998).
[89] Wilkie, W. K.; Wilbur, M. L.; Mirick, P. H.; Cesnik, C. E. S. and Shin, S. J., “Aeroe-
lastic Analysis of the NASA/ARMY/MIT Active Twist Rotor”, American Helicopter
Society 55th Annual Forum (1999).
[90] Wilbur, M. L.; Wilkie, W. K.; Yeager, W. T.; Lake, R. C.; Langston, C.; Cesnik, C.
E. S. and Shin, S. J., “Hover Testing of the NASA/ARL/MIT Active Twist Rotor”, 8th
Army Research Office (ARO) Workshop on the Aeroelasticity of Rotorcraft Systems
(1999).
[91] Bernhard, A. P. F., Smart Helicopter Rotor with Active Blade Tips, Ph.D. thesis, Grad-
uate School of the University of Maryland (2000).
[92] Cesnik, C. E. S.; Shin, S. J.; Wilkie, W. K.; Wilbur, M. L. and Mirick, P. H., “Mod-
elling, Design and Testing of the NASA/ARMY/MIT Active Twist Rotor Prototype
Blade”, American Helicopter Society 55th Annual Forum (1999).
[93] “DTI Technical Brief: Electromagnetic Actuator for Vibration and Acoustic Control”,
http://www.dvitecs.com (1999).
[94] Symans, M. D. and Constantinou, M. C., “Semi-Active Control Systems for Seismic
Protection of Structures: A State-of-the-Art Review”, Engineering Structures, 21,
469 (1999).
174
References
[95] Els, P. S. and Holman, T. J., “Semi-Active Rotary Damper for a Heavy Off-Road
Wheeled Vehicle”, Journal of Terramechanics, 36, 51 (1999).
[96] Kamath, G. M.; Wereley, N. M. and Jolly, M. R., “Characterization of Magnetorhe-
ological Helicopter Lag Dampers”, Journal of the American Helicopter Society, 44,
234 (1999).
[97] Anusonti-Inthra, P. and Gandhi, F., “Optimal Control of Helicopter Vibration
Through Cyclic Variations in Blade Root Stiffness”, Smart Materials and Structures,
10, 86 (2001).
[98] Galante, T.; Frank, J.; Bernard, J.; Chen, W.; Lesieutre, G. A. and Koopmann, G. H.,
“Design, Modelling and Performance of a High-Force Piezoelectric Inchworm Mo-
tor”, SPIE 5th Symposium on Smart Structures and Materials, Conference on Smart
Structures and Integrated Systems, 3329, 756 (1998).
[99] Chen, Q.; Yao, D.; Kim, C. and Carman, G. P., “Frequency Response of an Inchworm
Motor Fabricated with Micro Machined Interlocking Surface Mesoscale Actuator De-
vice (MAD)”, SPIE 5th Symposium on Smart Structures and Materials, Conference
on Smart Structures and Integrated Systems, 3329, 768 (1998).
[100] Frank, J.; Koopmann, G. H.; Chen, W. and Lesieutre, G. A., “Design and Perfor-
mance of a High Force Piezoelectric Inchworm Motor”, SPIE 6th Symposium on
Smart Structures and Materials, Conference on Smart Structures and Integrated Sys-
tems, 717–723 (1999).
[101] Epps, J. J. and Chopra, I., “In-Flight Tracking of Helicopter Rotor Blades Using
Shape Memory Alloy Actuators”, Smart Materials and Structures, 10, 104 (2001).
[102] Roglin, R. L. and Hanagud, S. V., “A Helicopter with Adaptive Rotor Blades for
Collective Control”, Smart Materials and Structures, 5, 76 (1996).
[103] Song, G.; Kelly, B. and Agrawal, B. N., “Active Position Control of a Shape Mem-
ory Alloy Wire Actuated Composite Beam”, Smart Materials and Structures, 9, 711
(2000).
[104] Badre-Alam, A.; Wang, K. W. and Gandhi, F., “Optimization of Enhanced Active
Constrained Layer (EACL) Treatment on Helicopter Flexbeams for Aeromechanical
Stability Augmentation”, Smart Materials and Structures, 8, 182 (1999).
[105] Baz, A. and Ro, J., “Vibration Control of Rotating Beams with Active Constrained
Layer Damping”, Smart Materials and Structures, 10, 112 (2001).
[106] Wang, W. and Wang, C. M., “Optimal Placement and Size of Piezoelectric Patches
on Beams from the Controllability Perspective”, Smart Materials and Structures, 9,
558 (2000).
[107] Yang, S. M. and Lee, Y. J., “Vibration Suppression with Optimal Sensor/Actuator
Location and Feedback Gain”, Smart Materials and Structures, 2, 232 (1993).
[108] Corr, L. R. and Clark, W. W., “Comparison of Low-Frequency Piezoelectric Switch-
ing Shunt Techniques for Structural Damping”, Smart Materials and Structures, 11,
370 (2002).
175
References
[109] Fleming, A. J. and Moheimani, S. O. R., “Adaptive Piezoelectric Shunt Damping”,

Smart Materials and Structures, 12, 36 (2003).
[110] McCloud, J. L. and Weisbrich, A. L., “Wind Tunnel Test Results of a Full Scale Mul-
ticyclic Controllable Twist Rotor”, Proceedings of the 34th Annual National Forum
of the AHS (1978).
[111] Dawson, S.; Hassan, A. and Straub, F. K., “Wind Tunnel Test of an Active Flap Ro-
tor: BVI Noise and Vibration Reduction”, American Helicopter Society 51st Annual
Forum, 631–648 (1995).
[112] Straub, F. K.; Ngo, H. T.; Anand, V. and Domzalski, D. B., “Development of a Piezo-
electric Actuator for Trailing Edge Flap Control of Full Scale Rotor Blades”, Smart
Materials and Structures, 25–34 (2001).
[113] Lee, T., High Displacement Piezoelectric Trailing-Edge Flap Mechanism for Heli-
copter Rotors, Ph.D. thesis, University of Maryland, MD (2000).
[114] Jänker, P.; Klöppel, V.; Hermle, F.; Lorkowski, T.; Storm, S.; Christmann, M. and
Wettemann, M., “Development and Evaluation of a Hybrid Piezoelectric Actuator
for Advanced Flap Control Technology”, 25th European Rotorcraft Forum, Paper
G–21 (1999).
[115] Shaner, M. C. and Chopra, I., “Design and Testing of a Piezostack-Actuated Leading
Edge Flap”, 3668, 50 (1999).
[116] Fuller, C. R.; Elliott, S. J. and Nelson, P. A., Active Control of Vibration, Academic
Press, 24-28 Oval Road, London NW1 7DX (1997).
[117] Stoten, D. P., “An Overview of the Minimal Control Synthesis Algorithm”, I Mech E
Conference of Aerospace Hydraulics and Systems (1993), paper C4474-033.
[118] Stoten, D. P. and Benchoubane, H., “Empirical Studies of an MRAC Algorithm with
Minimal Controller Synthesis”, International Journal of Control, 51, 823 (1990).
[119] Stoten, D. P. and Gómez, E., “Recent Application Results of Adaptive Control on
Multi-Axis Shaking Tables”, Proceedings of the SECED international conference on
seismic design practice into the next century (1998).
[120] Meirovitch, L., Dynamics and Control of Structures, John Wiley and Sons, New York
(1990).
[121] Ziegler, J. G. and Nichols, N. B., “Optimum Settings for Automatic Controllers”,
Transactions of ASME, 759–768 (1942).
[122] Hang, C. C.; Astrom, K. J. and Ho, W. K., “Refinements of the Ziegler-Nichols Tun-
ing Formula”, IEE Proceedings - D, 111–118 (1991).
[123] Astrom, K. J. and Hagglund, T., “Automatic Tuning of PID Controllers”, Instrument
Society of America.
[124] Astrom, K. J.; Hagglund, T.; Hang, C. C. and Ho, K. K., “Automatic Tuning Adaption
for PID Controllers - A Survey”, Control Engineering Practice, 699–714 (1993).
[125] Shinsky, F. G., Process Control System. Application, Design and Tuning, McGraw-
Hill, New York, 3rd edition (1988).
176
References
[126] Rivera, D. E.; Morari, M. and Skogestad, S., “Internal Model Control for PID Con-
troller Design”, Industrial Engineering Chemical Process Design Development, 252–
265 (1986).
[127] Huang, S. N.; Tan, K. K. and Lee, T. H., “A Combined PID/adaptive Controller for a
Class of Nonlinear Systems”, Automatica, 611–618 (2001).
[128] Franklin, G. F.; Powell, J. D. and Emami-Naeini, A., Feedback Control of Dynamic
Systems, Addison Wesley, Reading, MA, 3rd edition (1994).
[129] Yang, G.-H.; Wang, J. L. and Soh, Y. C., “Reliable H∞ Controller Design for Linear
Systems”, Automatica, 717–725 (2001).
[130] Zames, G., “Feedback and Optimal Sensitivity: Model Reference Transformations,
Multiplicative Seminorms and Approximate Inverses”, IEEE Transactions on Auto-
matic Control, AC, 301 (1981).
[131] Glover, K. and McFarlane, D., “Robust Stabilization of Normalized Coprime Factor
Plant Descriptions withH∞-Bounded Uncertainty”, IEEE Transactions on Automatic
Control, 34, 821 (1989).
[132] Haykin, S., Adaptive Filter Theory, Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ, 3rd edition
(1996).
[133] Kwakernaak, H. and Sivan, R., Linear Optimal Control Systems, Wiley, New York
(1972).
[134] Brogan, W. L., Modern Control Theory, Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle River, NJ 07458,
3rd edition (1991).
[135] Kalman, R. E., “When is a Linear Control System Optimal?”, Transactions of the
AMCS, Journal of Basic Engineering, 86D, 51 (1964).
[136] Safonov, R. G. and Athans, M., “Gain and Phase Margins for Multiloop LQG Regu-
lators”, IEEE Transactions Automatic Control, AC-22, 173 (1977).
[137] Garcı́a, C. E.; Prett, D. M. and Morari, M., “Model Predictive Control: Theory and
Practice - a Survey”, Automatica, 25, 335 (1989).
[138] Bloemen, H. H. J.; Van Den Boom, T. T. J. and Verbruggen, H. B., “Model-Based
Predictive Control for Hammerstein-Wiener Systems”, International Journal of Con-
trol, 74, 482 (2001).
[139] Zhao, H.; Li, W. and Bentsman, J., “H∞ Prediction and Unconstrained H∞ Predic-
tive Control: Multi-Input-Multi-Output Case”, International Journal of Robust and
Nonlinear Control, 59–86 (2001).
[140] Angevine, O. L., “Active Cancellation of the Hum of Large Electric Transformers”,
Proceedings of Inter-Noise ’92, 313–316 (1992).
[141] Papoulis, A., Signal Analysis, McGraw Hill, New York (1981).
[142] Widrow, B.; Shur, D. and Shaffer, S., “On Adaptive Inverse Control”, Proceedings
of the 15th ASILOMAR Conference on Circuits, Systems and Computers, 185–195
(1981).
177
References
[143] Patiño, H. D. and Liu, D., “Neural Network-Based Model Reference Adaptive Con-
trol System”, IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics Part B, 30, 198
(2000).
[144] Chen, L. and Narendra, K. S., “Nonlinear Adaptive Control Using Neural Networks
and Multiple Models”, Automatica, 1245–1255 (2001).
[145] Whitaker, H. P.; Yamron, J. and Kezer, A., “Design of Model-Reference Adaptive
Control Systems for Aircraft”, Report R-164, Instrumentation Laboratory, MIT, Cam-
bridge, MA (1958).
[146] Osburn, P. V.; Whitaker, H. P. and Kezer, A., “Comparative Studies of Model Ref-
erence Adaptive Control Systems”, Institute of Aeronautical Sciences, Paper 6139
(1961).
[147] Landau, Y. D., Adaptive Control - the Model Reference Approach, Marcel Dekker,
New York (1979).
[148] Stoten, D. P. and Benchoubane, H., “Robustness of a Minimal Controller Synthesis
Algorithm”, International Journal of Control, 51, 851 (1990).
[149] Hodgson, S. P. and Stoten, D. P., “Passivity-Based Analysis of the Minimal Control
Synthesis Algorithm”, International Journal of Control, 63, 67 (1996).
[150] Popov, V. M., Hyperstability of Control Systems, Springer-Verlag, Berlin (1973).
[151] Desoer, C. A. and Vidyasagar, M., Feedback Systems: Input-Output Properties, Aca-
demic Press, New York (1975).
[152] Hodgson, S. P., A Unified MCS-Based Approach to the Adaptive Position and In-
teraction Control of Robotic Manipulators, Ph.D. thesis, Department of Mechanical
Engineering, University of Bristol, UK (1993).
[153] Mitchell, M., An Introduction to Genetic Algorithms, Massachusetts Institute of Tech-
nology (1996).
[154] Davis, L., Genetic Algorithms and Simulated Annealing, Pitman Publishing, 128
Long Acre, London WC2E 9AN (1987).
[155] Metropolis, N.; Rosenbluth, A. W.; Rosenbluth, M. N. and Teller, A. H., “Equations
of State Calculations by Fast Computing Machines”, Journal of Chemical Physics,
21, 1087 (1953).
[156] Kirkpatrick, S.; Gelatt, C. D. and Vecchi, M. P., “Optimization by Simulated Anneal-
ing”, Science, 220, 671 (1983).
[157] Sebusang, S. E. M., Minimal Control Synthesis Algorithm : Safety-Critical and a
Priori Design Issues, Ph.D. thesis, University of Bristol (1997).
[158] Campbell, R. A. H., Reconfigurable Flight Control Using the Model Reference Ap-
proach, Ph.D. thesis, University of Bristol (2002).
[159] www.mathworks.com, Matlab User Manual.
178
References
[160] Blakeborough, A.; Williams, M. S.; Darby, A. P. and Williams, D. M., “The Devel-
opment of Real-Time Substructure Testing”, Philosophical Transactions of the Royal
Society, 359, 1869 (2001).
[161] Mahin, S. A.; Shing, P. B.; Thewalt, C. R. and Hanson, R. D., “Pseudodynamic Test
Method: Current Status and Future Directions”, Journal of Structural Engineering,
115, 2113 (1989).
[162] Donea, J.; Magonette, G.; Negro, P.; Pegon, P.; Pinto, A. and Verzeletti, G., “Pseu-
dodynamic Capabilities of the ELSA Laboratory for Earthquake Testing of Large
Structures”, Earthquake Spectra, 12, 163 (1996).
[163] Prezemieniecki, J. S., Theory of Matrix Structural Analysis, McGraw-Hill (1968).
[164] Shing, P.-S. and Mahin, S. A., “Cumulative Experimental Errors in Pseudodynamic
Tests”, Earthquake Engineering and Structural Dynamics, 15, 409 (1987).
[165] Senturia, S. D. and Wedlock, B. D., Electronic Circuits and Applications, John Wiley
& Sons Inc, New York (1975).
[166] Ewins, D. J., Modal Testing: Theory and Practice, Research Studies Press (1984).
[167] Skingle, G. W., “A New Multiple-Input Multiple-Output Vibration Testing Technique
- Interleaved Spectral Excitation”, 13th International Modal Analysis Conference
(1995).
[168] Levin, R. I.; Lieven, N. A. J. and Skingle, G. W., “Comparison of Accelerometer and
Laser Doppler Vibrometer Measurement Techniques for a Vibration Test of a Large
Aerospace Structure”, 3rd International Conference on Vibration Measurement by
Laser Techniques: Advances and Applications, 502–513 (1998).
[169] Fillod, R.; Lallement, G.; Piranda, J. and Raynaud, J. L., “Global Method of Identifi-
cation”, Proceedings of 4th International Modal Analysis Conference, 2, 1145 (1985).
[170] Mayes, R. L., “A Post Processing Algorithm to Add Damping to Undamped Model
Responses”, Proceedings of IMAC-XIX, 678–682 (2001).
[171] Greening, P., Dynamic Finite Element Modelling and Updating of Loaded Structures,
Ph.D. thesis, University of Bristol (1999).
[172] Kammar, D. C., “Sensor Placement for On-Orbit Modal Identification and Correla-
tion of Large Space Structures”, Journal of Guidance, Control and Dynamics, 14(2),
251 (1991).
[173] Kammar, D. C., “Effect of Model Error of Sensor Placement for On-Orbit Modal
Identification of Large Space Structures”, Journal of Guidance, Control and Dynam-
ics, 15(2), 334 (1992).
[174] Hemez, F. M. and Farhat, C., “An Energy Based Optimum Sensor Placement Crite-
rion and its Application to Structural Damage Detection”, Proceedings, 12th Interna-
tional Modal Analysis Conference, 2, 1568 (1994).
[175] Heo, G.; Wang, M. L. and Satpathi, D., “Optimal Transducer Placement for Health
Monitoring of Long Span Bridge”, Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering, 16,
495 (1997).
179
References
[176] Huebner, K.; Thornton, E. and Byrom, T., The Finite Element Method for Engineers,
John Wiley and Sons Inc, 3rd edition (1995).
[177] Henwood, D. and Bonet, J., Finite Elements, a Gentle Introduction, Macmillan Press
Ltd (1996).
[178] Friswell, M. I. and Mottershead, J. E., Finite Element Model Updating in Structural
Dynamics, Kluwer Academic Publishers (1999).
[179] Mottram, J. T. and Shaw, C. T., Using Finite Elements in Mechanical Design,
McGraw-Hill (1996).
[180] Guyan, R. J., “Reduction of Stiffness and Mass Matrices”, AIAA Journal, 3(2), 380
(1965).
[181] Allemang, R. J. and Brown, D. L., “A Correlation Coefficient for Modal Vector Anal-
ysis”, Proceedings of 1st International Modal Analysis Conference, 110–116 (1982).
[182] Avitabile, P.; O’Callahan, J. C. and Milani, J., “Model Correlation and Orthogonality
Criteria”, Proceedings of 6th International Modal Analysis Conference (1988).
[183] Lieven, N. A. J. and Ewins, D. J., “Spatial Correlation of Mode Shapes, the Co-
ordinate Modal Assurance Criterion (COMAC)”, Proceedings, International Modal
Analysis Conference, 690–695 (1988).
[184] Hunt, D., “Application of an Enhanced Coordinate Modal Assurance Criterion”,
Proccedings, International Modal Analysis Conference, 66–71 (1992).
[185] Lieven, N., Validation of Structural Dynamic Models, Ph.D. thesis, Imperial College
of Science, Technology and Medicine, University of London (1990).
[186] Brown, T. A., A Unifies Approach to the Identification of Dynamic Behaviour Using
the Theory of Vector Spaces, Ph.D. thesis, Department of Engineering Mathematics,
University of Bristol (1986).
[187] Mottershead, J. E. and Friswell, M. I., “Model Updating in Structural Dynamics: A
Survey”, Journal of Sound and Vibration, 167, 347 (1993).
[188] Sidhu, J. and Ewins, D. J., “Correlation of Finite Element and Modal Test Studies of
a Practical Structure”, Proceedings, International Modal Analysis Conference, 756–
762 (1984).
[189] Lee, S., Validation of Dynamic Finite Element Models Using Modal Test Data, Mas-
ter’s thesis, Imperial College, Department of Aeronautical Engineering (1985).
[190] Looser, et al, W., “Vergleich Von Finite-Element-Analyse und Modaler Analyse an
Einem Industriellen Beispiel”, Schwingungen, GWF and IWF (1984).
[191] Brown, T. A., “The Identification of Spatial Parameter Changes Via Modal Analysis”,
Proceedings, International Modal Analysis Conference, 267–273 (1987).
[192] He, J., Identification of Structural Dynamic Characteristics, Ph.D. thesis, Imperial
College, Department of Mechanical Engineering (1987).
180
References
[193] Lieven, N. A. J. and Ewins, D. J., “Effect of Incompleteness and Noise on Error
Matrix Calculations”, Proceedings of 10th International Modal Analysis Conference,
1406–1413 (1992).
181

Thesis - J E Coote 2003

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Thesis - J E Coote 2003

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

S TRATEGIES FOR ROTORCRAFT

V IBRATION R EDUCTION AND T ESTING

Jonathan Eyre Coote

A dissertation submitted to the University of Bristol in accordance with the requirements

The technique of dynamic substructuring was explored as a method of testing uncertain

Any views expressed in this thesis are those of the author.

Jonathan Eyre Coote

List of Tables xiv

List of Abbreviations and Symbols xv

2 Review of rotorcraft vibration causes and methods of reduction 3

2.6.2 Full-scale prototypes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18

4 Modification and parameter optimisation of the MCS algorithm 39

5 Practical testing of controller variants on a DC servomotor 57

5.3.3 Specific characteristics of the variants . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 60

7 Modal test of Lynx fuselage 92

8 Finite element modelling and updating of a Lynx fuselage 112

8.1.1 Analytical considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 112

9 Conclusions and recommendations for further work 158

A Norm definition 162

B Definition of SPR condition 163

C Stability definitions 165

3.1 Feedback control system schematic . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37

4.1 Flowchart of SA optimisation process . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 55

5.1 Photograph of gust rig, actuated by controlled DC servomotor . . . . . . . 64

6.1 Summation amplifier configuration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 85

6.2 Inverting amplifier configuration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 85

7.1 Illustration of frequency spectra distribution between shakers . . . . . . . . 101

8.1 View of Lynx airframe . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 131

7.1 List of modes identified from new INSET tests . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 102

8.1 Summary of datasets examined . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 131

IIR Infinite impulse response

nr (t) Reference signal noise

F (s) Closed-loop transfer function

xi (t) Element of vector x

1.1 Scope of work

1.2 Structure of thesis

Chapter 6 introduces the concept of dynamic substructuring. In this process, a physical

Review of rotorcraft vibration causes

2.2 Introduction to rotorcraft vibration issues

2.3 Design approaches to vibration reduction

• number of rotor blades;

• blade mass and stiffness distribution;

• blade section geometry and aerodynamics;

• blade tip aerodynamic and aeroelastic properties;

• choice of articulated or semirigid hub; and,

• hub fairing and fuselage clearance.

The undercarriage must be designed to minimise the possibility of ground resonance, an

2.4 Vibration reduction systems

1. avoided through changes in aircraft operation;

2. locally cancelled or isolated at significant subsystems;

4. managed at source, through advanced blade control methods.

These approaches will be discussed in turn.

2.4.1 Vibration avoidance methods

Some degree of vibration may be sidestepped through changes in operating procedure.

2.4.2 Local vibration reduction

2.4.3 Isolation or suppression of rotor hub vibration

2.4.4 Active methods of vibration reduction

2.5 An introduction to smart materials

2.5.1 Piezoelectric materials

PE actuators may be employed in a number of configurations. Wafers or composites have

2.5.2 Shape memory alloys

2.5.3 Magnetostrictive materials

2.5.4 Electrostrictive materials

2.5.5 Magnetorheological and electrorheological fluids