10 1 1 38

Civil Aircraft Autopilot Design
Using Robust Control
R.M.P. Goverde
Civil Aircraft Autopilot Design
Using Robust Control
R.M.P. Goverde
Rapport ter verkrijging van het certi-

caat technologisch ontwerper aan de
Technische Universiteit Delft. Presen-
tatie van het rapport vindt plaats op 15
februari 1996 om 10.00 uur in Delft.
January 1996
Statistics, Stochastics, and Operations Research Unit

Department of Technical Mathematics and Informatics
Delft Universtity of Technology
Examination board:
Prof. Dr. R.M. Cooke (Delft University of Technology)

Drs. A.A. ten Dam (National Aerospace Laboratory NLR)
Dr. H. van Maaren (Delft University of Technology)
Prof. Dr. G.J. Olsder (Delft University of Technology)
Ir. J. Schuring (National Aerospace Laboratory NLR)
Ir. J.C. Terlouw (National Aerospace Laboratory NLR)
Dr. J.W. van der Woude (Delft University of Technology)
Summary
Besides providing stability and control to aircraft, ight control systems play an
increasingly important role in meeting cost and performance objectives for modern
civil and military aircraft. Robust control theory oers a systematic approach to de-
sign and evaluate ight control systems that function properly in all ight conditions
and aircraft states. It deals explicitly with the uncertainties in the characteristics of
the aircraft and in the environment in which it has to operate. As a consequence,
ight control systems designed using robust control techniques may give a reduction
in time and cost of the ight control design process, compared to classical control
design methods.
Under certain assumptions, the motions of aircraft can be decoupled into sym-
metric and asymmetric motions. Hereby, separate controllers can be designed for the
symmetric and asymmetric motions, respectively. Using robust control techniques,
a controller has been designed for the symmetric motions of a civil aircraft for the
nal approach.
A modern approach to robust control is H1 optimal control. This method can be
interpreted as the minimization of the transfer matrix of the system in a worst case
scenario. The resulting control law guarantees stability of the closed-loop system
and achievement of the objectives for the whole class of systems induced by the
uncertainty. Generally, uncertainty in a system is present at various components
and is in this way highly structured. A measure of robustness that explicitly takes
the structured uncertainty into account is the structured singular value or . The
in uence of the structured uncertainty on system performance can be analysed by
applying analysis. A combination of the techniques of H1 optimal control and
analysis provides a modern approach to design and analyse robust control systems.
This design approach is provided by synthesis.
An aircraft can be regarded as a system having input and output signals. Pa-
rameters that vary during operation of a system cause uncertainty in the behaviour
of the system. These uncertain parameters can be modelled as structured uncer-
tainty in the system using parametric uncertainty modelling. In the design project
a procedure has been developed that illustrates how variations in three or more
parameters can be dealt with, as opposed to the more conventional modelling of
only one or two uncertain parameters. Computational aspects have been considered
to minimize computation time. Besides the parametric uncertainty, also external
i
ii
disturbances by wind and turbulence have been taken into account.

Using synthesis, a ight control system has been designed for the model of
the symmetric dynamics of the aircraft. The performance of the controller has been
analysed by analysis and closed-loop time responses.
Samenvatting (Summary in
Dutch)
Een Flight Control System (FCS) zorgt voor stabiliteit en automatische besturing
van een vliegtuig. Daarnaast heeft een FCS een steeds grotere invloed op de kosten
en prestaties van moderne civiele en militaire vliegtuigen. Robuuste regeltechniek
maakt het mogelijk om op een systematische manier een FCS te ontwerpen en te
analyseren, zodanig dat het regelsysteem goed werkt voor alle mogelijke vliegtuig-
en vliegtoestanden.
Onder bepaalde voorwaarden kunnen de vliegtuigbewegingen ontkoppeld worden
in symmetrische en asymmetrische bewegingen. Dit maakt het mogelijk om aparte
regelaars te ontwerpen voor respectievelijk de symmetrische en de asymmetrische
bewegingen. Met behulp van technieken uit de robuuste regeltechniek is een rege-
laar ontworpen voor de symmetrische bewegingen van een civiel vliegtuig voor het
automatisch uitvoeren van de naderingsvlucht.
Robuuste regelaars kunnen worden ontworpen met behulp van H1 optimale
regeltechniek. Deze methode kan worden genterpreteerd als het minimaliseren van
de overdrachtsmatrix van een systeem onder de slechts denkbare omstandigheden.
De minimalisatie vindt hier plaats over alle regelaars die het resulterende systeem
met de regelaar (het gesloten-lus systeem) stabiel maken. De aldus gevonden rege-
laar garandeert stabiliteit en prestatie van het gesloten-lus systeem voor de hele
klasse van systemen voortgebracht door de onzekerheid. Over het algemeen is onzek-
erheid aanwezig bij verschillende componenten van het systeem en dus sterk gestruc-
tureerd. Een maat voor robuustheid die expliciet de gestructureerde onzekerheid in
beschouwing neemt, wordt gegeven door de gestructureerde singuliere waarde ()
van een systeem. De invloed van de gestructureerde onzekerheid op de prestaties van
het systeem kan worden geanalyseerd met behulp van -analyse. Een combinatie van
H1 optimale regeltechniek en -analyse levert een moderne techniek om robuuste
regelsystemen te ontwerpen en te analyseren. Deze techniek heet -synthese.
Een vliegtuig kan worden opgevat als een systeem met ingangs- en uitgangssig-
nalen. Parameters die kunnen varieren tijdens de werking van het systeem leiden tot
onzekerheden in het gedrag van het systeem. De parameters kunnen worden gemod-
elleerd als gestructureerde onzekerheid in het systeem. Tijdens het modelleren van
het vliegtuig is rekening gehouden met variaties in vier verschillende parameters.
iii
iv
Hiervoor is een methode ontwikkeld om variaties in meerdere parameters te kunnen

behandelen, waarbij rekentechnische aspecten in ogenschouw zijn genomen om de
rekentijd te minimaliseren. Naast de parametrische onzekerheid is bij het modelleren
van het vliegtuig ook rekening gehouden met externe verstoringen van het systeem
door wind en turbulentie.
Met behulp van -synthese is een regelaar ontworpen voor het model van de sym-
metrische vliegtuigbewegingen. De prestatie van de regelaar is getest door middel
van -analyse en gesloten-lus tijdsresponsies.
Preface
This report presents the results of the project executed at the National Aerospace
Laboratory NLR within the scope of the second year design project of the post-MSc
mathematical design engineering programme \Wiskundige Beheers- en Beleidsmod-
ellen" (WBBM) of the Delft University of Technology (TUD).
In June, 1995, an action group of the Group for Aeronautical Research and Tech-
nology in Europe (GARTEUR) started the Robust Flight Control Design Challenge.
In this design challenge a civil and military robust ight control design problem have
been formulated which are solved by 22 research groups of the European aeronautical
industry, universities, and research laboratories.
My task at NLR has been to work on the civil aircraft control problem. The
problem is based on the Research Civil Aircraft Model (RCAM) and considers a
civil aircraft during nal approach.
Roughly the rst half year of my stay at NLR, I studied the methods of robust
control. The study involved an extensive literature study and experimenting with
the relevant MATLAB toolboxes. Additionally, I did some work on the military
control problem, the High Incidence Research Model (HIRM) benchmark. This
period resulted in an NLR technical report [14].
During this period I also assisted in the editing of the HIRM manual. Moreover,
I started joining the Automatic Flight Control (AFC) meetings of the Stability and
Control Group of the Faculty of Aerospace at TUD. The AFC meetings are organized
by J.C. van der Vaart and are intended for PhD students and students in the last
stage of their study who are interested in ight control.
The second part of my stay at NLR, I was engaged with the RCAM benchmark.
During this period I developed some software routines for uncertainty modelling
and controller design. These tools are based on existing MATLAB toolboxes. Using
these tools I designed a controller for the longitudinal motions of the RCAM aircraft.
This period also resulted in an NLR technical report [15].
At NLR, I thank Tonny ten Dam of Mathematical Models and Methods, and Jan
Terlouw, Jan Schuring and Paul Lambrechts of Flight Mechanics, for their support
during my stay at NLR.
At TUD, I thank Geert Jan Olsder and Jacob van der Woude for their support
from the university side.
I thank Hans van Maaren for the opportunity of joining the post-MSc programme
v
vi
and thereby giving me the chance to further develop my interest in the applied
mathematics. Finally I thank my colleagues, and especially my room-mates, at the
Statistics, Stochastics, and Operations Research Unit at TUD for a great working
atmosphere. My deepest appreciation goes to Guido te Brake who managed to
survive my company for over 10 hours a (working) day during whole 1994, including
room-mating and car-pooling.
Rob Goverde
Delft, January 1996
Contents
Summary i
Samenvatting (Summary in Dutch) iii
Preface v
1 Introduction 1
1.1 Robust Flight Control : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : 1
1.2 The GARTEUR Project : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : 2
1.3 The RCAM Design Benchmark : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : 3
1.4 Synthesis : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : 4
1.5 The Design Project : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : 5
1.6 Outline of the Report : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : 5
2 Robust Control Theory 6
2.1 System Descriptions : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : 6
2.1.1 State-Space Realizations : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : 6
2.1.2 Transfer Matrices : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : 7
2.1.3 Linear Fractional Transformations : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : 7
2.2 Linear Feedback Control : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : 9
2.3 H1 Optimal Control : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : 10
2.4 Uncertainty Modelling : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : 13
2.4.1 Introduction : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : 13
2.4.2 Interconnections of LFTs : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : 13
2.4.3 Real Parameter Uncertainty : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : 15
2.5 The Structured Singular Value () : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : 18
2.6 Analysis : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : 22
2.7 Synthesis : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : 24
2.8 Control System Design Cycle Description : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : 27
2.9 Additional Reading : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : 27
3 Control Problem Formulation 29
3.1 Introduction : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : 29
vii
viii Contents
3.2 Aircraft Model : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : 30

3.2.1 Longitudinal Dynamics : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : 30
3.2.2 Measurement Signals : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : 31
3.2.3 Actuator Signals : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : 31
3.3 Actuator Model : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : 32
3.4 Wind and Turbulence Model : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : 32
3.5 Reference Signals : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : 34
4 Modelling 35
4.1 Introduction : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : 35
4.2 Parameter Uncertainty Modelling : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : 36
4.2.1 One Uncertain Parameter : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : 36
4.2.2 Two Uncertain Parameters : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : 39
4.2.3 Four Uncertain Parameters : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : 41
4.3 Standard Plant for Controller Design : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : 44
5 Controller Design Process 49
5.1 Robust Controller Design for 1-Dimensional Parameter Uncertainty : 49
5.1.1 Introduction : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : 49
5.1.2 D-K Iteration : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : 49
5.1.3 Controller Order Reduction : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : 52
5.2 Robust Controller Design for 4-Dimensional Parameter Uncertainty : 52
5.2.1 Introduction : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : 52
5.2.2 D-K Iteration : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : 52
5.2.3 Controller Order Reduction : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : 58
6 Analysis of the Designed Controller 62
6.1 Introduction : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : 62
6.2 Analysis : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : 62
6.3 Time Responses : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : 63
7 Conclusions and Recommendations 68
References 71
A Software Description 74
A.1 Introduction : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : 74
A.2 Parameter Uncertainty Modelling : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : 74
A.3 Controller Design : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : 75
B Nomenclature 78
Chapter 1
Introduction
1.1 Robust Flight Control
No mathematical system can exactly model a physical system. Uncertainty due to
unmodelled dynamics and uncertain parameters is always present. Two additional
causes of inconsistency between the mathematical model and the physical system
are intentional model simplication, such as linearization and model reduction, and
incomplete or inexact data from identication experiments. Robust control theory
deals with the analysis and synthesis of control systems for plants with uncertainty.
A robust control system copes with various stability and performance specications
in the face of plant uncertainty [8].
Stability and control is one of the major technical challenges in the design of an
aircraft. Flight control systems must function properly in all ight conditions and
aircraft states in order to ensure safety of ight. The aircraft is a very complex sys-
tem with lots of uncertainties due to unmodelled dynamics, parameter uncertainty,
sensor noise, actuator errors, etc. Also the interaction between the aircraft and its
environment has to be dealt with, including wind disturbances such as wind shears,
gusts, and turbulence. Furthermore, special situations such as engine failure may
be taken into account [2, 9].
Besides stability and control, the control system is playing an increasingly impor-
tant role in meeting cost and performance objectives for modern civil and military
aircraft. These objectives may include command and stability augmentation for
superior ying qualities and manoeuvrability; automatic ight trajectory and speed
control for operations in all weather conditions; manoeuvre and gust load reduction
for extended service life; ride quality enhancements for crew and passenger com-
fort; aerodynamic and propulsion performance optimization for reduced operating
cost; utter suppression and failure or battle damage reconguration for enhanced
safety [2]. The control system has to provide stability and achieve the performance
requirements in the face of uncertainty, without being conservative, since control
laws that meet the performance requirements for unrealistic levels of uncertainty
1
2 Chapter 1. Introduction
sacrice performance when applied to the real system.

Flight control system design by classical control methods is time-consuming and
expensive. This is due to the uncertainties that occur in characterizing the aircraft
and the environment in which it has to operate. Classical control theory does not
explicitly deal with these uncertainties. As a consequence the control engineer has to
spend a large amount of time investigating the eect of the neglected uncertainties
on the designed control system. Even then it is not guaranteed that problems do
not occur in the nal phases of a design programme because of the presence of
unexpected or unmodelled dynamics, etc. Rectifying these problems at this late
stage is very dicult and expensive.
Robust control theory yields new design approaches to deal with complex multi-
variable control systems. It has been especially developed to deal with uncertainties
in the characteristics of the vehicle and the environment in which it has to operate.
It oers a systematic approach to investigating and evaluating the eects of many
uncertainties on the performance of the overall system. As a consequence ight
control systems designed using robust control techniques may give a reduction in
time and cost of the ight control design process. Moreover, aircraft with improved
performance specications may be designed [9].
1.2 The GARTEUR Project

Robust control has been well assessed in literature, where a great number of papers
can be found dealing with the various aspects of robustness, parameter variations,
modelling uncertainty, unmodelled dynamics, etc. At the same time a wide vari-
ety of algorithms implementing robust control techniques can be found in many
technical reports and general purpose software, such as MATLAB=SIMULINK and
MATRIXX .
However, robust control techniques are seldomly used by European aircraft man-
ufacturers for the design of ight control systems. There are three main reasons for
this:
The application of robust control theory to the aircraft control law design
problem has not been demonstrated. The techniques and algorithms asso-
ciated with robust control theory are clearly expressed but do not, in their
current form, lend themselves to direct ight control systems application.
There are a limited number of dedicated robust control design tools, while
most manufacturers have an extensive suite of classical control design tools
that they have developed over a period of several years.
There is no specic bibliographic source available on robust control techniques.
Consequently, a lot of time has to be spent in searching for appropriate refer-
ences in a variety of widely distributed libraries, journals, and general purpose
data-bases.
1.3. The RCAM Design Benchmark 3
The Group for Aeronautical Research and Technology in Europe (GARTEUR)

is an organization for research collaboration in Europe in the eld of aeronautics.
The GARTEUR action group FM(AG08) (Flight Mechanics Action Group 08) is
concerned with \Robust Flight Control in a Computational Aircraft Control En-
gineering Environment (CACEE)". Subproject FM-AG03-3 aims at removing the
above mentioned drawbacks and at demonstrating to European aircraft manufac-
turers that a signicant improvement in the overall design process is possible by
using robust control techniques. In greater detail, the aim is:
To identify and apply existing and new controller design methods to robust
control problems that are representative of operational industrial needs.
To introduce robust controller design and analysis methods into the control
law design cycle, in order to cope more eciently with uncertainty in the
models used and with operational changes that may occur.
To identify tools which can be used in conjunction with multi-disciplinary
design optimization to improve overall dynamic system performance.
To develop robust controller design procedures that interface with industrial
requirements.
The GARTEUR action group FM(AG08) has dened two robust ight control
design benchmarks, which are solved by designers from the European aeronautical
industry, research establishments, and universities. A wide variety of modern and
classical design methods are applied, which will then be compared and evaluated.
The two benchmarks cover an automatic landing control problem for the Research
Civil Aircraft Model (RCAM) [9] and a high angle of attack enhanced manual control
problem for the High Incidence Research Model (HIRM) [10], respectively.
1.3 The RCAM Design Benchmark

The RCAM benchmark problem is essentially the design of an autopilot for the
nal approach of a civil aircraft. A nonlinear model has been supplied to be used
for design and simulation. The problem formulation is intended to be \non-trivial"
for ight control system design: a realistic set of design specications has been
formulated in which a number of important trade-os is to be considered. On
the other hand, it may not be expected that these specications are complete for
actual ight control system design. A fully automated evaluation procedure has
been developed to be able to compare the performance of the resulting controllers,
irrespective of the methods used to design them.
It is expected from design benchmark participants that they supply insight in the
usefulness of the considered method, not only in the sense of controller performance,
4 Chapter 1. Introduction
but also in the sense of controller complexity and controller design time. Especially
the latter is considered to be of the utmost importance for the aircraft industry.
In particular, the designed controller should be robust with respect to variations
in weight and center of gravity position, time delays, nonlinearities, and engine fail-
ure. Moreover, various external conditions such as wind shear and turbulence have
to be taken into account. Also passenger comfort, safety, and power consumption
criteria have to be considered.
The present report deals with the design of the RCAM design benchmark using
synthesis. The design covers the ight control system for the symmetric (longitudi-
nal) motions of the RCAM aircraft. Robustness with respect to variations in weight
and center of gravity position is considered explicitly. Time delay is not considered
in the present design.
1.4 Synthesis
A modern robust control approach is H1 optimal control theory. Furthermore, a
powerful tool to measure robustness is structured singular value () analysis. A
combination of H1 optimal control theory and analysis results in synthesis
which provides a modern approach to design and analyse robust control systems.
H1 optimal control theory is a highly developed theory which yields control laws
such that even in the worst case scenario the stability and performance requirements
are still met. Of course, the success of nding such a controller depends on the
performance specications. If these are too demanding, no controller can be found.
In this case, the objectives have to be adjusted. An ecient synthesis method has
been developed using state-space algorithms. However, this approach may lead to
conservative results, since it neglects possible knowledge of structure in the uncertain
model [4, 17].
A way to gain better results is to exploit available information about the structure
of the uncertainty. Throughout the system, uncertainties may be present. Instead
of modelling these uncertainties as unstructured, the general uncertainties at the
various components can be taken into account one by one explicitly, and rearranged
to form structured uncertainty at the system level. This uncertainty modelling is
done by making extensive use of the theory of linear fractional transformations
(LFTs) [5, 16].
The in uence of structured uncertainty on system performance can explicitly
be analysed by applying analysis. Analysis is therefore a powerful tool to
analyse control systems for uncertain systems in a nonconservative way and during
the last decade a lot of research has been done in this area. Unfortunately, no
eective synthesis methods have yet been developed to apply analysis in the
design process of control systems with general uncertainty structure. However, for
a restricted class of modelled uncertainties|bounded complex perturbations of the
system|a -synthesis method has been developed, for which the D-K iteration
1.5. The Design Project 5
approach yields good results despite presently unsolved convergence problems. The
-synthesis problem is solved here by sequentially applying H1 synthesis and
analysis [1, 3, 18].
1.5 The Design Project

The project that is the subject of this report, has been executed at the National
Aerospace Laboratory NLR within the scope of the post-MSc mathematical engi-
neering programme WBBM of TUD. The project has been supervised by A.A. ten
Dam, J. Schuring, and J.C. Terlouw at NLR, and G.J. Olsder and J.W. van der
Woude at TUD.
The subject of the design project was the design of a robust controller within the
framework of the RCAM design benchmark. The applied robust control approach
has been synthesis. This approach has been suggested by NLR motivated by their
good experience with this design method.
By the nature of the control problem a parametric uncertainty modelling ap-
proach has been applied, as opposed to complex uncertainty modelling using multi-
plicative and additive complex perturbations of the system to cover the uncertainty.
Due to a limitation in time, the design project has been concentrated on the de-
sign of a longitudinal controller for the RCAM ight control problem. The modelling
of 4-dimensional parameter uncertainty has been emphasized and computational as-
pects have been considered.
1.6 Outline of the Report

Chapter 2 presents the theory of robust control as used for the RCAM ight control
system design. The foundations to the -synthesis approach are dealt with, including
uncertainty modelling, H1 optimal control, computational issues of , analysis,
and D-K iteration.
Chapter 3 formulates the control problem that has been investigated. This in-
cludes a description of the aircraft variables, the actuator model, and the wind and
turbulence models.
Chapter 4 gives a procedure to obtain an uncertainty description of the aircraft
in the format of an LFT description using parametric uncertainty modelling. Also
the standard plant is formulated for which a controller has to be designed.
Chapter 5 describes the actual controller design process using synthesis.
Chapter 6 analyses the designed controller in terms of and closed-loop time
responses.
Finally, Chapter 7 gives conclusions and recommendations.
Chapter 2
Robust Control Theory
2.1 System Descriptions
2.1.1 State-Space Realizations
We consider linear (uncertain) systems that can be described by a state-space de-
scription as follows:
8 x_ (t) = Ax(t) + B w(t) + B u(t)
< 1 2
: yz((tt)) == CC21xx((tt)) ++ DD2111ww((tt)) ++ DD2212uu((tt)): (2:1)
Here, the system variables have the following interpretation

t time,
x the state of dimension n,
z the objective output of dimension p1 consisting of for instance
error and eort signals that have to be minimized,
y the measurement output of dimension p2 containing informa-
tion about the state of the plant,
w the exogenous input of dimension m1 representing all uncer-
tainties in the system, including commands, reference signals,
and exogenous disturbances such as wind gusts and turbu-
lence,
u the control input of dimension m2 by which the system can
be manipulated.
The inputs and outputs are bounded functions of time (in fact they are elements of
the Lebesgue space L2 of all measurable vector functions that are square-integrable)
and the state is a continuously dierentiable function of time. The system matrices
A; B1; B2; C1, etc. are time-invariant matrices of appropriate dimensions. If both
inputs (w u)T and outputs (z y)T are coupled, the system matrices are denoted by
C D D
B = ( B1 B2 ) ; C = C 1 and D = D11 D12 :
2 21 22
6
2.1. System Descriptions 7
The system matrices A; B; C; and D are called the state matrix, input matrix, output
matrix, and direct-feedthrough matrix, respectively.
2.1.2 Transfer Matrices

By taking the Laplace transforms, the time-domain system functions of the former
section can be mapped into functions that are dened in the frequency domain. The
transfer matrix G is the input/output relation dened in the frequency domain. In
terms of state-space data the transfer matrix is given as
G G
G(s) = G11 G12 ;
21 22
where
Gij = Ci(sIn A) 1Bj + Dij
and s is a complex variable. Figure 2.1 shows the interpretation of G(s) as in-
put/output relation.
w- z-
u- y-
G
Figure 2.1: Transfer function G.
Throughout this report we may refer to a system by either its state-space de-
scription (2.1) or its transfer matrix G.
2.1.3 Linear Fractional Transformations

Let P be a matrix partioned as
P P
P = P11 P12 2 IR(m1+m2 )(p1+p2 ):
21 22
Then we dene the linear fractional transformations (LFTs) as the maps
Fl(P; ) : IRp2m2 ! IRm1p1 ; Fu(P; ) : IRp1m1 ! IRm2p2
dened by
Fl(P; l ) := P11 + P12l(I P22l) 1P21;
Fu(P; u ) := P22 + P21u(I P11u) 1P12:
Clearly the existence of the inverses in the denitions is necessary for the LFTs to
be well dened. If these inverses exist we say that the LFTs are well-posed. We call
8 Chapter 2. Robust Control Theory
w- z-
u- y-
P
a. P
w- z-
- P u
u y w z
l
-
u- y-
P
b. Fl(P; l ) c. Fu(P; u )
Figure 2.2: Linear fractional transformations.
P the (linear fractional) coecient matrix, and l and u are called perturbations.
More generally we can in the same way dene LFTs with respect to complex rational
matrices P (s), l(s), and u(s).
The LFTs arise naturally in system theory when describing feedback systems:
Consider a transfer matrix P (s) with inputs w and u, and outputs z and y as in
Figure 2.2.a. Then the closed-loop transfer matrices from w to z of Figure 2.2.b
and from u to y of Figure 2.2.c are the LFTs Fl(P; l) and Fu(P; u ), respectively.
The subscripts l and u refer to whether we are closing the lower or upper loop. We
thus refer to lower LFTs as closed-loop systems from the exogenous input to the
objective, and to upper LFTs as closed-loop systems from the control input to the
measurement.
Transfer functions can also be represented by LFTs. Consider the state-space
realization of a system given as
x_ (t) = Ax(t) + Bu(t)
y(t) = Cx(t) + Du(t):
This can be reformulated
x_ (t) as A B x(t) x(t)
y(t) = C D u(t) = P u(t)
and the transfer matrix is
G(s) = D + C (sI A) 1B
= D + C 1s I (I A 1s I ) 1B
= Fu(P; 1s I ):
2.2. Linear Feedback Control 9
This is an upper LFT with respect to a repeated complex scalar perturbation 1s I .

LFTs can be used both to describe linear feedback control systems and to model
system uncertainty. As a matter of convention we restrict the use of the lower LFTs
to model feedback control systems and the upper LFTs to model system uncertainty.
Moreover, LFTs have the useful property that the interconnection of LFTs is again
one LFT. These concepts are explained in more detail in the next sections.
2.2 Linear Feedback Control

The control input is able to in uence the behaviour of the system. By using infor-
mation of the measurement output, the control input can be manipulated to give
the system a desired behaviour. This is the concept of dynamic output feedback
control. The measurement output is here fed back to the control system that uses
this information to dene a control function. This control function is then used as
control input. Figure 2.3 illustrates this concept. Here the control system is denoted
by the transfer matrix K .
The control system is dened in state-space description as
p_(t) = P p(t) + P y(t)
11 12
u(t) = P21p(t) + P22y(t);
where the matrices Pij (1 i; j 2) have appropriate dimensions. The functions
y and u are the measurement output and control input of the original system,
respectively. Note, that the measurement function is the input to the control system
and the control function is the output of the control system. The function p is the
state of the control system and is continuously dierentiable.
The transfer matrix K of the control system that maps the Laplace transform
of y to the Laplace transform of u is dened in state-space data as
K (s) = P21(sI P11) 1P12 + P22:
w- z-
- G
u y = w- Fl(G; K ) z -
K
Figure 2.3: Output feedback and the LFT Fl(G; K ).
By implementing a feedback control system, a closed-loop system results, hav-

ing the exogenous input w and the objective output z as only input and output,
respectively. This closed-loop system can be formulated as an LFT as

Fl(G; K ) := G11 + G12K (I G22K ) 1 G21;
see Figure 2.3. Note that this LFT is well-posed i the inverse of I G22K ex-
ists. Well-posedness implies that the output functions of the corresponding closed-
loop system are uniquely determined, or equivalently, that the closed-loop system is
causal.
A control system has to be designed in such a way that the resulting closed-loop
system is stable. A control function that satises this demand is called internally
stabilizing. For convenience we denote the set of internal stabilizing control functions
by A. Recall that a system is stable if the states converge to zero with respect to
time independently of the initial state of the system. For the closed-loop system this
implies that both the state x of the original system and the state p of the control
system have to converge to zero. In terms of state-space data this is equivalent to
the requirement that the eigenvalues of the state matrix of the closed-loop system
all have negative real part.
2.3 H1 Optimal Control

Consider the closed-loop system M := Fl(G; K ) of the previous section. A measure
of performance of a system is to look at the worst value of the output z over all
possible inputs w, i.e.,
sup kkwzkk2 ; (2:2)
w2L2 ;w6=0 2
where k k2 is the L2-norm dened as
Z 1 1=2
kf k2 := j j
f (t) 2dt ;
0
p
where j j is the Euclides norm dened as jf (t)j = f (t)T f (t). It can be proven
that (2.2) equals the H1 -norm of the transfer matrix from w to z in the frequency
domain,
kM k1 = sup (M (j!)):
!2IR
Here is the maximum singular value,
p
(M ) := (M M );
with the spectral radius or largest eigenvalue.
H1 is the Hardy space consisting of all complex-valued (matrix) functions of
one complex variable that are analytic and bounded in the open right half plane,
Re(s) > 0.
2.3. H1 Optimal Control 11
The H1 optimization problem is to design a feedback control system K such

that the closed-loop system Fl(G; K ) is stable and the H1 -norm of the closed-loop
transfer function is minimized, i.e.,
inf kFl(G; K )k1:
K 2A
(2:3)
The optimal control system is called the optimal H1 controller and the procedure
to nd the H1 controllers is called H1 synthesis. For uncertain systems the H1
optimization problem can be interpreted as planning for the worst scenario of un-
certainty in the system that can possibly occur and then optimizing the objectives
for this situation. The result is that the objectives are satised for the whole class
of problems induced by the uncertainty.
The H1 optimization problem can be solved by iteration. The problem is then
reformulated in checking whether a stabilizing controller K 2 A exists such that
kFl(G; K )k1 < . By a search over the solution of the H1 optimization problem
is obtained.
An ecient state-space algorithm exists that solves the iteration problem. This
procedure involves checking that two Hamiltonian matrices consisting of state-space
data do not have any eigenvalues on the imaginary axis, and nding positive semidef-
inite solutions to two Riccati equations.
In order to apply this procedure we need the following additional assumptions
on our system.
Assumptions
(i) (A; B2) is stabilizable and (C2; A) is detectable.
(ii) D12 has full column rank m2 and D21 has full row rank p2.
(iii) The matrix A j!I B
n 2
C1 D12
has full column rank n + m2 for all ! 2 IR, and
A j!I B
n 1
C2 D21
has full row rank n + p2 for all ! 2 IR. 2
Assumption (i) is necessary and sucient for the existence of stabilizing controllers.
Assumption (ii) eliminates the possibility of singular problems. It requires the di-
mension of z to be at least that of u, while the dimension of w must be at least that
of y. Put in another way, we assume that there are at least as many objectives as
controls, and as many exogenous inputs as measurements. Since no measurement is
error free, and no control action is costless, these are reasonable assumptions. The
rank conditions in assumption (iii) imply that the feedback connection of the real-
izations for G and K are detectable and stabilizable, corresponding to the rst and
second rank condition respectively. These conditions are necessary for the existence
of solutions to the two Riccati equations that are involved in the solution of the H1
optimization problem.
Theorem 2.1 gives a procedure to check whether the upper bound on the H1 -
norm is satised. This theorem assumes the following additional conditions that can
be made without loss of generality since any plant can be transformed into a plant
satisfying these conditions [19].
Additional Assumptions
(iv) The system is scaled such that
B 0
D12T 1 T
(C1 D12) = (0 I ) and D D21 = I :
21
(v) D11 = 0 and D22 = 0. 2
In order to state the theorem we dene the following two Hamiltonian matrices:

A 2B1B1T B2B2T

I1 = T C1 C1 AT
and AT 2C1T C1 C2T C2 :

J1 =
B1B1T A
Furthermore we dene the two Riccati equations
AT X1 + X1 A + X1 ( 2B1B1T B2B2T )X1 + C1T C1 = 0 (2:4)
and
AY1 + Y1 AT + Y1 ( 2C1T C1 C2T C2)Y1 + B1B1T = 0: (2:5)
Theorem 2.1 Let the system (2.1) satisfy all assumptions (i)-(v) stated above.
Then there exists an internally stabilizing controller K such that kFl(G; K )k1 <
i the following conditions hold:
(i) The Hamiltonian matrices I1 and J1 do not have any purely imaginary eigen-
values,
(ii) X1 and Y1 are positive semidenite solutions to the two Riccati equations
(2.4) and (2.5) respectively,
(iii) (X1 Y1 ) < 2 :
2.4. Uncertainty Modelling 13
An internally stabilizing controller is then given by

p_(t) = A p(t) Z L y(t)
1 1 1
u(t) = F1p(t);
where
A1 := A + 2 B1B1T X1 + B2F1 + Z1 L1C2;
F1 := B2T X1;
L1 := Y1C2T ;
Z1 := (I 2Y1 X1 ) 1:
2
Note that the dimension of the controller equals the dimension of the original system.
The H1 optimization problem (2.3) can now be solved by iteratively applying
Theorem 2.1 using for instance a bisection algorithm.
If a system is considered that does not satisfy the additional assumptions (iv)
and (v) then this system can be transformed into a system that does. The H1
optimization problem is solved for this transformed system and then the controller
computed for the simpler transformed system is back-transformed to obtain the
controller of the original problem. Also an algorithm exists that does not need the
additional assumptions (iv) and (v). The algorithms are implemented in MATLAB
in the -Analysis and Synthesis Toolbox and the Robust Control Toolbox.
2.4 Uncertainty Modelling

2.4.1 Introduction
LFTs are pre-eminently suited for modelling uncertainties. Each component of
a system which is uncertain can be modelled separately as an LFT. LFTs have
the useful property that the interconnection of LFTs can be rearranged as one
single LFT having a block diagonal (perturbation) uncertain structure. Hereby, all
components in LFT form can then be taken together to obtain a single LFT for the
whole uncertain system. In this way the model uncertainty is derived systematically.
Model uncertainty that can be t into the LFT structure is called linear fractional
uncertainty. The block diagonal perturbation structure is referred to as structured
uncertainty.
2.4.2 Interconnections of LFTs

Any arbitrary interconnection structure of LFTs consisting of series, parallel, and
feedback connections can be rearranged as one LFT with a block-diagonal pertur-
bation structure. Therefore general uncertainty at the component level becomes
structured uncertainty at the system level.
2 1
=
- - -
u- - y- u- y-
P2 P1 P
Figure 2.4: Series connection of LFTs.
Consider two LFTs with coecient matrices P1 and P2 , respectively, dened as

P
P112 ; P := P211 P212 ;

P1 := 111
P121 P122 2 P221 P222
and dene
:= 0 0 : 1 (2:6)
2
Then the series connection or cascade system of Fu(P1; 1) and Fu(P2; 2) as in
Figure 2.4 is the LFT Fu (P; ) with as dened in (2.6) and coecient matrix
0 P P P P112 P222
1
111 112 221
P =@ 0 P211 P212 A :
P121 P122 P221 P122 P222
The lines in this coecient matrix emphasize the partitioning.
1
r e
- P1
=
-
u
2
?+ y - u-
P
y-
6+
-
- P2
Figure 2.5: Parallel connection of LFTs.

The parallel connection of Fu(P1; 1) and Fu(P2; 2) as in Figure 2.5 is an LFT
Fu (P; ) with as in (2.6) and coecient matrix
0 P 0 P112
1
111
P = @ 0 P211 P212 A:
e r
P121 P221 P122 + P222
u -
+ y-
6
+
-
=
-
u- y-
P
P1
Figure 2.6: An LFT in a feedback loop.
Consider a feedback loop containing an LFT as in Figure 2.6, where

P P112

P1 = 111
P121 P122
is a square matrix. This feedback loop can be rewritten as an LFT Fu(P; ) with
the same perturbation and coecient matrix
P + P112 (I P122 ) 1P121 P112 (I P122 ) 1
P= 111 :
(I P122 ) 1P121 (I P122 ) 1
Clearly, for well-posedness I P122 has to be nonsingular.
2.4.3 Real Parameter Uncertainty

Uncertain parameters arise naturally in systems when parameters change during
operation of the system. Consider for instance an aircraft. The total mass of the
aircraft depends on the amount of cargo or the number of passengers at a particular
ight. Mass is thus an uncertain parameter. Also the exact position of the center
of gravity is uncertain due to the fact that the distribution of the cargo and/or
passengers over the aircraft diers at each ight. These parameters are real-valued
and can be reformulated as time-invariant parameter variation if lower and upper
estimates of the parameters can be obtained. The parameter variation in state-
space data can then be modelled as upper LFTs with real perturbations which we
will explain in this section.
Consider a vector p = (p1; . . . ; pr )T 2 IRr consisting of r bounded scalar param-

eters. Let the model of the perturbed system be given as a state-space realization
in which the entries of the system matrices depend on the parameter p,
x_ (t) = A(p)x(t) + B (p)u(t)
y(t) = C (p)x(t) + D(p)u(t): (2:7)
The parameter p is allowed to enter the system matrix entries as real-rational poly-
nomials in pi .
The system (2.7) can be reformulated as
x_ (t) x(t)
y(t) = S (p) u(t) ; (2:8)
where A( p ) B ( p )
S (p) := C (p) D(p)
is the matrix consisting of the parameter dependent system matrices.
Since we assumed the parameters to be real, parameter uncertainty can naturally
be modelled as real-valued parameter variations: we assume that lower and upper
bounds can be obtained for all scalar parameters pi . The resulting lower and upper
bound vectors for p are denoted by p and p, respectively. Dene
p + p p p
p0 = 2 and s = 2 :
Then with = (1; . . . ; r), i 2 [ 1; 1] we have
pi = p0i + sii; i = 1; . . . ; r: (2:9)
Substituting (2.9) in (2.8) yields scaled (multi-dimensional) polynomial expressions
for all varying numerators and denominators. For example, suppose a numerator is
given as nij (p1; p2) = p1p2. Then with (2.9) the scaled numerator is
nij (1; 2) = p01 p02 + p02 s11 + p01 s22 + s1s212: (2:10)
The individual parts of a numerator or denominator consist of a number of terms
that can be written as separate upper LFTs. For example, the three varying terms
of the scaled numerator in (2.10) can be written as three upper LFTs as follows:
0 p s 0 p s
p02 s11 = Fu 1 0 ; 1 ; p01 s22 = Fu 1 001 2 ; 2
02 1
and 00 0 0 s s 1 1
1 2
s1s212 = Fu @@ 1 0 0 A ; 01 0 A :
0 1 0 2
The addition of all terms in each varying numerator can be written as a single
LFT using the fact that a parallel connection of LFTs is again an LFT, see Sec-
tion 2.4.2. Since we are using upper LFTs, the nominal (constant) part of each
numerator results in a feedthrough term, which can be incorporated in the P22 term
of the combined LFT. Using the LFTs constructed above for each term of nij (1; 2),
and the results of Section 2.4.2 on parallel connections of LFTs, the resulting com-
bined LFT becomes
00 0 0 0 0 p s 1 0 1 1
02 1 1 0 0 0 C
B
B B
B 0 0 0 0 p01 s2 C C B 0 2 0 0 C C
Fu BB B 0 0 0 0 s s C ; B C C :
B
@@ 0 0 1 0 0 A 0 0 0 C
1 2 C @ 0 0 1 0 A A
1 1 0 1 p01 p02 2
Setting up a single LFT description for denominator terms involves obtaining

the inverse of a multi-dimensional polynomial. This inverse can be obtained by
rst constructing a single LFT of the parallel connection of all the terms in the
denominator, as is done above for the numerator. Then note that referring to
Figure 2.6 of Section 2.4.2 we have there
Fu(P; ) = (I Fu(P1; )) 1:
This yields that we have to subtract the obtained LFT from the unit matrix and put
the result in a feedback loop like Figure 2.6. The desired LFT then follows by the
results of Section 2.4.2 on an LFT in a feedback loop. The well-posedness condition
for an LFT in a feedback loop, i.e., the condition that (I P122 ) is invertible (in
terms of Section 2.4.2), corresponds to the restriction that the nominal parts of all
the varying denominators of a state-space model are not allowed to equal zero, so
that the entries of the nominal model are bounded.
Using the results of Section 2.4.2 on series connections of LFTs, the LFTs of each
numerator and denominator pair of individual varying entries can now be combined
as one single LFT.
When a complete description of all uncertain entries in the form of LFTs is
obtained, the various LFTs can be rearranged to form one single LFT. Finally,
by simply interchanging rows and columns of the obtained LFT, the perturbation
matrix u has a structure belonging to the set
Brr := fdiag[1Ik1 ; . . . ; rIkr ] : i 2 [ 1; 1]g;
the normalized block-diagonal matrices with repeated real scalar blocks. It follows
that uncertainty due to parameter variation in state-space data can be modelled as
linear fractional uncertainty having a real perturbation structure.
The above procedure is implemented in the MATLAB Parametric Uncertainty
Modelling (PUM) Toolbox [16, 21]. The routine also includes a reduction procedure
for the dimension of the perturbation matrix u .
2.5 The Structured Singular Value ()

Section 2.3 considered unstructured uncertainty, i.e., uncertainty with no further
information on its nature. This may lead to unnecessary conservative results when
knowledge about the structure of the uncertainties is available. This section consid-
ers an approach to deal with structured uncertainty by which we can exploit available
information about the structure of the uncertainties to gain better results.

w1 z1
w2 -
- G z2-
-
u y
K
Figure 2.7: The general problem with structured uncertainty.
Consider the problem of an interconnected linear system with multiple indepen-

dent perturbations occurring throughout, due to unmodelled dynamics, parameter
variation, actuator errors, sensor noise, etc. By rearranging the system it is al-
ways possible to isolate the perturbations as a single block-diagonal perturbation
as in Figure 2.7. In this way, the exogenous input and objective output can be
used to describe perturbations of the system. Here we have split the exogenous
input w = (w1 w2)T and the objective output z = (z1 z2)T corresponding to this
structure:
w1 the perturbation input of dimension m11 corresponding to sys-
tem perturbations,
w2 the performance input of dimension m12 corresponding to ex-
ternal disturbances,
z1 the perturbation output of dimension p11 corresponding to
system perturbations,
z2 the performance output of dimension p12 corresponding to the
output that has to be controlled.
The perturbation matrix belongs to a set of block-diagonal matrices K that
denes the allowed perturbation block structure. Three types of blocks are possible:
repeated real scalar blocks which corresponds to real parameter variation as we
have seen in Section 2.4.3; repeated complex scalar blocks which can be used to
approximate the repeated real scalar blocks by considering the real parameters as
2.5. The Structured Singular Value () 19
complex; and full complex blocks which can be used to model unmodelled dynamics
(this is not applied in our approach) or to dene the so-called performance block in
order to measure robust performance. This is explained in more detail in Section 2.6.
For simplicity in notation we assume the full complex blocks to be square but
all results are also applicable to nonsquare full complex blocks. The set K 2 C qq
of block-diagonal perturbations is now dened as
K := fdiag[1rIk1 ; . . . ; mr r Ikmr ; 1cIkmr +1 ; . . . ; mc c Ikmr +mc ; C1 ; . . . ; CmC ] :
ir 2 IR; ic 2 C ; Ci 2 C kmr +mc +ikmr +mc+i g: (2.11)
The set K depends on the block structure K that is dened as the m-tuple
K := (k1; . . . ; kmr ; kmr +1; . . . ; kmr +mc ; kmr +mc+1 ; . . . ; km ); (2:12)
which denes the number of blocks, the type of each block, and their dimensions.
For compatibility we require that the sum of all block dimensions equal the total
dimensions of the block-diagonal perturbation, i.e.,
X
m
ki = q:
i=1
Note that a block consisting of a complex scalar only, may be represented as either
a repeated complex scalar block or a full block of dimension one.
We are mainly interested in norm bounded subsets of K and therefore introduce
BK := f 2 K : () 1g: (2:13)
Let for the time being M be a square complex matrix with dimensions q q.
Denition
q q
2.1 (Structured Singular Value) Let K be given. Then for M 2
C the structured singular value (SSV) K (M ) is dened as
( ) 1
K (M ) := min f() : det(I M ) = 0g ; (2:14)

2 K
unless no 2 K makes I M singular, in which case K(M ) := 0. 2

The main motivation of the denition of is that it answers the question of
well-posedness for the LFT consisting of the closed-loop interconnection of M and
. Consider the matrix feedback interconnection in Figure 2.8, where 2 K rep-
resents a structured perturbation to the nominal matrix M 2 C qq . This feedback
loop represents the loop equations
z = Mw and w = z:
These equations give (Iq M )z = 0 and (Iq M )w = 0. A unique solution to

these equations exists i Iq M is non-singular, yielding w = z = 0. If Iq M
is singular then there are innitely many solutions with arbitrarily large jwj and jzj.
In this case the feedback loop is not well-posed, or in some sense \unstable". Note
that we can guarantee that Iq M is non-singular for all 2 K with () < 1
i (M ) < 1. Thus, is dened in such a way that it answers the well-posedness
question of the feedback loop in Figure 2.8. It can be thought of as a measure of
the smallest structured that causes singularity in the feedback loop of Figure 2.8.
If is \large" then singularity occurs already for \small" perturbations, and if is
\small" then for relatively large perturbations the loop equations still have unique
solutions. The precise formulations of these statements are given in the robustness
theorems of Section 2.6.

w - z
M
Figure 2.8: Feedback interconnection interpretation of M and .
If the block-structure consists of one full block only, K = C qq , then K (M ) =

(M ). This shows that unstructured uncertainty (no block-diagonal structure of )
is a special case of structured uncertainty. The structured singular value can thus be
seen as a generalization of the singular value in the case that structure is available,
hence the name. Another special case worth mentioning is when the block-structure
consists of one repeated complex scalar block only, K = fIq : 2 C g. In this
case the structured singular value equals the spectral radius, K (M ) = (M ).
Although the denition of is analytically clear, its computation is not that
simple since the optimization problem it involves generally has multiple local minima
that are not global. Therefore lower and upper bounds are useful, since these give
an approximation of and the dierence of the two bounds is a measure of the error
of the approximation. Lower and upper bounds are
R(M ) K (M ) (M );
where R(M ) is dened as
0; M has no real eigenvalues
R(M ) := maxfjj : = (M ); 2 IRg; ifotherwise.
i
Thus, if M has real eigenvalues then R(M ) is the maximum of the absolute values
over all real eigenvalues of M . If the block-structure contains no real blocks then
R(M ) is the spectral radius of M .
2.5. The Structured Singular Value () 21
The gap between R(M ) and (M ) may be arbitrarily large. However these
can be rened using transformations on M that do not aect K (M ) but do aect
R(M ) or (M ). For this we dene the subset QK of K as
QK := fQ 2 K : ir 2 [ 1; 1]; icic = 1; Ci Ci = Ikmr +mc+i g
and the set DK as
DK := fdiag[D1; . . . ; Dmr +mc ; d1Ikmr +mc +1 ; . . . ; dmC Ikm ] :
Di 2 C kiki ; Di = Di > 0; di 2 IR+ g: (2.15)
Then for all D 2 DK and all Q 2 QK we have
K(QM ) = K(M ) = K (DMD 1 );
and the bounds can be rened as
max (QM ) K(M ) Dinf
Q2Q R 2D
(DMD 1 ): (2:16)
K K
In fact the lower bound is proven to be equal to K(M ) but since the maximization
over QK has local maxima which are not global, we can not guarantee to nd the
global maximum and thus from a computational point of view the left-hand side of
(2.16) only yields a lower bound.
The function (DMD 1 ) has global minima only. However, in general the in-
mum is not necessarily equal to K(M ) and thus yields only an upper bound.
For purely complex perturbations (mr = 0) the lower and upper bounds are
usually very tight and moreover in special subcases the upper bound is even equal
to K (M ). However, if mr > 0 the upper bound may be arbitrarily far o. This
is due to the nature of the scaling matrices D which do not explicitly take the real
perturbations into account.
To obtain an alternative upper bound for the case that mr > 0 we rst dene
two more sets of diagonal scaling matrices D^K and G^K as
D^ K := fdiag[D1; . . . ; Dmr +mc ; d1Ikmr +mc+1 ; . . . ; dmC Ikm ] :
Di 2 C kiki ; det(Di) 6= 0; di 2 C ; di 6= 0g (2.17)
and
G^K := fdiag[g1; . . . ; gnr ; On nr ] : gi 2 IRg;
P
with nr := mi=1r ki. An alternative upper bound is then obtained as
( " ^ ^
! # )
K (M ) ^ ^inf^ ^ > 0 : (Iq + G^ 2 ) 4 1 DM D 1
j G^ (Iq + G^ 2) 4 1 :
1
D2DK ;G2GK
(2:18)
This expression is used in the MATLAB -tools toolbox to eciently compute an
upper bound for if real blocks are present. Note that if mr = 0 then G^K is just
the zero matrix and thus G^ = 0. The upper bound then reduces to that in (2.16).
2.6 Analysis
From now on we let M be the transfer matrix of the closed-loop plant
M := Fl(G; K )
and refer to the partition of M corresponding to the perturbation and performance
variables as z M M w
1 11 12 1
z = M M
2 21 22 w : 2
The closed-loop transfer matrix from w2 to z2 is given by the LFT Fu(M; ), see
Figure 2.9. Note that the matrix M22 may be thought of as the nominal transfer
matrix in the absence of perturbations.
w2- Fu (M; ) z2-

w1 z1 =
-
w2- z2-
M
Figure 2.9: The upper Linear Fractional Transformation Fu(M; ).
The following theorem considers a robust stability test.

Theorem 2.2 (Robust Stability) The system Fu (M; ) with M = Fl(G; K ) is
well-posed and stable for all 2 BK i
sup K[M11(j!)] < 1: (2:19)
!2IR
2
In literature also the notation
kM k := !sup K[M (j!)]
2IR
is used. Note the correspondence to the denition of the H1 -norm kM k1. However,
kk is not actually a norm since it does not satisfy the triangle inequality. Therefore,
the notation is somehow awkward and will not be used in this report.
Theorem 2.2 yields that if
sup K [M11(j!)] = 0 > 1
!2IR
then there is a perturbation with () = 10 for which the system is unstable.
2.6. Analysis 23
Often stability is not the only property of a closed-loop system that must be
robust to perturbations. Typically there are exogenous disturbances acting on the
system (wind gusts, sensor noise, etc.) which result in tracking and regulation errors.
Under perturbations, the eect that these disturbances have on error signals can
greatly increase. In most cases, long before the onset of instability, the closed-loop
performance will degrade to the point of unacceptability. Hence the need for a robust
performance test, which indicates the worst-case level of performance degradation
associated with a given level of perturbations.
The system in Figure 2.9 is said to satisfy robust performance if it is robustly
stable and if
kFu(M; )k1 < 1:
To guarantee that performance is achieved for all perturbed plants we additionally
consider a feedback loop closed between the performance error z2 and the exogenous
input w2 with transfer matrix 0, the so-called performance perturbation. We then
dene the augmented perturbation Ka as
Ka := fdiag[0; ] : 0 2 C m12 p12 ; 2 Kg; (2:20)
see Figure 2.10. Note that we dene 0 as one full complex block.
a
0

w1- z1
w2-
M
z2
Figure 2.10: Augmented perturbation structure for robust performance.
Robust performance of the system of Figure 2.9 is now equivalent to robust

stability of the system with respect to the augmented perturbation as in Figure 2.10,
therefore we obtain the following theorem to measure robust performance.
Theorem 2.3 (Robust Performance) The system Fu(M; ) with M = Fl(G; K )
is well-posed, stable and satises performance, kFu (M; )k1 < 1, for all 2 BK
i
sup Ka [M (j!)] < 1: (2:21)
!2IR
2
Theorem 2.3 yields that if

sup Ka [M (j!)] = 0 > 1
!2IR
then there is a perturbation with () = 10 for which performance is not satised,
i.e., for which kFu (M; )k1 = 0 > 1.
Apart from constant block-diagonal perturbations only, we are also interested
in feedback perturbations which are themselves block-diagonal nite-dimensional,
stable, linear, time-invariant systems with block-diagonal structure of the set K.
In order to deal with this we dene M(S ) as the set of rational, proper, and stable
transfer matrices. Furthermore, we dene M(K) as the set of all norm-bounded
block-diagonal stable rational transfer matrices with block structure like K, i.e.,
M(K) := f() 2 M(S ) : (s) 2 BK for all s 2 C + g:
The robustness theorems are now easily generalized to the case where K is a
dynamical system as above. For this simply replace BK by M(K) in the Robust
Stability Theorem 2.2 and the Robust Performance Theorem 2.3.
2.7 Synthesis
In the case of purely complex perturbations a -synthesis design procedure is devel-
oped based on the upper bound on K in (2.16). The idea is to design a controller
K such that the robust performance test (2.21) is satised for the upper bound of
, for an appropriate scaling matrix D.
In the case that also real parametric uncertainty is modelled, the procedure
may give conservative results since then the upper bound (2.16) is no longer a good
approximation of . The alternative upper bound (2.18) for the mixed real/complex
case does not have the properties on which the solution to the -synthesis problem
considered below is based. The amount of conservatism can be measured by also
calculating the alternative upper bound (2.18) for the scaled system.
In Section 2.6 we have seen that the synthesis problem reduces to nding an
internally stabilizing controller with transfer matrix K such that
sup K[Fl(G; K )(j!)] < 1: (2:22)
!2IR
In fact, by the Robust Performance Theorem 2.3 we are interested in the case where
the underlying structure of the perturbations is given by Ka as given in (2.20).
In order to accomplish (2.22) we want to nd internal stabilizing controllers that
minimize the left-hand side of this inequality. This design procedure is called
synthesis. By using the upper bound (2.16) on the -synthesis problem can be
formulated as
inf inf kD~ Fl(G; K )D~ 1 k1;
K 2A ~
(2:23)
D(s)2DK
2.7. Synthesis 25

w1 z1
w2 -
- G z2-
-
u y
K
a. General framework.
w1- z1-
w2 -
- G - z2
u y w1 z1
K
- F (G; K )
w2- z2-
l
b. Synthesis. c. Analysis.
Figure 2.11: D-K Iteration: sequentially applying H1 synthesis and analysis.
where D~ (s) is a real-rational stable minimum-phase function.

The -synthesis procedure is solved by sequentially applying H1 synthesis and
analysis. First a H1 controller is found. Then analysis is applied to analyse
robustness and to scale the plant such that robustness is optimally satised. Then
again H1 synthesis is applied to nd the H1 controller for the scaled plant, after
which again analysis follows, and so on. See Figure 2.11. This iterative approach
is called D-K iteration.
The D-K iteration procedure is thus as follows.
1. Initialization. Let D~ (s) = I .
2. Holding D~ (s) Fixed. To solve (2.23) we rst consider the case of holding
D~ (s) xed. We absorb the D scaling in the plant to obtain the scaled plant GD ,
see Figure 2.12. This requires nding a state-space realization for D~ (s), and
constructing a state-space model for the system GD . Note that if K stabilizes
G then K also stabilizes GD , and DFl(G; K )D 1 = Fl(GD ; K ). Moreover, if
D~ (s) is stable, minimum-phase, and real-rational then GD is a real-rational
w1- - - D z1- w1 - -z1

w2- - - z2- - GD -z2
D 1
G = w2
- -
u y u y
K K
Figure 2.12: Scaling the plant G.
transfer function matrix. Hence, solving the optimization problem

inf kD~ Fl(G; K )D~ 1 k1
K 2A
is equivalent to
inf kFl(GD ; K )k1:
K 2A
(2:24)
Equation (2.24) is just an H1 optimization problem and can thus be solved
by the methods of Section 2.3.
3. Holding K (s) Fixed. Here we suppose that an internal stabilizing K (s) is
given. The optimization problem is now
min
D(!)2D
K

[ D ( ! ) Fl (G; K )(j! )D(! ) ]:
1 (2:25)
At each frequency (2.25) is a convex optimization problem in D. The resulting
D can then be t with a stable, real-rational transfer function matrix D~ (s)
with stable inverse.
4. Stopping Criteria. If no reduction in (the approximation of) is achieved
then the iteration stops, otherwise we return to step 2.
A problem of D-K iteration is the fact that although the optimization problem
(2.23) is convex in both D and K , it is not necessarily jointly convex, and the
iteration scheme is thus not always guaranteed to converge to the global minimum
with corresponding optimal K and D.
The controller order obtained by synthesis is typically very high. This is be-
cause the interconnection structure does not only include the actual system, but also
the models of the actuators, models of the disturbances, the performance weight-
ings, and the D scalings by which the order of the interconnection structure for
synthesis generally gets very high. The controller order can be reduced by model
reduction [12]. The state-space representation of the controller is here approximated
by a lower order state-space representation. The order reduction is applied in such
a way that the robustness properties are still satised for the reduced order system.
2.8. Control System Design Cycle Description 27
2.8 Control System Design Cycle Description

The former sections treated the theory related to the -synthesis approach to robust
control system design. This section puts the theory in perspective of actual controller
design.
Figure 2.13 illustrates the control system design cycle. The rst step contains
the parameter uncertainty modelling and uses the theory of LFTs. For more de-
tails, see Section 4.2 on the parameter uncertainty modelling for the RCAM. The
second step is the selection of the weighting functions to give the controller a desired
performance. For more details, see Section 4.3 on the interconnection structure for
controller design for the RCAM. Now, the standard plant is created. The various
models, including the aircraft LFT description, the actuators, the wind and turbu-
lence models, and the weighting functions are interconnected. The model is then
formulated as an LFT. This yields the uncertain model with respect to which the
controller is designed.
Next, the robust performance problem is formulated. This involves the inclusion
of a performance block in the perturbation block-structure. Also the repeated real
perturbation blocks have to be replaced by complex full blocks to apply synthesis.
The next step is the design of a controller using D-K iteration.
The controller obtained by synthesis is typically a high order system. There-
fore, model reduction techniques are used to reduce the order of the controller. This
is done in such a way that the resulting reduced controller still satises the robust
performance criteria. The order reduction techniques are implemented in the MAT-
LAB -tools toolbox [1]. For more details, see Chapter 5 on the controller design
for the RCAM, and Glover [12].
The obtained controller has to be tested on performance. This is done by closed-
loop time responses, and by simulations with the full nonlinear model. These anal-
yses are used to tune the weighting function in order to improve performance. If
necessary, new weighting functions are selected and the process is repeated starting
at the creation of the new standard plant.
2.9 Additional Reading

An extended version of this chapter can be found in Goverde [14]. Most considered
concepts are also covered in Balas et al. [1]. The state-space approach to H1 optimal
control can be found in Doyle et al. [4], Glover and Doyle [13], Maciejowski [17], and
Safonov et al. [19]. A reference to the theory of LFTs is Doyle et al. [5]. The use of
LFTs with respect to real parameter variation can be found in Lambrechts et al. [16],
and Terlouw and Lambrechts [21]. Computational issues of are given in Fan and
Tits [6], Fan et al. [7], and Young et al. [22]. Good articles on the properties of for
complex perturbations are Doyle [3], and Packard and Doyle [18]. The properties of
for mixed complex/real perturbations are treated in Young et al. [22].
parameter
uncertainty
modelling
?
- selection
weights
?
creation
standard plant
?
H1 synthesis
D-K iteration tuning weights

- analysis
?
controller order
reduction
?
closed-loop
analysis
?
' $ nonlinear
simulations
& %
?
end
Figure 2.13: The control system design cycle.

Chapter 3
Control Problem Formulation
3.1 Introduction
A six degrees of freedom nonlinear model of the Research Civil Aircraft Model
(RCAM) including nonlinearities of actuators and a model of disturbances has
been proposed by GARTEUR Action Group FM(AG08) [9]. The nonlinear model
of the aircraft (without actuators and disturbances models) is given as a MAT-
LAB/SIMULINK function. The aircraft model contains 9 states, 11 inputs, 21 out-
puts, and 14 parameters. The aircraft has two engines. The system has 4 uncertain
parameters: the aircraft total mass m, and the displacements of the aerodynamic
centre from the centre of gravity along the x-body axis, the y-body axis, and z-
body axis, denoted by x, y, and z, respectively. At each ight the precise
values of these parameters are uncertain. However, we assume that the uncertain
parameters are time-invariant. This latter assumption is justied by the fact that
we are only considering the aircraft dynamics during the nal approach. Hereby,
time-dependent variations of the parameters by for instance fuel-consumption can
be neglected. The bounds on the uncertain parameters are given in Table 3.1.
The design of the RCAM control system should also be robust to time delays
from 50 to 100 ms. The present report does not consider these time delays. It
can be implemented by adding a system based on a Pade approximation to the
interconnection structure used for controller design.
Parameter Symbol Lower Bound Upper Bound

p(1) m 100 000 kg 150 000 kg
p(2) x 0.2 m 1.25 m
p(3) y -0.2 m 0.2 m
p(4) z 0m 1.38 m
Table 3.1: Parameter uncertainty denitions
29
30 Chapter 3. Control Problem Formulation
e
control - actuator
noise - wind -- y -
model - aircraft - 6+ -
noise - turbulence
model
references
Figure 3.1: The RCAM system.
The control system design is divided into two separate controller designs. This is
due to the decoupling property of the aircraft dynamics into symmetric and asym-
metric dynamics. Hereby, a longitudinal and a lateral controller can be designed
separately. The nal control system is then obtained by taking the longitudinal and
lateral controllers together.
In this report we consider the design of the longitudinal controller only. All
routines can also be used with respect to lateral controller design, by making some
adjustments.
Figure 3.1 shows the RCAM system. The various models and signals are ex-
plained in the following sections.
Section 3.2 describes the state, measurement, and control variables of the aircraft
for the longitudinal motions. The nonlinear model of the aircraft is not explicitly
introduced in this report. A full description of the nonlinear model can be found
in the RCAM problem formulation and manual [9]. Instead the nonlinear model
is treated as a black box from which an LFT description is derived. However,
in the design project some time has been spent on understanding and checking
the nonlinear model. Some errors and inconsistencies have been reported to the
GARTEUR responsible persons.
Section 3.3 deals with the actuator dynamics. Section 3.4 considers the wind and
turbulence models that are used in the standard plant for controller design. Finally,
Section 3.5 introduces the reference signals that are used in the controller design.
3.2 Aircraft Model

3.2.1 Longitudinal Dynamics
The longitudinal dynamics of the RCAM aircraft has 4 states:
3.2. Aircraft Model 31
x(1) = q pitch rate (rad=s),

x(2) = pitch angle (rad),
x(3) = uB velocity in x-direction (m=s),
x(3) = wB velocity in z-direction (m=s).
The velocities uB and wB are dened in the body-xed reference frame. The origin
of this frame is at the vehicle's centre of gravity. The XB axis is positive forward
(through the nose of the vehicle), the ZB axis is positive downward, and the YB axis
is positive to the right perpendicular to the XB and ZB axes.
The control inputs consist of
u(1) = E elevator de ection (rad),
u(2) = TH throttle position of engine 1,
u(3) = TH throttle position of engine 2.
We assume equal throttle positions for both engines by which we can implement the
throttle positions as one input in the interconnection structure for controller design.
The exogenous input are
w(1) = WxE longitudinal wind (m=s),
w(2) = WzE vertical wind (m=s),
w(3) = WxB longitudinal turbulence (m=s),
w(4) = WzB vertical turbulence (m=s).
The wind WE is expressed in the earth-xed reference frame, while the turbulence
WB is expressed in the body-xed reference frame. The origin of the earth-xed
reference frame is located on the runway longitudinal axis at the treshold. The XE
axis is positive along the runway in the landing direction. The ZE axis is positive
downward, and the YE axis is in the appropriate direction for a right handed axis
system.
3.2.2 Measurement Signals

For longitudinal controller design we select the measurements
y(1) = V total ground velocity (m=s),
y(2) = wV velocity in z-direction (m=s).
The velocity wV is expressed in the vehicle-carried reference frame. The vehicle-
carried reference frame is parallel to the earth-xed frame but with the origin at the
centre of gravity of the vehicle.
3.2.3 Actuator Signals

The actuator signals are simply the control inputs for the longitudinal dynamics:
the elevator de ection E , and the throttle position TH . As already remarked, we
assume equal throttle positions for both engines by which we can implement the
throttle position as one input in the interconnection structure for controller design.
Actuator models: elevator (-), throttles (- -)

0
10
-1
10
-2
10
-3
10
-4
10
-5
10 -2 0 2 4
10 10 10 10
Frequency (rad/s)
Figure 3.2: Frequency response of the actuator dynamics.
3.3 Actuator Model

The actuator models are given in the RCAM material. The elevator actuator dy-
namics are implemented as
ME := 0:151s + 1 ;
and the throttle/engine actuator dynamics are implemented as
MTH := 1:5s1+ 1 :
Figure 3.2 shows the frequency response of the actuator models.
3.4 Wind and Turbulence Model

To maintain stability and good performance under disturbances, a constant head-
wind is modelled as a constant signal passing a lter dened as
MWx := 10 s +1 1 :
Vertical wind is considered zero, MWz = 0. Figure 3.3 shows the frequency response
of the wind model.
3.4. Wind and Turbulence Model 33
Wind weights: x (-),z (- -)

1
10
0
10
-1
10
-2
10
-3
10 -2 0 2 4
10 10 10 10
Frequency (rad/s)
Figure 3.3: Frequency response of wind model.
Turbulence is a stochastic process that can be described by velocity spectra.

Here, white noise is passed through a lter containing the velocity spectra. A
commonly used velocity spectra for turbulence modelling is the Dryden velocity
spectra.
Three parameters have to be dened to obtain a particular form of the Dryden
spectra. These are the trim speed v0, the turbulence scale length Lg , and the
standard deviation of the gust velocities . The longitudinal lter is in state-space
dened as the output (and state) of the system having the system matrices
s
v
Au = L ; Bu = 2Lv0 ; Cu = 1; and Du = 0:
0
g g
The vertical gust velocity is given as the output (and the rst state) of the second
order system having the system matrices
! 0 p L
3v0r
1
0 1
v0 2 2v0 ; Bw = @ g
Aw = p v0 3 A ;
Lg Lg (1 2 3) Lg
Cw = ( 1 0 ); and Dw = 0:
The parameters are dened as
v0 = 80 m=s;
Lg = 150 m;
= 1:5 m=s:
Turbulence weights: x (-), z (- -)

1
10
0
10
-1
10
-2
10
-3
10
-4
10 -2 0 2 4
10 10 10 10
Frequency (rad/s)
Figure 3.4: Horizontal and vertical Dryden spectra.
Figure 3.4 shows the Dryden velocity spectra for these values of the parameters.
3.5 Reference Signals

During the fully automatic ight nine reference signals are available. These are the
reference position (xC ; yC ; zC ), reference velocity vector (uC ; vC ; wC ), reference total
velocity VC , lateral deviation ylat, and the rate of change of the track angle _ C .
For longitudinal controller design we use the reference velocity VC , and the ref-
erence vertical velocity wC .
The objective in the longitudinal controller design is mainly to minimize the
velocity error Ve = VC V and the vertical velocity error we = wC wV .
Chapter 4
Modelling
4.1 Introduction
A nonlinear model of the RCAM aircraft and a set of robustness criteria were deliv-
ered by GARTEUR Action Group FM(AG08) as part of the RCAM material [9]. In
order to deal with perturbations in the aircraft dynamics due to variations in the 4
parameters mass, x, y, and z, an LFT description of the aircraft is formulated.
The LFT description is obtained by parameter uncertainty modelling.
In the design phase the symmetric and asymmetric dynamics of the aircraft are
decoupled. In this way, two linear uncertainty models are derived in LFT form
with block-diagonal perturbations, corresponding to the longitudinal and lateral
dynamics, respectively.
This report deals with the longitudinal controller design only. The procedure and
numerical tools that are used in the design of the control system are thus illustrated
by the design of the longitudinal controller. The design of the lateral controller
is essentially the same. The numerical tools only need small adjustments in the
controller architecture and some variable declarations.
Section 4.2.1 gives the uncertainty modelling procedure in the case that only
one parameter is uncertain. The 1-dimensional parameter uncertainty modelling
will appear very useful for various reasons. Section 4.2.2 gives some remarks about
the uncertainty modelling procedure for 2-dimensional parameter uncertainty. Sec-
tion 4.2.3 deals with the uncertainty modelling for the full 4-dimensional parameter
uncertainty. In fact the modelling approach considered in the last mentioned section
is applicable to any number of uncertain parameters.
Furthermore, a standard plant has to be dened for which the controller is de-
signed. This standard plant contains the LFT description of the aircraft and the
models for the actuators, wind, and turbulence, as given in Chapter 3. Also weight-
ing functions are dened to weight the output signals and to give the designed
controller a desired performance. Section 4.3 considers these issues.
35
36 Chapter 4. Modelling
4.2 Parameter Uncertainty Modelling

4.2.1 One Uncertain Parameter
This section deals with the uncertainty modelling of the aircraft longitudinal dy-
namics for 1-dimensional parameter uncertainty. In fact, we consider only parame-
ter variation in x, the displacement of the aerodynamic centre from the centre of
gravity along the x-body axis. The other parameters are xed as y = 0, z = 0,
and mass = 120 000 kg. The tools can also be used for variation in another param-
eter by some small adjustments in the variable declarations. The denitions of the
states, inputs, and outputs for longitudinal design are given in Section 3.2.
Lower and upper bounds are given on the variation of x. The nonlinear model
of the RCAM system is trimmed and linearized for 5 values of x ranging from the
lower bound to the upper bound in equidistant steps. In fact any set of values for the
varying parameter can be chosen with the restriction that it eectively represents the
range of the varying parameter. If varying the parameter leads to strong nonlinear
behaviour (in the entries of the system matrices) more points, or more points in
a subinterval where strong in uences appear, may be chosen. However, the more
points are chosen the more computation time is needed.
Trimming and linearization of the nonlinear aircraft model for the set of 5 points
for x results in a set of 5 system matrices (Ai; Bi; Ci; Di) corresponding to the
various points. As an example A1 and A5 corresponding to x = 0:2 m and x =
1:25 m, respectively, are
0 1:0040 0 0:0004 0:0215
1
B 1:0000
A1 = B 0 0 0 C
C
@ 2:5247 9:7725 0:0324 0:0750 A
77:3469 0:8094 0:2235 0:6693
and 0 0:9609 0 0:0008 0:0106
1
B 1:0000
A5 = B 0 0 0 C C
@ 1:8623 9:7790 0:0327 0:0736 A :
77:3657 0:7256 0:2293 0:6674
The next step is the classication of the entries in the system matrices. A
preliminary nominal model is dened as the set of system matrices corresponding
to mean x (the linearized model corresponding to the 3rd value of x). Next, for
the 5 linear models the entries of the system matrices are compared. An entry is
classied as either zero, constant (other than zero), or varying. An entry is classied
as zero if the equivalent entries for all points of x are approximately zero (with a
tolerance of 10e-10). It is classied as constant if the equivalent entries corresponding
to the various points of x are equal (with a tolerance of 10e-10). Finally, an entry
is a varying entry if the equivalent entries vary with the varying parameter, in this
4.2. Parameter Uncertainty Modelling 37
case, with x. The classications for the state matrix are
0v 0 v v1
Aclass = B
Bc 0 0 0C
@v v v vC A
v v v v
which is easily checked to coincide with the given A1 and A5 matrices above. The
classications for the other system matrices are
0v c c v v v v1
B 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 C 0 0 v v
@v c c v v v vC
Bclass = B A ; Cclass = 0 v v v
v 0 0 v v v v
and Dclass contains zeros only, since the direct-feedthrough matrices Di are all 2 7-
dimensional zero-matrices.
A varying entry is thus considered to be a function of the varying parameter.
For the varying entries vectors are dened containing the entries corresponding to
the various points of x. These vectors can be considered to contain function
values corresponding to xed values of x. The vectors are plotted against x
and approximated by polynomials to obtain a description of a varying entry as a
function of all possible values of x. In the case of x as varying parameter, it is
accurate enough to approximate the varying entries with polynomials of order up to
two in the independent variable x. It is also possible to introduce an additional
independent variable such that the polynomial in x ts the function with a certain
uncertainty described by the additional variable.
Figure 4.1 gives an example of a 2nd order polynomial approximation for the
entry a41. The polynomial is given as
a41(p1) = 0:11p21 + 0:168p1 + 77:3
where the independent variable p1 equals x.
The entries of the nominal model corresponding to the varying entries are re-
placed by the computed polynomials in x. We thus obtain a state-space description
that varies with dierent values of x. We can write x as a mean value plus a
perturbation, i.e.,
x = xnom + s;
where
xnom = x +2 x ; s = x 2 x ;
and 2 [ 1; 1]. Here x and x are the upper and lower bound on x, respec-
tively. Substituting this expression for x in the polynomials of the varying entries,
we obtain an LFT description with a real scalar perturbation for each varying entry,
Resulting polynomial fit

77.366
77.364
77.362
given datapoints and approximation
77.36
77.358
77.356
77.354
77.352
77.35
77.348
77.346
0.14 0.16 0.18 0.2 0.22 0.24 0.26 0.28 0.3 0.32
p between 1.500e-001 and 3.100e-001.
Figure 4.1: Polynomial approximation of entry a41.
as explained in Section 2.4.3. All varying entries can thus be considered as LFTs
and the overall system can be considered as an interconnection of LFTs. Using
the properties of LFTs this can then be reformulated as a single LFT having one
repeated real perturbation block. This perturbation block corresponds to the scaled
parameter x. If we would have made use of additional variables to represent uncer-
tainty in the polynomial ts as mentioned above we would have obtained additional
perturbation blocks.
In the uncertainty modelling for the longitudinal controller design 31 of the 66
entries in the system matrices are classied as varying entries. All these varying
entries are approximated by polynomials of order up to 2. The resulting LFT de-
scription for the perturbed system consists of one repeated real perturbation block of
dimension 10. The obtained nominal linear aircraft model has the system matrices
0 0:9825 0 0:0007 0:0161
1
Anom = B
B 1:0000 0 0 0 C;
@ 2:1936 9:7758 0:0325 0:0743 C A
77:3570 0:7675 0:2264 0:6684
0 2:4379 0:2912 0:2912 0:0011 0:0160 0:0007 0:0161 1
Bnom = B
B 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 C
@ 0:1837 9:8100 9:8100 0:0304 0:0742 0:0325 0:0733 C A;
0 6:04785 00:9996 00:02900:2450 0:6614 0:022620 0 0:066800 0 0
Cnom = 0 79:8667 0:0283 0:9996 and Dnom = 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 :
Figure 4.2 shows the frequency response of the nominal model.

The above process has been implemented in MATLAB using routines of the -
Analysis and Synthesis Toolbox (mutools) [1] and the Parametric Uncertainty Mod-
elling (PUM) Toolbox [16, 21]. The approximations of the varying entries by polyno-
mials can be obtained interactively using the PUM Toolbox. Here these polynomi-
als are named Q-polynomials in the independent parameter x. From the nominal
state-space description and the Q-polynomials an LFT description is obtained using
the ss2lft routine of the PUM Toolbox. In this routine also model reduction tech-
niques from the MATLAB Control System Toolbox are implemented. Appendix A
gives a brief overview of the routines used in the parameter uncertainty modelling
procedure as implemented in MATLAB.
4.2.2 Two Uncertain Parameters

The parameter uncertainty modelling with respect to two independent uncertain
parameters is essentially the same as in the case of 1-dimensional parameter un-
certainty. The nonlinear model is trimmed and linearized at various values for the
two independent uncertain parameters. As for the 1-dimensional case, a set of val-
ues ranging from lower to upper bound is selected for both the varying parameters.
Suppose that both sets contain 5 distinct values of the varying parameter. Then
the nonlinear model is trimmed and linearized at 25 points corresponding to the
permutations of the various values of the two varying parameters.
The entries of all obtained system matrices can be classied in the same way as for
the 1-dimensional parameter uncertainty case. However, it might be possible that an
entry is a varying entry with respect to one varying parameter but not to the other.
An additional routine should therefore be written that checks this phenomenon.
Just apply the 1-dimensional classication routine for one varying parameter only,
keeping the other xed. Then repeat the same procedure but with the role of
the parameters reversed. The two obtained sets of classication matrices are then
compared for the occurrence of dierent classications. In the case that one set
classies an entry as a varying entry and the other does not, some more investigation
is needed with respect to this particular entry. In this case, it has to be checked
whether the entry is also a non-varying entry with respect to the corresponding
uncertain parameter, for the remaining xed values of the other parameter.
Entries that are classied as varying for only one parameter can be handled as in
the 1-dimensional case, i.e., the varying entry data can be tted by a 1-dimensional
polynomial in the parameter for which it is varying only.
Entries that are classied as varying entries for both uncertain parameters have to
be tted by 2-dimensional polynomial ts in both parameters. These 2-dimensional
ts are also implemented in the PUM toolbox.
The entries containing the 2-dimensional polynomial ts can be represented as
LFTs having a perturbation block-structure of two repeated real blocks (unless addi-
tional independent variables are used to describe the uncertainty of the ts, in which
Nominal aircraft longitudinal model, input 1: Ve (-), we (--)

4
10
3
10
2
10
1
10
0
10
-1
10
-2
10
-3
10
-4
10
-5
10 -4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2
10 10 10 10 10 10 10
Nominal aircraft longitudinal model, input 2: Ve (-), we (--)

3
10
2
10
1
10
0
10
-1
10
-2
10
-3
10 -4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2
10 10 10 10 10 10 10
Figure 4.2: Frequency response of the nominal aircraft longitudinal model to elevator
input (upper) and throttle input (lower) for 1-dimensional parameter uncertainty.
case the block structure contains more blocks corresponding to these variables).
Finally, the routine ss2lft transforms the state-space description containing
the polynomials to one LFT having a block-structure with two repeated real blocks
(unless the additional variables are used).
For the longitudinal controller design this procedure is not applied. This is
because there are four uncertain parameters of main importance. Note that the 1-
dimensional case is applied for longitudinal controller design to obtain some feeling
for the eects of the various uncertain parameters independently.
The 2-dimensional parameter uncertainty case is here brie y considered for com-
pleteness. It might be valuable for the lateral controller design. For lateral controller
design the 2-dimensional case might be interesting to check the eects of varying
mass and y only, since they are expected to eect the lateral motions the most.
4.2.3 Four Uncertain Parameters

This section considers the uncertainty modelling of the aircraft with respect to
parameter uncertainty in mass, x, y, and z at the same time. For this we have
to deal with a 4-dimensional parameter uncertainty modelling.
The uncertainty modelling for three or more independent uncertain parameters
diers considerably from the 1-dimensional and 2-dimensional parameter uncertainty
cases. This is due to the fact that the PUM toolbox can t 1-dimensional and
2-dimensional polynomials only. Data can thus be t as a function of at most
two independent parameters. The t procedure is graphically orientated and 2-
dimensional ts already result in 3-dimensional plots. This naturally leads to the
restriction.
For this reason, three or more dimensional parameter uncertainty has to be dealt
with dierently. A possible approach is to regard every varying entry in the system
matrices separately as an independent parameter having a lower and upper bound.
This is implemented for the RCAM system.
The rst step is to trim and linearize the nonlinear aircraft model for all permu-
tations of 4 independent sets containing values of a varying parameter ranging from
lower to upper bound. If we would again select 5 values of the varying parameter in
each set like for the 1-dimensional case, this would lead to 54 = 625 trimmings and
linearizations, which is a very time-consuming process. It is thus highly desirable
to reduce this number.
A considerable reduction in the number of trimmings and linearizations can be
obtained if it is known that the varying entries vary monotonously with respect to
a particular uncertain parameter. In this case the set of values for that parameter
only has to contain the lower and upper bound on that parameter. Therefore, it is
benecial to apply 1-dimensional uncertainty modelling for each uncertain parameter
separately, keeping the other uncertain parameters xed. In this way it can be
checked whether all entries are monotonous functions in the varying parameter,
including linear and constant functions.
For the 1-dimensional parameter uncertainty in x of Section 4.2.1 the varying
entries are all monotonous functions in x for the particular set of xed other uncer-
tain parameters. After some experimentation and checking the physical nonlinear
model of the aircraft, it is concluded that for all possible xed values of the other
uncertain parameters, the varying entries also are monotonous functions of x.
For mass and z the same results are obtained. This implies that for mass, x,
and z, only the lower and upper bounds have to be considered, yielding three sets
containing values of a varying parameter of 2 elements.
Analysis of 1-dimensional parameter uncertainty in y gives the following result.
The system-matrix entries are monotonous functions in y for positive y and also
for negative y, but not for the whole range of y. By checking the nonlinear air-
craft model it follows that the sign of y indeed in uences the behaviour. However,
if the sign is xed the varying behaviour is monotonous. This leads to a set of three
values for y: the lower bound, 0, and the upper bound, since the minimum and
maximum of all entries is obtained at either one of the bounds or at 0.
The pre-analysis using 1-dimensional parameter uncertainty modelling thus yields,
that we only have to trim and linearize the nonlinear model at 3 23 = 24 dierent
permutations of values for the 4 varying parameters. This is a signicant reduction
with respect to the 625 permutations mentioned above.
The second step is to obtain two sets of system matrices containing the minima
and maxima of the entries over all system matrices. As an example, for the RCAM
longitudinal design the lower and upper bounds on the state matrix entries are given
as 0 1:2048 0 0:0015 0:0271
1
B 0:9970
Alower = B 0 0 0 C
@ 6:3842 9:7980 0:0414 0:0568 C A
76:7752 1:2943 0:2532 0:7944
and 0 0:7688 0 0:0003 0:0085
1
Aupper = B
B 1:0000 0 0 0 C
@ 0:7925 9:7201 0:0242 0:0912 C A:
77:7185 0:3942 0:2003 0:5442
The classication of varying entries of the system matrices can be applied simply
using the sets of matrices containing the lower and upper bounds. The classications
for the entries of the state matrix are given as
0v 0 v v1
Bv 0 0 0C
Aclass = B
@v v v vC
A:
v v v v
This coincides with the lower and upper bound matrices given above. The classi-
cations for the other system matrices are
0v v v v v v v1
B 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 C 0 0 v v
@v v v v v v vC
Bclass = B A ; Cclass = 0 v v v ;
v 0 0 v v v v
and Dclass = 027. In total there are 36 entries classied as varying entries. This
is 5 varying entries more compared to the 1-dimensional parameter uncertainty of
x only, as considered in Section 4.2.1. The entries that are classied here (in the
4-dimensional case) as varying are constants with respect to varying x. The a21
entry is varying with respect to y only. The entries b32 and b33 are varying with
respect to mass only, and the entries b12 and b13 are varying in both mass and z.
The other 31 varying entries are varying with respect to all 4 uncertain parameters.
We here treat all varying entries the same for implementation reasons. We
therefore make no distinction between the above mentioned 5 varying entries that
do not vary for all 4 uncertain parameters, and the other 31 varying entries.
An initial nominal linear model is dened as the model consisting of the system
matrices as given by the set of the lower bounds on all system matrix entries. The
next step is to dene independent variables each corresponding to a varying entry
in the system matrices with given lower and upper bounds. Next, the varying
entries are replaced by the corresponding independent variables which can vary
between the lower and upper bound of the particular entries. In this way the system
matrices contain the whole class of linear models induced by the uncertainty. For
the longitudinal controller design 36 entries are classied as varying entries which
yields 36 independent variables to describe the uncertainty.
Again, the varying entries can be seen as a nominal value with a perturbation,
which can be regarded as an LFT. The system can thus be seen as an interconnection
of LFTs which can be reformulated as one single LFT using the properties of LFTs.
The nal perturbation block-structure contains 36 repeated real perturbation blocks
of dimension 1 corresponding to the 36 varying entries. The new nominal linear
system is given by the system matrices
0 0:9868 0 0:0006 0:0178
1
B 0:9985
Anom = B 0 0 0 C
C
@ 2:7958 9:7590 0:0328 0:0740 A;
77:2469 0:8443 0:2268 0:6693
0 2:4487 0:3105 0:3105 0:0013 0:0178 0:0006 0:0178 1
B 0
Bnom = B 0 0 0 0 0 0 C
@ 0:1723 9:8100 9:8100 0:0291 0:0735 0:0327 0:0730 C
A;
6:4723 0 0 0:2421 0:6609 0:2265 0:6689
0
Cnom = 0 790:8224 00:9982 0:0364
:0363 0:9981 ;
and Dnom = 027. Figure 4.3 shows the frequency response of the nominal model.
Appendix A gives an overview of the used software for the 4-dimensional param-
eter uncertainty modelling.
4.3 Standard Plant for Controller Design

The second step in the modelling procedure is to build the interconnection structure
for controller design. This involves dening the various inputs and outputs, the
various models and weighting functions, the perturbation block-structure, and the
interconnections of the various components.
The LFT description of the aircraft is obtained in the uncertainty modelling
step of the previous section. The -synthesis procedure is applicable for complex
perturbations only. This implies that the repeated real scalar perturbation block-
structure obtained in the parameter uncertainty modelling procedure has to be re-
placed by a block structure having complex blocks only. Another problem in the
mutools toolbox is that the D-K iteration routine can handle perturbation struc-
tures of full complex blocks only. In the D-K iteration the frequency dependent
D-scalings have to be tted with stable minimum-phase transfer functions. In the
present version of the mutools toolbox this can only be realized for diagonal D-scale
matrices, which implies full blocks in the perturbation block-structure. For these
reasons, the repeated real scalar perturbation block-structures obtained by the pa-
rameter uncertainty modelling have to be replaced by full (complex) blocks. This
is implemented by replacing each q-dimensional repeated real scalar blocks by q
1-dimensional complex full blocks.
In addition, the performance perturbation block is dened, and the perturba-
tion block-structure is extended in order to obtain the robust performance problem
formulation.
The systems for the actuators, and the turbulence and wind models are dened
according to Sections 3.3 and 3.4. Also performance weighting functions and eort
weighting functions have to be dened.
The performance outputs for the controller design interconnection structure are
dened as the weighted errors of the aircraft measurements and the reference signals,
i.e., the speed error Ve and the vertical speed error we.
The performance weighting function is the main tool to obtain desired perfor-
mance of the controller to be designed. A frequency dependent weighting is applied.
At high frequencies the controller will not be able to counteract any errors due to the
inertia of engines and aircraft. In the lower frequencies a more precise control is de-
sired, and in the lowest band, where (approximate) constant errors occur, a perfect
removal is required. A performance weighting aimed at such control characteristics
4.3. Standard Plant for Controller Design 45
Nominal aircraft longitudinal model, input 1: Ve (−), we (−−)

4
10
3
10
2
10
1
10
0
10
−1
10
−2
10
−3
10
−4
10 −4 −3 −2 −1 0 1 2
10 10 10 10 10 10 10
Nominal aircraft longitudinal model, input 2: Ve (−), we (−−)
3
10
2
10
1
10
0
10
−1
10
−2
10
−3
10 −4 −3 −2 −1 0 1 2
10 10 10 10 10 10 10
Figure 4.3: Frequency response of the nominal aircraft longitudinal model to elevator
input (upper) and throttle input (lower) for 4-dimensional parameter uncertainty.
behaves like a lag-lead lter [20], having the form

K !!2 ss + !1 ; (4:1)
1 + !2
with !1 !2. The controller resulting from such a weighting exhibits proportional
and integral action. Moreover, the synthesis tools automatically add derivative
action for damping purposes. The integral action, evoked by the emphasis on low
frequency performance, may cause overshoot. On the other hand, if no integral
action is applied, a steady-state error is introduced.
In particular, the weighting function of the speed error is dened as
WVe := 0:02 s s++0:10001
;
and the weighting function of the vertical speed error is dened as
Wwe := 0:002 ss ++ 0100:01 :
Figure 4.4 shows the performance weighting functions.
The eort (or actuator) weighting function is implemented to weight the control
eort. The weights are selected such that a decoupling in the elevator and throttle
controls is obtained. The elevator eort weighting is dened as
WE := 0:001 ss ++ 010:1 :
This eort weighting will act as a lag-lead lter, applying the largest weight at the
lower frequencies. The elevator is well-suited to apply fast action. The engine eort
weighting is dened as
WTH := 0:1 ss ++ 010:1 :
This eort weighting will act as a lead-lag lter, which is of the form of (4.1) but with
!1 !2. It applies the largest weight at the higher frequencies. In this way rapid
variations in throttle settings are suppressed. Figure 4.4 shows the eort weighting
functions.
The above selected weighting functions are due to Schuring [20], who uses a re-
lated controller architecture with respect to a 1-dimensional parameter uncertainty.
The weighting functions were the result of a number of tuning stages to optimize the
design, where the strong physical interpretations facilitated the design process. In
the RCAM control design problem these weighting functions were originally used as
a rst estimate. However, with respect to the tests and the closed-loop responses,
there is no reason for more tuning. Nonlinear simulations will be necessary to nd
out whether also good performance is obtained for the nonlinear model.
Finally, the components are connected as in Figure 4.5.
Appendix A gives a brief view of the routines that are used in the implementation
in MATLAB of the above issues.
4.3. Standard Plant for Controller Design 47
Performance weights: Ve (-), we (- -)

2
10
1
10
0
10
-1
10
-2
10
-3
10 -4 -2 0 2 4
10 10 10 10 10
Frequency (rad/s)
Actuator weights: elevator (-), throttles (- -)

-1
10
-2
10
-3
10 -2 -1 0 1 2
10 10 10 10 10
Frequency (rad/s)
Figure 4.4: The performance weighting functions (upper) and the eort weighting
functions (lower).

perturbation perturbation
input output
--
-- Aircraft
noise - Wind weighted
Model - Actuator - eort
er
Weight
noise -Turbulence
Model
-+ ?- - Performance -
r
references Weight weighted
- Actuator errors
Model
control measurement
Controller
Figure 4.5: Interconnection structure for controller design.

Chapter 5
Controller Design Process
5.1 Robust Controller Design for 1-Dimensional
Parameter Uncertainty
5.1.1 Introduction
This section considers the design of a robust controller with respect to only one
uncertain parameter, x. The LFT description of the aircraft has been obtained in
Section 4.2.1. The LFT has one 10-dimensional repeated real perturbation block.
To apply synthesis this block is replaced by 10 complex full blocks of dimension 1.
The standard plant has been formulated in Section 4.3 and is shown in Figure 4.5.
5.1.2 D-K Iteration

The D-K iteration procedure is implemented in the mutools routine dkit. To use
this routine some variables have to be dened. These variables include the system of
the interconnection structure, the perturbation block-structure, and the dimensions
of the control input and measurement output. Also some options can be set. During
the routine various variables can be reset, such as the tolerance for the H1 synthesis
bisection routine and the number of frequency points.
The D-K iteration starts by calculating a controller K using H1 synthesis. The
D-scalings are here assumed to be unity for all frequencies. Figure 5.1 shows the
singular values of the resulting closed-loop system. The maximum singular value
is 11:580. Secondly, is computed for the closed-loop system at various frequency
points. Figure 5.1 also shows the (complex) plot. The peak value of is 3:738.
Next, the D-scalings are tted interactively. For each full block in the perturbation
structure the D-scaling has to be t. As an example, Figure 5.2 shows the 1st order
t for the rst D-scaling.
The second iteration starts with a new H1 synthesis for the scaled open-loop
system and the procedure is repeated until no more (large) improvement can be
49
50 Chapter 5. Controller Design Process
SINGULAR VALUE PLOT: CLOSED-LOOP RESPONSE

12
10
8
MAGNITUDE
0 -4 -2 0 2 4
10 10 10 10 10
FREQUENCY (rad/s)
CLOSED-LOOP MU: CONTROLLER #1

4
3.5
2.5
MU
1.5
0.5
0 -4 -2 0 2 4
10 10 10 10 10
FREQUENCY (rad/s)
Figure 5.1: Magnitude (upper) and (lower) of closed-loop system at the 1st iter-
ation for 1-dimensional parameter uncertainty.
5.1. Robust Controller Design for 1-Dimensional Parameter Uncertainty 51
FITTING D SCALING #1 of 10, W/ORDER = 1

1
10
0
10
-1
10
-2
10 -4 -2 0 2 4
10 10 10 10 10
1) mag data 2) newfit 3) previous D-K
SCALED TRANSFER FUNCTION: OPTIMAL & RATIONAL
4
0 -4 -2 0 2 4
10 10 10 10 10
1) MU UPPER BND 2) UPPER BND WITH RATIONAL FIT
Figure 5.2: Example of 1st order D-scaling t. The unit line is the \previous t".
Iteration 1 2 3 4
Controller order 14 34 46 48
Total D-scale order 0 20 32 34
11.580 1.163 0.287 0.214
peak- 3.738 0.508 0.285 0.204
Table 5.1: Summary of the D-K iteration for longitudinal controller design for 1-
dimensional parameter uncertainty.
made. Table 5.1 gives the iteration summary for the longitudinal controller design.
Figure 5.3 shows the magnitude (maximum singular values) plot of the resulting
controller. The magnitude and plot of the closed-loop system is given in Figure 5.4.
The nal value of is 0:204, so robust performance is satised for our performance
criteria.
5.1.3 Controller Order Reduction

The longitudinal controller obtained by D-K iteration is a 48th order system. It
is natural that the order of control systems designed by synthesis is very high.
However, the order of the control system can be reduced by model order reduction
techniques.
For the order reduction of the control system the Hankel state reduction tech-
nique is used using the mutools routine hankmr. The bode plot of the original
controller is compared to that of the reduced controller. The reduced controller is
the controller having the least order such that the bode plot is equivalent to that
of the original controller. Figure 5.5 shows the bode plot of the 48th order original
controller obtained by the D-K iteration and the 14th order reduced controller.
Next, is computed for the closed-loop system with the new (reduced) controller.
Figure 5.6 shows that this plot is similar to that of the original closed-loop system
and that robust performance is also satised by the 14th order reduced controller.
The reduced controller is the nal controller of the design cycle.
The controller should now be analysed to check whether it satises the criteria of
the ight control system. This can be done by computing closed-loop time responses
and simulations. The results from these analyses give guidance to tune the weighting
functions for performance improvement.
5.2 Robust Controller Design for 4-Dimensional

Parameter Uncertainty
5.2.1 Introduction
The LFT description of the aircraft obtained in the uncertainty modelling of Sec-
tion 4.2.3 contains 36 (repeated) real perturbation blocks of dimension 1. In order
to apply synthesis these are replaced by 1-dimensional full complex blocks. The
standard plant for controller design is shown Figure 4.5.
5.2.2 D-K Iteration

As a result of the high number, 36, of blocks in the perturbation block-structure, the
computations involved for H1 synthesis and the computation of are very time-
consuming. It is therefore advisable to use the controller design for 1-dimensional
Magnitude plot of controller, k1, output1: Ve (-), we (--)

2
10
1
10
0
10
-1
10
-2
10 -4 -2 0 2 4
10 10 10 10 10
Frequency (rad/s)
Magnitude plot of controller, k1, output2: Ve (-), we (--)

1
10
0
10
-1
10
-2
10
-3
10
-4
10
-5
10
-6
10 -4 -2 0 2 4
10 10 10 10 10
Frequency (rad/s)
Figure 5.3: Frequency response of the longitudinal controller obtained by D-K iter-
Max. singular value and complex mu of closed-loop system

0.25
0.2
0.15
Magnitude
0.1
0.05
0 -4 -2 0 2 4
10 10 10 10 10
Frequency (rad/s)
Figure 5.4: Magnitude and of longitudinal closed-loop system obtained by D-K

iteration for 1-dimensional parameter uncertainty.
(or 2-dimensional) parameter uncertainty to (pre-) select good estimates for the
weighting functions. This in order to minimize the number of iterations necessary
for tuning in the controller design for higher dimensional parameter uncertainty.
The iteration starts by calculating an H1 controller for the unscaled system.
Figure 5.7 shows the singular value plot of the closed-loop system. The maximum
singular value is 19:876. Second, is computed for the closed-loop system. Its peak
value is 1:945. Figure 5.7 also shows as function of frequency.
Next, 36 D-scalings have to be tted for the second iteration. Five of them need
2nd order ts (the 1st, 3rd, 5th, 13th, and 33rd D-scalings), the other ts are 1st
order ts.
Then an H1 controller is calculated for the new scaled open-loop system, after
which again is computed for the closed-loop system. Five iterations have been
applied of which Table 5.2 gives a summary. Again mainly 1st order D-scaling ts
are applied. In the third iteration 2nd order ts are used for the same D-scalings as
for the second iteration. In the fourth iteration 2nd order ts are used for the same
D-scalings as in the 3rd iteration plus for the 27th D-scaling. In the fth iteration
2nd order ts are used for the 1st, 3rd, 13th, 27th, and 33th D-scalings, and 3rd
order ts are used for the 5th and 20th D-scaling ts.
The nal singular value of the closed-loop system is 0:830, and the nal peak
value of is 0:822, by which robust performance is satised for the selected weighting
functions. Figure 5.8 shows the singular value and plot for the resulting closed-loop
system. The nal controller is shown in Figure 5.9.
2
10
Log Magnitude
0
10
-2
10
-4
10 -4 -2 0 2 4
10 10 10 10 10
Frequency (radians/sec)
Reduced controller, order 14, output 1 (original ooo )
400
Phase (degrees)
200
-200 -4 -2 0 2 4
10 10 10 10 10
5
10
Log Magnitude
0
10
-5
10
-10
10 -4 -2 0 2 4
10 10 10 10 10
400
Phase (degrees)
200
-200 -4 -2 0 2 4
10 10 10 10 10
Figure 5.5: Original and reduced order longitudinal controller bode plots for 1-
Complex (-) and real (--) mu for reduced controller

0.25
0.2
0.15
Magnitude
0.1
0.05
0 -4 -2 0 2 4
10 10 10 10 10
Frequency (rad/s)
Figure 5.6: Plot of for closed-loop system corresponding to the reduced longitu-
dinal controller for 1-dimensional parameter uncertainty.
Iteration 1 2 3 4 5
Controller order 14 96 96 98 104
Total D-scale order 0 82 82 84 90
19.876 1.318 1.001 0.862 0.830
peak- 1.945 1.209 0.965 0.858 0.822
Table 5.2: Summary of the D-K iteration for longitudinal controller design for 4-
SINGULAR VALUE PLOT: CLOSED−LOOP RESPONSE

20
15
MAGNITUDE
10
0 −3 −2 −1 0 1 2 3
10 10 10 10 10 10 10
FREQUENCY (rad/s)
CLOSED−LOOP MU: CONTROLLER #1
2
1.5
MU
0.5
0 −3 −2 −1 0 1 2 3
10 10 10 10 10 10 10
FREQUENCY (rad/s)
Figure 5.7: Magnitude (upper) and (lower) of closed-loop system at the 1st D-K
Max. singular value and complex mu of closed−loop system

0.9
0.8
0.7
0.6
Magnitude
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2 −4 −2 0 2 4
10 10 10 10 10
Frequency (rad/s)
Figure 5.8: Magnitude and for longitudinal closed-loop system obtained by D-K
5.2.3 Controller Order Reduction

The longitudinal controller obtained by D-K iteration is a 104th order system. This
order is again reduced by model order reduction.
Using the Hankel state reduction technique, a 15th order reduced controller is
found. The bode plots of the original 104th order controller and the 15th order
reduced controller are shown in Figure 5.10.
Next, is computed for the closed-loop system with the new (reduced) controller.
Figure 5.11 shows that this plot is similar to that of the original closed-loop system
and that robust performance is also satised by the 15th order reduced controller.
The reduced controller is the nal controller of the design cycle.
Chapter 6 gives an analysis of the nal 15th order longitudinal controller.
Magnitude plot of controller, k1, output1: Ve (−), we (−−)

3
10
2
10
1
10
0
10
−1
10
−2
10
−3
10 −4 −2 0 2 4
10 10 10 10 10
Frequency (rad/s)
Magnitude plot of controller, k1, output2: Ve (−), we (−−)
1
10
0
10
−1
10
−2
10
−3
10
−4
10 −4 −2 0 2 4
10 10 10 10 10
Frequency (rad/s)
Figure 5.9: Frequency response of the longitudinal controller obtained by D-K iter-
4
10
2
10
Log Magnitude
0
10
−2
10
−4
10 −4 −2 0 2 4
10 10 10 10 10
200
Phase (degrees)
−200
−400 −4 −2 0 2 4
10 10 10 10 10
2
10
Log Magnitude
0
10
−2
10
−4
10 −4 −2 0 2 4
10 10 10 10 10
300
Phase (degrees)
200
100
−100 −4 −2 0 2 4
10 10 10 10 10
Figure 5.10: Original and reduced order longitudinal controller bode plots for 4-
Complex mu for reduced controller

0.9
0.8
0.7
0.6
Magnitude
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2 −4 −2 0 2 4
10 10 10 10 10
Frequency (rad/s)
Figure 5.11: Plot of for closed-loop system corresponding to the reduced longitu-
dinal controller for 4-dimensional parameter uncertainty.
Chapter 6
Analysis of the Designed
Controller
6.1 Introduction
There are three ways to analyse the performance of the designed controller. The
rst consists of the tests. This is the subject of Section 6.2. Section 6.3 consid-
ers closed-loop time responses which are ecient tools to analyse the performance
of the designed controller. The third analysis tool is nonlinear simulations. The
GARTEUR Action Group FM(AG08) [9] has developed an automatic evaluation
procedure to test the performance of the controller with respect to the nonlinear
model. However, for this procedure also a lateral controller is needed. For this
reason the nonlinear simulations have not been implemented at this stage.
6.2 Analysis
In Section 5.2 we have designed a longitudinal controller of order 15. The controller
is designed in such a way that of the closed-loop system is smaller than 1 and thus
satises the robust performance criteria. However, in the -synthesis procedure we
had to replace the real perturbation blocks by complex blocks. We therefore also
compute with respect to the original perturbation structure of 36 1-dimensional
(repeated) real pertubation blocks and a complex full performance perturbation
block. Figure 6.1 shows real- of the closed-loop system with the original perturba-
tion block, and complex- of the closed-loop system with the complex perturbation
block-structure as used for the controller design. It is seen that real- and complex-
are not that far o. This is probably due to the fact that the repeated real blocks
are all of dimension 1, and are thus \only" assumed to be complex while the block
dimensions stay the same. The controller designed by the (complex-) -synthesis
approach, is thus also a good robust controller for the original system with the real
perturbation block-structure.
62
6.3. Time Responses 63
Complex (−) and real (−−) mu for reduced controller

0.9
0.8
0.7
0.6
Magnitude
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1 −4 −2 0 2 4
10 10 10 10 10
Frequency (rad/s)
Figure 6.1: Robust performance: real- and complex of the longitudinal closed-loop
system of the designed controller.
Since the closed-loop system satises robust performance, the closed-loop system
is also robustly stable. Robust stability is tested by computing with respect to
the original real perturbation block-structure and without the performance pertur-
bation. Figure 6.2 shows the robust stability plot. It is seen that robust stability is
satised.
It follows that the designed controller satises the tests for the original real per-
turbation block-structure. The closed-loop system is thus robust to all uncertainty
in the 4 uncertain parameters for the selected weighting functions.
6.3 Time Responses

To analyse the performance of the designed controller, some closed-loop time re-
sponses are computed. In fact, the performance of the system with respect to the
selected weighting functions is thus analysed.
The command response characteristics are dened in terms of rise time tr , settling
time ts, and overshoot Mp. Here, rise time is dened as the time the unit step
response y(t) takes from y = 0:10 to y = 0:90, e.g., tr = t(y90%) t(y10%). Settling
time is dened as the time for y(t) to achieve 99% of its nal value. Finally, overshoot
is dened as the relative peak of y(t), e.g., Mp = (ypeak y(1)) 100%.
Figure 6.3 shows the response of the nominal model to a unit step in the speed
command VC . In this gure, at the upper left the time response of V is shown;
the time response of wV to the unit step in VC is shown at the upper right; the
64 Chapter 6. Analysis of the Designed Controller
Robust stability: real−mu of closed−loop system

0.8
0.7
0.6
0.5
real−mu
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
0 −4 −2 0 2 4
10 10 10 10 10
Frequency (rad/s)
Figure 6.2: Robust stability: real- of the longitudinal closed-loop system of the
designed controller with respect to the parameter uncertainty perturbation structure
only.
corresponding control inputs E and TH are shown in the lower left and right,
respectively. Figure 6.4 shows the response to the same unit step in VC for the
linear model with mass = 150 000 kg and the displacement of the aerodynamic
center from the center of gravity (1:25; 0:2; 1:38). V should be able to track the
speed command VC with a rise time tr < 12 s and settling time ts < 45 s. The plots
show that these criteria are satised.
Figure 6.5 and 6.6 show the response to a unit step in the vertical speed command
wC for the same two linear models as above. Here, also good responses are obtained.
Figure 6.7 and 6.8 show the responses to a step in tailwind of magnitude 13
m=s. There should be no deviation in V larger than 2.6 m=s for more than 5 s. The
gures show that the deviation does not exceed the 2.6 m=s bound. Also no steady
state error due to constant wind is allowed. This criteria is also satised.
wpnom, V cmd: Ve, Vcmd wpnom, V cmd: we

0.04
1 0.03
0.02
0.01
0.5
0
−0.01
0 −0.02
0 10 20 30 40 0 10 20 30 40
time (s) time (s)
x 10 wpnom, V cmd: delt e wpnom, V cmd: throttle
−3
8 0.02
6 0.015
4 0.01
2 0.005
0 0
0 10 20 30 40 0 10 20 30 40
time (s) time (s)
Figure 6.3: Time response to a unit step in VC for the nominal model.
wp2232, V cmd: Ve, Vcmd wp2232, V cmd: we
0.05
1 0.04
0.03
0.02
0.5
0.01
0 −0.01
0 10 20 30 40 0 10 20 30 40
time (s) time (s)
x 10 wp2232, V cmd: delt e x 10 wp2232, V cmd: throttle
−3 −3
8 20
15
6
10
4
5
2
0
0 −5
0 10 20 30 40 0 10 20 30 40
time (s) time (s)
Figure 6.4: Time response to a unit step in VC for the linear model with
mass=150 000, x = 1:25 m, y = 0:2 m, and z = 1:38 m.
66 Chapter 6. Analysis of the Designed Controller
wpnom, w cmd: Ve wpnom, w cmd: we, wcmd

0.3 1.5
0.2
1
0.1
0
0.5
−0.1
−0.2 0
0 10 20 30 40 0 10 20 30 40
time (s) time (s)
wpnom, w cmd: delt e wpnom, w cmd: throttle
0.2 0.02
0
0
−0.2
−0.02
−0.4
−0.04
−0.6
−0.8 −0.06
0 10 20 30 40 0 10 20 30 40
time (s) time (s)
Figure 6.5: Time response to a unit step in wC for the nominal model.
wp2232, w cmd: Ve wp2232, w cmd: we, wcmd
0.4 1.5
0.2 1
0 0.5
−0.2 0
0 10 20 30 40 0 10 20 30 40
time (s) time (s)
wp2232, w cmd: delt e wp2232, w cmd: throttle
0.2 0.02
0 0
−0.2 −0.02
−0.4 −0.04
−0.6 −0.06
0 10 20 30 40 0 10 20 30 40
time (s) time (s)
Figure 6.6: Time response to a unit step in wC for the linear model with
mass=150 000, x = 1:25 m, y = 0:2 m, and z = 1:38 m.
wpnom, uw: Ve, uw wpnom, uw: we

15 1
10
0.5
0
0 10 20 30 40 0 10 20 30 40
time (s) time (s)
wpnom, uw: delt e wpnom, uw: throttle
0.15 0.04
0.03
0.1
0.02
0.05
0.01
0
0
−0.05 −0.01
0 10 20 30 40 0 10 20 30 40
time (s) time (s)
Figure 6.7: Time response to a step in tailwind of magnitude 13 m=s for the nominal
model.
wp2232, uw: Ve, uw wp2232, uw: we
15 1.5
1
10
0.5
5
0
0 −0.5
0 10 20 30 40 0 10 20 30 40
time (s) time (s)
wp2232, uw: delt e wp2232, uw: throttle
0.1 0.06
0.04
0
0.02
−0.1
0
−0.2 −0.02
0 10 20 30 40 0 10 20 30 40
time (s) time (s)
Figure 6.8: Time response to a step in tailwind of magnitude 13 m=s for the linear
model with mass=150 000, x = 1:25 m, y = 0:2 m, and z = 1:38 m.
Chapter 7
Conclusions and
Recommendations
Uncertain parameters give rise to varying entries in the state-space data. An LFT
description of the aircraft longitudinal model can be obtained using parameter uncer-
tainty modelling. For 1-dimensional and 2-dimensional parameter uncertainty, vary-
ing entries can be t by polynomials in the varying parameter(s). For 4-dimensional
parameter uncertainty, the varying entries of the state-space data are considered as
separate independent parameters with given lower and upper bounds.
Using polynomial ts for the varying entries, as is implemented for the one
uncertain parameter case, leads to a perturbation block with high dimensions for
each uncertain parameter. For the RCAM, an LFT description has been obtained for
1-dimensional parameter variation in x only. The resulting LFT has a perturbation
block-structure of one 10-dimensional repeated real scalar block, corresponding to
perturbations in x.
The alternative modelling method, illustrated by the 4-dimensional parame-
ter uncertainty case, leads to a perturbation block-structure of a number of 1-
dimensional real scalar blocks. The number of these blocks equals the number of
varying entries in the state-space data. For the RCAM, an LFT description with
respect to all 4 uncertain parameters has been obtained. The LFT has a perturba-
tion block-structure of 36 1-dimensional (repeated) real scalar perturbation blocks,
corresponding to 36 varying entries in the state-space data.
To design a robust controller using D-K iteration, the (repeated) real scalar
blocks in the perturbation block-structure have to be replaced by (a number of)
1-dimensional complex full blocks. This is due to the fact that (in the present
MATLAB toolbox) the D-K iteration approach to synthesis can handle perturba-
tion block-structures having full complex blocks only. For the modelling procedure
using polynomial ts, this introduces large conservatism in the uncertainty struc-
ture. A large gap may result between the values of used for synthesis, and the
values of computed for the original real perturbation structure. For the alternative
modelling approach the introduced conservatism is much less, since here the original
68
69
1-dimensional real perturbation blocks are only replaced by complex perturbation

blocks keeping the dimensions xed. Using this approach, D-K iteration therefore
also yields ecient controllers for real parametric uncertainty. In the 4-dimensional
parameter uncertainty case of the RCAM, it has been seen that the peak-values
of with respect to the original perturbation block-structure and to the complex
perturbation block-structure are indeed tight.
Controllers designed using D-K iteration, have high orders but these can be
eectively reduced by the Hankel model reduction technique. For the RCAM in
the full 4 parameter uncertainty case, the order of the designed controller has been
reduced from 104 to 15 using this technique.
For 4-dimensional parameter uncertainty the uncertainty modelling and con-
troller design procedures are both very time-consuming. To reduce computation
time for the controller design cycle it is recommended to rst consider the param-
eter uncertainty modelling and controller design for one uncertain parameter at a
time, keeping the others xed. The motivation for this follows next.
For the uncertainty modelling, representative sets of values for the 4 varying
parameters have to be dened. For all permutations of the elements in the four
sets the nonlinear aircraft model is trimmed and linearized. It is thus desirable to
minimize the number of points in each set to reduce the number of the time-expensive
trimmings and linearizations. On the other hand, the sets have to be representative
for the in uence of a varying parameter on the system-matrices entries. Therefore,
it is recommended to rst apply 1-dimensional parameter uncertainty modelling
with respect to one uncertain parameter at a time (keeping the other uncertain
parameters xed). From these analyses conclusions can be made with respect to the
varying behaviour of state-space entries for the various parameters. In particular
monotonous behaviour in a varying parameter is of interest. For intervals where the
varying entries are all monotonous functions of a varying parameter, only the lower
and upper points of the intervals are needed in the sets of values for the varying
parameter used for trimming and linearization.
In the case of 4-dimensional parameter uncertainty the number of blocks in
the perturbation block-structure is very high. In the case of longitudinal controller
design for the RCAM model the number of blocks in the perturbation block-structure
is 37, corresponding to 36 blocks for the varying entries in the state-space data, and 1
performance block. The computations for H1 synthesis and analysis are therefore
very time-consuming. Also the number of D-scalings that have to be t in each
D-K iteration is very high, since this number equals the dimension of the number
of blocks in the perturbation structure. For the 4-dimensional case, it is therefore
advisable to minimize the number of controller design cycle iterations corresponding
to tuning of the weighting functions, by selecting good estimates for the weighting
functions.
Therefore, it is recommended that weighting functions are rst checked for per-
70 Chapter 7. Conclusions and Recommendations
formance with respect to 1-dimensional parameter uncertainty only, for all uncertain
parameters separately. Since, for 1-dimensional parameter uncertainty the pertur-
bation blocks are much smaller and therefore the D-K iteration is much faster.
If necessary, the weighting functions are tuned in these pre-analyses. It is then
hoped that the weighting functions that have good performance for the individual
1-dimensional parameter uncertainty cases, also have good performance for the 4-
dimensional case. For the RCAM longitudinal controller design this approach has
been very eective.
In the longitudinal controller design of the RCAM aircraft in this report, time
delay has not been taken into consideration. Time delay can be implemented by
adding a system based on a Pade approximation to the standard plant. The con-
troller design cycle should then be repeated with respect to this standard plant.
Note that the parameter uncertainty modelling of the aircraft does not have to be
repeated, since the LFT of the aircraft is a separate system in the interconnection
structure of the standard plant.
For the nal control system of the RCAM also a lateral controller has to be
designed. This can be done analogous to the design of the longitudinal controller,
but with respect to another controller design architecture.
References
[1] Balas, G.J., Doyle, J.C., Glover, K., Packard, A.K., Smith, R., -Analysis and
Synthesis Toolbox User's Guide, MUSYN Inc. and The MathWorks Inc., Natick,
1993.
[2] Blight, J.D., Dailey, R.L., Gangsaas, D., \Practical Control Law Design for
Aircraft Using Multivariable Techniques", International Journal of Control,
Vol. 59, No. 1, Special Edition on Aircraft Flight Control, pp. 93-137, 1994.
[3] Doyle, J.C., \Analysis of Feedback Systems with Structured Uncertainties",
IEE Proceedings, Vol. 129, Part. D, No. 6, pp. 242-250, 1982.
[4] Doyle, J.C., Glover, K., Khargonekar, P.P., Francis, B.A., \State-Space So-
lutions to Standard H2 and H1 Control Problems", IEEE Transactions on
Automatic Control, Vol. 34, No. 8, pp. 831-847, 1989.
[5] Doyle, J.C., Packard, A., Zhou, K., \Review of LFTs, LMIs, and ", Proceed-
ings of the 30th IEEE Conference on Decision and Control, Brighton, England,
pp. 1227-1232, 1991.
[6] Fan, M.K.H., Tits, A.L., \Characterization and Ecient Computation of
the Structured Singular Value", IEEE Transactions on Automatic Control,
Vol. AC-31, No. 8, pp. 734-743, 1986.
[7] Fan, M.K.H., Tits, A.L., Doyle, J.C., \Robustness in the Presence of Mixed
Parametric Uncertainty and Unmodeled Dynamics", IEEE Transactions on
Automatic Control, Vol. 36, No. 1, pp. 25-38, 1991.
[8] Francis, B.A., Khargonekar, P.P. (Eds.), Robust Control Theory, Proceedings
of a Workshop that Formed Part of the 1992-93 IMA Program on \Control
Theory", The IMA Volumes in Mathematics and its Applications, Vol. 66,
Springer-Verlag, New York, 1995.
[9] GARTEUR Action Group FM(AG08), Robust Flight Control Design Challenge
Problem Formulation and Manual: the Research Civil Aircraft Model (RCAM),
GARTEUR/TP-088-3, GARTEUR, 1995.
71
72 References
[10] GARTEUR Action Group FM(AG08), Robust Flight Control Design Challenge
Problem Formulation and Manual: the High Incidence Research Model (HIRM),
GARTEUR/TP-088-4, GARTEUR, 1995.
[11] Gerlach, O.H., Vliegeigenschappen I, Lecture Notes Delft University of Tech-
nology, Faculty of Aerospace, Vol. D 26-1 & D 26-2, Delft, 1981.
[12] Glover, K., \A Tutorial on Hankel-Norm Approximation", In: Willems, J.C.
(Ed.), From Data to Model, pp. 26-48, Springer-Verlag, Berlin, 1989.
[13] Glover, K., Doyle, J.C., \State-Space Formulae for All Stabilizing Controllers
That Satisfy an H1 -Norm Bound and Relations to Risk Sensitivity", Systems
& Control Letters, Vol. 11, pp. 167-172, 1988.
[14] Goverde, R.M.P., Robust Flight Control System Design Using H1=-Synthesis,
NLR Technical Report, TR 95356 L, National Aerospace Laboratory NLR,
Amsterdam, 1995.
[15] Goverde, R.M.P., Longitudinal Flight Control Law Design for the RCAM Design
Challenge: the -Synthesis Approach, NLR Technical Report, TR 96063 L,
National Aerospace Laboratory NLR, Amsterdam, 1996.
[16] Lambrechts, P., Terlouw, J., Bennani, S., Steinbuch, M., \Parametric Uncer-
tainty Modeling Using LFTs", Proceedings of the American Control Conference,
San Fransisco, California, pp. 267-272, 1993.
[17] Maciejowski, J.M., Multivariable Feedback Design, Addison-Wesley, Woking-
ham, 1989.
[18] Packard, A., Doyle, J.C., \The Complex Structured Singular Value", Automat-
ica, Vol. 29, No. 1, pp. 71-109, 1993.
[19] Safonov, M.G., Limebeer, D.J.N., Chiang, R.Y., \Simplifying the H 1 The-
ory via Loop-Shifting, Matrix-Pencil and Descriptor Concepts", International
Journal of Control, Vol. 50, No. 6, pp. 2467-2488, 1989.
[20] Schuring, J., Example of H1 =-Synthesis in Robust Aircraft Flight Control
System Design, NLR Contract Report, CR 94127 L, National Aerospace Lab-
oratory NLR, Amsterdam, 1994.
[21] Terlouw, J.C., Lambrechts, P.F., A Matlab Toolbox for Parametric Uncertainty
Modelling, NLR Technical Publication, CR 93455 L, National Aerospace Lab-
oratory NLR, Amsterdam, 1993.
[22] Young, P.M., Newlin, M.P., Doyle, J.C., \Let's Get Real", In: Francis, B.A.,
Khargonekar, P.P. (Eds.), Robust Control Theory, Proceedings of a Workshop
That Formed Part of the 1992-93 IMA Program on \Control Theory", The IMA
References 73
Volumes in Mathematics and its Applications, Vol. 66, pp. 143-173, Springer-
verlag, New York, 1995.
Appendix A
Software Description
A.1 Introduction
This Appendix gives an overview of the software that is used to design a robust
control system for the RCAM. The algorithms are based on the mathematical soft-
ware package MATLAB including the simulation package SIMULINK. In addition,
three MATLAB toolboxes are used. These toolboxes are the Robust Control Toolbox
(used implicitly) and the -Analysis and Synthesis Toolbox (mutools), which are of-
cial MATLAB toolboxes of the MathWorks, Inc., and the Parametric Uncertainty
Modelling (PUM) Toolbox which has been jointly developed at the TUD, the NLR,
and the Philips Research Laboratories NatLab [16, 21].
A controller for the longitudinal dynamics and a controller for the lateral dynam-
ics can be designed separately as a result of the decoupling property of the aircraft
dynamics into longitudinal and lateral dynamics. Hereby, the control system de-
sign is divided into two separate control system designs which are taken together to
obtain the nal control system.
The control system design approach can then again roughly be divided into three
parts. The rst part consists of the uncertainty modelling of the aircraft. Here, a
linear model of the aircraft is obtained in which possible uncertainties are taken into
account. The second part is the actual controller design using the uncertain model
of the aircraft. The nal phase is the simulation phase, in which the control system
is tested to yield good results for the full nonlinear model of the aircraft.
A.2 Parameter Uncertainty Modelling

The uncertainty modelling for 1-dimensional parameter uncertainty is implemented
in the routine rcamum which calls the subroutines rcamum1 to rcamum5. Table A.1
gives a short description of these subroutines and the most important calls to other
routines which themselves can again have more calls to other routines. Calls to stan-
dard MATLAB functions are not included in the table. The routines are applicable
74
A.3. Controller Design 75
for both longitudinal and lateral controller design. Only some adjustments have
to be made in the routine rcamum1 with respect to the declaration of the varying
parameter.
Routine Subroutines Comment

rcamum1 trimming and linearization
trim trimming (simulink)
linmod linearization (simulink)
select select longitudinal or lateral dynamics
rcam9 nonlinear aircraft model (GARTEUR)
rcamum2 creation varying data vectors
rcamum3 classication system-matrices entries
rcamum4 denition initial nominal model
rcamum5 parameter uncertainty modelling
setmunc denition uncertainty model data le (PUM)
t polynomial tting (PUM)
pck state-space model to system matrix (mutools)
nomsys denition initial nominal model (PUM)
loadent load entry (PUM)
ss2lft state-space model to LFT (PUM)
Table A.1: Routines for uncertainty modelling for 1-dimensional parameter uncer-
tainty.
The uncertainty modelling for 4-dimensional parameter uncertainty is imple-

mented in the routines um4d1 and um4d2. Table A.2 gives a short description of
these routines and the most important calls to other routines which themselves can
again have more calls to other routines. Also in this case, calls to standard MAT-
LAB functions are not included in the table and the routines are applicable for both
longitudinal and lateral controller design with only some small adjustments.
A.3 Controller Design

The longitudinal control system design is implemented in the routine lon, which
calls the subroutines lonolrsp, and the subroutines lon1 to lon4. Table A.3 gives
an overview of the routines. As above, calls to standard MATLAB functions are
not included in the table. The routines that dene the models for wind, turbulence,
and actuators, and the routines that dene the weighting functions, use the mutools
routine nd2sys. Moreover, the mutools routines that are used to display information
76 Appendix A. Software Description

um4d1 trimming and linearization
trim trimming (simulink)
linmod linearization (simulink)
select select longitudinal or lateral dynamics
rcam9 nonlinear aircraft model (GARTEUR)
um4d2 parameter uncertainty modelling
setmunc denition uncertainty model data le (PUM)
t polynomial tting (PUM)
nomsys denition initial nominal model (PUM)
loadent load entry (PUM)
ss2lft state-space model to LFT (PUM)
Table A.2: Routines for uncertainty modelling for 4-dimensional parameter uncer-
tainty.
on systems or to plot system outputs are not included in the table. These routines
include minfo, rifd, spoles, logspace, frsp, sel, and vplot.
A.3. Controller Design 77

lonolrsp open-loop time responses
lonolic open-loop interconnection structure
trsp time response (mutools)
lon1 creation interconnection structure
lonact longitudinal actuator model
wlonact longitudinal actuator weight
wlonwind longitudinal wind model
wlonturb longitudinal turbulence model
wlonperf longitudinal performance weight
rcamloic longitudinal interconnection structure
lon2 synthesis
londkdef denition variables for dkit
dkit D-K iteration (mutools, modied)
vsvd singular value decomposition (mutools)
mu computation (mutools)
sbs stack matrices next to another (mutools)
lon3 controller order reduction
sysbal balanced realization (mutools)
hankmr optimal Hankel norm approximation (mutools)
starp feedback connection (Redheer star product) (mutools)
mu computation (mutools)
lon4 closed-loop time responses
trsp time response (mutools)
Table A.3: Routines for longitudinal controller design.
Appendix B
Nomenclature
General
A set of stabilizing controllers,
BK set of normalized block-diagonal perturbation matrices,
C set of complex numbers,
C n set of n-dimensional complex vectors,
C nm set of n m-dimensional complex matrices,
det(M ) determinant of square matrix M ,
dim(x) dimension of vector x,
dim(M ) dimensions of matrix M ,
DK set of particular block-diagonal scaling matrices,
^
DK set of particular block-diagonal scaling matrices,
Fl(M; l) lower linear fractional transformation of M with respect to l,
Fu (M; u) upper linear fractional transformation of M with respect to u,
GK set of particular block-diagonal scaling matrices,
G^K set of particular block-diagonal scaling matrices,
inf inmum,
In n n-identity matrix,
Inm n m augmented identity matrix,
K perturbation block structure,
max maximum,
min minimum,
M complex conjugate transpose of matrix M ,
M 1 inverse of square matrix M ,
MT transpose of matrix M ,
M(S ) set of rational, proper, and stable transfer matrices,
M(K) set of norm-bounded block-diagonal stable rational transfer matrices,
IN set of nonnegative integers,
On n n-zero matrix,
78
79
QK set of particular matrices with block-diagonal structure as K,

IR set of real numbers,
IR+ set of positive real numbers,
IRn set of n-dimensional real vectors,
IRnm set of n m-dimensional real matrices,
sup supremum,
T time axis,
ZZ set of integers,
ZZ+ set of positive integers,
K set of block-diagonal perturbations,
Ka set of augmented block-diagonal perturbations,
i (M ) ith eigenvalue of square matrix M ,
(M ) largest (real) eigenvalue of Hermitian matrix M ,
(estimate of) H1 -norm,
structured singular value,
K (M ) structured singular value of matrix M with respect to K,
(M ) spectral radius of square matrix M , (M ) = maxi ji (M )j,
R(M ) maxfji(M )j : i (M ) 2 IRg:
i (M ) ith singular value of matrix M ,
(M ) maximum singular value of matrix M .
General Variables
A state (system) matrix,
B input (system) matrix,
C output (system) matrix,
dci ith repeated complex scalar,
D direct-feedthrough (system) matrix,
D scaling matrix,
D~ (s) real-rational stable minimum-phase approximation to D scaling,
G(s) (open-loop) transfer matrix,
ki (row and column) dimension of the ith perturbation block,
K (s) feedback transfer matrix (compensator),
m1 dimension of exogenous input w(t), w(s),
m2 dimension of control u(t), u(s),
m11 dimension of perturbation input w1(t), w1(s),
m12 dimension of performance input w2(t), w2(s),
mc number of repeated complex scalar blocks,
mC number of full complex blocks,
mr number of repeated real scalar blocks,
80 Appendix B. Nomenclature
M (s) closed-loop transfer matrix,

n dimension of state x(t),
p parameter,
p1 dimension of objective z(t), z(s),
p2 dimension of measurement y(t), y(s),
p11 dimension of perturbation output z1(t), z1(s),
p12 dimension of performance output z2(t), z2(s),
q (row and column) dimension of block-diagonal perturbation ,
s Laplace variable,
t time,
u control input,
w exogenous input,
w1 perturbation input,
w2 performance input,
x state variable,
y measurement output,
z objective output,
z1 perturbation output,
z2 performance output,
ir ith repeated real scalar,
perturbation matrix,
0 performance perturbation,
Ci the ith full complex block,
! frequency.
Aircraft Variables
Lg turbulence scale length of Dryden spectrum,
m aircraft total mass,
q pitch rate,
uB velocity along x-body axis,
uC reference velocity in x-direction,
v0 trim speed,
vC reference velocity in y-direction,
V total velocity,
VC reference velocity,
Ve velocity error VC V ,
wB velocity along z-body axis,
wC reference velocity in z-direction,
we vertical velocity error wC wV ,
wV velocity along z-vehicle axis,
81
W xB longitudinal turbulence velocity,

WzB vertical turbulence velocity,
W xE longitudinal wind velocity,
WzE vertical wind velocity,
xC reference x-position,
ylat lateral deviation,
yC reference y-position,
zC reference z-position,
E elevator de ection,
TH throttle position,
x displacement of the aerodynamic centre from the centre of gravity
along the x-axis,
y displacement of the aerodynamic centre from the centre of gravity
along the y-axis,
z displacement of the aerodynamic centre from the centre of gravity
along the z-axis,
C track angle,
standard deviation of gust velocities for Dryden spectrum,
pitch angle.
Abbreviations
GARTEUR Group for Aeronautical Research and Technology in EURope,
HIRM High Incidence Research Model,
LFT Linear Fractional Transformation,
NLR Nationaal Lucht- en Ruimtevaartlaboratorium (National Aerospace
Laboratory),
RCAM Research Civil Aircraft Model,
TUD Technische Universiteit Delft (Delft University of Technology),
WBBM Wiskundige Beheers- en Beleidsmodellen.

10 1 1 38

Загружено:

Сведения о документе

Исходное описание:

Оригинальное название

Авторское право

Доступные форматы

Поделиться этим документом

Поделиться или встроить документ

Параметры публикации

Этот документ был вам полезен?

Это неприемлемый материал?

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

10 1 1 38

Загружено:

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

Civil Aircraft Autopilot Design

Using Robust Control

Rapport ter verkrijging van het certi-

Statistics, Stochastics, and Operations Research Unit

Prof. Dr. R.M. Cooke (Delft University of Technology)

disturbances by wind and turbulence have been taken into account.

Hiervoor is een methode ontwikkeld om variaties in meerdere parameters te kunnen

3.2 Aircraft Model : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : 30

sacri ce performance when applied to the real system.

1.2 The GARTEUR Project

The Group for Aeronautical Research and Technology in Europe (GARTEUR)

1.3 The RCAM Design Benchmark

1.5 The Design Project

1.6 Outline of the Report

Here, the system variables have the following interpretation

2.1.2 Transfer Matrices

Figure 2.1: Transfer function G.

2.1.3 Linear Fractional Transformations

This is an upper LFT with respect to a repeated complex scalar perturbation 1s I .

2.2 Linear Feedback Control

Figure 2.3: Output feedback and the LFT Fl(G; K ).

By implementing a feedback control system, a closed-loop system results, hav-

respectively. This closed-loop system can be formulated as an LFT as

2.3 H1 Optimal Control

The H1 optimization problem is to design a feedback control system K such

(v) D11 = 0 and D22 = 0. 2

In order to state the theorem we de ne the following two Hamiltonian matrices:

An internally stabilizing controller is then given by

2.4 Uncertainty Modelling

2.4.2 Interconnections of LFTs

Figure 2.4: Series connection of LFTs.

Consider two LFTs with coecient matrices P1 and P2 , respectively, de ned as

Figure 2.5: Parallel connection of LFTs.

Consider a feedback loop containing an LFT as in Figure 2.6, where

2.4.3 Real Parameter Uncertainty

Consider a vector p = (p1; . . . ; pr )T 2 IRr consisting of r bounded scalar param-

Setting up a single LFT description for denominator terms involves obtaining

2.5 The Structured Singular Value ()

Figure 2.7: The general problem with structured uncertainty.

Consider the problem of an interconnected linear system with multiple indepen-

unless no 2 K makes I M singular, in which case K(M ) := 0. 2

These equations give (Iq M )z = 0 and (Iq M )w = 0. A unique solution to

Figure 2.8: Feedback interconnection interpretation of M and .

If the block-structure consists of one full block only, K = C qq , then K (M ) =

 w2- Fu (M; ) z2-

Figure 2.9: The upper Linear Fractional Transformation Fu(M; ).

The following theorem considers a robust stability test.

Robust performance of the system of Figure 2.9 is now equivalent to robust

Theorem 2.3 yields that if

Figure 2.11: D-K Iteration: sequentially applying H1 synthesis and  analysis.

where D~ (s) is a real-rational stable minimum-phase function.

1. Initialization. Let D~ (s) = I .

w1- - - D z1- w1 - -z1

Figure 2.12: Scaling the plant G.

transfer function matrix. Hence, solving the optimization problem

2.8 Control System Design Cycle Description

2.9 Additional Reading

D-K iteration tuning weights

Figure 2.13: The control system design cycle.

Parameter Symbol Lower Bound Upper Bound

3.2 Aircraft Model

x(1) = q pitch rate (rad=s),

sacrice performance when applied to the real system.

In order to state the theorem we dene the following two Hamiltonian matrices:

Consider two LFTs with coecient matrices P1 and P2 , respectively, dened as

2.5 The Structured Singular Value ()

unless no 2 K makes I M singular, in which case K(M ) := 0. 2

If the block-structure consists of one full block only, K = C qq , then K (M ) =

w2- Fu (M; ) z2-

Figure 2.11: D-K Iteration: sequentially applying H1 synthesis and analysis.

Figure 5.4: Magnitude and of longitudinal closed-loop system obtained by D-K