Comprehensive System Identification of Ducted Fan UAVs

A Thesis Presented to the Faculty of California Polytechnic State University San Luis Obispo In Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Master of Science in Aerospace Engineering

by: Daniel N. Salluce January 2004

 Copyright 2004 Daniel Salluce ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

ii

APROVAL PAGE TITLE: AUTHOR: Comprehensive System Identification of Ducted Fan UAVs Daniel N. Salluce January 2004

DATE SUBMITTED: (SUBJECT TO CHANGE) Dr. Daniel J. Biezad (AERO) Advisor & Committee Chair

____________________________________

Dr. Mark Tischler (NASA/Army) Committee Member

____________________________________

Dr. Jordi Puig-Suari (AERO) Committee Member

____________________________________

Dr. Frank Owen (ME) Committee Member

____________________________________

iii

ABSTRACT The increase of military operations in urbanized terrain has changed the nature of warfare and the battlefield itself. A need for a unique class of vehicles now exists. These vehicles must be able to accurately maintain position in space, be robust in the event of collisions, relay strategic situational awareness, and operate on an organic troop level in a completely autonomous fashion. The operational demands of these vehicles mandate accurate control systems and simulation testing. These needs stress the importance of system identification and modeling throughout the design process. This research focuses on the unique methods of identification and their application to a class of ducted fan, rotorcraft, and unmanned autonomous air vehicles. This research shows that a variety of identification techniques can be combined to comprehensively model this family of vehicles and reveals the unique challenges involved. The result is a high fidelity model available for the purposes of control system design and simulation.

iv

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS The author would like to give special recognition to Dr. Daniel J. Biezad, Department Chair at Cal Poly, San Luis Obispo, CA and Dr. Mark B. Tischler, U.S. Army Aeroflightdynamics Directorate Moffett Field, CA. Without their support, guidance, and organizational efforts this research would never have been possible. Also, Dr. Colin Theodore, Jason Colbourne, and the whole of the Army/NASA Rotorcraft Division at Moffett Field proved to be invaluable resources and facilitators in the completion of this project.

TABLE OF CONTENTS LIST OF TABLES........................................................................................................... viii LIST OF FIGURES ........................................................................................................... ix NOMENCLATURE ......................................................................................................... xii CHAPTER 1 Introduction and Motivation 1.1 Vehicles Examined ............................................................................................1 1.2 Scope..................................................................................................................8 CHAPTER 2 Dynamic Model Identification Methods and Techniques 2.1 Identification Methods .................................................................................... 11 2.2 CIFER ............................................................................................................. 12 2.2.1 Flight Test Techniques..................................................................... 13 2.2.2 Bench Test Techniques .....................................................................14 2.3 Manufacturer Specifications ............................................................................14 2.4 Wind Tunnel Tests...........................................................................................15 CHAPTER 3 Vehicle Identification 3.1 Areas of Identification .....................................................................................16 3.2 Bare-Airframe ID.............................................................................................17 3.2.1 Aerovironment/Honeywell OAV......................................................17 3.2.2 Allied Aerospace MAV ....................................................................35 3.2.3 Trek Aerospace Solotrek...................................................................46 3.2.4 Hiller Flying Platform.......................................................................48 3.2.5 Vehicle Scaling Laws and Comparisons...........................................52 3.3 Servo Actuator Identification...........................................................................56 3.4 Sensor Identification ........................................................................................94 3.4.1 Accelerometer Identification ............................................................95 3.4.2 Rate Gyro Identification ...................................................................96 3.4.3 GPS Receiver Identification .............................................................98

vi

3.4.4 Magnetometer Identification...........................................................101 3.4.5 Pressure Altimeter Identification ....................................................102 CHAPTER 4 Flight Simulation 4.1 Simulated Sweeps ..........................................................................................104 4.2 Matlab Linear Model Determination .............................................................110 CHAPTER 5 Conclusions.............................................................................................119 BIBLIOGRAPHY............................................................................................................120 APPENDIX A OAV Proposal State Space Form .........................................................123 APPENDIX B Frequency Response Bode Plots for all Actuator Cases ......................124 APPENDIX C Actuator Generated TF Model Bode Plot Verification ........................135 APPENDIX D Actuator Time Domain Verification of Final Models..........................157

vii

LIST OF TABLES

3.1 OAV Measured Parameters during Flight Testing .......................................................18 3.2 OAV Frequency Range of Good Coherence (rad/sec) .................................................19 3.3 OAV Control Derivatives Extracted from Transfer Function Fits ...............................20 3.4 OAV DERIVID Identified parameters and Certainties ................................................23 3.5 OAV DERIVID Frequency Response Costs ................................................................23 3.6 OAV Eigenvalues and Associated Eigenvectors of [F]................................................24 3.7 MAV Physical Properties .............................................................................................35 3.8 MAV Identified Stability Derivatives...........................................................................39 3.9 MAV Identified Control Derivatives ............................................................................40 3.10 Final Flight Test Identified MAV Derivatives............................................................42 3.11 MAV Wind Tunnel Identified Derivatives and Flight Test Results ...........................44 3.12 Pitching Moment Derivatives and Solotrek Fan Speed ..............................................47 3.13 Pitching Moment Coefficient Summary .....................................................................53 3.14 Pitching Moment with Blade Chord Summary...........................................................54 3.15 Manufacturer Specifications for Servo Actuators Tested...........................................57 3.16 Actuator Linkage Geometries .....................................................................................60 3.17 Actuator Calibration Factors for Input and Output Channels to Degrees...................61 3.18 Frequency Sweep Used for all Actuators....................................................................62 3.19 Square Wave Parameters ............................................................................................63 3.20 Actuator Bench Test Matrix........................................................................................65 3.21 Actuator NAVFIT Frequency Ranges for CIFER Cases............................................67 3.22 Actuator NAVFIT Results for all Cases .....................................................................68 3.23 Actuator Nonlinear Characteristic Summary..............................................................74 4.1 Linmod, Wind Tunnel, and Flight Test Results for i-Star 9........................................114

viii

LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1.1 Land Warrior OAV Concept ..........................................................................1 Figure 1.2 Hiller Helicopters Flying Platform 1958 .....................................................3 Figure 1.3 Aerovironment / Honeywell DARPA Phase I OAV 2001 ..........................3 Figure 1.4 Trek Aerospace Solotrek Ducted Fan 2001.................................................4 Figure 1.5 Allied Aerospace i-Star MAV 9 Vehicle 2003..........................................4 Figure 1.6 Detailed view of 9 MAV Design ..................................................................5 Figure 1.7 MAV Stator and Vanes...................................................................................6 Figure 1.8 Helicopter Body Axes System........................................................................7 Figure 1.9 Helicopter Body Axes System Applied to the Ducted Fan ............................7 Figure 1.10 Block Diagram of Basic DFCS Architecture ...............................................8 Figure 1.11 Comprehensive Identification Schematic.....................................................9 Figure 2.1 Sample Frequency Sweep Flight Test Command.........................................13 Figure 3.1 Roll rate response frequency domain verification........................................26 Figure 3.2 Pitch rate response frequency domain verification.......................................27 Figure 3.3 Yaw response frequency domain verification ..............................................29 Figure 3.4 Roll response time history verification.........................................................30 Figure 3.5 Pitch response time history verification .......................................................31 Figure 3.6 Yaw response time history verification ........................................................32 Figure 3.7 Techsburg Wind Tunnel Setup for OAV......................................................33 Figure 3.8 Techsburg OAV Pitching Moment to Airspeed ...........................................34 Figure 3.9 On and Off Axis MAV Roll Frequency Responses .....................................36 Figure 3.10 On and Off Axis MAV Pitch Frequency Responses ..................................37 Figure 3.11 MAV Lateral Acceleration and Roll Rate Response to Roll Input ............40 Figure 3.12 MAV Longitudinal Acceleration and Pitch Response ...............................41 Figure 3.13 Pitching Moment Wind Tunnel Test Data for i-Star 9 .............................43 Figure 3.14 Solotrek Wind Tunnel Test Results for Pitching Moment .........................46 Figure 3.15 Hiller Flying Platform Pitching Moment Data ...........................................48 Figure 3.16 Drag over a Flat Plate Perpendicular to Flow.............................................49 Figure 3.17 Results of Removing Dummy Moment from Hiller Platform Test............50

ix

Figure 3.18 Actuators Tested and Relative Sizes ..........................................................57 Figure 3.19 Actuator Test Stand Apparatus...................................................................58 Figure 3.20 Cirrus CS-10BB Mounted on Wooden Strip..............................................58 Figure 3.21 Schematic Detailing Linkage Geometry.....................................................59 Figure 3.22 Sample Chirp Input, Response, and Square Wave Time History...............64 Figure 3.23 HS512MG Responses Illustrating Difference between 5V and 6V ...........70 Figure 3.24 Sample Square Wave Response .................................................................72 Figure 3.25 Linear Fit for Max Rate Determination......................................................73 Figure 3.26 CS-10BB at 5V TH Illustrating Erratic Response at High Frequency .......75 Figure 3.27 94091 at 6V TH Illustrating Erratic Response at High Frequency.............75 Figure 3.28 94091 at 5V TH not Showing Erratic Response.........................................76 Figure 3.29 DS8417 FR Illustrating Mismatch in Linear Model...................................77 Figure 3.30 DS8417 TH Comparison to 1995 STI Findings .........................................78 Figure 3.31 Magnitude Comparison for Linear & Nonlinear Model to Bench Test .....81 Figure 3.32 Phase Comparison for Linear & Nonlinear Model to Bench Test .............82 Figure 3.33 Error Function Fr and NAVFIT Transfer Function Fit ..............................83 Figure 3.34 Rise Time Ratio Phase Lag Relationship ...................................................85 Figure 3.35 Rise Time for Linear Model of DS8417 at 5V...........................................86 Figure 3.36 Sweep Amplitude and Natural Frequency with Rate Limiting ..................87 Figure 3.37 Simulink Actuator Blockset .......................................................................88 Figure 3.38 Configurable Actuator Parameters .............................................................89 Figure 3.39 2nd Order Actuator Dynamics behind Mask ...............................................90 Figure 3.40 DS8417 at 5V Time Domain Validation ....................................................91 Figure 3.41 Accelerometer Model .................................................................................95 Figure 3.42 Accelerometer Stationary Noise Model .....................................................96 Figure 3.43 Rate Gyro Model ........................................................................................97 Figure 3.43 Rate Gyro Response to Constant 15 deg/sec for 10 sec .............................98 Figure 3.44 GPS Heading and Speed Model .................................................................99 Figure 3.45 GPS Error and Discrete Signal Model......................................................100 Figure 3.46 GPS Model Results...................................................................................101 Figure 3.47 Magnetometer Model ...............................................................................102

Figure 3.48 Magnetometer Depiction at 5 Gauss for 5 Seconds .................................102 Figure 3.49 Pressure Altimeter Model.........................................................................103 Figure 3.50 Pressure Altimeter at 15 feet for 5 seconds ..............................................103 Figure 4.1 Simulink MAV Model................................................................................105 Figure 4.2 Custom PC and COTS Simulation Environment .......................................106 Figure 4.3 Simulink Sweep Generator GUI Built for Sweeps.....................................107 Figure 4.4 Simulink GUI Generated Sweep ................................................................108 Figure 4.5 MAV Flight Test Cross Coherence between Pitch and Roll controls ........109 Figure 4.6 Cross Control Decoupling Block Diagram.................................................111 Figure 4.7 LINMOD and Simulated Sweep Roll Frequency Response ......................115 Figure 4.8 Effect of Removing Cross Control Coupling to Response.........................116 Figure 4.9 Coupling Removed Illustrating linmod and Simulated Sweep Results......117 Figure 4.10 Comparison of linmod and Flight Test Pitch Responses..........................118

xi

NOMENCLATURE A a1 b1 BW c C CMPA CMQA CMRA CR F G H1 H2 I j L M N p pmixer P q qmixer r R rmixer s tR Area First Fourier Coefficient Second Fourier Coefficient Bandwidth Chord Nondimensional Coefficient Commanded Roll Rate Commanded Pitch Rate Commanded Yaw Rate Cramer-Rao Bound Plant Matrix Control Matrix Output Matrix Position Output Matrix Rate Inertia Imaginary Variable Rolling Moment Pitching Moment Yawing Moment Roll body rate Lateral mixer signal Period Pitch body rate Longitudinal mixer signal Yaw body rate Radius Pedal mixer signal (deg/sec) Frequency Domain Variable Linear : Nonlinear Rise Time Rise Time Nonlinear Rise Time Linear Longitudinal body velocity Input Control Matrix Longitudinal body acceleration Lateral body velocity
& v w & w Y x X Z n n

Lateral body acceleration Vertical body velocity Vertical body acceleration Lateral Body Force State Matrix Longitudinal Body Force Vertical Body Force Roll attitude Pitch attitude Heading attitude Natural Frequency Normalized Natural Frequency Propeller Rotational Velocity Density Propeller Coefficient Time Constant Damping Ratio Phase Angle Subscripts

t RNL t RL
u u & u v

c, CG col FS Lat lon mixer ped prop rad xx yy zz dot

Command Center of Gravity Collective Full Scale Lateral Longitudinal Mixer Pedal Propeller Radians X-plane in the Direction of X Y-plane in the Direction of Y Z-plane in the Direction of Z Time Derivative

xii

CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION AND MOTIVATION

1.1 Vehicles Examined

Interest and application of ring-wing type unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs) has increased within recent years. The military and commercial uses for a vehicle capable of hovering and forward flight while remaining small and unmanned are countless. Military operations on urbanized terrain (MOUT) have become an area of concern for the United States military within recent years. An increased need for policing and securing urbanized areas has become apparent with the conflicts in Iraq and Mogadishu. It is this type of environment that dictates the especially challenging design of small-scale UAVs1. Because of the nature of MOUT, precise station-keeping requirements and overall increased risk of collision with obstacles are important. Add to that the need for small and back-pack carried vehicles and it becomes apparent why the ducted fan design is appealing. The Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA) advanced concept technology demonstrator (ACTD) projects yielded submissions which included the Kestrel organic air vehicle (OAV) and i-Star micro air vehicle (MAV). Figure 1.1 shows the typical application of the OAV envisioned by the US Army.

Figure 1.1 Land Warrior OAV Concept -1-

Commercial interest has also been seen by companies and organizations looking for stable camera and surveillance platforms. Bridge inspection, traffic monitoring, and search and rescue in hostile environments all can benefit from use of a small unmanned vehicle capable of hovering flight. A unique class of small rotorcraft UAVs (RUAVs) incorporating all of the characteristics yields a small design with certain design difficulties. These RUAVs possess the problem of making a small-scale vehicle unmanned along with the inherently unstable nature of rotorcraft dynamics. The ducted fan RUAV design fulfills the collision and troop handling safety requirements. However, these ducted fans introduce a strong tendency to correct themselves in pitch and roll with longitudinal and lateral velocity, respectively. These ducted fan RUAVs have low inertias with most of the weight near the center of the vehicle. Their small size and weight make for stringent volumetric and mass restrictions. This leads to lower performance subsystems, especially sensors and actuators. High degrees of cross coupling due to strong gyroscopic effects are created by the fast spinning propellers. The unconventional designs that have little or no knowledge base established make physics based modeling difficult2. Most RUAV types include the ability for a wide range of scales to be produced. Because of the relative simplicity of construction, bigger and smaller vehicles alike can be produced. Usually shorter design cycles due to limited funding and demanding project requirements leave these vehicles in need of accurate models early in the design cycle. Flight vehicles are available very early in the design sequence and make for easier flight test based identification. These characteristics combine to mandate accurate dynamic models. This research work will focus on the comprehensive identification of these models.

-2-

The vehicles examined within the scope of this research are all very similar in design in that they consist of mainly a ducted fan utilized for lift. The vehicles examined are shown in Figures 1.2 1.5. Although the mission profiles for all of these vehicles varies greatly, the two smaller scale surveillance vehicles, the Kestrel and the i-Star MAV are most representative of future military operations on urbanized terrain (MOUT) applications.

Figure 1.2 Hiller Helicopters Flying Platform 1958

Figure 1.3 Aerovironment / Honeywell DARPA Phase I OAV 2001

-3-

Figure 1.4 Trek Aerospace Solotrek Ducted Fan 2001

Figure 1.5 Allied Aerospace i-Star MAV 9 Vehicle 2003 Figure 1.2 depicts the Hiller flying platform. This vehicle underwent some testing of the pitching moment characteristics of ducted fans back in 19583. For this purpose it was included in the study. Figure 1.3 shows the Aerovironment/Honeywell teamed effort technology demonstrator for DARPA. This vehicle was used for flight testing and parametric modeling as well as for the identification of sensor packages. Figure 1.4 shows the Trek Aerospace Solotrek. This unique design underwent comprehensive wind

-4-

tunnel testing to study the characteristics of the ducted fan at varying propeller speeds. Finally, Figure 1.5 shows the Allied Aerospace i-Star MAV vehicle. Pictured is the 9 diameter vehicle. There is also a bigger cousin with a 29 diameter. Both of these vehicles were used for actuator identification, flight testing, and simulation as part of work for DARPA. Figure 1.6 shows a detailed view of the MAV.

Figure 1.6 Detailed view of 9 MAV Design

The basic design of the ducted fan UAV incorporates a small COTS power plant that is centered inside a duct. The flow of air in the duct is passed over stators for flow straightening and over vanes which allow actuation to generate moments. Figure 1.7 shows the vanes and stators on the bottom of the 9 MAV design.

-5-

Duct

Lower Center Body Stators Vanes Camera & Proximity Sensor

Figure 1.7 MAV Stator and Vanes

Great care is needed in specifying proper coordinate systems. It is not uncommon to see these vehicles with their x-body axis out the nose, or main nacelle pointing up. This causes issues because then the vehicle is at a 90 nose up orientation in hover. This is a gimbal-lock orientation and is best avoided for standard Euler sequences. Figure 1.8 below illustrates the helicopter coordinate system used for this research and Figure 1.9 shows it applied to the ducted fan. Unless otherwise specified, all derivatives and mention of moments are referred to in standard helicopter notation.

-6-

Figure 1.8 Helicopter Body Axes System

YBody XBody

ZBody

Figure 1.9 Helicopter Body Axes System Applied to the Ducted Fan

All moments and forces are represented as positive in the directions shown with moments being applied in accordance with the positive right-hand rule.

-7-

1.2 Scope

This research will focus on representing the entirety of the RUAV modeling. Figure 1.10 shows a simplified block diagram depicting the operation of the vehicle.
Vehicle Response
Digital Flight Control

Servo-Actuators

Commanded Inputs

Bare-Airframe Dynamics

Sensors

Figure 1.10 Block Diagram of Basic DFCS Architecture

It can be seen that simply modeling the bare airframe and its dynamics is not enough to capture the whole nature of the vehicle. Due to the small size and limited performance actuators and sensor packages, these areas heavily influence the nature of flight. To accurately model the vehicle for flight control and simulation purposes, a more expanded diagram would be required. Figure 1.11 represents the identification effort of this research.

-8-

GPS

Rate Gyros
Accelerometers

IMU

InnerLoop Closures

Sensors & Telemetry

Control System

OuterLoop Closures

Actuators Pressure Altimeter

Vehicle Dynamics
SOURCES OF IDENTIFICATION
CIFER Wind Tunnel or Other Empirical Data Manufacturer and Bench Data Rigid Body Dynamics Unique Pitching Moment Characteristics

Figure 1.11 Comprehensive Identification Schematic

Figure 1.11 shows that a number of techniques (described in Chapter 2) applied to a large range of components are required to model the system. Each of these areas will be the

-9-

focus of this research. Various vehicles will be looked at in order to build up this compete picture of the operation of these ring wing UAVs.

- 10 -

CHAPTER 2 METHODS AND TECHNIQUES

2.1 Identification Methods

A combination of the characteristics of these small RUAVs makes system identification an important and integral part of the design cycle. The need for a high performing and robust control system is paramount to vehicle survivability and mission performance. The design of the flight control system requires an accurate model across a variety of operating conditions and input frequencies. As previous work shows2, the use of Froude scaling the natural frequencies of vehicles reveals the natural frequency would increase by the square root of a scale factor measured in length. For example, making the vehicle 4 times smaller would increase the natural frequency by 2. So, as vehicles become smaller, they require a higher bandwidth control system. The need to operate at higher frequencies and in more of the available flight envelope requires accurate models across large ranges of input frequencies. The use of frequency domain techniques lends itself very nicely to accomplishing this modeling challenge. The NASA/Ames Research Center tool CIFER (Comprehensive Identification from Frequency Responses) is primarily used to identify low order equivalent systems and parametric state-space models required across broad frequency ranges. This tool is used extensively for the modeling of system dynamics in this effort. The reliance on small scale, low performance components and sensors makes characterizing the errors and inconsistencies of components important. Without exclusive

- 11 -

access to hardware inside of test vehicles, manufacturer data must be applied for error and noise modeling. These tools and techniques combine to represent the comprehensive identification of these vehicles.

2.2 CIFER

CIFER provides an environment and set of programs that perform the various steps of the system identification process. Nonparametric modeling, in which no model structure or order is assumed; in the form of frequency responses represented as Bode plots are first extracted with CIFER. This then allows for the parametric modeling. Transfer functions, low order equivalent (LOE) systems, or state-space models with stability and control derivative representation3 are all used. The identification process can be summarizes as4:
1. Nonparametric frequency response calculation from time history data o Use of Chirp-Z Fast Fourier Transforms (FFT) and complex functions to generate the frequency responses over multiple windows and samples 2. Multi-input frequency response conditioning o Off axis control inputs contribution to on axis response is removed 3. Multi-window averaging of frequency responses o Combination of different window sampling sizes 4. Parametric models fit to frequency responses o Transfer function models fit to single input single output (SISO) systems o State-space models fit to all controls and states for parameter extraction 5. Time domain verification of parametric models

When complete, this procedure yields accurate models to be applied for a variety of tasks. CIFER does require flight test time histories in which the vehicles modes have been excited by frequency rich inputs. It is not limited to vehicle dynamics either. This tool can be used anywhere frequency domain analysis is needed. CIFER is a powerful tool that incorporates all of the tools to needed to model in the frequency domain. - 12 -

2.2.1 Flight Test Techniques

There are a number of techniques that need to be applied to ensure that the flight test of the vehicle is useful and applicable to system identification. While outside the scope of this research, it is sufficient to say that a combination of frequency rich maneuvers as seen in Figure 2.1 and validation maneuvers like doublets are required. A combination of sensing and telemetry equipment is needed to measure both the input from the actuators and the vehicle response. Access to the IMU and servo signals is required.

15 10 Control Deflection (%) 5 0 -5 Zero Duration Rise Time Sine Frequency Sweep Fall Time

Zero Duration

-10 -15

15

30 Time (seconds)

45

Figure 2.1 Sample Frequency Sweep Flight Test Command

- 13 -

2.2.2 Bench Test Techniques

Bench testing was used in cases where components were to be tested without actually installing them on the vehicle or testing them while in flight. This method was primarily applied to the testing of the servo actuators. The search for and classification of actuators meeting the requirements of the vehicles made it impractical to install the numerous actuators on the vehicle for testing. In this case, the actuators were tested while hooked up to specific measuring equipment. Frequency domain analysis with CIFER was applied to determine the dynamic characteristics of the components.

2.3 Manufacturer Specifications

The use of commercial off the shelf (COTS) devices and components for the buildup of inertial measuring units (IMU) on the vehicles provides for manufacturer specifications and ratings of component performance. This is important when direct access of the components and hardware in the loop (HIL) bench testing is not available. The identification of the rate gyros, accelerometers, magnetometers, GPS receiver, and actuators all benefited from the provision of manufacturer identified errors and performance specifications. In general, these specifications are slightly optimistic and reflect the specific measuring procedure applied by the manufacturer. Averages are usually presented by manufacturers while component-specific results are required in some modeling cases. Due to time constraints and availability of hardware for testing,

- 14 -

manufacturer specifications are modeled and applied for the majority of telemetry and measuring equipment aboard the vehicles.

2.4 Wind Tunnel Tests

Wind tunnel and other empirical data measured from the vehicles themselves play an important role as well. As previously mentioned, these ducted fan RUAVs exhibit unique corrective pitching moment characteristics due to large Mu and Lv derivatives. Wind tunnel studies help to better characterize this. The need to accurately characterize the behavior of the ducted fan in translational velocities has put emphasis on accurate wind tunnel modeling. This type of physics-based modeling is used to draw some conclusions regarding the nature of the strong pitching and rolling moment created when the vehicle is in forward flight or in a cross-wind. It is also used to compare and correlate the CIFER identified dynamics. In the case of the Solotrek vehicle, a wind tunnel was not actually used. Similar techniques and methodology was applied to the vehicle although it was suspended on top of a moving pickup truck. Regardless, wind tunnel tests and data were used to validate and compare trends for most of the vehicles studied.

- 15 -

CHAPTER 3 VEHICLE IDENTIFICATION

3.1 Areas of Identification

As mentioned in Chapter 2, the comprehensive identification of these vehicles requires modeling and testing of the bare-airframe dynamics as well as all of the systems and components onboard which directly affect the flight characteristics of the vehicle. Figure 1.11 of Chapter 1 illustrates the areas of identification. The tools and techniques outlined in Chapter 2 will be applied to the bare-airframe of the vehicles with conclusions being drawn for scaling and correlation. COTS actuators will then be analyzed for there dynamics and nonlinearities. Finally, all of the sensors and telemetry equipment used in observation for the control system will be analyzed and modeled.

- 16 -

3.2 Bare-Airframe ID

The bare-airframe dynamics are perhaps the most unique aspect of these vehicles and the way they fly. A small inertia with a large concentration of mass near the center of the duct is inherent in the design. Combined with this, there is heavy coupling between pitch and roll due to the gyroscopic effects of the fast spinning propeller. All of the vehicles looked at utilize fixed pitch propellers. Figure 1.11 showed that the pitching moment characteristics together with the whole of the bare-airframe rigid body dynamics characterize the vehicle in uncontrolled flight.

3.2.1 Aerovironment/Honeywell OAV

The goal of the CIFER system identification was to achieve an accurate MultiInput Multi-Output (MIMO) state-space model to support flight control development and vehicle sizing for the DARPA Phase I test vehicle. The frequency range of interest was 0.1 10 rad/sec. Frequency response analyses show that the important dynamic characteristics in this frequency range are the rigid body dynamics. Examination of the eigenvalues of the identified model reveals low frequency unstable periodic modes in both the pitch and roll degrees of freedom. Excellent matches between the model and flight data for the on-axis time responses confirm the accuracy of the of the identified state-space dynamic model.

- 17 -

The CIFER identification is based on a set of flight test data gathered while flying the prototype vehicle. The data was recorded at a nominal data rate of 23 Hz and included vehicle rate and control mixer inputs. These are presented in Table 3.1. Table 3.1 OAV Measured Parameters during Flight Testing Parameter pmixer qmixer rmixer p q r Measured Value CMPA CMQA CMRA PP QQ RR

Frequency responses were generated with CIFERs FRESPID tool from the test data gathered from flying the proposal vehicle. Frequency ranges from ~0.35 20 (rad/sec) were used with four windows. The data was processed through MISOSA to remove the effect of off-axis control inputs during the sweeps. COMPOSITE was used to combine the four windows of data into a single response. The frequency ranges used for the dynamic model identification were the ranges when the coherence was good (values above 0.6). These frequency ranges are listed in Table 3.2 and are used in the state space model identification in DERIVID. Examination of the off-axis frequency responses indicates no significant cross-couplings between the longitudinal and lateral degrees of freedom. These couplings are therefore not included in the state space model. This is unique to this vehicle and differs from other vehicles tested. It may be due to lack of excitation during flight test.

- 18 -

Table 3.2 OAV Frequency Range of Good Coherence (rad/sec)

P Q R CMPA 1-8 CMQA 1-8 CMRA 3-10

Because no significant cross-coupling between the longitudinal and lateral degrees of freedom was observed, the state-space form would be modeled after the transfer functions. The identified transfer functions appear as Equations 3.1-3.2.

18.68s(s + 0.0032)e0.0477 s = pmixer (s + 2.0983)[0.5761,1.7921] p

(Equation 3.1)

21.07s2 e0.0653 s = qmixer (s + 1.9496)[0.7616,1.9349] q

(Equation 3.2)

r rmixer

20.81e0.0718 s s

(Equation 3.3)

The 3rd order denominator forms known as a hovering cubics (Equations 3.4 and 3.5) exemplify the dynamic modes for the longitudinal and lateral directions5. The control derivatives for the state-space model were initially set as the free gain terms in the numerators of the transfer functions. These values appear in Table 3.3.

lateral hover = s 3 + ( Yv LP ) s 2 + Yv LP s gLv

longitudinal hover = s 3 + ( X u + M q ) s 2 + X u M q s gM u

(Equation 3.4)

(Equation 3.5)

- 19 -

Table 3.3 OAV Control Derivatives Extracted from Transfer Function Fits Derivative L M N Value 0.326 0.343 0.339

A state space form comprised of a set of four matrices (F, G, H1, and H2) known as a quadruple was set up. This can be seen as Equations 3.6 3.13. The state vector ( x ) is presented as equation 3.8 (the subscript "rad" indicates that these quantities have the units of rad and rad/sec). The three controls were pmixer, qmixer, and rmixer, as seen in Equation 3.10 ( u ). The removal of cross-coupled terms yielded a final stability matrix (F) to be fitted to the data (Equation 3.11). While the units of the states are in rad, rad/sec, and ft/sec; the data is in deg/sec. A conversion factor of 57.3 (deg/rad) was multiplied through the H1 matrix (Equation 3.13) and divided through the initial values of the control derivatives (Table 3.3) in the G matrix (Equation 3.12). CIFER then tuned the parameters in the F and G matrices to match the state space models frequency responses to those for the flight test data.
& x = Fx + Gu
(Equation 3.6) (Equation 3.7)

& y = H1 x + H 2 x

v p rad rad x = u q rad rrad

(Equation 3.8)

- 20 -

 p y = q r

(Equation 3.9)

pmixer u = qmixer r mixer

Yv L v 0 F =0 0 0 0 0 LP 1 0 0 0 0 g 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Xu Mu 0 0 0 0 0 0 Mq 1 0 0 0 0 g 0 0 0 0 Nr 0 0 0 0 0

(Equation 3.10)

(Equation 3.11)

Ypmixer L p mixer 0 G= 0 0 0 0

0 0 0

X qmixer Mq
0 0

mixer

0 0 0 0 0 0 N r mixer

(Equation 3.12)

0 0 0 0 57.3 0 0 0 H1 = 0 0 0 57.3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 57.3

(Equation 3.13)

It is worthwhile to note that many of the derivatives were set to zero in the identification process. Because of the lack of acceleration data, the on-axis damping parameters Xu, Yv, and Zw were unable to be determined in the model and were thus removed from the CIFER model (fixed to a value of 0). A closer examination of the

- 21 -

transfer functions (Equations 3.1-3.3) will show that the longitudinal and lateral modes are heavily reliant on the values of Lv and Mu, respectively. If these derivatives were the only ones in the hovering cubic forms (Equations 3.4 and 3.5), the equations would reduce to the degenerate forms seen in Equations 3.14 and 3.15. These forms contain one real and one complex root for negative values of Lv and Mu. These roots describe the dynamics of the system and show that Lv and Mu are the dominant terms required to depict the three modes.

lateral hover = s 3 gLv

longitudinal hover = s 3 gM u

(Equation 3.14) (Equation 3.15)

CIFER allows for a measure of merit, or cost, of the final model fit to the frequency responses. Lower costs are better fits. The final model had an excellent average cost of 23.6. For the best possible fit, pure time delays were identified as 0.04205, 0.08730, and 0.07189 seconds for roll, pitch, and yaw responses, respectively. The longitudinal delay was bigger in both the state space model and the transfer function fits. However, the Cramer-Rao bound for the longitudinal delay was rather big (29%) revealing that it was a correlated term in the minimization process. This may be due to CIFER adjusting the value to make up for inconsistencies in the model or it is due to the pitch sensor or flight control computer. All other Cramer-Rao bounds were acceptable, (CR< 15%) indicating good reliability of the identified derivatives. Table 3.4 contains the identified variables and their respective certainty during the identification. A comparison with the control derivatives extracted from the transfer functions (Table 3.3) reveals very close matches.

- 22 -

Table 3.4 OAV DERIVID Identified Parameters and Certainties

Table 5 shows the cost functions for the transfer functions. They were all very acceptable. Table 3.5 OAV DERIVID Frequency Response Costs

The asymmetric design of the vehicle accounts for the difference in the values between Lv and Mu. Figure 1.3 depicts the fact that the OAV design has nacelles or cargo pods making it asymmetric. The ratio of the identified values (Lv : Mu = 0.7510) reflects the relationship of the lateral and longitudinal inertias specified (Iyy : Ixx = 0.6312).

- 23 -

The final CIFER identified state space dynamic model is presented in Appendix A. The eigenvalues and their associated eigenvectors are given below in Table 3.6. They have been normalized to the dominant mode. The eigenvectors are the corresponding state values which identify the modes. The larger values indicate the states which are dominant in the modes. A value of 1 in the eigenvector indicates which state is the primary mode. From the eigenvectors and eigenvalues some interesting dynamics can be noted. Table 3.6 OAV Eigenvalues and Associated Eigenvectors of [F]
Mode # (Aperiodic Yaw Subsidence) real 0.00E+00 imaginary 0.00E+00 Mode #2 (Lateral Low Frequency Periodic) real 9.25E-01 imaginary -/+1.60E+00 Real -1.85E+00 Mode #3 (Aperiodic Roll Subsidence) imaginary 0.00E+00

[zeta, omega] [0.000E+00, 0.000E+00]

[zeta, omega] [-.500E+00, 0.185E+01]

[zeta, omega] [0.000E+00, 0.000E+00]

V P PHI U Q THETA R

0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 1.00E+00

0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00

V P PHI U Q THETA R

-8.20E-02 1.00E+00 2.70E-01 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00

+/-1.42E-01 -/+1.13E-08 +/-4.68E-01 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00

V P PHI U Q THETA R

1.64E-01 1.00E+00 -5.40E-01 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00

0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00

Mode #4 (Aperiodic Pitch Subsidence) real -2.04E+00 imaginary 0.00E+00

Mode #5 (Longitudinal Low Frequency Periodic) real 1.02E+00 imaginary -/+1.76E+00

[zeta, omega] [0.000E+00, 0.000E+00]

[zeta, omega] [-.500E+00, 0.204E+01]

V P PHI U Q THETA R

0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 2.76E-01 -3.55E-02 1.00E+00 0.00E+00

0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00

V P PHI U Q THETA R

0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 -1.38E-01 1.78E-02 1.00E+00 0.00E+00

0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 -/+2.39E-01 -/+3.08E-02 +/-2.21E-08 0.00E+00

- 24 -

The identified state-space model yielded 7 eigenvalues. Two of these were complex pairs, and three real. These 7 eigenvalues depict 5 modes. Mode #1 is the yaw mode which was modeled with no yaw damping, thus the value of 1 for the yaw rate state (r). Mode #2 is associated with the 2nd order periodic denominator term in the hovering cubic because of the high values for the lateral velocity (v) and roll rate (p) states. This is a low frequency unstable mode. Likewise, Mode #5 is from the 2nd order term in longitudinal hovering cubic. This is seen by the larger eigenvectors for the states of longitudinal velocity (u) and pitch rate (q). The remaining eigenvectors identify the 1st order, aperiodic subsidence modes for roll (Mode #3) and pitch (Mode #4). These eigenvalues are very close to the modes of the transfer function models (Equations 1-3). The excellent agreement between the flight data and model can be seen in the following frequency responses comparing the parametric state space model and the actual flight test data.

- 25 -

Figure 3.1 Roll rate response frequency domain verification It can be seen in Figure 3.1 that the roll rate model fits very well in the regions of good coherence. Only where there are dips in this signal to noise ratio does the model start to yield poor results. These results were obtained without linear acceleration data.

- 26 -

Better sensors, at higher sampling rates together with linear acceleration data will yield closer matches across broader frequency ranges.

Figure 3.2 Pitch rate response frequency domain verification

- 27 -

The pitch rate response seen in Figure 3.2 illustrates the accuracy of the statespace model in regions of good coherence as well. The coherence is the ratio of output power that is linearly related to input power. This means that high noise in this channel, or wind gusts during the sweep can produce lower coherence. It can be seen that the accuracy of the state-space model for the pitch rate deteriorates quickly at lower frequencies.

- 28 -

Figure 3.3 Yaw response frequency domain verification The model revealed that there was no natural yaw damping for this vehicle. The unstable hovering cubic is prevalent in the 1-3 (rad/sec) region. The fit was accurate at higher frequencies before noise in the channel becomes a problem, as seen in Figure 3.3.

- 29 -

The identified models were compared with data taken by Aerovironment during flight testing. It can be seen that the on-axis responses have an excellent match for all 3 controls. The quality of the match confirms that the identified model is accurate.

Figure 3.4 Roll response time history verification

- 30 -

Figure 3.4 shows that even though the lateral dynamics were modeled without a roll damping term, the control surface effectiveness term and Lv in the hovering cubic accurately pick up the nature of the response.

Figure 3.5 Pitch response time history verification

- 31 -

Likewise, Figure 3.5 above shows that the longitudinal degree of freedom is captured and represented in the state-space model very accurately.

Figure 3.6 Yaw response time history verification Figure 3.6 shows the accuracy of the yaw degree of freedom. It stays accurate regardless of being modeled as the simple integrator form with no yaw damping.

- 32 -

It can be seen that the Aerovironment Proposal prototype OAV was successfully modeled with a state-space model. The identified model shows good agreement for both the time and frequency responses. The identified system showed an unstable periodic mode in the pitch and roll responses. Time delays were determined for all three channels. The ratio of the lateral to longitudinal moment terms Lv and Mu reflect the ratio of the inertias Iyy to Ixx. All of the modes dictated by the hovering cubic forms were identified, but because of a lack of acceleration data the speed damping force derivatives could not be accurately identified. The identified transfer function modes closely match the modes of the identified state space dynamic model. After flight test was completed for the purposes of identification, the OAV design was further analyzed in the wind tunnel. The vehicle was put into the Virginia Tech Stability Wind Tunnel by Techsburg, Inc. without the payload nacelles. A photograph of the setup is shown as Figure 3.7.

Figure 3.7 - Techsburg Wind Tunnel Setup for OAV

- 33 -

Although part of a larger control surface and augmentation experiment, the vehicle was tested in a baseline configuration similar to that seen in Figure 1.3. From the tests, pitching moment information was extracted with varying wind speeds. Figure 3.8 shows the results of that test.
2

1.5

0.5 M (ft-lbf)

0 -50 -40 -30 -20 -10 -0.5 0 10 20 30 40 50

-1

-1.5

-2 u (fps)

Figure 3.8 Techsburg OAV Pitching Moment to Airspeed

As Figure 3.8 shows, there is a unique pitching moment created when the vehicle experiences some wind velocity across the duct. This is illustrated by the slope of the tangent line depicted as a dotted line. In this case, the dimensional derivative about the hover condition is 0.011. This is a corrective moment for velocities below some critical velocity. A negative pitching moment is then created above this critical speed. In the case of OAV as tested, this occurs at roughly 10 fps.

- 34 -

3.2.2 Allied Aerospace MAV

Flight test was performed on the MAV vehicle in a similar manner as was described in the previous section for the OAV. Table 3.7 below shows the physical properties for the vehicle as it was tested. Table 3.7 MAV Physical Properties
Physical Quantity Mass (slugs) C.G. (below duct lip - inches) Propeller Speed (rad/sec) Ixx (slug-ft^2) Iyy (slug-ft^2) Izz (slug-ft^2) Iprop (slug-ft^2) Value 0.233 2.25 1884.0 0.021 0.021 0.021 0.00012*

* value obtained from Allied Aerospace that contains the inertia of all of the rotating components.

Frequency responses for on and off-axis are presented as Figure 3.9. These include the removal of off-axis control contributions by using the CIFER tool MISOSA.

- 35 -

30

MAGNITUDE(DB)

-10

-50 250 PHASE(DEG)

50

-150 1 COHERENCE

0.6

0.2 0.1 1 FREQUENCY (RAD/SEC) 10 100

F040P_COM_ABCDE_pcmd_pb - p/lat F040P_COM_ABCDE_pcmd_qb - q/lat F040P_COM_ABCDE_pcmd_rb - r/lat

Figure 3.9 On and Off Axis MAV Roll Frequency Responses Figure 3.9 shows the roll, pitch and yaw rate frequency responses to roll control. Here there is good coherence for the on-axis responses, but no coherence in the off-axis direction. The roll rate frequency response has a good coherence from 0.5 to 12 rad/sec and this portion of the frequency response is used in the identification.

- 36 -

30 MAGNITUDE(DB)

-10

-50 250 PHASE(DEG)

50

-150 1 COHERENCE

0.6

0.2 0.1 1 FREQUENCY (RAD/SEC) 10 100

F040Q_COM_ABCDE_qcmd_qb - q/lon F040Q_COM_ABCDE_qcmd_pb - p/lon F040Q_COM_ABCDE_qcmd_rb - r/lon

Figure 3.10 On and Off Axis MAV Pitch Frequency Responses Figure 3.10 shows the pitch, roll and yaw rate frequency responses to pitch control. As with the roll control responses, there is good coherence for the on-axis response, but no coherence for the off-axis responses. This would indicate that there is very little cross-coupling and the pitch and roll responses are essentially uncoupled. It is uncertain why the gyroscopic coupling is not evident in the flight tests. A similar

- 37 -

approach was used for the accelerometer information. The parametric state space model was setup as shown in Equation 3.16.
& u Xu 0 g q Mu Mq 0 & & 1 0 0 = & 0 0 v 0 p 0 & Lq 0 & 0 0 0 0 0 0 Yv Lv 0 0 Mp 0 0 Lp 1 0 u 0 0 q 0 0 0 + g v Ylat 0 p Llat 0 0 Xlon Mlon 0 lat 0 lon 0 0

(Equation 3.16)

The derivatives Mp and Lq result from the gyroscopic moments produced by the rotating inertia of the propeller. This coupling is one of the unique aspects of the vehicles dynamics. Taking into account the angular momentum of the spinning propeller and dividing by the inertia of the total vehicle yields the moment produced by the gyroscopic effects. This is shown as equations 3.17 and 3.18.

Lq =

I prop I xx

(Equation 3.17)

Mp =

I prop I yy

(Equation 3.18)

The values for Mp and Lq therefore can be used for the determination of propeller inertia. This is possible because the rotational speed of the propeller remained mostly constant and the inertia of the vehicle changed negligibly due to fuel burned. This is useful because the inertia of the small propeller while spinning is hard to measure in any type of simple experiment. A time delay was also added to the dynamics to account for transport delays in the electronics.

- 38 -

A 0th/2nd order transfer function is included in the identification to take into account the actuator dynamics. The form of this transfer function is as follows:
TF =

n 2 s + 2 n + n
2

The values of the damping and natural frequency of the actuator used were obtained from bench tests of the actuator dynamics presented in section 3.3 for the Airtronics 94091 servo actuator running at nominally 5 volts. The natural frequency for this case is 28.2 rad/sec and the damping ratio is 0.52. The DERIVID utility was used to identify the elements of the state-space model. The stability derivative results are shown Table 3.8.

Table 3.8 MAV Identified Stability Derivatives

COUP02 CR Bound C.R. (%) 0.04395 40.33 0.03412 6.805 ...... ...... ...... ...... ...... ...... ...... ...... ...... ...... ...... ...... ...... ......

Derivativ e Xu Mu Mq Mp Yv Lq Lv Lp I pr op

Param Value -0.1090 0.5014 0.000 + 0.000 + -0.1090 * 0.000 + -0.5014 * 0.000 + 0.000 +

Insens.(%) 10.92 2.729 ...... ...... ...... ...... ...... ...... ......

+ Eliminated during model structure determination y Fixed value in model * Fixed derivativ e tied to a free derivativ e Yv = 1.000E+00* X u ( COUP02 ) L v =-1.000E+00* M u ( COUP02 )

The value of the rotating inertia (Iprop) was insensitive in the identification and was dropped from the list of active elements. This is because there was no good coherence in the off-axis roll and pitch rate responses, which result for the gyroscopic

- 39 -

effects from the rotating inertia. Ultimately this made for the coupling derivatives in the model to become zero as well. The control derivatives were identified as shown in Table 3.9. Table 3.9 - MAV Identified Control Derivatives
COUP02 CR Bound C.R. (%) 0.01692 5.955 0.01103 4.705 0.01876 7.519 0.01056 5.902 ...... ...... 4.599E-03 6.796

Derivativ e X lon M lon Yl at L lat l at l on

Param Value -0.2841 -0.2343 0.2495 -0.1789 0.06767 * 0.06767

Insens.(%) 2.058 2.149 2.544 2.614 ...... 3.272

* Fixed derivativ e tied to a free derivativ e lat = 1.000E+00* l on ( COUP02 )

Figure 3.11 shows the identified models roll and lateral acceleration responses for the roll sweep.
40 20 0 -20 -40 150 100 50 0 -50 -100 -150 1 0.8 0.6 0.4 0.2 0.1 1 10 Frequency (Rad/Sec) Flight results COUP02 - Identification Results Coherence Phase (Deg) p/lat Magnitude(DB) 20 0 -20 -40 -60 100 50 0 -50 -100 -150 -200 1 0.8 0.6 0.4 0.2 100 0.1 1 Frequency (Rad/Sec) 10 Coherence Phase (Deg) ay/lat Magnitude(DB)

Figure 3.11 MAV Lateral Acceleration and Roll Rate Response to Roll Input - 40 -

Figure 3.12 shows the same for the longitudinal acceleration and pitch rate response to pitch input.
40 20 0 -20 -40 150 100 50 0 -50 -100 -150 1 0.8 0.6 0.4 0.2 0.1 1 10 Frequency (Rad/Sec) Flight results COUP02 - Identification Results Coherence Phase (Deg) q/lon Magnitude(DB) 20 0 -20 -40 -60 -100 -150 -200 -250 -300 -350 -400 1 0.8 0.6 0.4 0.2 100 0.1 1 Frequency (Rad/Sec) 10 Coherence Phase (Deg) ax/lon Magnitude(DB)

Figure 3.12 MAV Longitudinal Acceleration and Pitch Rate Response to Pitch Input

The combination of Figure 3.11 and Figure 3.12 show that the identified model agrees with the flight test data. There are some inconsistencies, but overall the costs of the fits were low and the model agrees with flight test results. The final identified parameters are outlined in Table 3.10.

- 41 -

Table 3.10 Final Flight Test Identified MAV Derivatives

Derivativ e Xu Mu Mq Mp Yv Lq Lv Lp I pr op X l on M l on Ylat L lat lat lon Param Value -0.1090 0.5014 0.000 + 0.000 + -0.1090 * 0.000 + -0.5014 * 0.000 + 0.000 + -0.2841 -0.2343 0.2495 -0.1789 0.06767 * 0.06767

+ Eliminated during model structure determination y Fixed value in model * Fixed derivativ e tied to a free derivativ e M p = 8.971E+04* I pop ( PIT21 ) L q =-8.971E+04* I pop ( PIT21 ) Yv = 1.000E+00* X u L v =-1.000E+00* M u lat = 1.000E+00* l on

The identification of the MAV vehicle benefited from also having wind tunnel tests performed by Allied Aerospace. These tests were completed to build up a nonlinear, test data based, table-lookup bare airframe and control simulation. MAV is a family of vehicles. Both the larger 29 vehicle and smaller 9 vehicle were put into the wind tunnel with the fans spinning at various speeds while the attitude and wind velocity was varied. This was done to determine moment and force values with angle of attack and beta as well as lateral, longitudinal, and vertical velocities. There were issues with the 9 wind tunnel results. To illustrate the wind tunnel method for the MAV (which is similar to the wind tunnel tests performed for OAV by

- 42 -

Techsburg) the pitching moment response to gusts was analyzed. Figure 3.13 shows a summary of the data collected for the pitching moment.

i-Star-9 Pitching Moment Characteristics

0.4 Pitching Moment (ft-lb) 0.2 0 -0.2 -0.4 -0.6 -0.8 -1 Shroud Velocity (fps) 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140

Figure 3.13 Pitching Moment Wind Tunnel Test Data for i-Star 9 Figure 3.13 shows that a linearization was completed for the first 30 knots and is shown. The slope of this line represents the dimensional derivative Mu. What is curious here, and will be discussed in further detail in the next sections, is the nature of the pitching moment response to increases in speed. As the vehicle experiences a cross wind in hover, it will pitch in the positive direction. This represents a corrective moment. However if the gust is strong enough, it will actually experience a negative moment. The method illustrated above was repeated for all of the major flight derivatives to obtain the values portrayed in Table 3.11. Table 3.11 compares both 9 and 29 vehicles as well as the 9 flight test results where appropriate.

- 43 -

Table 3.11 MAV Wind Tunnel Identified Derivatives and Flight Test Results

I-Star Vehicle Derivative

9 Wind Tunnel Flight Test -0.1090 -0.1090
(Fixed to Xu)

29

Xu Yv Zw Lv Lp Mu

- 0.476 - 0.476
(Fixed to Xu)

- 0.344 - 0.344
(Fixed to Xu)

- 0.349 - 0.046
(Fixed to Mu)

- 0.212 0.004
(Fixed to Mu)

n/a -0.5014
(Fixed to Mu)

0 0.046 0 n/a n/a - 0.056 0 - 0.190 0.156 - 0.012 - 0.218 - 0.387 0.669 -0.005

0 0.003 0 n/a n/a - 0.006 n/a - 0.157 0.123 - 0.264/100 - 0.418 - 0.548 0.555 - 0.057/100

0 0.5014 0 0 0 n/a n/a -0.2841 n/a n/a n/a -0.2343 n/a n/a

Mq Mp Lq Nw
Nr

X lon Ylat Z col Llat M lon N ped N col

- 44 -

Table 3.11 shows that all of the dimensional derivatives for the 29 vehicle are larger than the 9 values. This is to be expected because the larger vehicle should experience larger forces and moments to go with its increased mass and inertias. It also shows that the flight test and wind tunnel results are all of the same sign and fairly close. The only exception is that of the difficult derivative Mu. Wind tunnel testing revealed a much smaller value for this critical derivative (0.003) than the flight test (0.5014).

- 45 -

3.2.3 Trek Aerospace Solotrek

Although nothing like the other vehicles examined, the Trek Aerospace (now Trek Entertainment, Inc.) Solotrek does possess ducted fan technologies which are common to the MAV and OAV. One of the Solotreks ducted fans (Figure 1.4) was inserted into the NASA Ames 7 x 10 wind tunnel at Moffett Field for aerodynamic testing. Forces and moments were recorded with various wind tunnel and fan speeds while the ducted fan was mounted at 90 to the flow. The pitching moment was recorded with varying forward speeds and propeller RPM. The results of that test are shown in Figure 3.14. This data could be used for determination of dimensional pitching moment derivatives.
200 180 160 Pitching Moment (ft-lbs) 140 120 100 80 60 40 20 0 0 20 40 60 Wind Tunnel Speed (fps) 80 100 120 1800 rpm 2200 rpm 2600 rpm 3000 rpm

Figure 3.14 Solotrek Wind Tunnel Test Results for Pitching Moment

- 46 -

Figure 3.14 shows how increasing the fan speed increases the pitching moment. By fitting lines to the data for 0 to 20 knots, a linear representation of the pitching moment derivative is obtained for this low speed condition. This is shown in Figure 3.14 as dashed lines. The slopes of these lines are the dimensional derivatives. They are summarized in Table 3.12. Figure 3.14 also shows that some critical velocity may exist when the derivative will actually swing to negative. This is seen in the 1800 RPM case to be around 70 fps. Table 3.12 Pitching Moment Derivatives and Solotrek Fan Speed Pitching Moment Derivative Mu Fan Speed (rpm) 1,800 2,200 2,600 3,000
ft-lb ft sec

1.034 1.376 1.933 2.589

This wind tunnel testing was the extent of identification work completed for the Solotrek vehicle.

- 47 -

3.2.4 Hiller Flying Platform The Hiller Flying Platform along with a dummy mannequin was attached to the top of a truck and possessed equipment to measure moments and forces as it was driven at Moffett Field in 1958. The results of the tests by Sacks3 are the basis for the pitching moment identification. The primary data of concern is that of the pitching moment directly measured with increasing truck speed. The results of those runs are presented in Figure 3.15.
450 400 350 Pitching Moment (ft-lbs) 300 250 200 150 100 50 0 0 20 40 Speed (fps) 60 80

Figure 3.15 Hiller Flying Platform Pitching Moment Data The truck test was performed with the fan running at the speed required to keep the vehicle in hover. However, it also contained a dummy 6 foot tall, 175 lb man. Because this comparison is primarily focused on the pitching moment characteristics of - 48 -

the duct, the effects of the man need to be removed from the above moments. This is done by approximating the man as a flat plate (6 x 2). While crude, this investigation is merely to establish a trend with the pitching moment characteristics of ducted fan vehicles.

The relationship for the drag on a flat plate for Re > 1000 is presented as Figure 3.16.

Figure 3.16 Drag over a Flat Plate Perpendicular to Flow With the approximation in size of the man, a drag coefficient of CD = 1.1 is found from Figure 3.15. It follows that the drag of the man will vary with velocity as in Equation 3.19.

D plate =

1 2 v ACD 2
- 49 -

(Equation 3.19)

It is known that the dummy was placed directly on top of the platform, so it is assumed that the drag will have a moment arm of 3 feet above the platform, or half the height of the plate used to approximate the drag. This allows the determination of moment produced with airspeed due to the dummy. This is calculated and then subtracted from the actual data in Figure 3.15 to produce Figure 3.17.

450 400 350

Pitching Moment (ft-lbs)

Hiller Test Results Approximate Dummy Moment Approximate Duct Pitching Moment Linear Fit for 20 knts

300 250 200 150 100 50 0 0 20 40

Speed (fps)

60

80

Figure 3.17 Results of Removing Dummy Moment from Hiller Platform Test It can be seen that the moment from the dummy is increasing with truck speed. Removing the effect of the dummy produces the green line. This is then used to fit a line to determine the average slope from 0 to 20 knots (33.8 fps). This slope of this dashed line is the dimensional pitching moment derivative, Mu.

- 50 -

M u PLATFORM = 5.11

ft-lb ft sec

This dimensional derivative is naturally much larger than the other values looked at for the other vehicles. This makes sense because this is a much larger vehicle. It is a positive number for hover. However, it will go negative if the wind velocity reaches some critical speed. In this case, that velocity is 55 feet per second. This follows the trend of the other vehicles.

- 51 -

3.2.5 Vehicle Scaling Laws and Comparisons

It becomes apparent that the ducted fans looked at all share some basic characteristics in one way or another. One of the main advantages of the RUAV designs mentioned in Chapter 1 is that these vehicles can hover. Hovering flight leaves these vehicles highly susceptible to wind in station-keeping applications. Of particular interest is the derivative Mu. This derivative characterizes the vehicle very well in hovering flight (as seen with OAV flight test: Equation 3.15) in the hovering cubic. To understand the nature of the vehicles and fully characterize and identify their flight, some time is needed to understand the pitching moment characteristics. In order to compare the pitching moment characteristics of the four vehicles, Mu must be nondimensionalized to take into account the size of the vehicles, the propeller effects, and the ducts themselves. To do this, the nondimensional pitching moment definition for rotorcraft is applied:

M ~ pitching moment

CM =

~ density
2

A ( R ) R

~ blade rotation speed (rad/sec) R ~ duct radius A ~ duct area

This method primarily accounts for duct size with the radius terms, and fan speed . Because the condition we are most interested in is low speed around hover, we look at the derivative about zero to 20 knots airspeed for the vehicles. In other words, the slope of a line fit to the pitching moment vs. airspeed data is calculated for only the low speed condition. This value is then nondimensionalized with the above method. It is

- 52 -

apparent that the size of the duct is the driving factor in the aerodynamic pitching moment. In fact, this nondimensionalization by the third power of the radius follows what was observed for ducted fans by Sacks3. This approximation of the way the pitching moment varies with duct size is used to compare the three vehicles. The geometries of the vehicles are used here to determine the dimensional and nondimensional parameters for comparison (Table 3.13). In the case of the Solotrek fan, the four different fan speeds are presented. Table 3.13 Pitching Moment Coefficient Summary Vehicle Flying Platform Wind Tunnel OAV Flight Test 1,800 RPM 2,200 RPM Solotrek 2,600 RPM 3,000 RPM Wind Tunnel i-Star 9 Flight Test i-Star 29 Pitching Moment Derivative Mu
ft-lb ft sec

Nondimensional CMu 7.95 x 10-5 1.09 x 10-5 6.52 x 10-5 3.21 x 10-5 2.86 x 10-5 2.87 x 10-5 2.90 x 10-5 1.30 x 10-6 2.01 x 10-4 1.14 x 10-6

5.11 0.011 0.00643 1.034 1.376 1.933 2.589 0.00323 0.5014 0.11652

It is evident from Table 3.13 that the values are within the same order of magnitude and show positive speed stability for most of the vehicles and methods. Wind tunnel values seem to differ from the other values. The largest values are seen with the flight test for MAV and wind tunnel results for OAV. The values for the different fan speed for the Solotrek duct are all closely related, demonstrating that the same method is nondimensionalizing well for vehicles of varying prop speeds.

- 53 -

Table 3.13 reveals that this method may not be accounting for the entirety of dominant characteristics for ducted fan vehicles. This is seen in the way the Solotrek differs from the other smaller chord vehicles. To account for more specific geometries, a method which better characterizes the propellers was also investigated. This nondimensionalization uses the chord and radius of the rotating propellers to nondimensionalize the pitching moment:

CM =

M ~ pitching moment
2

A ( R ) R

~ density
~ blade rotation speed (rad/sec) R ~ duct radius A ~ duct area b ~ # of blades c ~ mean blade chord

bc = R
Table 3.14 represents the results of this method.

Table 3.14 Pitching Moment with Blade Chord Summary Vehicle Flying Platform Wind Tunnel OAV Flight Test 1,800 RPM 2,200 RPM Solotrek 2,600 RPM 3,000 RPM Wind Tunnel i-Star 9 Flight Test i-Star 29 Pitching Moment Derivative Mu
ft-lb ft sec

Nondimensional CMu 4.48 x 10-4 1.03 x 10-4 6.15 x 10-4 2.90 x 10-4 2.58 x 10-4 2.60 x 10-4 2.61 x 10-4 2.45 x 10-5 3.80 x 10-3 5.20 x 10-5

5.11 0.011 0.00643 1.034 1.376 1.933 2.589 0.00323 0.5014 0.11652

This method yields values similar to the previous methods in Table 3.13. The numbers here are more closely related and show that the nondimensionalization is an

- 54 -

adequate way to characterize the different pitching moment characteristics for these vehicles. It is can be seen that the derivatives for the i-Star class of vehicles differ considerably from the other ducted fans analyzed. In the case of the wind tunnel results for these two vehicles, the 9 value (2.45 x 10-5) and the 29 value (5.20 x 10-5) are of the same order of magnitude, but an order lower than all of the other vehicles. This suggests that there may be something unique about the i-Star design, or that there was something unexplainable happening with the wind tunnel tests of the vehicles. Flight test revealed that the 9 vehicle actually had a very large value for Mu (3.80 x 10-3). This is an order larger than the other vehicles, and a full two orders greater than the wind tunnel results for the same vehicle. This could be due to the fact that Mu was found to be so dominant in the identification. To briefly summarize and conclude, all four of the ducted fan vehicles exhibit likeness in pitching moment characteristics. The only anomaly seen is with the i-Star vehicle which shows relatively higher and lower CMu values in comparison to the other vehicles and the method of identification.

- 55 -

3.3 Servo Actuator Identification

The goal of the actuator test program was to measure a set of data that was used to identify models of the actuator dynamic response characteristics. These actuator models include linear transfer functions of the input/output relationships as well as non-linear actuator properties such as actuator rate and position limits. The identification was performed using the CIFER. Linear 0th/2nd order transfer functions capturing the actuator dynamics were identified. Testing allowed for the determination of the maximum angular rates and positions using linear curve-fitting of the square wave responses. An explanation of the construction of the actuator block diagrams built is also included. The actuators are a critical part of the flight control system and it is important to have accurate models of the dynamics and limits of the actuators themselves. Individual blocks were created for each actuator corresponding to each of the tested 5 volt and 6 volt conditions. This section also includes a time domain validation of the actuator models. The goal of bench testing the control surface actuators was to collect a set of bench test data that will be used to identify the actuator dynamics. This test data was also used to determine the position and rate limits of the actuators. The significance of other non-linear actuator properties, such as hysteresis and stiction, are also evaluated from the bench test data. The bench testing was carried out in accordance with CIFER flight test techniques wherever possible. Five separate actuators from four manufacturers were tested. The

- 56 -

actuators varied in size, weight, cost, and performance. The manufacturers specifications are presented in Table 3.15. Figure 3.18 shows the relative sizes of the actuators tested.

Table 3.15 Manufacturer Specifications for Servo Actuators Tested

MODEL NUMBER JR PROPO DS8417 HITEC HS-512MG JR PROPO DS368 AIRTRONICS 94091 CIRRUS CS-10BB WEIGHT (oz) TORQUE (oz/in@ 4.8V) RATE (deg/sec) L (in) W (in) D (in)

2.03 0.80 0.80 0.32 0.19

82.0 42.0 53.0 18.0 7.0

600.0 352.9 285.7 500.0 1000.0

0.73 0.39 0.50 0.44 0.37

1.52 1.33 1.12 0.91 0.90

1.32 1.18 1.17 0.87 0.61

Figure 3.18 Actuators Tested and Relative Sizes

The test apparatus was comprised of a rigid aluminum base stand with allowances for the actuators to fit inside without moving. For the smaller actuators, small wooden strips were used to ensure rigid mounting. The actuator horns were connected to horns on potentiometers using clevises. The potentiometers offered little to no load resistance. The mechanical apparatus can be seen in Figure 3.19.

- 57 -

Figure 3.19 Actuator Test Stand Apparatus A close up of the small Cirrus CS-10BB servo mounted on the test fixture in the wooden strip is presented as Figure 3.20.

Figure 3.20 Cirrus CS-10BB Mounted on Wooden Strip

- 58 -

It is noticeable from the figure that the servo horn and the potentiometer horn are not the same length. This means that the deflection of the potentiometer horn will not be the same as the deflection of the servo horn. All attempts were made to keep these lengths the same. Measurements of all the actuators and the various geometries accounting for the aforementioned differences were taken with precision calipers and recorded as seen in the schematic in Figure 3.21.

Figure 3.21 Schematic Detailing Linkage Geometry

It is apparent that because the center-center distance is different from the hornhorn measurement, the servo deflection will not be 90 when the potentiometer is at 90. The geometries for all of the actuators are presented in Table 3.16.

- 59 -

Table 3.16 Actuator Linkage Geometries

HORN
HORNHORN (in) SERVO HORN (in) POT HORN (in) CENTERCENTER

SERVO MIN (deg) MAX (deg)

INPUT MIN (103) MAX (103)

POT

SERVO

VOLT

(in)

MIN

MAX

MIN

MAX

SERVO w/ POT @ 90

DS8417

5 6 5 6 5 6 5 6 5 6

3.482 3.482 3.688 3.688 3.527 3.527 3.51 3.51 3.67 3.67

0.994 0.994 0.757 0.757 0.495 0.495 0.509 0.509 0.504 0.504

0.975 0.975 0.669 0.669 0.468 0.468 0.469 0.469 0.468 0.468

3.460 3.460 3.719 3.719 3.539 3.539 3.544 3.544 3.652 3.652

-40 -40 -60 -60 -45 -45 -55 -55 -45 -45

60 60 68 68 60 60 50 50 60 60

-40.741 -40.741 -46.419 -46.419 -48.610 -48.610 -43.471 -43.471 -43.814 -43.814

34.174 34.174 30.644 30.644 32.539 32.539 39.408 39.408 39.785 39.785

-50 -50 -40 -40 -50 -50 -50 -40 -50 -50

50 50 40 40 50 50 50 40 50 50

1810 1809 1851 1854 2102 2102 1880 1987 1930 1935

3728 3727 3895 3882 4086 4085 3870 3670 3963 3969

91.268 91.268 87.653 87.653 88.611 88.611 86.170 86.170 92.077 92.077

JR94091

DS368

HS12MG

CS-10BB

The most non-linear case was observed for the HS12MG where problems with the horns also resulted in binding and interference at larger deflections. For this reason, the maximum commanded deflection was limited to 80% of the maximum actuator deflection when testing this actuator. The potentiometer apparatus was located next to Allied Aerospaces HIL simulation test stand. This utilized the ADC and DAC capabilities of the vehicle hardware to feed the actuators the Pulse Width Modulation (PWM) from the stimulus files prepared in accordance with CIFER flight test techniques. The two primary measurements required for the CIFER identification were the sweep commanded into the actuator and the potentiometer reading as a result of the actuator moving. Because of the nature of the recording equipment, calibration factors were required to convert the input and output signals to degrees. These calibration factors were determined using the geometries shown in Table 3.16 and are presented in Table 3.17.

- 60 -

Table 3.17 Actuator Calibration Factors for Input and Output Channels to Degrees
CALIBRATION FACTOR SERVO VOLTAGE IN Channel (degrees/unit input) 5 6 5 6 5 6 5 6 5 6 0.000749 0.000749 0.000963 0.000963 0.000811 0.000811 0.000829 0.001036 0.000836 0.000836 OUT Channel (servo deg/POT units) 0.0391 0.0391 0.0377 0.0380 0.041 0.0409 0.0416 0.0492 0.0411 0.0411

DS8417 JR94091 DS368 HS12MG CS-10BB

The hardware fed signals from -50,000 to 50,000 to the servos and recorded potentiometer deflection from roughly 1500 to 4500. The calibration factors in Table 3.17 relate these to degrees of command and deflection of the servo. They are a result of the geometries and readings for each actuator-voltage combination tested. Data was recorded at 50 Hz and there was no filtering of the input and output channels. An unidentified glitch was observed in the output signal and showed itself as a signal spike at roughly every 5 samples (0.1 sec). This was evaluated and it was determined to be minor in identifying the dynamics. With that exception, there was very little noise in the signals. Frequency sweep actuator commands were used to generate test data from which frequency responses of control surface response due to actuator command could be identified. From these frequency responses, transfer functions of the actuator dynamics were extracted. The non-linear effects, such as rate and position limits were identified by using a square-wave command.

- 61 -

The time histories of the actuator command signals were computer generated using the frequency sweep code that was described for the flight test frequency sweep maneuvers. The inputs to this code specify the various parameters of the frequency sweep. These parameters are shown in Table 3.18 for the sweeps used in the tests.

Table 3.18 Frequency Sweep Used for all Actuators Description: Control axis Total duration of sine sweep Duration of zero signal Time for signal fade-in Time for signal fade-out Signal sample rate Minimum frequency of sweep Maximum frequency of sweep Filter cut-off frequency Amplitude of control input Maximum allowable amplitude Noise random flag Units: sec sec sec sec Hz Hz Hz Hz % % Value: 1 30 2 3 1 50 0.1 10.0 -1 10, 50, (80),100 100 -1

The signal amplitudes used to drive the actuators during the frequency sweep tests were 10, 50 and 100% of the maximum pulse width amplitude and was generated with computer code. In the case of some of the smaller actuators (DS368 & HS512MG), the 100% input was brought down to 80% because of clevis interference at higher deflections. White noise is not required in the command signals for actuator testing. A cut-off filter could be included to ensure that the frequency content of the command signal does not go beyond a maximum frequency. This is not required for bench testing and no filter cut-off frequency was set, indicating that the signal should not be filtered.

- 62 -

Figure 2.1 shows an example frequency sweep time history generated with the computer code. A 100% square wave was used to drive the actuators to their position limits. A 50% square wave was also used to determine rates for smaller peak to peak deflections. The parameters for the square wave are shown in Table 3.19. Table 3.19 Square Wave Parameters Description: Total duration of wave Signal sample rate Amplitude of positive step Positive step hold time Amplitude of negative step Negative step hold time Units: sec Hz % max sec % sec Value: ~30 50 50, 100 0.5 50, 100 0.5

The amplitude of the actuator signal is the percentage of the maximum pulse width amplitude that drives the actuators in each direction. As an example, the chirp input, response time history, and square wave used for the DS8417 is presented in Figure 3.22.

- 63 -

Chirp Input
50 40 30 20 Deflection (deg) 10 0 0 -10 -20 -30 -40 -50 Time (sec) 5 10 15 20 25 30

Potentiometer Response
50 40 30 20 Deflection (deg) 10 0 0 -10 -20 -30 -40 -50 Time (sec) 5 10 15 20 25 30

60

40 20

Deflection (deg)

0 0 -20 -40 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

-60 Tim e (sec)

Figure 3.22 Sample Chirp Input, Response, and Square Wave Time History - 64 -

The test matrix is provided as Table 3.20. It outlines the recorded file name, model number, and conditions of the actuator tested. The CIFER case name for the frequency sweep cases is also listed if identification was completed.

Table 3.20 Actuator Bench Test Matrix

CIFER NAME TEXT FILE NAME MODEL NUMBER
JR PROPO DS8417 JR PROPO DS8417 JR PROPO DS8417 JR PROPO DS8417 JR PROPO DS8417 JR PROPO DS8417 JR PROPO DS8417 JR PROPO DS8417 JR PROPO DS8417 JR PROPO DS8417 JR PROPO DS8417 JR PROPO DS8417 HITEC HS-512MG HITEC HS-512MG HITEC HS-512MG HITEC HS-512MG HITEC HS-512MG HITEC HS-512MG HITEC HS-512MG HITEC HS-512MG HITEC HS-512MG JR PROPO DS368 JR PROPO DS368 JR PROPO DS368 JR PROPO DS368 JR PROPO DS368 JR PROPO DS368 JR PROPO DS368 JR PROPO DS368 AIRTRONICS 94091 AIRTRONICS 94091 AIRTRONICS 94091 AIRTRONICS 94091 AIRTRONICS 94091 AIRTRONICS 94091 AIRTRONICS 94091 AIRTRONICS 94091 CIRRUS CS-10BB CIRRUS CS-10BB CIRRUS CS-10BB CIRRUS CS-10BB CIRRUS CS-10BB CIRRUS CS-10BB CIRRUS CS-10BB CIRRUS CS-10BB

VOLTAGE

AMPLITUDE (% max)
100 100 100 50 10 100 50 10 100 50 10 100 100 50 10 100 100 50 10 100 80 100 50 10 100 100 50 10 100 80 50 10 80 80 50 10 80 100 50 10 100 100 50 10 100

SAMPLES

RECORD TIME (sec)

n/a 29.56 29.28 29.22 29.04 29.32 29.28 n/a 21.34 27.84 22.46 27.60 29.24 29.64 29.92 22.50 29.28 29.32 29.00 28.08 18.34 29.18 29.42 29.24 25.06 29.16 29.24 29.48 24.82 29.34 29.16 29.34 28.34 29.26 29.50 28.80 30.38 29.32 29.38 29.50 23.96 29.26 29.52 29.34 22.90

DS8417_1 DS8417_2 DS8417_3 DS8417_4 DS8417_5 DS8417_6 DS8417_7

HS512MG1 HS512MG2 HS512MG3 HS512MG4 HS512MG5 HS512MG6

DS368_1 DS368_2 DS368_3 DS368_4 DS368_5 DS368_6 94091_1 94091_2 94091_3 94091_4 94091_5 94091_6 CS10BB_1 CS10BB_2 CS10BB_3 CS10BB_4 CS10BB_5 CS10BB_6

DS8417_TEST_RUN.TXT DS8417_100_5.TXT DS8417_100_5_2.TXT DS8417_50_5.TXT DS8417_10_5.TXT DS8417_100_6.TXT DS8417_50_6.TXT DS8417_10_6.TXT DS8417_100_5_square.TXT DS8417_50_5_square.TXT DS8417_10_5_square.TXT DS8417_100_6_square.TXT HS-512MG_100_5.TXT HS-512MG_50_5.TXT HS-512MG_10_5.TXT HS-512MG_100_5_square.TXT HS-512MG_100_6.TXT HS-512MG_50_6.TXT HS-512MG_10_6.TXT HS-512MG_100_6_square.TXT HS-512MG_80_6_square.TXT DS368_100_5.TXT DS368_50_5.TXT DS368_10_5.TXT DS368_100_5_square.TXT DS368_100_6.TXT DS368_50_6.TXT DS368_10_6.TXT DS368_100_6_square.TXT 94091_80_5.TXT 94091_50_5.TXT 94091_10_5.TXT 94091_80_5_square.TXT 94091_80_6.TXT 94091_50_6.TXT 94091_10_6.TXT 94091_80_6_square.TXT CS-10BB_100_5.TXT CS-10BB_50_5.TXT CS-10BB_10_5.TXT CS-10BB_100_5_square.TXT CS-10BB_100_6.TXT CS-10BB_50_6.TXT CS-10BB_10_6.TXT CS-10BB_100_6_square.TXT

5 5 5 5 5 6 6 6 5 5 5 6 5 5 5 5 6 6 6 6 6 5 5 5 5 6 6 6 6 5 5 5 5 6 6 6 6 5 5 5 5 6 6 6 6

n/a 1478 1464 1461 1452 1466 1464 n/a 1067 1392 1123 1380 1462 1482 1496 1125 1464 1466 1450 1404 917 1459 1471 1462 1253 1458 1462 1474 1241 1467 1458 1467 1417 1463 1475 1440 1519 1466 1469 1475 1198 1463 1476 1467 1145

- 65 -

Three of CIFERs subprograms were utilized to perform the identification. FRESPID (frequency response identification) was used to generate multiple responses at different window lengths for each condition. COMPOSITE (multi-window averaging) was used to average the results of the FRESPID cases into one response. NAVFIT (transfer function fitting) was used to identify the 0th/2nd order transfer function of the actuator dynamics from the COMPOSITE results. These linear models are required for the optimization of the control system using CONDUIT. A strong effect of the nonlinear characteristics on the responses was observed. Correlation to previous studies on nonlinear actuators is provided which explains some of the inaccuracies in the linear model. Following the test matrix yielded 5 actuators with 2 different voltages and 3 different sweep magnitudes. These 30 cases were processed in CIFER and frequency responses were generated within FRESPID. A single sweep was used for each of the conditions. Five frequency responses were generated for each case based on window size for the FFT routine within CIFER. 5, 10, 15, 20, and 25 second windows were used. These responses were averaged into one response for each case using COMPOSITE. The COMPOSITE response is the response used for the transfer function fitting. The responses were analyzed for regions of best coherence in order to ensure fidelity of the responses to be used for linear model fitting within NAVFIT. Plots for each of the FRESPID generated frequency responses for each case are presented at the end of this memo in Appendix B. Table 3.21 shows the responses used for identification and the frequency ranges where NAVFIT was used to fit a transfer function. The case names for each of the

- 66 -

frequency response curves shown in Appendix C can be referenced to the case names in Table 3.21.

Table 3.21 Actuator NAVFIT Frequency Ranges for CIFER Cases

NAVFIT FREQ RANGE CIFER NAME MODEL NUMBER VOLTAGE AMPLITUDE (% max) (rad/sec) MIN 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 (rad/sec) MAX 35 35 45 35 35 25 35 35 35 25 30 25 30 35 35 35 35 35 35 35 35 -

DS8417_1 DS8417_2 DS8417_3 DS8417_4 DS8417_5 DS8417_6 DS8417_7 HS512MG1 HS512MG2 HS512MG3 HS512MG4 HS512MG5 HS512MG6 DS368_1 DS368_2 DS368_3 DS368_4 DS368_5 DS368_6 94091_1 94091_2 94091_3 94091_4 94091_5 94091_6 CS10BB_1 CS10BB_2 CS10BB_3 CS10BB_4 CS10BB_5 CS10BB_6

JR PROPO DS8417 JR PROPO DS8417 JR PROPO DS8417 JR PROPO DS8417 JR PROPO DS8417 JR PROPO DS8417 JR PROPO DS8417 HITEC HS-512MG HITEC HS-512MG HITEC HS-512MG HITEC HS-512MG HITEC HS-512MG HITEC HS-512MG JR PROPO DS368 JR PROPO DS368 JR PROPO DS368 JR PROPO DS368 JR PROPO DS368 JR PROPO DS368 AIRTRONICS 94091 AIRTRONICS 94091 AIRTRONICS 94091 AIRTRONICS 94091 AIRTRONICS 94091 AIRTRONICS 94091 CIRRUS CS-10BB CIRRUS CS-10BB CIRRUS CS-10BB CIRRUS CS-10BB CIRRUS CS-10BB CIRRUS CS-10BB

5 5 5 5 6 6 6 5 5 5 6 6 6 5 5 5 6 6 6 5 5 5 6 6 6 5 5 5 6 6 6

100 100 50 10 100 50 10 100 50 10 100 50 10 100 50 10 100 50 10 100 50 10 100 50 10 100 50 10 100 50 10

It became apparent after generating responses for the 10% max deflection cases that the signals were not adequate for system identification work. Although the coherence was good, the responses did not resemble 0th/2nd order forms of 0-dB gain at low

- 67 -

frequency and a break at -40 dB per decade at the natural frequency. Because the 0th/2nd forms were not valid, these responses were rejected from system identification results. Table 3.22 includes the complete NAVFIT results for natural frequency and damping ratio for each case. The NAVFIT cost function result for each case is also presented. Table 3.22 Actuator NAVFIT Results for all Cases
CIFER NAME MODEL NUMBER VOLTAGE AMPLITUDE (% max)

0.4986 0.5074 0.5166 0.5034 0.6556 0.5472 0.5606 0.5352 0.5243 0.5920 0.5136 0.5168 0.5039 0.5446 0.5108 0.5302 0.5489 0.5345 0.5019 0.5273 0.5192 -

(rad/sec) 20.4054 20.3759 33.0836 22.5944 50.9824 13.9439 21.9789 16.4602 22.9373 11.2955 16.4615 12.1254 18.0762 17.429 21.3608 18.8425 23.4087 18.3889 26.2309 21.0582 29.0844 -

(sec) 0.0110 0.0067 0.0055 0.0054 0.0155 0.0079 0.0121 0.0132 0.0127 0.009 0.0042 0.006 0.0117 0.0054 0.0048 0.010 0.0073 0.0036 0.0045 0.0077 0.0069 -

COST

DS8417_1 DS8417_2 DS8417_3 DS8417_4 DS8417_5 DS8417_6 DS8417_7 HS512MG1 HS512MG2 HS512MG3 HS512MG4 HS512MG5 HS512MG6 DS368_1 DS368_2 DS368_3 DS368_4 DS368_5 DS368_6 94091_1 94091_2 94091_3 94091_4 94091_5 94091_6 CS10BB_1 CS10BB_2 CS10BB_3 CS10BB_4 CS10BB_5 CS10BB_6

JR PROPO DS8417 JR PROPO DS8417 JR PROPO DS8417 JR PROPO DS8417 JR PROPO DS8417 JR PROPO DS8417 JR PROPO DS8417 HITEC HS-512MG HITEC HS-512MG HITEC HS-512MG HITEC HS-512MG HITEC HS-512MG HITEC HS-512MG JR PROPO DS368 JR PROPO DS368 JR PROPO DS368 JR PROPO DS368 JR PROPO DS368 JR PROPO DS368 AIRTRONICS 94091 AIRTRONICS 94091 AIRTRONICS 94091 AIRTRONICS 94091 AIRTRONICS 94091 AIRTRONICS 94091 CIRRUS CS-10BB CIRRUS CS-10BB CIRRUS CS-10BB CIRRUS CS-10BB CIRRUS CS-10BB CIRRUS CS-10BB

5 5 5 5 6 6 6 5 5 5 6 6 6 5 5 5 6 6 6 5 5 5 6 6 6 5 5 5 6 6 6

100 100 50 10 100 50 10 100 50 10 100 50 10 100 50 10 100 50 10 100 50 10 100 50 10 100 50 10 100 50 10

37.804 33.020 17.862 26.364 1.324 26.653 11.352 42.696 12.813 65.993 32.826 59.259 31.008 27.490 9.593 19.964 13.922 19.862 6.294 16.154 5.641 -

- 68 -

Table 3.22 shows that for the first actuator tested, the same 100% sweep at 5V was applied. The NAVFIT results for these same sweeps show nearly identical results. This was done to ensure repeatability and consistency of the test. The frequency responses and the transfer function fits are presented by CIFER name (referenced in Table 3.22) in Appendix C. As Table 3.22 shows, in general, all the actuators running the sweep to only 50% instead of the full 100% yielded a noticeably higher natural frequency and higher damping ratio. This is because the smaller deflections allow the actuator to reach higher frequencies before the rate limit is reached. This is evident in the frequency responses for all the actuators as illustrated for the HS512MG in Figure 3.23.

- 69 -

6 Volts

5 Volts

Figure 3.23 HS512MG Responses Illustrating Difference between 5V and 6V

- 70 -

The time delays all seemed to be around 0.005 0.010 seconds. These numbers cannot be taken as the pure transport delay because some of the delay is being absorbed in the second order form that NAVFIT determines after iterating for the best fit. Running the actuators with more power (6V) yields slightly higher damping ratios and higher natural frequencies for all of the actuators. The costs for each fit seem to be very reasonable and show that the second order model is quite valid for the responses exhibited by all of the actuators. The only response that may have been the subject of error is the 50% deflection sweep at 6V on the DS8417 which shows a really low cost and a noticeably higher natural frequency than the rest of the responses. This is due to the fact that for the frequency range analyzed, the magnitude did not break sharply. This left a relatively flat response for which a second order form was easily fitted. More constrictive frequency ranges were chosen to study the effects this range had on the fit presented by NAVFIT. It was determined that the frequency range had little effect on the transfer function fit unless it went below the break frequency. As the frequency responses show, all of the responses demonstrate clean breaks at their natural frequencies and 0-dB gain at low frequencies with the exception of the 50% deflection on the DS8417 at 6V. The primary tool used for the determination of the nonlinear properties of the actuators was the square wave shown in Figure 3.22. The square wave commanded a near instantaneous change from maximum to minimum deflection. Using the geometric calibration factors in Table 3.17, the maximum actuator deflection was calculated for the

- 71 -

0.5 seconds that the actuator was at the maximum position. This is where it was receiving a PWM length of 1.0 ms (negative max) to 2.0 ms (positive max). A linear curve fit was used between the test points where the response to the change in deflection was constant. This meant that although the first change from -100% to 100% occurred at a given time, for all the actuators there was still a transient response due to the dynamics of the actuator that were ignored. Most fits actually started at up to 0.1 second after the commanded change. Figures 3.24 and 3.25 illustrate this for the JR PROPO DS8417 for full 100% deflection at 6V. The response data in Figure 3.24 shows the measurement spike every fifth data point that was described earlier. The presence of this spike does not have a significant effect on the identification results.
60 Response Command 20

40

0 0 -20 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2

-40

-60

Figure 3.24 Sample Square Wave Response

- 72 -

4000 3500 3000 2500 2000 1500 1000 500 0 0.4 0.42 0.44 0.46 0.48 0.5 0.52 0.54 0.56 0.58 y = -13429x + 9284.1 R2 = 0.9958

Figure 3.25 Linear Fit for Max Rate Determination The square wave commanded a maximum and minimum deflection. This is shown in Figure 3.24 as 50 and -50 degrees, respectively because the actual limits were not known during testing. Figure 3.24 clearly shows that the servo was saturated. It also shows the transient response. The figure shows how the maximum positions can be read from the plot. It is asymmetric because the servo horn was not able to be positioned at exactly the 0 location due to the teeth on the gear. To correct for this, the position limits were fixed to be symmetric about zero degrees. Figure 3.25 shows how nicely a linear curve fit could be accomplished. By using the slope from that line and applying the calibration factor from Table 3.17, the maximum rate in degrees/second was found. This was repeated for each of the actuators to yield the final nonlinear characteristics for the actuators as shown in Table 3.23.

- 73 -

Table 3.23 Actuator Nonlinear Characteristic Summary

SERVO VOLTS POSITION (deg) RATE (deg/sec) MIN MAX -437.2 -524.5 -402.3 -435.2 -219.8 -264.6 -328.1 -376.5 -474.7 -567.2 437.1 534.9 422.0 467.8 220.5 265.7 317.6 404.7 442.1 536.4

DS8417 JR94091 DS368 HS12MG CS10BB

5 6 5 6 5 6 5 6 5 6

+/- 37.4571 +/- 38.5315 +/- 40.5744 +/- 41.4394 +/- 41.7992

It is apparent from Table 3.23 that there are different rates for different directions on the actuators. The test stand was mounted horizontally, so gravity is was not the cause. The DS368 proved to have the best symmetry in its rates where the smaller and lighter CS-10BB showed to be more asymmetric. Many factors can contribute to this asymmetry. Because there is a motor with an armature inside, the brushes on the motor may be conditioned to one direction. It should be noted that the square wave used for the first test was repeated at 50% maximum deflection. There were not enough data points at which the actuator rate was saturated to fit a valid linear curve at this deflection. For this reason, all results used a full 100% deflection command in the square wave to ensure saturation of the rate. The sampling rate of 50 Hz and nature of the square wave did not reveal any identifiable stiction or hysteresis. Although they undoubtedly exist, the methods employed here did not reveal any substantial findings. More accurate potentiometers,

- 74 -

higher data rates, and tighter tolerances on the test equipment may have revealed these nonlinearities. It should be mentioned that observing the smaller actuators like the CS-10BB and 94091 revealed that at very high frequencies the actuator demonstrated output not directly correlated to the input. This sporadic output is visible in the time responses shown in Figures 3.26 and 3.27.
50 40 30 20 10 0 0 -10 -20 -30 -40 -50 5 10 15 20 25 30

Deflection (deg)

Time (sec)

Figure 3.26 CS-10BB at 5V Time History Illustrating Erratic Response at High Frequency
40 30 20

Deflection (deg)

10 0 0 -10 -20 -30 -40 -50 5 10 15 20 25 30

Time (sec)

Figure 3.27 94091 at 6V Time History Illustrating Erratic Response at High Frequency

- 75 -

50 40 30

Deflection (deg)

20 10 0 -10 -20 -30 -40 -50 0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Time (sec)

Figure 3.28 94091 at 5V Time History not Showing Erratic Response

Interestingly, the 94091 at 5V did not display this asymmetric response to the extent that the 6V case did (Figure 3.28). The coherence for these actuators in this frequency range still remains relatively high, indicating that the output is correlated with the input. What the time histories reveal though is that the oscillations do not occur about 0. These smaller actuators have issues tracking the input symmetrically at high frequencies. The nature of the sporadic response was observed in all of the actuators to some extent, but not more so than in the 94091 at 6V and CS-10BB at 5V and 6V. The errors in tracking the input signal at high frequencies associated with these small actuators must be a consideration when selecting an actuator for high bandwidth applications. It is known that the nonlinear characteristics of the actuators, especially rate limiting, will have an effect on the accuracy of the linear transfer function models. It was observed that although the magnitude fits were accurate for some of the NAVFIT results, the match of the linear second order system on the phase curve did not fully characterize the response. This was investigated further in an attempt to add fidelity to the model. The DS8417 showed the worst correlation between the linear model response and the - 76 -

response and the response obtained from test data. Figure 3.29 shows the phase of the DS8417 at 5V with a 100% sweep.

Figure 3.29 DS8417 Frequency Response Illustrating Mismatch in Linear Model

As Figure 14 illustrates, the phase is not fully characterized by the second order fit at frequencies beyond 10 rad/sec. The mismatch shows itself as more time delay roll off at higher frequencies. Previous work completed by STI during investigation of PIOs due to nonlinear vehicle characteristics5 determined that the mismatch in phase lag was due to the rate

- 77 -

limit of the actuators. A comparison of the time histories observed by STI and those of the DS8417 at 5V is presented as Figure 3.30.

Chirp Input

50 40 30 20 Deflection (deg) 10 0 20 -10 -20 -30 -40 -50 Time (sec) 20.5 21 21.5

Chirp Input Actuator Response

22

Figure 3.30 DS8417 Time History Comparison to 1995 STI Findings

- 78 -

The time histories show that the output from the actuator is clearly rate saturated. Work presented by STI shows that a linear describing function could be generated to fit the data in the frequency domain for a given frequency range, but not for all frequency ranges. For a more accurate match over broader frequency ranges, an exact sinusoidal describing function is required. To compute this function, the Fourier integrals are first computed for the input and output fundamentals as shown in the following equations.

According to Klyde, McCruer, and Myers, these integrals are computed for f(t) being either the input or output periodic forcing function. For our case these are both sinusoids with period P, so the input describing functions a1 term is always zero. Using these to characterize the magnitude and phase of the describing functions yields the following relationships5.

In these equations, c is the actuator deflection commanded and is the actual output after rate saturation. Having these open frequency domain representations allows us to characterize the response in order to explain the discrepancies in the phase plots. According to Klyde et al, this difference can be characterized with an error function by

- 79 -

finding these integrals and comparing to the frequency responses generated by the bench test data. That method was effectively applied for the DS8417 actuator by applying a rate limiter on the identified models within Simulink and using FRESPID to then generate a frequency response. The responses for the bench test, NAVFIT linear model response, and the NAVFIT model with rate limit in Simulink are shown in Figure 3.31.

- 80 -

Figure 3.31 Magnitude Comparison for Linear & Nonlinear Model to Bench Test Figure 3.31 shows that as expected, the addition of the rate limiter in the model causes the response to break sooner; this yields a lower natural frequency. The addition of the rate limit increases the magnitude accuracy of the model over the linear NAVFIT result. However, as Figure 3.32 shows for the phase of the same three responses, the

- 81 -

addition of the rate limit actually causes a dip in the response (10 ~ 25 rad/sec) instead of matching the bench test data better. This is most likely due to the fact that other nonlinearities exist and become more influential at higher frequencies. More accurate test equipment and a higher sampling rate would be required to identify these.

Figure 3.32 Phase Comparison for Linear & Nonlinear Model to Bench Test

- 82 -

Performing the frequency response arithmetic within CIFER allowed the frequency response quotient of the rate saturated response to the identified linear NAVFIT model to be generated. NAVFIT was then used to try to characterize the error with a linear transfer function. This resulted in the responses shown in Figure 3.33 for the error function.

Figure 3.33 Error Function Frequency Response and NAVFIT Transfer Function Fit

- 83 -

This response shows that the error function has a maximum phase lag of 32 degrees at approximately 14 rad/sec. However, the maximum error is an important parameter because it is directly related to the ratio of linear and nonlinear rise times ( tR )5. This lag cannot be characterized with a pure time delay, as shown by the NAVFIT result. However, the magnitude response of the error is almost entirely at zero, indicating that the inclusion of the rate limit in the model accurately models the magnitude as was seen previously in Figure 3.31. The loss of phase fidelity starting at around 12 rad/sec is a relatively high frequency for control system design and shows that the linear model with the rate limiter would be fairly accurate for simulation purposes.

- 84 -

Results from STI utilizing the exact describing function yielded Figure 3.34. The frequency is normalized by the actuator bandwidth ( n ) to represent the ratio n . This generates the family of curves relating the difference in phase to the ratio of linear rise time to nonlinear rise time ( tR =
t RL t RNL

).

Figure 3.34 Rise Time Ratio Phase Lag Relationship For the maximum phase error of 32 degrees seen in Figure 3.33, Figure 3.34 predicts a rise time ratio of tR = 0.17 at a normalized frequency of n = 0.6. Looking at the step response of the linear NAVFIT results without rate limiting, we see the rise time to be t RL = 0.08 sec, as shown in Figure 3.35.

- 85 -

Figure 3.35 Rise Time for Linear Model of DS8417 at 5V Determining the rise time from the nonlinear, rate-limited model was accomplished by analyzing the square wave time responses and found to be t RNL = 0.192 sec. Comparing this rise time to the linear rise time reveals a ratio of tR = 0.38. Although not exactly the predicted 0.17, the only nonlinearity that was included in this model was the rate limiting. As mentioned previously from Figure 3.34, the predicted maximum difference in phase lag would be expected at a normalized frequency of n = 0.6. The bandwidth of the DS8417 is approximately n = 20 rad/sec (Table 8). The error function in Figure 3.33 shows the maximum additional lag to occur at 14 rad/sec. This corresponds to a normalized frequency of n = 0.7. This is very close to the predicted frequency where the additional lag is most apparent and is consistent with the STI trend.

- 86 -

The fact that the rate saturated during the sweep was readily noticeable in the fact that all the natural frequencies and damping ratios were higher for the 50% sweeps than the 100% ones. Plotting this trend as in Figure 3.36 shows that as expected, the natural frequency drops with increased sweep amplitude. This trend is also evident in Figure 16 where the addition of the rate limit effectively causes the response to break sooner and illustrates how much an effect the rate limit has on the response.
1.2 1 0.8 0.6 0.4 0.2 0 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Amplitude of Sweep (% of max deflection)

Figure 3.36 Sweep Amplitude and Natural Frequency with Rate Limiting The result of the comparison to the STI data is that the general trends of the data are correct. The addition of the rate limit in the model effectively corrects the magnitude of the response. According to the error function in Figure 3.33, the model should lose fidelity in the phase of the response around 14 rad/sec where the error is at a maximum.

- 87 -

With the nature of the linear and nonlinear characteristics of the actuators determined modeling and validation of the actuators was performed. The modeling was done in a way which could be used for control system optimization and simulation. The model is built within Simulink and includes the linear 0th/2nd transfer function form and the identified nonlinear characteristics of rate and position limits. The validation of the models is accomplished in the time domain by feeding the models the same chirp input used in the test and comparing the responses to bench test responses. With the actuator models identified, Simulink block diagrams were created to be used in the inner loop block diagrams for MAV control system optimization and simulation. The blockset can be seen in Figure 3.37.

Figure 3.37 - Simulink Actuator Blockset

Each block is configurable when double clicked, but reflects the CIFER identified results for each voltage based on the results presented in Table 3.22 for the dynamics and

- 88 -

Table 3.23 for the maximum rates and positions. The mean average of the 50% and 100% sweep deflections were incorporated into the blocks because they were quite similar. The block is left configurable to allow specification of the exact characteristics for the condition and max deflections being used for the application, as seen in Figure 3.38.

Figure 3.38 Configurable Actuator Parameters

The physical characteristics of the actuator from the manufacturer are also presented in the header of the block parameters dialogue. A Matlab (HTML-based) help file is also accessible through the parameters dialogue.

- 89 -

The blocks are all masks with the same underlying block diagram as shown in Figure 3.39.

Figure 3.39 - 2nd Order Actuator Dynamics behind Mask

It can be seen that a first order Pade approximation of the time delay is used. Because no observable hysteresis was recorded, all of the blocks have values of zero for this parameter, but it can still be specified within the parameters dialogue.

- 90 -

Verification of the identified models was accomplished by using the same sweep input fed into the actuators during bench testing. A typical result is shown for the DS8417 in Figure 3.40 with all actuator model validations appearing at the end of this memo within Appendix D.

Figure 3.40 DS8417 at 5V Time Domain Validation

Figure 3.40 shows that the response has been captured in the model which includes the rate and position limits. The non-linearties not accounted for and the asymmetric response, begin to show as a loss of fidelity beyond approximately 13 ~ 16

- 91 -

rad/sec. The total deflection of the actuator and phase are not fully modeled at these higher frequencies, as seen when zooming in on the response in Figure 3.40. From the error function presented previously in Figure 3.33, we see that the maximum difference in phase shows itself at 14 rad/sec (2.2 Hz). This corresponds to what is seen here in the time domain. Any accurate modeling beyond 5 Hz would require more accurate test and data acquisition equipment, in addition to more complex nonlinear, open-form models. The goal of the actuator test program was to measure a set of data that was used to identify models of the actuator dynamic response characteristics. These actuator models include linear transfer functions of the input/output relationships as well as non-linear actuator properties such as actuator rate and position limits. The responses of the actuators were modeled by using CIFER to generate frequency responses and then fit 0th/2nd order transfer functions. The position and rate limits of the actuators were determined by analyzing the response to the square wave input. It was found that the phase characteristics for some of the actuators were not fully captured with the linear models. Comparing to known theory revealed the extent to which the maximum rate of the actuator affects the response. The inclusion of the rate limit in the model significantly improved the accuracy of the magnitude but some differences are still seen at higher frequency due to nonlinear effects that are not included. The identified actuator dynamics and nonlinear rate and position limits were used to construct a set of Simulink actuator blocks. These blocks are customizable and include the manufacturer specifications. A time domain validation of the models showed them to be accurate up to the highest frequency range of interest for flight control work. When comparing the manufacturer listed rate limit specifications (3.15) with those obtained

- 92 -

from testing (3.22), it was found that the true actuator rate limits were lower than those quoted. All of the actuators demonstrated increased bandwidth, damping ratios, and rate limits when powered at 6V instead of 5V. The smallest and fastest actuators have issues tracking the input at high frequencies. The CS-10BB at 5V and 6V and the 94091 at 6V exhibited these characteristics. Based on bandwidth, maximum rate, weight, and size the Airtronics 94091 is the best performing when run at 5V. It is one of fastest actuators tested while remaining the 2nd lightest. Its performance is comparable to the much larger and heavier JR DS8417 while being much smaller. The manufacturers specified maximum torques of the actuators tested varied considerably. This is an important factor because the application will drive the amount of torque required. All bench tests were conducted with the actuators unloaded and no conclusions could be made about the effect of load on the actuator response.

- 93 -

3.4 Sensor Identification

The identification of the sensors and their respective errors is an area that requires some attention. Because these vehicles are unmanned they usually utilize their control systems in a conservative manner. Expanding the envelope of operation would be beneficial to the overall performance and mission success. However, the small size of the vehicles leaves them susceptible to low performance sensors. Knowing the limitation of the components and the effects they have on the control systems is important. All of the vehicles utilize inner loop controllers to stabilize the airframe. This is usually comprised of proportional, rate, and integral feedback. This PID controller is usually adequate to control the vehicle nicely in hover and forward flight. In some cases, the need for cross feed in pitch and roll or pitch and yaw was deemed necessary due to high coupling and large propeller inertias. In flight test however, this proved unwarranted. The reliance on the highest performing, small-packaged, rate gyro is high. Magnetometers are used for heading determination. The accelerometers are needed for determination of lateral and longitudinal speed as well as vertical speed. This is complimented with a pressure altimeter. Ultimately, machine or synthetic vision, laser ranging equipment, and other advanced telemetry would be needed for accurate position and landing requirements. GPS with selective availability (SA) off working nominally at 1 Hz was used for outer loop position control. All of these areas need to be modeled to have a working model of the entire system (1.11).

- 94 -

3.4.1 Accelerometer Identification

Modeling of typical accelerometers was done with the representative Crossbow CXL04LP3. This is the accelerometer present on the Honeywell OAV. The accelerometers were modeled with white noise and random bias. Figure 3.41 shows how this was done. According to the manufacturer, the modules could report up 0.2 g of max bias. This would be erratic and slowly switching between positive and negative. A random number is filtered to ensure subtle changes between positive and negative. Hysteresis was also identified to be no more than 0.1 g. The noise coming into the system was identified as 10 mg RMS.

Figure 3.41 Accelerometer Model

Figure 3.42 shows the noise and nonlinear effects the model has while the sensor is stationary over a period of 10 minutes.

- 95 -

Figure 3.42 Accelerometer Stationary Noise Model

3.4.2 Rate Gyro Identification

Identification of the rate gyros was performed on the Inertial Science RRS75. This was also part of the OAV sensor package. The piezoelectric rate gyros (3.43) were modeled in a similar fashion as the accelerometers. The parameters are different; they are based on Inertial Science specifications. The description from Inertial Science specified the noise as a function of the bandwidth at which the gyros were run. The expression was:

Noise =

0.01

deg sec BW

It can be seen that as the bandwidth increases, the RMS of noise will as well. - 96 -

Figure 3.43 shows that gyros were modeled with the noise specified from the manufacturer as well as Hysteresis and a slow drift modeled as a sine wave of low frequency.

Figure 3.43 Rate Gyro Model

The hysteresis was identified as a 0.1 wide dead zone, and the max bias specified was 0.02 deg/sec. Figure 3.43 shows the models response to a constant 15 deg/sec input.

- 97 -

Figure 3.43 Rate Gyro Response to Constant 15 deg/sec for 10 sec

3.4.3 GPS Receiver Identification

To model the GPS error and characteristics, a lot of tie was spent studying the nature of the test data provided for the BLOX GPS-MS1E receiver used on the Honeywell OAV. The GPS manufacturer supplied detailed metrics as well as actual test data to verify the accuracy of the model. Figure 3.44 shows how the manufacturers specifications were implemented in Simulink. The actual positions north and east in feet are biased by a low frequency random number that sweeps the position about the origin to a max error of 10 feet. The random numbers are set to a variance to closely meet the 5 meter Circular Error Probability (CEP 50%) specification provided by BLOX which quantifies the error by predicting that at least 50% of the GPSs readings will lie within a

- 98 -

5 meter circle centered about the true position. The modeling was completed for the case of Selective Availability (SA) off.

The module was running at a 1 Hz sampling rate. This was modeled with a zero order hold. The speed calculation was modeled by applying a unit delay and taking the difference of the positions and dividing by the sample time. Figure 3.44 appears as the main green block in Figure 3.45, which shows how the speeds were combined and the heading calculated from the north and east positions.

Figure 3.44 GPS Heading and Speed Model

- 99 -

Figure 3.45 GPS Error and Discrete Signal Model

- 100 -

Figure 3.46 shows the modeled fluctuation of position over a 2 hour period assuming the sensor is stationary at (0,0).

Figure 3.46 GPS Model Results

3.4.4 Magnetometer Identification

Identification of the magnetometers used for heading determination was performed on the Honeywell HMC 2003 used on the OAV. The magnetometers were modeled with a max noise of 0.001 gauss, and a small Hysteresis 0.002 gauss wide. The only other specification modeled was the 40 microgauss resolution specified by Honeywell. Figure 3.47 shows the model, while Figure 3.48 depicts a 5 sec reading at 5 gauss.

- 101 -

Figure 3.47 Magnetometer Model

Figure 3.48 Magnetometer Depiction at 5 Gauss for 5 Seconds

3.4.4 Pressure Altimeter Identification Identification was performed on the Motorola MPX 4115A based on manufacturer specifications. Motorola specified a max noise error of 0.03 inches of Hg. This was scaled to an approximate linear relationship in the standard troposphere relating pressure to altitude. Figure 3.49 depicts the final model.

- 102 -

Figure 3.49 Pressure Altimeter Model Figure 3.50 shows the models response to constant 15 foot reading for 5 seconds.

Figure 3.50 Pressure Altimeter at 15 feet for 5 seconds

- 103 -

CHAPTER 4 Flight Simulation

The wealth of identification information and models were applied to a full nonlinear simulation. This model was used to extract a linear state-space model about hover as well as investigate certain flying qualities. Automated sweeps were fed through the model in an attempt to simulate flight test sweeps which were unavailable and evaluate the effects of the nonlinear effects. The model used was that of the Allied Aerospace MAV. Although it was found to be the most troublesome in correlating the Mu derivatives with the other vehicles, it was the timeliest and possessed the most information from wind tunnel testing, sensors, actuators, and flight control laws. This vehicle was also in a Phase I DARPA ACTD program at the time of writing.

4.1 Simulated Frequency Sweeps

An industry supplied Simulink model was used to feed frequency sweeps in of varying parameters in order to create time history responses for use in CIFER. Figure 4.1 shows the top level Simulink model used.

- 104 -

Figure 4.1 Simulink MAV Model

Figure 4.1 shows the special code written to handle the unique task of real-time simulation on a PC running COTS equipment. Special code was written to throttle Matlabs Simulink to run in near real-time. This is seen as the TimeKeeper subsystem block. Although no guarantee of frame sizes and determinism is made within the timer code, it nevertheless works quite well. Code written to handle joystick input from the Logitech Strike Force 3D USB Joystick is also required. Output for such things as graphics and sound are provided by special software utilizing a 100 Base-T network shares the computing load. Together, these subsystems combine to create a unique and powerful simulation environment shown in Figure 4.2.

- 105 -

Figure 4.2 Custom PC and COTS Simulation Environment

While outside the scope of this research, it suffices to say that the environment allows for some unique monitoring and evaluation of the overall simulation. Other subsystems were built up to handle the flow of state variables and the creation and formatting of CIFER specific time history text files. Special code was also written to handle the sweep of the vehicle. As it would become apparent, and mentioned in the proper methods to frequency domain identification, the nature of the sweep used to generate responses is extremely important. For this reason, the changing of parameters in a timely manner is valuable. This was accomplished with special code and a graphical user interface (GUI) which handles the specification of parameters. This sweep GUI is depicted in Figure 4.3.

- 106 -

Figure 4.3 Simulink Sweep Generator GUI Built for Sweeps

Using the GUI and code in Figure 4.3, the sweep of Figure 4.4 was used to simulate a sweep through the actual vehicle with all of its included sensors and nonlinear actuators.

- 107 -

Figure 4.4 Simulink GUI Generated Sweep

Of note from Figure 4.4 is that the sweep does not have a fade in and fade out time associated with it as was seen in Chapter 2, Figure 2.1. This is due primarily to the fact that for a 300 second sweep, the amount of energy going in to the system in the low frequency region needs to be high. In a piloted sweep, there is usually plenty of lower frequency data due to doublets and natural oscillation by the pilot. The parameters for this sweep can be seen as entered in the GUI in Figure 4.3. From the start, sweeping the vehicle proved to be problematic within Simulink. The simulation environment is isolated and protected from naturally occurring oscillations and energy other than that of the sweep entered. Also, by the nature of the simulation, all coupling is hard-wired directly into the simulation. This means that the addition of noise to break up off-axis coupling will still show high degrees of correlation to on-axis inputs. The RUAV class of vehicles analyzed all use spinning propellers inside a duct for lift. With small vehicle inertias and very high speed propellers, gyroscopic coupling occurs between pitch and roll. The angular momentum of the spinning propeller will

- 108 -

cause a pitching moment to be exerted on the vehicle when its angular momentum vector is moved in roll. The reverse is true if moved in pitch; a rolling moment is produced. This effect is apparent in the stability derivatives Mp and Lq. Due to sign conventions in standard helicopter coordinate systems, Mp will be a positive value and Lq will be negative. It is these gyroscopic effects that make simulating a sweep through the vehicle difficult. They directly correlate the roll and pitch controls and make it difficult for CIFER, or any identification tool to determine which input is creating which output. This was seen when the MAV vehicle was flight tested. The actual flight test data revealed correlation and cross-control coherence between the roll and pitch commands. This is shown in Figure 4.5.
1 COHERENCE

0.6

0.2 0.1

FREQUENCY (RAD/SEC)

10

100

Cross Coherence between Pitch and Roll

Figure 4.5 MAV Flight Test Cross Coherence between Pitch and Roll controls

It is readily evident that there is a large amount of coherence at some gyroscopic mode between 2 ~ 7 rad/sec.

- 109 -

4.1 Matlab Linear Model Determination

Assuming that there are no other sources of coupling in pitch and roll besides gyroscopic effects, the coupling could be calculated from what is known about the angular momentum of the propeller and would be the key to modeling and sweeping the simulation. Equations 3.17 and 3.18 from the MAV bare airframe identification are repeated here.
Mp = I prop I yy

(Equations 3.17 and 3.18)

Lq = I prop I xx

A look at these equations shows that there would be a linear relationship between the amount of moment received in pitch or roll due to the cross controls generated response. In fact, as Figure 4.6 shows, the dynamics in pitch and roll can be separated entirely.

- 110 -

Figure 4.6 Cross Control Decoupling Block Diagram

Figure 6 shows that by applying Equations 3.17 and 3.18, equivalent control inputs are generated from the off-axis responses. For a pitch command, a pitch response

and a roll response are generated. Because the gyroscopic nature is known, it can then be
applied to come up with an equivalent roll command input. The similar approach is used with the roll command. To illustrate how this is possible, we look at the linearization results from Matlab.

- 111 -

Linearization of a nonlinear Simulink model is accomplished by the following steps:

1. 2. 3. 4. Identify inputs, outputs, and states. Invoke the trim function to bring all controls to yield desired states. Run the linmod function to generate quadruple matrices. Adjust linmod minimum step size and tolerance as needed.

With the model trimmed, linmod was used to generate the model setup (based on states occurring as integrators in Simulink) presented in Equations 4.1 4.8.

& x = Fx + Gu

(Equation 4.1) (Equation 4.2)

& y = H 0 x + H1 x p q r u x = y = v w
lat lon u= col ped

(Equation 4.3)

(Equation 4.4)

- 112 -

 Lp M p Np Xp F = Yp Zp 1 0 0 Llat M lat N lat X lat G = Ylat Z lat 0 0 0

Lq Mq Nq Xq Yq Zq 0 1 0 Llon M lon N lon X lon Ylon Z lon 0 0 0

Lr Mr Nr Xr Yr Zr 0 0 1

Lu Mu Nu Xu Yu Zu 0 0 0

Lv Mv Nv Xv Yv Zv 0 0 0

Lw Mw Nw Xw Yw Zw 0 0 0

0 0 0 0 g 0 0 0 0

0 0 0 g 0 0 0 0 0

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

(Equation 4.5)

Lcol M col N col X col Ycol Z col 0 0 0

Lped M ped N ped X ped Yped Z ped 0 0 0

(Equation 4.6)

H0 = I H1 = 0

(Equation 4.7) (Equation 4.8)

With this setup, the derivatives were calculated and Table 3.11 is repeated here as Table 4.1 and expanded upon with the results from linmod.

- 113 -

Table 4.1 Linmod, Wind Tunnel, and Flight Test Results for i-Star 9

I-Star Vehicle Derivative

9 Wind Tunnel Flight Test -0.1090 -0.1090
(Fixed to Xu)

LINMOD

Xu Yv Zw Lv Lp Mu Mq Mp Lq Nw
Nr

-0.4003 -0.4003 -0.1737 -0.2373 0 0.2373 0 2.6261 -2.6261 -0.004 0 -0.1554 0.1233 -0.0027 -0.412 -0.8361 1.1416 0.0004

- 0.344 - 0.344
(Fixed to Xu)

- 0.212 0.004
(Fixed to Mu)

n/a -0.5014
(Fixed to Mu)

0 0.003 0 n/a n/a - 0.006 n/a - 0.157 0.123 - 0.00264 - 0.418 - 0.548 0.555 - 0.00057

0 0.5014 0 n/a n/a n/a n/a -0.2841 n/a n/a n/a -0.2343 n/a n/a

X lon Ylat Z col Llat M lon N ped N col

- 114 -

It can be seen right away that the results from linmod agree very well with the wind tunnel results. This is to be expected because the simulation is based on a table lookup scheme directly based on tables from the wind tunnel data. This shows that

linmod is working and the vehicle is trimmed in a hover state.

Returning now to the simulated sweeps, we can overlay the frequency response for the simulated sweep with the results of linmod. This is done in Figure 4.7.

Figure 4.7 LINMOD and Simulated Sweep Roll Frequency Response

Figure 4.7 illustrates how the simulated sweep breaks down due to the crosscoupling in pitch and roll. Once MISOSA is used in an attempt to remove the

- 115 -

contributions of pitch input on the roll response, the result is a loss of coherence about the gyroscopic mode (2~4 rad/sec) and a stable phase characteristic- which is know to be untrue. Comparing the linmod results to the FRESIPD case where all the off-axis contribution is intact reveals a better match, but misses the nature of the response and is tainted by the fact that a good amount of energy was put into the system from the pitch coupling. From Figure 6 it is evident that we can model and validate the system the without the pitch and roll coupling by treating each response as uncoupled. We can then superimpose the coupling as linear feedback into the off-axis control. The nature of the coupling is known already so we can avoid the breakdown in coherence. With the coupling removed, Figure 4.8 shows the dramatic change in cross-control coupling.

Figure 4.8 Effect of Removing Cross Control Coupling to Response

- 116 -

Figure 4.8 shows that the coherence drops dramatically when the inertial coupling is removed. This means that once the coupling is removed from the model by removing the propeller inertia, the coupling all but disappears. This proves that the coupling diagram in Figure 4.6 would be a valid approach for correction and Figure 4.9 illustrates how well the results of sweeping the model and the results of linmod agree.

Figure 4.9 Coupling Removed Illustrating linmod and Simulated Sweep Results

Figure 4.9 shows that the results of linmod and simulated sweep match up very well and that this method of treating the coupling as an external, linear, effect works from a modeling point of view. A similar approach was used for the pitch response to be compared with the actual flight test data. The results of the linmod model, the parametric

- 117 -

state space model determined with CIFER, and the actual frequency response from flight test data is shown in Figure 4.10.

Figure 4.10 Comparison of linmod and Flight Test Pitch Responses

Figure 10 shows excellent agreement between the flight test results and the linear model determination with linmod within Simulink on the wind tunnel data-based model. Although there are some differences in the phase and magnitude of the response from linmod, these results are deemed fairly good considering the use of limited flight test data. It is interesting to note that all the models reveal a lack of fidelity at about 2 ~ 3 rad/sec. This is gyroscopic coupling mode.

- 118 -

CHAPTER 5 CONCLUSIONS

The need for accurate simulation models of small scale, ducted-fan, unmanned air vehicles has lead to the development of techniques unique to this class of vehicles. Taken as a whole, this research activity shows that by combining existing industry tools with new techniques a fairly high fidelity model can be constructed. This model comprehensively contains sensor and high fidelity actuator models along with nonlinear bare airframe models. Models and trends were developed by analyzing a number of different vehicles spanning almost 50 years. All the vehicles showed that the ducted fan is vulnerable to a high degree of pitching and translation at slow speeds due to a strong effect of the lateral and longitudinal moment derivatives, Mu and Lv. This class of vehicles also shows that the coupling of roll and pitch due to the spinning ducted fan proves troublesome during identification. This is avoided by identifying the linear coupling and then removing it from the correlated responses. The use of flight test results, simulation analysis, and wind tunnel data all may be required to ensure proper modeling techniques. Sensor performance is seen to be less than desirable due to the small packaging and weight of the available components. In the area of actuation, the maximum rate of the servos was seen to have profound effects on high bandwidth performance. This is important to consider because almost all MOUT exercises require some sort of higher bandwidth maneuvering. Overall, this research has shed some light on some of the unique tasks and procedures for the system identification of ducted fan unmanned air vehicles.

- 119 -

BIBLIOGRAPHY Works Cited: 1.) James M. McMichael, Col. Michael S. Francis, USAF (ret), Micro Air Vehicles Toward a New Dimension in Flight, DARPA Program Office Web Release: Dec. 1997. 2.) Theodore, Colin, M. Tischler, J. Colbourne, Rapid Frequency Domain Modeling Methods for UAV Flight Control Applications, AIAA Proceedings, Aug. 2003. 3.) Sacks, Alvin H., The Flying Platform as a Research Vehicle for Ducted Propellers, Hiller Helicopters, Proceedings for the 26th Annual Meeting of Institute of the Aeronautical Sciences, Jan. 1958. 4.) Tischler, Mark, CIFER Users Manual Volumes 1-4, Army/NASA Rotorcraft Division (ARH), Internal Documentation. 5.) D. T. McRuer, I. Ashkenas, D. Graham, Aircraft Dynamics and Automatic Control, Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1973. 6.) Klyde, D.H., McRuer, D.T., Myers, T.T, Pilot-Induced Oscillation Analysis and Prediction with Actuator Rate Limiting", Journal of Guidance, Control, and Dynamics, Vol. 20, No. 1, Jan-Feb 1997. References: 1. Graham, D., McRuer, D., Analysis of Nonlinear Control Systems, Wiley and Sons, New York, 1961. 2. Klyde D., D.T. McRuer, & T. Myers Unified Pilot-Induced Oscillation Theory, Volume I: PIO Analysis with Linear and Nonlinear Effective Vehicle Characteristics, Including Rate Limiting; Systems Technology, Inc.; December 1995. 3. Lazareff, M., Aerodynamics of Shrouded Propellers, Nord Aviation, France, Agardograph 126, The Aerodynamics and V/STOL Aircraft, May 1968. 4. Lipera, L., Colbourne, J. D., Tischler, M. B., Mansur, M. H., Rotkowitz, M. C., and Patangui, P., The Micro Craft iSTAR Micro Air Vehicle: Control System Design and Testing, Proceedings of the American Helicopter Society 57th Annual Forum, Washington, DC, May 2001. 5. Mansur, M. H. Frye, M., Mettler, B., Montegut, M., Rapid Prototyping and Evaluation of Control System Designs for Manned and Unmanned Applications, Proceedings of the American Helicopter Society 56th Annual Forum, Virginia Beach, VA, May 2000.

- 120 -

6. Mettler, B., Tischler, M. B., and Kanade, T., System Identification of Small-Size Unmanned Helicopter Dynamics, Proceedings of the American Helicopter Society 55th Annual Forum, Montreal, Canada, May 1999. 7. Mettler, B., Tischler, M. B., and Kanade, T., System Identification of a SmallScale Unmanned Rotorcraft for Flight Control Design, Journal of the American Helicopter Society, Vol. 47, No. 1, January 2002. 8. Micro Craft Ducted Air Vehicle, Larry Lipera, American Helicopter Society International Powered Lift Conference, Arlington, CA, November 2000. 9. Nelson, R.C., Flight Stability and Automatic Control, 2nd ed., New York: McGraw-Hill, 1998. 10. Nise, N.S., Control Systems Engineering, 2nd Edition, Addison-Wesley 1995. 11. Tischler M. B., Colbourne J. D., Morel, M. R, Biezad D. J., Cheung K. K., Levine W. S., and Moldoveanu V., A Multidisciplinary Flight Control Development Environment and Its Application to a Helicopter, IEEE Control System Magazine, Vol. 19, No. 4, pg 22-33, August 1999. 12. Tischler, M.B. and M.G. Cauffman, Frequency-Response Method for Rotorcraft System Identification: Flight Application to BO-105 Coupled Rotor/Fuselage Dynamics. Journal of the American Helicopter Society, 1992. 37/3: p. 3-17.

- 121 -

Manufacturer References:
Crossbow CXL04LP3
http://www.xbow.com/pdf/Accelerometer/LP/LP%20Accel.pdf Crossbow Technology, Inc. 41 Daggett Drive San Jose, CA 95134-2109 Phone: (408) 965-3300 Fax: (408) 324-4840 Email: info@xbow.com

JR Components 8700G Super Servos

Saturation identified from World Class Models: http://www.worldclassmodels.com/cgi-bin/agora/agora.cgi?product=servos

BLOX GPS-MS1E

http://www.u-blox.ch/gps/gps-ms1e/ubloxgps performance.pdf

Zuercherstrasse 68 P/O Box 78 8800 Thalwil Switzerland Email: info@u-blox.com Phone (UK): +44 (0) 1622 618628

Inertial Science RRS75

RRS75.pdf Peter Moon Inertial Science, Inc. (805) 499-3191, (805) 498-4882 Fax http://www.inertialscience.com pjmoon@inertialscience.com

Honeywell HMC 2003

http://www.ssec.honeywell.com/magnetic/datasheets/hmc2003.pdf

Motorola MPX 4115A

http://e-www.motorola.com/webapp/sps/prod_cat/prod_summary.jsp?code=MPX4115&catId=M98716

- 122 -

Appendix A OAV Proposal Vehicle

Identified State-Space Quadruple and Form
& x = Fx + Gu & y = H1 x + H 2 x

v p x = u q r
0 0.197 0 F = 0 0 0 0

p y = q r

pmixer u = qmixer rmixer

0 32.17 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

0 0 0 0 0 0

0 0 0 0 1 0

.2623 0

0 0 0 0 32.17 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

0 0 0 .2958 0 0 0 0 0 G= 0 0 0 0 .3013 0 0 0 0 0 0 .3629

0 0 0 0 57.3 0 0 0 H1 = 0 0 0 57.3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 57.3

H2 = 0

- 123 -

Appendix B

Frequency Response Bode Plots for all Actuator Cases

- 124 -

DS8417 5V

- 125 -

DS8417 6V

- 126 -

HS512MG 5V

- 127 -

HS512MG 6V

- 128 -

DS368 5V

- 129 -

DS368 6V

- 130 -

94091 5V

- 131 -

94091 6V

- 132 -

CS-10BB 5V

- 133 -

CS-10BB 6V

- 134 -

Appendix C

Actuator Generated Transfer Function Models Bode Plot Verification

- 135 -

DS8417 100% - 5V

- 136 -

DS8417 100% - 5V

- 137 -

DS8417 50% - 5V

- 138 -

DS8417 100% - 6V

- 139 -

DS8417 50% - 6V

- 140 -

HS512MG 100% - 5V

- 141 -

HS512MG 50% - 5V

- 142 -

HS512MG 100% - 6V

- 143 -

HS512MG 50% - 6V

- 144 -

DS368 100% - 5V

- 145 -

DS368 50% - 5V

- 146 -

DS368 100% - 6V

- 147 -

DS368 50% - 6V

- 148 -

94091 80% - 5V

- 149 -

94091 50% - 5V

- 150 -

94091 80% - 6V

- 151 -

94091 50% - 6V

- 152 -

CS-10BB 100% - 5V

- 153 -

CS-10BB 50% - 5V

- 154 -

CS-10BB 100% - 6V

- 155 -

CS-10BB 50% - 6V

- 156 -

Appendix D

Actuator Time Domain Verification of Final Models

- 157 -

Time Domain Verification DS8417 5V

DS8417 6V

- 158 -

94091 5V

94091 6V

- 159 -

CS-10BB 5V

CS-10BB 6V

- 160 -

DS368 5V

DS368 6V

- 161 -

HS-512MG 5V

HS-512MG 6V

- 162 -