Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Fig. 1. The bleed air and moment of reaction control system (RCS).
By restricting the aircraft to jet-borne operation,
i.e., thrust directed toward the bottom of the aircraft, we
have simplified the dynamics which describe the motion
of the aircraft in the vertical-lateral directions, i.e., the
motion of a planar V/STOL (PVTOL) aircraft. The air-
craft states are the position of the center of mass, (X, Y ),
the roll angle , and the corresponding velocities, ( X
,
Y
(1)
where mg is the gravity force imposed on the aircraft
center of mass and J is the mass moment of inertia
around the axis extending through the aircraft center of
mass and along the fuselage.
To simplify the notation of the PVTOL aircraft
dynamics (1), the first and second equations in (1) are
divided by mg, and the third one by J. Let x := X/g, y :=
Y/g, u
1
:=
1
U
mg
, u
2
:=
2
U
J
, and :=
0
J
mg
; then, we
have the normalized PVTOL aircraft dynamics as shown
in Fig. 2:
1 2
1 2
2
sin cos ,
cos sin 1,
.
x u u
x u u
u
(2)
The term 1 denotes the normalized gravity accelera-
tion. The coefficient denotes the parasitic coupling
effect between the lateral force and rolling moment,
which results in the non-minimum phase characteristic.
Fig. 2. The dynamics of the planar V/STOL (PVTOL) aircraft.
Note that the possible parasitic yaw/rolling coupling and
aerodynamic effects are neglected for the sake of sim-
plicity.
The nonlinear PVTOL model (2) is rewritten as an
uncertain LPV system with state-space dependence on
the measurable varying roll angle and uncertain cou-
pling parameter :
1 2
( ( ) ( )) , x A x B B u D
+ + + (3)
where x
= (x, x , y, y , ,
)
T
and u = (u
1
, u
2
)
T
. In the
system matrix A
, the elements A
(1, 2), A
j \
, (
( ,
j \
, (
( ,
(4)
and the disturbance matrix D = (0, 0, 0, 1, 0, 0)
T
repre-
sents the gravity acceleration.
It is noted that the state dynamics (x, x ), (y, y ),
and (,
be decomposed as ( ) D
=
A
0
x
( ) D . In the matrix A
0
, the only nonzero ele-
ment is A
0
(2, 5) = 1. In the vector
( ) D = (0, sin,
0, 1 + cos, 0, 0)
T
, the elements sin and 1 +
cos represent the first order Taylor series approxima-
tion errors of the trigonometric functions sin and
cos , respectively. Then, the LPV PVTOL aircraft
dynamics (5) can be rewritten as
0 1 2
( ( ) ( )) ( ), x A x B B u D
+ + + (6)
where A
0
:= A
+ A
0
, and
( ) D is a gravitational dis-
turbance. Note that the introduced nonzero element of
A
0
enables the lateral position variables (x, x ) to be
controlled through the (,
) dynamics.
III. ROBUST GAIN-SCHEDUL
D CONTROLLER DESIGN
The robust gain-scheduled control for the PVTOL
dynamics (6) needs to maintain a certain degree of rela-
tive stability for all admissible values of the measurable
varying parameter and its variation rate
, the ex-
pected magnitude of the uncertain coupling coefficient ,
and the parameter-dependent gravitional disturbance
,
where represents a linear parameter-dependent state-
feedback control law constructed by means of LMI algo-
rithms for the uncertain LPV PVTOL dynamics without
gravitational disturbance
( ) D ,
0 1 2
( ( ) ( )) , x A x B B u
+ + (7)
and
used to cancel out the gravitational disturbance effect
( ) D is introduced.
3.1 Gain-scheduled control for a nominal aircraft in
affine LPV representation
The PVTOL aircraft dynamics (7), ignoring the
uncertain parameter while imposing magnitude con-
straints on the control effort , the roll angle , and the
variation rate of the roll angle
, are represented by
0 1 ,max max max
( ) , , , .
i i
x A x B u u u
+
(8)
The parameter-dependent input matrix B
1
(), as shown
in (4), is denoted as an affine function of the parame-
ter-dependent elements, p
s
:= sin and p
c
:= cos :
1 0
( ): ,
s s c c
B B p B p B + + (9)
where
0
0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 1 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0
, , .
0 0 0 0 1 0
0 0 0 0 0 0
0 1 0 0 0 0
s c
B B B
j \ j \ j \
, ( , ( , (
, ( , ( , (
, ( , ( , (
, ( , ( , (
, ( , ( , (
, ( , ( , (
, ( , ( , (
, ( , ( , (
( , ( , ( ,
(10)
For the roll angle with bounded magnitude
max
, let the
parameter ranges be denoted as
max max
max
[ sin , sin ]: [ , ],
[cos , 1]: [ , ].
s s s
c c c
p p p
p p p
For the linear gain-scheduled state-feedback con-
trol law = K( )x
,
) =
T
x
P( )x
, ), i.e., ( , ) V x
< 0, is estab-
lished for A
0
, replaced by
0
:= A
0
I, where < 0, then
the maximum relative stability achieved as well as the
largest decay rate is = , which means that
lim ( )
t
t
e x t
(t
0
). In
the case of a tracking control problem, we have
0
lim ( )
t
t
e r x t
(t
0
).
The need for ( , ) V x
< 0 is equivalent to
0 1
0 1
( ( ) ( )) ( )
( )( ( ) ( )) ( ) 0.
T
A B K P
P A B K P
+
+ + + <
(11)
Denoting P( )
1
= Q( ), and K( )Q( ) = L( ), and
from the identity
1 1 1
( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ), P P P P Q
(12)
the condition of the matrix inequality (11) can be rewrit-
ten as
0 0 1
1
( ) ( ) ( ) ( )
( ) ( ) ( ) 0.
T T T
Q A A Q L B
B L Q
+ +
+ <
(13)
For the affinely parameter-dependent matrix B
1
( ) in (9),
116 Asian Journal of Control, Vol. 6, No. 1, March 2004
the matrix variables Q( ) and L( ) can be assumed to
have the same affine dependence on the varying pa-
rameters p
s
and p
c
. We can then proceed with the ap-
proach presented in [12]. However, for the parameter-
independent system matrix
0
and parameter-dependent
control law K( ) = L( )Q( )
1
, a single parame-
ter-independent matrix variable for L( ) is chosen to
reduce the numerical complexity. Thus, we have
0
( ) 0, ( ) .
s s c c
Q Q p Q p Q L L + + > (14)
Then, the matrix inequality (13) reads as
0 0 1 1
( ) ( ) ( ) ( )
( ) 2 ( ) 0.
T T T
c s s c
Q A A Q L B B L
p Q p Q Q
+ + +
<
(15)
Since the matrix inequality (15) is affinely dependent on
the parameters {p
s
, p
c
} when
when {p
s
, p
c
} is fixed, (15) is convex
along each direction of {p
s
, p
c
} and
. The feasibility of
(15) can be established through evaluation only for the
extreme values of the scalar varying parameters {p
s
, p
c
,
(16)
The objective of the maximized relative stability or
decay rate will tend to cause a controller to exhibit high
gain. The required control effort may exceed the magni-
tude limits of the system actuators. Moreover, the be-
havior of the controlled system with the high gain con-
troller will be sensitive to the values of the varying pa-
rameter of system. Therefore, when designing a control-
ler with the maximum relative stability, we need to con-
sider the system varying parameter and the physical con-
straint on the actuator as well. The magnitude constraints
on the control efforts
i
, the roll angle , and the varia-
tion rate of the roll angle
j \
, (
( ,
(17)
If Q( ) is also a stabilizing solution for the GEVP de-
scribed in (16), then
0 0
( ) ( ) 1
T T
x P x x P x
< . The
magnitude constraint
,max i i
u u can be satisfied if
1 1 1
2
,max
1
( ) ( ) ( ) ,
T T T
i i
i
x Q L LQ x x Q x
u
where L
i
R
16
is the i-th row of the matrix L and can
be written as the following LMI condition for the given
u
i,max
:
2
,max
( )
0,
T T
i
i i
Q L s
s L u
j \
, (
, (
( ,
(18)
where the row vector s
i
R
12
with the i-th element is
equal to 1 and the others are equal to zero. Similarly, the
magnitude constraint on the roll angle,
max
, and
variation rate of the roll angle,
max
, can be satis-
fied if the following LMI conditions hold for the given
max
and
max
:
5 6
2 2
5 max 6 max
( ) ( ) ( ) ( )
0, 0,
( ) ( )
T T
Q Q r Q Q r
r Q I r Q I
j \ j \
, ( , (
, ( , (
( , ( ,
(19)
where the row vector r
j
R
16
with the j-th element is
equal to 1 and the others are equal to zero.
3.2 Robust gain-scheduled control for an aircraft
with the uncertain coupling factor
Consider the LPV PVTOL dynamics with the un-
certain coefficient as shown in (7) and magnitude con-
straints imposed on the control efforts , the roll angle ,
and the variation rate of the roll angle
:
0 1 2 ,max
max max
( ( ) ( )) , ,
, .
i i
x A x B B u u u
+ +
(20)
The controller design must be robust to the measurable
varying and bounded parameters ,
, to robustly stabilize
the PVTOL aircraft dynamics (20), let
0
:= A
0
I, and
let the parameter-dependent quadratic Lyapunov func-
tion V(x
, ) = ( )
T
x P x
, P( ) > 0; then, the need of
negative change rate of V(x
, ) is equivalent to
0 1 2
0 1 2
( ( ( ) ( )) ( )) ( )
( )( ( ( ) ) ( )) ( ) 0.
T
A B B K P
P A B B K P
+ +
+ + + + <
(21)
Denoting P( )
1
= Q( ) and K( )Q( ) = L( ), and
from the identity in (12), the matrix inequality (21) can
be rewritten as
0 0 1 2
1 2
( ) ( ) ( ) ( ( ) ( ))
( ( ) ( )) ( ) ( ) 0.
T T T
Q A A Q L B B
B B L Q
+ + +
+ + <
(22)
P.C. Chen et al.: Robust Gain-Scheduled Control of A Vertical Takeoff Aircraft 117
The input matrix B
1
( ) can be denoted as the affinely
parameter-dependent matrix as shown in (9) and (10).
The input matrix B
2
( ), multiplied by the uncertain co-
efficient , is represented by
2 0 20
( ) ( ( )) : ( ) , B M N B M N + + (23)
where
max
max
max 0
max
0
max
0 cos 1 0 0 0 0
,
0 0 0 sin 0 0
1
0 0 1
cos 1 , ,
0 1
0 0
cos 1
0
cos 1
.
sin
0
sin
T
M
N
j \
, (
( ,
j \
j \
, (
, (
, (
( ,
, (
( ,
j \
, (
, (
, (
, (
( ,
(24)
By the formulation of B
2
( ) in (23), (24), and the as-
sumed matrix variables Q( ), L( ) shown in (14), the
matrix inequality (22) becomes
0 0 1 20
1 20
( ) ( ) ( ( ) )
( ( ) ) ( ( ) )
( ( ) ) ( ) 0.
T T T
T T
c s s c
Q A A Q L B B
B B L L M N
M N L p Q p Q
+ + +
+ + +
+ <
(25)
Note that in the parameter-dependent matrix ( ) and
the elements ( )(1, 1) [0, 1], ( )(2, 2) [1, 1],
and ( ) satisfy the norm bounded condition
max
( ) ( ) , ,
T
I
(26)
which yields the following inequality:
( )
0,
( )
T
I
I
j \
, (
( ,
(27)
through the application of Schur complements [14]. For
any non-zero number , we have
( )
1
1
( )
0
( )
T
T T
T
I M
M L N
I NL
j \ j \
, ( , (
, (
( ,( ,
(28)
and
2 2
( ( ) ) ( ) .
T T T T
M NL M NL MM L N NL
+ + (29)
Then, we have the sufficient condition of (25):
0 0 1 20 1 10
2 2
( ) ( ) ( ( ) ) ( ( ) )
( ) 0. (30)
T T T
T T T
c s s c
Q A A Q L B B B B L
MM L N NL p Q p Q
+ + + + +
+ + <
which in turn can be written as
2
1 2
( ( ), , )
( ) 2 ( ) 0,
T
T T
c s s c
Q L MM
L N
p Q p Q Q
NL I
j \ +
, (
<
, (
, (
( ,
(31)
where
0 0 1 20
1 20
( ( ), , ) ( ) ( ) ( ( ) )
( ( ) ) .
T T T
Q L Q A A Q L B B
B B L
+ + +
+ +
Similar to the LMI conditions for the nominal aircraft
case, the feasibility of (31) for the given parasitic uncer-
tain level can be established by evaluating (31) only for
the extreme values of the scalar varying parameters {p
s
,
p
c
,
(32)
3.3 Gravitational disturbance cancellation
Consider the equivalent LPV representation of the
PVTOL aircraft dynamics shown in (6) with magnitude
constraints imposed on the control efforts , the roll an-
gle , and the variation rate of the roll angle
:
0 1 2
,max max max
( ( ) ( )) ( ),
, , .
i i
x A x B B u D
u u
+ + +
(33)
The composite control law = +
is assumed, where
= K( )x
is in-
troduced to eliminate the effect of the gravitational
disturbance
, ) = ( )
T
x P x
, P( )
> 0, with a negative change rate ( , ) V x
needs to satisfy
1 2
1 2
(( ( ) ( )) ( )) ( )
( )(( ( ) ( )) ( )) 0.
T
T
B B u D P x
x P B B u D
+ +
+ + +
(34)
In order not to incur the uncertainty and due to the fact
that the first column of the parameter-dependent matrix
B
2
( ) is zero, which is multipiled by the uncertainty , the
form of the control law
= (u
, 0)
T
is assumed to be such
118 Asian Journal of Control, Vol. 6, No. 1, March 2004
that B
2
( )
. By substituting the
components of B
1
( ) and
( ) D , and denoting g
l
as the
l-th element of the on-line computed vector Q( )
1
x
for
the nominal system in (8) or for the uncertainty consid-
ered in (20), we can rewrite condition (34) as
2 4
( sin ( 1)) (cos ( 1) 1) 0. u g u g
+ + + (35)
One possibility for the choice of u
is simply to have u
=
4 2
4 2
(1 cos ) (sin )
cos sin
g g
g g
+
can be
imposed, that is, u
u
,max
, in the on-line application.
IV. SIMULATIONS AND DISCUSSION
The gain-scheduled controller designs for the input
and output constrained PVTOL aircraft dynamics ob-
tained via the LMI approach can be numerically con-
structed for the types of GEVP problem as follows.
Nominal aircraft in the affine LPV representation:
Maximize the relative stability = for the nominal
aircraft in (8) with the uncertain coefficient = 0 by
means of (16) while maintaining various magnitude
constraints imposed on the control efforts
i
by (17),
(18) and on the roll angle variation by (19) for {p
s
, p
c
,
} {{ , }
s s
p p , { , }
c c
p p ,
max max
{ , }}
. The ini-
tial conditions considered in the parameter-dependent
invariant ellipsoid representation (17) are specified as
x
0
= (1, 0, 1, 0, 0, 0)
T
since the performance objec-
tive is to maintain tracking of the normalized position
command signal in the horizontal and vertical direc-
tions. With the following specified magnitude con-
straints: deviated thrust u
1,max
= 0.6, moment u
2,max
=
{0.2, 0.4, 0.6, 0.8, 1.0, 1.2}, roll angle and variation
rate of roll angle
max
=
max
= u
2,max
/k, the
achieved maximum relative stability
*
= . for k
{3, 4, 5, 6} is that depicted in Fig. 3. The chosen mag-
nitude constraints
max
and
max
are proportional to
u
2,max
since the control moment u
2
needs a certain
range of and
correspond to the extreme values of the scalar varying
parameters {p
s
, p
c
,
.
Fig. 4. Maximum relative stability for u
1,max
= 0.6, with various con-
straints imposed on u
2,max
, , and
max
, and
max
= u
2,max
/5.
Aircraft with the uncertain coupling factor: Maximize
the relative stability = for the aircraft dynamics in
(20) with an estimated tolerable uncertain level by
means of (32) while maintaining various magnitude
constraints imposed on the control efforts
i
by (17),
(18) and on the roll angle variation by (19) for {p
s
, p
c
,
} {{ , }
s s
p p , { , }
c c
p p ,
max max
{ , }}
. To let
considered {x
0
, u
1,max
, u
2,max
} to have the same values
as for the nominal case and
max
=
max
= u
2,max
/5,
the achieved maximum relative stability
*
= . for
= {0, 1, 2, 3, 4} is depicted in Fig. 4. It can be seen
that the position tracking performance worsens due to
the presence of uncertain coupling, and the large mag-
nitude of the control moment tends to magnify the
detrimental nonminimum phase effect induced by the
uncertain coupling.
Simulations of the closed-loop controlled system
were conducted as shown in Fig. 5, where the nonlinear
PVTOL dynamics are from (3) with B(, ) := B
1
( ) +
B
2
( ) and the command generator is a low-pass filter
with a bandwidth of 100 rad/sec for both the lateral
command x
d
and vertical command y
d
. Therefore, the
actual tracking command (x
r
, y
r
) issued to the controlled
system is generated from the exogenous command signal
(x
d
, y
d
) by r = A
r + B
d, where
P.C. Chen et al.: Robust Gain-Scheduled Control of A Vertical Takeoff Aircraft 119
Fig. 5. The structure of the simulation of the controlled PVTOL air-
craft.
100 0
: , : , : ,
0 100
100 0
: .
0 100
d r
d r
x x
r d A
y y
B
j \ j \ j \
, ( , ( , (
( , ( , ( ,
j \
, (
( ,
The parameter-dependent state-feedback matrix K( ) =
L(Q
0
+ p
s
Q
s
+ p
c
Q
c
)
1
is obtained with the specified con-
trol effort constraints u
1,max
= u
2,max
= 0.6,
max
=
max
=
u
2,max
/5 for both designs whether parasitic uncertainty
is present or not. For the nominal aircraft, the achieved
maximum relative stability is
j \
, (
( ,
(36)
For the aircraft dynamics with = 2, the achieved rela-
tive stability is
*
= 0.2115 with the matrix variable
0.0000 0.0000 0.0905 0.2954 0.0000 0.0000
0.0136 0.1387 0.0000 0.0000 0.0139 0.0623
. L
j \
, (
( ,
(37)
Figures 6-17 show the time responses of the
closed-loop system with the parameter-dependent con-
troller K( ) constructed for the case of the nominal air-
craft. Figures 6, 8, 10, and 12 show the time responses of
the horizontal and vertical position (x, y), where the
dashed line -- denotes the exogenous commands x
d
and
y
d
, the dotted line .. denotes the actual commands x
r
and y
r
, and the solid line denotes the controlled time
response. Figures 7, 9, 11, and 13 show the time re-
sponses of the roll angle and its variation rate (,
),
and the magnitude of the control effort, = (
1
, u
2
),
where the solid line denotes the roll angle and con-
trol moment u
2
, and the dotted line .. denotes the
variation rate of the roll angle
), (
1
, u
2
) for the lateral command with
= 0.
Fig. 8. Time response of (x, y) for the vertical command with = 0.
Fig. 9. Time response of (,
), (
1
, u
2
) for the vertical command
with = 0.
120 Asian Journal of Control, Vol. 6, No. 1, March 2004
Fig. 10. Time response of (x, y) for the command (x
d
, y
d
) = (1, 1) with
= 0.
Fig. 11. Time response of (,
), (
1
, u
2
) for the command (x
d
, y
d
) =
(1, 1) with = 0.
Fig. 12. Time response of (x, y) for the lateral command with = sin
0.2t.
Fig. 13. Time response of (,
), (
1
, u
2
) for the lateral command
with = sin 0.2t.
Fig. 14. Time response of (x, ,
,
and
) and (
1
, u
2
) for the lateral
command (x
d
, y
d
) = (1, 0) with the uncertainty = {0.1,
0.3, 0.5}. It can be seen that large oscillations occur dur-
ing the transition due to the consistently positive values
of . Figures 16-17 show the time response of (x, ,
)
and (
1
, u
2
) for the lateral command (x
d
, y
d
) = (1, 0) with
the uncertain parasitic coupling = 0.55, where the dot-
ted line .. denotes the time response with the magni-
tude constraint imposed on the control moment u
2
, and
the solid line denotes the time response without satu-
ration of the control moment u
2
. It can be seen that the
resulting oscillations increase and eventually cause
instability.
For the case where the parameter-dependent con-
troller K( ) is constructed while the uncertainty level
= 2 is explicitly addressed, Figs. 18-20 show the time
responses of (x, y), (,
), and (
1
, u
2
) for the issued
command (x
d
, y
d
) = (1, 1) in the presence of parasitic
uncertainty = {0, 1, 2, 3}. The simulation results show
that robustness is established, and that the design speci-
fication is well satisfied.
V. CONCLUSIONS
This paper has presented a robust gain-scheduled
control for a PVTOL aircraft via the LMI method. The
design is based on an LPV equivalent representation for
non-linear PVTOL aircraft dynamics subject to an un-
certain non-minimum phase effect without any truncated
linearization or approximation. These LPV PVTOL air-
craft dynamics consist of a nominal LPV system and a
linear system, where the norm bounded uncertainy ma-
trix is multiplied by the uncertain parasitic coupling. For
the nominal LPV system, which is considered to be affi-
nely dependent on the trigonometric functions of the
measurable varying roll angle, the ranges of the varying
parameter and its variation as well as the magnitudes of
the denoted affinely trigonometric functions and para-
sitic uncertain matrix have been addressed by introduc-
ing the parameter-dependent invariant ellipsoid interpre-
tation to deal with the issue of affinely quadratic stabili-
zation. The relations among the magnitude of actuator
saturation, the maximum achievable relative stability,
Fig. 18. Time response of (x, y) for the command (x
d
, y
d
) = (1, 1) with
= {0, 1, 2, 3}.
Fig. 19. Time response of (,
-induced
Norm under Full State Feedback, IEEE Trans.
Automat. Contr., Vol. 41, No. 4, pp. 533-544 (1996).
11. Shamma, J. S. and D. Xiong, Set-valued Methods
for Linear Parameter Varying Systems, Automatica,
Vol. 35, No. 6, pp. 1081-1089 (1999).
12. Gahinet, P., P. Apkarian, and M. Chilali, Affine
Parameter-dependent Lyapunov Functions and Real
Parameter Uncertainty, IEEE Trans. Automat.
Contr., Vol. 41, No. 3, pp. 436-442 (1996).
13. Gahinet, P., A. Nemirovski, A. Laub, and M. Chilali,
The LMI Control Toolbox, The MathWorks, Inc.,
Natick, MA (1995).
14. Boyd, S., L. El Ghaoui, E. Feron, and V. Balakrish-
nan, Linear Matrix Inequalities in System and Con-
trol Theory, SIAM, Philadelphia (1994).
15. Tanaka, T. and H.-O. Wang, Fuzzy Control Systems
Design and Analysis: A Linear Matrix Inequality
Approach, John Wiley & Sons, Inc., New York
(2001).