NASA Technical Paper 1118
TECH LIBRARY KAFB, NW
IllllllH1Iullllllll11111illIlllIIIIll
0134489
Eigenvalue/Eigenvector Assignment Using Output Feedback
S. Srinathkumar Langley Research Center Hampton, Virginia
NationalAeronautics and Space Administration
Scientific and Technical Information Office
1978
The problem of
SUMMARY
eigenvalue assignment in a
linear timeinvariant
system
using output feedback is considered. New sufficient conditions are derived to assign an almost arbitrary _{s}_{e}_{t} of minimum (n,m _{+} r _{} 1) distinct eigenvalues where n, m, and r are the number of states, inputs, and outputs, respec tively. These conditions precisely identify,the class of systems where such an assignment is impossible. The synthesis technique also highlights the freedom in selection of closedloop eigenvectors under output feedback. The utility of eigenvalue/eigenvector assignment in transient response shaping _{i}_{s} illustrated by the design of a controller for the lateral dynamics of an aircraft.
INTRODUCTION
Control system design based
on eigenvalue
or pole assignment has received
a great deal of attention in the literature.
trollable system, if state variable feedback is employed, all eigenvalues can be
assigned (ref. 1). Also it is known that for multiinput systems, the feedback
law assigning a given set of
trol laws can yield identical eigenvalues while yielding radically different
eigenvectors.
on each
fully may result in undesirable mode coupling and other poor transient behavior. For nstate feedback systems, it has been shown (ref. 2) that with m inputs, in addition to the assignment of all n eigenvalues, up to m entries in each eigenvector can be arbitrarily assigned. However, the problem of eigenvalue
assignment using output feedback instead of state feedback has not yet been com pletely resolved. The problem of determining conditions under which all eigen values of a system can be arbitrarily assigned to a system under output feedback has been investigated in references 3 and 4. Bounds on the number of states, in terms of number of inputs, outputs, controllability, and observability indices are established for complete pole assignability. Reference 5 shows that for a system with r outputs, if mr 2 n then the system is poleassignable provided
the feedback gain elements are allowed to be complex numbers.
7 address the converse problem: given a controllable, observable system, how many eigenvalues can be arbitrarily assigned to the system. In general, _{i}_{t} _{i}_{s} concluded (ref. 7) that minimum (n,m + r  1) eigenvalues can 'Ialmost1? always be assigned to the system using output feedback. The qualification llalmost" was introduced to cover classes of systems where such an assignment is impossible. In effect, the analysis in reference 7 does not precisely determine the condi tions under which (m + r  1) eigenvalues cannot be assigned to the system.
It
is
well known that
that
for
a
con
eigenvalues is not
unique and
different con
Since the eigenvectors determine the
failure to use
influence of
each eigenvalue
design
freedom
state variable response,
the multiinput
References 6 and
This report
considers
the problem of
determining the number
of
eigenvalues
assignable to a given system.
ment problem,
By formulating an eigenvalue/eigenvector
for
assign
sufficient
eigenvalues are derived.
conditions required
the assignment of minimum
identify
(n,m
+ r

1)
These conditions precisely
the class of systems which can be assigned only d eigenvalues, where maximum
(m,r)
5
d
<
(m
+ r

1).
The new formulation permits
the
development of an
algorichm to assign (m + r  1) eigenvalues. In addition, (r  1) eigenvectors can be partially assigned with, at most, m entries in each vector arbitrarily chosen. In the event n > (m + r  I), various synthesis alternatives to stabi lize the system are also investigated since in this case all system eigenvalues cannot be assigned. The counter example of reference 7 is used to demonstrate the utility of the new sufficient conditions in identifying systems which cannot be assigned (m + r  1) eigenvalues. Finally, the advantage of both eigenvalue and eigenvector assignments in response shaping is illustrated by designing _{a} controller to meet the lateral handling qualities specifications for an aircraft.
SYMBOLS
U.S. 
Values are given in SI and Customary Units. U.S. Customary Units. 
Calculations were made in 

A 
system matrix 

A 
E 
Rnxn 
n 
x 
n real matrix 
A 

aY 
lateral acceleration, m/sec2 
(ft/sec2) 

B 
input matrix 

C 
mea surement 
matrix 

C 
measurement 
vector 

E 
matrix used 
in equation (45) 
D(k)
d,i,j,k,t
matrices
defined by
indices
equation
(B4)
vector defined in notation 
(1) 
in appendix B 

matrix 
defined 
by 
equation 
(9) 

vector 
defined 
by 
step 3(a) 
of 
appendix B 
matrix 
defined 
by 
equation 
(IO) 

vector 
defined 
by 
step 3(a> of 
appendix B 
matrices used
in equation
(23) and
derived by
substituting
equa
tion 
(6) into equation 
(7) 

vector 
defined 
by step 3(a) of 
appendix B 
(index)th
order identity matrix
j E {~(k’> 
j 
is an element of index set A(k) 

K 
feedback matrix 

_{L}_{i} 
matrices used 
in equation (23) and derived 
by substituting equa 

tion 
(6) into equation (7) 

R 
feedback vector defined by equation (17) 

M(k) ,M(kl 
,M( 
matrices defined by notation (6) in appendix B 

m 
number 
of 
inputs 

max 
maximum value 

min 
minimum value 

N 
matrix defined by equation (13) 

n 
number 
of 
states 

P 
matrix used 
in equation (46) and defined 
immediately afterward 

P 
roll rate, deg/sec 
Q(k1) ,Q(i)
matrices defined by equation (B3)
Q(0) 
matrix defined 
by notation 
(3) in appendix B 

9 
feedback vector 
defined by 
equation 
(18) 

r 
number 
of outputs 

S 
matrix defined by equation 
(8) 

S 
vector 
defined 
immediately prior 
to 
equation 
(20) 

TO,*1 
transformation matrices defined where used 

U 
input vector defined 
by equation 
(2) 

V 
modal matrix (matrix of eigenvectors) 

v(r> 
matrix used in equation (12) 

V,Vi 
eigenvectors 

W 
vector 
used in equation (6); a partition of 
v 

X 
state vector defined by equations 
(1) 

x 
E 
Rn 
n 
x 
1 
real vector 
x 
3
Y output vector
defined
by
equations
(1
Z(r> ,z(t)
z
matrices containing the vectors 
zi; 
i 
= 
respectively 

vector used in equation (6); a partition of 
v 
1
to
r
and
B sideslip,
deg
A( 1
, At
( 1
, Ar ( 1
, A( k)
set of
indices defined
in appendix B
1
to
t,
&a
aileron angular deflection,
&k
&r rudder
determinant defined
in
step
angular deflection,
deg
1
of
deg
appendix B
&Xk,&Zk
perturbed
quantities defined in
respectively
e vector
defined
by notation
(6)
step
1
and
step 4
in appendix B
of
appendix B,
_{A}_{r} _{9}_{%}
X,Xi,Xk
C,WI 9112
‘k
diagonal eigenvalue matrices used respectively 
in equations 

eigenvalues 

vectors defined by 
equations 
(21) 
scalar defined
by notation
(4)
in appendix B
@ bank
angle,
deg
9 yaw rate,
deg/sec
(12) and
(B6),
Superscripts:
1
^{A}^{} , ,,*
Upper
matrix inverse
transformed quantity
case letters of
the alphabet
indicate matrices;
matrix subscripts
indicate 
partitioned 
quantities. 
Dot over a quantity denotes derivative with 

respect 
to 
time. Prime denotes transpose. 
EIGENVALUE/EIGENVECTOR
Consider a system
linear,
time
invariant,
ASSIGNMENT FORMULATION
multivariable,
controllable,
observable
4
X
y
=
=
AX
cx
1
+ BU
where
trivial problem formulation,
find a
x
E
Rn,
u
E
Rm9 y
the
E
Rr,
and
assume
control
law of
form
B
m,r
and
>
1
C
are full rank; and
m,r
<
n.
for a
The problem
and
(1)
non
is
to
u
=
Ky
(2)
in order to assign arbitrary eigenvalues for _{t}_{h}_{e} closedloop system. To
cate clearly the freedom available in the selection of closedloop eigenvalues and eigenvectors under output feedback, the measurement matrix _{C} _{i}_{s} assumed
to be in a special canonical form:
indi
c
c1
=
=
[Cl
[.I;
: CZ]
.I
c2 = [.1.I
c=p
I
7
11I
(3)
Here,
matrix. Appendix A details a procedure for reducing any system (C,A,B) to this special form .
t
=
r

1,
C1
E
Rrxt,
c
E
Rlxnt,
and
It
denotes a
tth order
identity
The 
closedloop 
system matrix 
(A + BKC) after applying feedback law (2) 

satisf ies 

(A + BKC)vi 
= Xivi 
(i = 
1, 
2, 
. 
. 
., n) 
(4) 
where
eigenvalue/eigenvector
values
freedom available in the
is
Xi
the
ith
(4)
eigenvalue and
vi
is
the
to
corresponding eigenvector.
determine the number of
and
The
assignment problem is
that
eigen
in equation
can be arbitrarily assigned
to determine the
selection of
the associated eigenvectors.
In order
equation
(4)
see in partitioned
to
what
freedom exists form as
in the
choice
of
eigenvectors,
write
where A11,Bl E Rmxm and B1 is nonsingular. Since B is full rank, the non
singularity of B1
can be
assured,
if
necessary,
by reordering the state vari
ables in equations (1). Completing the multiplication of the partitioned matrices and some algebraic operations (ref. 8) permits equation (5) to be expressed as a set of constraints on the selection of eigenvectors. For clarity of presentation, these relations are detailed only for real eigenvalues. Exten sion to complex conjugate pairs in quasidiagonal form yielding _{r}_{e}_{a}_{l} eigenvector
pairs is straightforward (ref. 8).
For real eigenvalues
[XI,_,  
F]w 
= [G 
+ 
(6) 

[AI 
+ BIKCIV = XZ 
(7) 

where 
is 
the eigenvalue, 
v' 
= 
[z' 
: 
w']; 
v 
is the eigenvector with 

z 
E 
Rm, 
and 

S 
= B2Bll 
A1
=
[All
: A121
(11)
Equation (6) represents an underdetermined system of n  m equations in
unknowns.
chosen arbitrarily provided does not coincide with the spectrum of F. Examination of equation (7) reveals that at least r eigenvalues and r eigen vectors satisfying equation (6) can be assigned to the system in equations (1) by the feedback matrix
n
be
Thus
m
eigenvector
entries corresponding to
the
zvector
can
where A, is the diagonal matrix of r eigenvalues and
have the form T(r) = [ti : t2 :
solution to equation (12) is .guaranteed provided the eigenvalues/eigenvectors
are chosen to insure the nonsingularity of in the case of state variable feedback (C = I
assigned
Z(r)
and
V(r)
: tr] (where ti
[dr)].
It
)
all
n
are vectors).
should be noted
The
that
n. '
to the system provided the modal matrix
eigenvalues can be
_{e}_{i}_{g}_{e}_{n}_{v}_{e}_{c}_{t}_{o}_{r}_{s}_{)}
_{(}_{m}_{a}_{t}_{r}_{i}_{x} _{o}_{f}
V = [VI 
: v2 
: 
. 
. 
. 
: 
vn] 
is nonsingular. An algorithm which constructs 
such 

a nonsingular 
V 
is detailed in reference 8. 
A pendix B extends this algo 
rithm to guarantee the nonsingularity of
[CV(r)f.
Notice that
by carrying out this analysis on the dual system (B1,A',C'),
it can be shown that m eigenvalues can be assigned to the system. This analy
sis yields the following wellknown result (ref. 9).
6
Lemma
assigned using output
1:
For system
(C,A,B),
feedback.
max(m,r)
eigenvalues can be
The analysis so far
indicates
that
only
max(m,r)
eigenvalues can be
assigned 
to the system using output feedback. 
However, by sacrificing some 

degree of 
freedom 
in the 
selection of the associated eigenvectors it 
is possible 

to extend 
the number of eigenvalues that can be assigned to 
min(n,m 
+ r 
 
1) 
as is shown in the following section.
ALGORITHM TO ASSIGN MINIMUM (n,m + r

1)
EIGENVALUES
The basic approach in the development of this algorithm is to 2onstruct 
the 

output feedback law in equation 
(2) 
as 
a sum of 
two 
feedbacks (K + K). 
The 

first feedback (E) assigns t eigenvalues, and 
the 
second feedback assigns 
additional min(m,n  t) eigenvalues while ensuring the protection of the t eigenvalues already assigned. The construction procedure yields a set of suf
These condi
ficient conditions for assigning tions also help characterize the
min(n,m + r  1) eigenvalues. Finally, some design freedom still exists to partially assign (r  1) eigenvectors.
min(n,m
+ r

1)
eigenvalues.
class of systems which cannot be assigned
Step
1:
Assign
equations
_{(}_{1}_{)}
N=
t
eigenvalues and and form the matrix
corresponding eigenvectors
[.N!
N2
] =
[VI
:
v2
:
.
.
.
:
Vt]
to
the
system in
(13)
with
N.
N1
Let
E
K"
Rtxt
be
and
nonsingular.
Appendix B details
a procedure to construct
the
nonunique
feedback
(eq.
(B6))
corresponding
to
this
assign
ment. 
Then 
the 
closedloop 
matrix 
is 

& 
= 
A 
+ BffC 
(14) 

Step 2: 
where
Apply a coordinate
transformation
(C,$,B)
+
(CT?,T~I~T,,T~~B>
7
The transformed
system has
the
form
where
At
E
RtXt
_I
is the diagonal matrix of eigenvalues assigned in step 1.
should be noted
that
C2
is invariant under the transformation
TI.
(16)
It
Step 3:
In order
to assign additional
eigenvalues to
the
system of
equations
(162
while protecting
is restricted to be of unity rank of the form
_{t} eigenvalues
(A,)
already assigned,
K
= qRc
the
with
second feedback
q
E
Rm,
R E
(K)
Rr,
and 
is chosen so that 

R'P1 
: 
c2] 
= 
[o 
: 
c] 
_{(}_{1}_{7}_{)} 

Now 
q 
must 
be chosen _{s}_{o} _{t}_{h}_{a}_{t} 
is assigned
Since
min(m,n
(i22 ,g2)

t)
eigenvalues.
is controllable,
the
following result holds:
/.4 

Theorem 1: 
The single output subsystem (c,A22,B2) 
can be 
~ 

assigned 
min(m,n 
 
t) 
eigenvalues if 
and 
only if 
(a) (c,A22) 
is observable and (b)
62
is
full
rank.
Theorem
1 follows directly from lemma
1.
Further,
conditions
(a) and
(b)
restrict
the admissible set of
eigenvalue/eigenvector assignments in step
1.
For
conceptual convenience,
these parametric restrictions are formulated in
terms of
controllability conditions of
a
variable representation.
fictitious dynamic
system in the
state
the
After matr;x
submatrix
A22
operations in equations can _{b}_{e} written
_{a}_{s}
(14) and
(16) have been performed,
8
(20) can now be 
looked upon 

Equation feedback to the dynamic 
system 
1 

i = Ai25 
+ Ai2111 + c'112 

n = $5 
+ 
Bi111 

with 
6 
E 
Rnt, 
q 
E 
Rm, 
111 E 
Rt, 
112 E 

N2 = N2N1'1. 
as a system matrix derived 
by applying 
(211 
R',
111
=
fi&,
112 = slq, and
From equations
(21) it
can be
shown that
are equivalent to the following
conditions:
conditions
(c)
&
=
B2
(a)_and (b) of
+ N2B1
and
is
rank;
(d)
[[A22
+ A{~G;],C~
is controllable.
Conditions
(c) and
(d)
theorem
full
clearly
1
indicate the restriction on selection of the eigenvector parameters in step 1. This yields the following sufficient conditions:
Theorem 2: The system (C,A,B) can be assigned min(n,m + r  1) eigenvalues arbitrarily close to the desired set if the first t eigenvalues and eigenvectors in step 1 are chosen so that
I 
N1 
is 
nonsingular 

nl 

I1 
62 
= 
B2 
+ N2B1 
and 
is 
full rank 
I11 
{[A;2 
+ 
Ai&] 
,cl} 
is 
controllable 
"Arbitrarily
closer1 in
theorem 2 indicates
needed in
eigenvalue
specifications may be
the
that
slight perturbations
following
situations:
in
(i) Assigned
eigenvalues coincide with
the
spectrum of
F
(appendix B).
(ii) An 
exact 
combination of 
eigenvalue/eigenvector specifications 
in 

step 
1 
may 
not 
yield 
a nonsingular 
N1 
(appendix B). 

(iii) Coincident spectrum situation similar 
to situation 
(i) exists 
for 

the 
subsystem eigenvalue assignment 
of 
theorem 1. 
Condition I is required to guarantee the existence of the transformation TI in step 2. This condition can be explicitly included in the synthesis pro cedure as detailed in appendix B. Condition I11 is obtained from the property that for system (eqs. (2111, the class of feedback from input 111 should be restricted so that the controllability of the feedback system with respect to
the input 112 is preserved. Conditions I1 and I11 yield nonlinear_ algebraic
and thus,
constraints for the elements of the eigenvector parameter matrix
in general,
However, example 1 of the section entitled llNumerical Examples1! shows how these conditions can be explicitly checked.
N2
can only be used
as test
conditions for
each assignment
in step
1.
9
Step 4:
_{I}_{f} _{t}_{h}_{e}_{o}_{r}_{e}_{m} _{2} _{h}_{o}_{l}_{g}_{s}_{,} 
_{A}_{m}_{i}_{n}_{(}_{m}_{,}_{n} _{} _{t}_{)} eigenvalues can be assigned 
to 
the 
sin 

gle output system (c,A22,B2) by the feedback 
q 
derived 
from lemma 
1. 

Step 5: 

The composite feedback law 

u 
= (i? + i)y 
_{(}_{2}_{2}_{)} 

assigns 
min(n,m + r 
 
1) 
eigenvalues to 
the 
system. 
ASSIGNING
n
EIGENVALUES
The development
so far has revealed
that
for
systems where
n
>
(m
+ r

l),
all system eigenvalues cannot usually be assigned.
tions
values of
However,
by using equa
(6) and
the
(7),
it is possible to derive conditions for assigning all eigen
system as follows.
If
the
eigenvalues to be assigned
in
F (if necessary,
by a perturbation
are noncoincident with
specification), then
the
spectrum of
equation
(6) can be
explicitly solved 
for the 
wvector and substituted into equation 
(7). 
This 
sub 

stitution yields a 
set of 
homogeneous equations of the form 

[Hi + B 
KL 2i 
= 
0 (i = 1, 2, 
. ., n) 
(23) 

1 
11 
. 

where 
Hi 
and Li 
are readily derived. Then equation 
(23) has a nontrivial 

solution 
if 
and only if 
rank 
[Hi 
+ BlKLi] 
< m 
for all 
i 
(24) 

A 
set 
of 
n nonlinear equations in 
the 
m,r parameters of 
the gain 

matrix 
K 
can be derived by 
setting the appropriate determinant in equation 
(24) 
equal to zero.
tence of
However,
the
solution.
no general conclusions can
be drawn regarding
the exis
to
assign t eigenvalues as in equation (14) and to attempt to assign the remain ing (n  t) eigenvalues approximately to the subsystem in equation (18) using the condition in equation (24). In this case, a set of (n  t) linear equations
in m unknowns results, and a leastsquares solution can be obtained. The foregoing discussions assume that r 2 m if necessary by considering the dual system.
An alternative approach not
involving solution
of
nonlinear
equations is
10
Consider

A=
B=
the
NUMERICAL
EXAMPLES
Example
1
system described in reference 7 where
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
1

00
01OL
O
0,
1 
0 

 

c= 

0 
0 
O10O1 
1
Reduce the system
variables as
ing the coordinate transformation (C,A,B) _{+} (ET0 ,TolZTo ,ToIG) where
(25)
to the
special form of

make
equations
(1) by ordering state
and by apply
(XJ,X~,X~,X~)to
sa nonsingular
(appendix A)
::::0001 0010
(26)
11
to yield
A=
B=
001
000
000
000
c=
From equation
1
0
(6)
00
_{1}_{1}
can be
O11 _{,}
shown that
the
closedloop
eigenvectors
satisfy
where
the
eigenvalue
is
X
From theorem 2,
of
choices of
generalitx.
N2
/
condition I,
_{T}_{h}_{e}_{n}_{,}
_{s}_{i}_{n}_{c}_{e}

_{N}_{2}
_{B}_{i}
_{=}
_{=}
0 0
and 
the 
eigenvector 
is 

n1 
# 
0; therefore, 
choose 
n1 
= 
1 without 
loss 

( 42 
9 
n4) I. 
Condition I1 is met 
for 
all 
0.
Condition
I11 implies
that
1112
l!
n3
n4
0 0
should be controllable.
of
For
the
controllability matrix in equation
in equation
(30) to
full
rank,
the eigenvector parameters
(28) must satisfy
be
n2n3

n4
+ n32
+ n3n4
#
o
(311
By direct substitution
sible selections in equation (28).
(m + r  1) = 3 eigenvalues. Indeed, only two eigenvalues
system cannot
equation (31) is
seen to be violated by all admis
the
Thus,
be assigned can be assigned to
12
this
precisely lead
system (ref.
to
7).
this
However,
conclusion.
the
previous analyses
Example 2
Consider the system described by
(ref. _{7}_{)}
1
0
0
0_1
:1l 
0
1
0OI.
It is required to assign eigenvalues close to 1,
2,
(refs.
and 5.
3 and
7) do
not
The system (32)
can 
be 
reduced 
to 
the form of 
equations 
(1) 
by following the procedure in appen 
dix 
A 
as 
Step
1:
Step 2:
Measurement matrix
is in the desired form with
Apply coordinate
transformation
ea
nonsingular.
(C,A,B) + ~CT~,T~~~T~,T~~B~
where
100
011
001
13
yielding
A=
B=
11
01
00 "11
c=
1
0
"1/
11
O
The system (34)
loop eigenvector constraints
respective matrices
B1 = [;
is in the required
in
0
1
canonical form of
equations
in equations
to
(34) can be derived
equations (8)
(10) as
(I).
The closed
by
identifying the
s
=
(1
F=O
1)
G
=
(0
1)
and
equation
_{(}_{6}_{)} yields
Equation
X
#
0.
xw
=
[A
:
(1
+ A)] 1.": .1
(35) indicates
that
Lz2
z1
1
and
>
can be
Now,
applying the algorithm to assign
(m
+
(35)
rbitrarily
r
chosen,
provided
 1) eigenvalues yields
the following synthesis sequence. 

Step 
1: 

Assign 
A 
= 
1. 
From appendix B, 
case 11, 
At(1) 
= 
{l}, 
and 
this 
implies 
z1
is
#
0
in equation
(35).
(Condition I,
theorem 2.)
One acceptable assignment
14
N =
(1
1
1)'
(36)
and a nonunique feedback gain corresponding to this assignment from equa tion (B6) is
The closedloop system matrix of equation _{(}_{1}_{4}_{)} is
Step 2:
Transform the system to the canonical form of equations (16) using
TI
to yield
1 
. 
0 
OI 

. 
. 
. 
. 
. 
. 
. 

0.1 
0 

0. 
0 
0 

^{} 

1 
0 

jL 

1 
1 

 0 
1 

e=[; 
; 
;j 
15
with
feedback
Step 5:
The feedback law of
J
the
form of
equation
(22) is
given by
and assigns the eigenvalues 1,
2,
and
5
to
the
system (eq.
(32)).
The advantage of
AIRCRAFT
LATERAL,
combined
control of
CONTROL
DESIGN
closedloop
eigenvalues and eigenvec
tors using state variable feedback has been investigated in reference IO. The utility of the output feedback extensions developed in this report _{w}_{i}_{l}_{l} now _{b}_{e} illustrated through the design of a lateral controller for an aircraft.
The linear perturbation model
be modeled
j:
as
=
Ax
+
Bu
y = Ex + Du
1
for
the
lateral motions of
an aircraft can
(45)
where
bank angle 0, respectively. The control vector of aileron 6, and rudder
6, angular deflections is u.
tion ay constitute the output vector y. All angles are in degrees, rates in
x
is
the
state vector of roll rate
Roll
rate
p,
p,
yaw rate
yaw rate
9,
sideslip
6,
and
Q, and
lateral
accelera
deg/sec,
and acceleration
in m/sec2
(ft/sec2).
The respective matrices
_{i}_{n} _{e}_{q}_{u}_{a}_{t}_{i}_{o}_{n}_{s}
(45)
for a
fighter aircraft
at an alti
tude of 6096 m (20 000 ft), a Mach number of 0.67, and an angle of attack of
3.45O are given by
17
where
r3*79
A=I I 0.06
0.14
25
0.04
0.36
1
0.06
52
4.24
0.27
0
0
0
0.05
0
0.01
0
L0.13
0.05
0
0 0
0
1 0
0
0.06
3.42
0
the
11.03
elements of
Since the output
the matrces
are approxaated
_{t}_{o}
_{t}_{w}_{o} _{s}_{i}_{g}_{n}_{i}_{f}_{i}_{c}_{a}_{n}_{t} _{d}_{i}_{g} _{t}_{s}_{.}
'vector
in equations
(45)
is derived as a linear combina
tion of both state variables and control inputs, the closedloop system after
applying feedback u = K*y takes the form
x 
= 
(si 
+ BKC)X + GPu 

(46) 

y 
= 
(e + ~K(?)x 
+ DPu 

where 
P 
= 
[Im 
 K*D]' 
and 
K 
= 
PK* is the equivalent output feedback matrix 

obtained 
by 
setting 
= 
0. 
Thus, 
the algorithms developed earlier for systems 

with 
5 
= 
0 
are applicable to systems of 
the 
form of 
equations 
(451, 
provided 

P exists. 
Then the feedback gain
K*
= K[Ik
+ fiK1l
K*
is
computed
by using the relation
_{(}_{4}_{7}_{)}
18
Direct matrix manipulations show that exists.
the
inverse in equation
(47) exists
if
P
The handling qualities specifications (ref. 11) imply that the lateral air craft dynamics should be composed of two weakly coupled subsystems. Roll rate and bank angle constitute the first subsystem and display predominantly the roll subsidence and spiral modes. The second subsystem is characterized by a well damped Dutch roll mode defining the yaw rate and sideslip motions. These speci fications can now be formulated as an eigenvalue/eigenvector assignment problem.
Table I summarizes the modal
characteristics of
the
free aircraft.
From
the table it is seen that the Dutch roll mode is very lightly damped and appears
dominantly in the response of
dominant entries in the corresponding eigenvector pair. _{T}_{h}_{u}_{s}_{,} _{t}_{h}_{e} eigenvalue/ eigenvector modification requires that the closedloop system have the modes
and modevariable associations of _{t}_{a}_{b}_{l}_{e} _{1}_{1}_{.} (In tables _{I} to
the roll variables
p and 9 as evidenced by
111,
j = n.
TABLE 1. MODAL CHARACTERISTICS OF FREE AIRCRAFT
Eigenvector
components
P
iJ
B
9
Eigenvalue of

3.70
(Roll subsidence)
0.35 5 j2.66 (Dutch roll)
. I
0.03
.
(Spiral1
0.964 
0.403 
0.829 
0.032 

.041 
.096 
.I31 
i 

.002 
069 
.034 
.002 

.261 
.998 
1 
Mode
Roll subsidence
TABLE 11.
DESIRED MODAL SPECIFICATIONS
Eigenvalue
6
Dutch 
_{r}_{o}_{l}_{l} 
1.0 
+ j0.2 
Spiral 
0.01 
19
The output feedback analysis in the main text
shows that
all
system eigen
values can be assigned since n = m + r  1 and only two eigenvectors (t) can be assigned with at most two (m) entries in each vector arbitrarily chosen. The eigenvector freedom available was used to control the structure of the eigenvec tor pair corresponding to the Dutch roll mode to effect the desired yaw rate and sideslip dominance. The modal coupling matrices D(k) (eq. (B4)) aid in the selection of the Dutch roll mode to yield the appropriate eigenvector forms. The four eigenvector entries that were freely chosen corresponded to the roll rate and yaw rate components of the real eigenvector pair associated with the Dutch roll mode. Since gain magnitude constraints cannot be explicitly included
into the synthesis algorithm, the design parameters have to be iteratively modi fied to meet gain limit requirements. After some design iterations, a compro mise design yielded the modal characteristics summarized in table 111. For
example, Zt was noted
improve $ and
that
the Dutch roll mode damping could not
without violating
feedback
be reduced
(to
were
B
responses)
gain limits which
set at unity for this analysis.
(eq. (47)) as
The design yielded
a feedback gain matrix
K*
TABLE
10.16
0.19
0.6
1
111. MODAL
CHARACTERISTICS
OF FEEDBACK AUGMENTED AIRCRAFT
the
7 Eigenvalue of
_{}
Eigenvector
components
6
(Roll subsidence)
+ j0.20
(Dutcg roll)
1.0
0.986
0.01
0.02
0.01
1
(Spiral)
0.013
Viel mehr als nur Dokumente.
Entdecken, was Scribd alles zu bieten hat, inklusive Bücher und Hörbücher von großen Verlagen.
Jederzeit kündbar.