Robust Gain Scheduling Control of Air-breathing

Hypersonic Vehicle via Linear Parameter Varying

Technique
Cunkan LU, Dudu ZHONG, Weiwei YU, Jie YAN
College of Astronautic
Northwestern Polytechnical University
Xian, China
diabloj99@hotmail.com

AbstractThe design of a robust gain scheduling controller

which is scheduled on Mach number and altitude for the airbreathing hypersonic vehicle (AHV) is presented. In order to
capture the nonlinear airspeed and altitude dependence of AHV,
a linear parameter varying (LPV) model is constructed from a set
of linearization of the AHV longitudinal dynamics. The linear
fractional transformation (LFT) representation of the LPV
model is obtained using the graph approach so that it can be used
for robust control design technique. The control synthesis
structure including this LFT representation and the uncertainty
model of AHV is successfully used for controller design based on
D-K iteration. Simulation result of the designed controller
presents excellent tracking performance independent of the fight
conditions of AHV.
Keywords-hypersonic vehicle; robust control; linear parameter
varying; P synthesis; gain scheduled; linear fractional
transformation

I.

This paper presents a study of robust gain scheduling

control of AHV via linear parameter varying technique and is
organized as follows: in Section II, based on the original
nonlinear AHV longitudinal model, a polynomial LPV model
of AHV is constructed. Then the LPV representation is
transformed into a linear fractional transformation (LFT)
structure. In Section III, weight functions that define
performance criteria are used to augment the plant and the LPV
controller based on P synthesis is presented. Section IV gives
the simulation result and Section VI is the conclusion.

INTRODUCTION

Air-breathing hypersonic vehicle (AHV) technology has

become attractive in recent years due to its promise for feasible
and affordable space access and high speed civilian
transportation. The control of AHV is highly challenging,
because of the strong couplings between the dynamics of the
airframe, propulsion and structure system [1] . Such couplings
hinder accurate characterization of the AHV for modeling and
control. Moreover, the dynamic characteristics and stability of
AHV vary over the flight envelope more than other aircraft due
to its wide range of speeds and fast change flight conditions.
The thermal effects of hypersonic speeds which are not
adequately understood constitute another uncertainty source.
The control system must deal with these significant
uncertainties and guarantee global stability.
A number of studies on AHV control can be found in [2] ~
[5]. Most the works apply only to a certain flight condition. To
perform a fully guided hypersonic fight, a supervisor to handle
the variations in the completer fight envelope should be
designed. The conventional methodology used in aerospace
applications is gain scheduling [6 ] . One of the main drawbacks
in gain scheduling is the lack of stability or performance

978-1-4244-3531-9/08/$25.002008 IEEE



guarantees over the entire operating envelope because

controllers are designed at discrete operating points. Linear
parameter varying (LPV) synthesis techniques naturally
circumvent this problem by taking into account the dependence
of vehicle dynamics over the scheduling variables during the
synthesis process. LPV controllers have already been used for
high performance aircrafts and missiles [7 ] [9] .

II.

MODELING

A. AHV LPV Model

The short period state space model of AHV is obtained by
simplifying the linearization of hypersonic longitudinal
equations using the usual assumptions [10] . The short period
state space model of AHV is given by

D
q

ZD
M
D
D
q

1 D 0
G

M q q M G z z

(1)

1 0 D

0 1 q

(2)

where D is the angle of attack in radians, q is the pitch rate in

radians per second, and G z is the elevator deflection in radians.
The defines of stability derivatives ZD , M D , and M q , and the
control derivative M G z can be found in [10].
The elevator displacement and rate limits for the AHV are
taken as:

30 deg d G z d 30 deg

(3)

120 deg s 1 d Gz d 120 deg s 1

(4)

y3 I2 u3

b
c

The actuator dynamics for the elevator is given by

AG z ( s )

100
s  100

w
(5)

The AHV dynamics varies nonlinearly over the fight

regime. In this paper, this variation is assumed to be a function
of Mach number and altitude. Linearization of the longitudinal
dynamics of the nonlinear model of AHV is made for a number
of values of Mach number and altitude. In this case, we choose
16 trim points between Vmin 10 Ma , H min 28000 m and
Vmax 12 Ma , H max 32000 m . These parameters are
normalized to fit in the LPV framework. GV [1,1] ,
and G H [1,1] is defined as follows:

GV
GH

2V  (Vmax  Vmin )
Vmax  Vmin

(6)

2 H  ( H max  H min )
H max  H min

(7)

The stability and control derivatives in (1) are interpolated

as the polynomial functions of GV , G H using the least squares
method. The polynomial functions we obtained are as follows:
ZD (GV , G H )

0.0525  0.0047GV
0.014G H  0.0012GV G H

M D (GV , G H )

0.4193  0.1442GV  0.1908G H

0.0342GV G H  0.0056GV 2

M q (GV , G H )

0.0827  0.00627GV  0.02077G H

0.00239GV aG H

M G z (GV , G H )

2.8691  0.5204GV  0.7585G H

0.1344GV G H  0.0199GV 2  0.0044G H GV 2

y1

I1 u y I2 u
1 2
2

Figure 1. Block diagram of polynomial X

D
A(GV , G H )  B(GV , G H )G z
q

The transformation relationship of the uncertainty part is

described as

( a  bI2  cI1I2 2 ) w

)



I1 0 0 y1
0 I
0 y2
2

0 0 I2 y3

u1
u
2
u3

(15)

An upper LFT structure of the polynomial X is obtained

by (14) and (15)

Fu (Q, ))

(16)

This approach is applied to (8), (9), (10) and (11). The

variations of ZD , M D , M q and M G z were approximate by

(9)

upper LFTs based on GV , G H . The LPV system (12) is shown

in Fig. 2 by connecting these LFT structures. Where ' ZD ,
' M D , ' Mq and ' M G z are diagonal uncertainty matrices which

(10)

are scheduled by time varying parameters GV and G H . ZD , M D ,

M q and M G z are constant block matrices which present the

(11)

certainty parts of ZD , M D , M q , M G z . We define these block

matrices for example
ZD

(12)

The input/output relationship described by a polynomial X

is given as:
Xw

(14)

(8)

B. AHV LFT Model

Considering the LPV system of (12), the graph approach is
used to obtain the AHV LFT model [11] .

z (I1 , I2 )

Q


0
0
0 1 u1

1 0 0 0 u

2
0 c 0 b u3

0 0 1 a w

y1
y
2
y3

z

Thus, the LPV system of AHV is defined as:

D
q

(13)

The relationship between input and output is shown as Fig.

1. The transformation relationship of the certainty part of the
polynomial X is represented as

AZD

CZD

BZD

DZD

(17)

y2

w
u 4

'MGz

w3
z4

MGz
w2

' Mq

z3 w1

' ZD

Mq

ZD

1
s

1
s

' MD

z1
y1

z2

MD
Figure 2. Block diagram of LPV model



TABLE I.

The LPV system then can be presented by (18) and (19):

POLES OF STATE SPACE MODEL AND LFT MODEL OF AHV

Poles of state space model

D
q

w1

w2
w3

w4
y
1
y2

DzD

DMD

BzD
B
MD
0

1
0

CzD

DM q

CM D

CM q

CM G

AzD

AMD

BM q

AM q

AM G

1
'

DM G D
z
q
0
z
0 1
z2 (18)
0
z3
BM G z
z
4
0 u
0

diag(' ZD , ' MD , ' M q , ' M G )

(19)

By rearranging the terms of GV and G H respectively, (19)

can be rewritten as
'

(20)

where r1 and r 2 are dimensions of GV and G H respectively.

(18) is rearranged relatively. 1D model reduction method is
used to remove the uncontrollable and unobservable states
subsequently.
The LFT model of AHV obtained finally is shown as Fig. 3.

'
y

The poles of the state space model and the LFT model of
AHV at one of the trim points chosen randomly are both given
in Table 1, and used to validate the LFT model of AHV. We
can find that there is little difference between these poles.
Consequently the LFT model can present the dynamics of
AHV exactly.
III.

CONTROLLER DESIGN

This paper focuses on the design of LPV controller with the

LFT model of AHV based on P synthesis. The controller
design structure aims at tracking an ideal model Wr ( s) of angle
of attack D
202
s 2  18s  202

In Fig. 3, the input u G z , the output vector y >D q @ , G

is linear, time-invariant, and expressed in state-space form. The
parameter block ' is diagonal uncertainty matrix given by
T

0
GV I 5u5
0
G H I 3u3

The controller uses the reference signal r and plant output

y to control the plant G . The resulting controller synthesis
structure is shown as Fig. 4.
The controller synthesis structure includes a frequency
dependent weight W p on the error between the output yid of
the ideal model and the output y of the closed-loop system.
The weighting function is chosen as

(21)

Win
K u

s  180
s  1.8

Wc

(23)

AG

Ge

' in

diag(
, )
120 30

(24)

these weights correspond to the elevator deflection rate and

deflection rate and deflection limits.

w' '
G

z'

Wr y
id
Figure 4. Structure for controller synthesis



0.1

The control weighting function Wc is a 2 u 2 constant,

diagonal scaling matrix described by

Wc

n
r

(22)

which ensures, apart from good disturbance attenuation, good

transient response.

Figure 3. LFT model of AHV

'

-0.0662

Wp

0.0545

-0.0667

Wr

0
GV I r1u r1
0

I
G

H r 2u r 2

Poles of LFT model

0.052

zc

Wn


Wp

zp

To assure robustness in case of state estimation errors, a

reasonable amount of measurement noise n is added to the
plant output y with frequency varying weight
diag(0.05

1
0.8

s 1
, 0.025)
s  100

Alpha (degree)

Wn

1.2

(25)

Uncertainty in the model of AHV is parameterized by the

blocks Win and ' in shown in Fig. 4. The model uncertainty
includes unmodeled dynamics, i.e. flexible modes and effect of
angle of attack to the propulsion system. The transfer function
' in is assumed to be stable and unknown, except for the norm
condition ' in
follows:

10

s  1.5
s  1500

>r

0
-0.2

n @ , the performance output vector z

T

>r

the output vector y

y@ .

z p

'

controller design based on D-K iteration. Simulation result of

the controller scheduled with Mach number and altitude
presents excellent results and validates both the LPV modeling
procedure and the LPV control theory.

z'

P( s )

y
K ( s)

Figure 5. General interconnection structure

The LPV- P control design uses a D-K iteration scheme

based on Robust Control Toolbox of MatlaE. After reduction,
the parameter dependent controller has 31 states and achieves a
J -level of 2.38 for the resulting closed loop system.
SIMULATION RESULT

In Fig. 6, a number of time responses are plotted subject to

different values of GV , G H [1,1] including 4 peaks. The
input to the closed loop system is a square wave signal.
Simulation result shows that angle of attack D can follow the
ideal response D id quite well independent of the flight
conditions of AHV.
V.

REFERENCES
[1]

IV.

Figure 6. Time response of the LPV- P controller

zc ,

w'

Time (s)

(26)

The control synthesis structure can be captured by the general

interconnection structure shown in Fig. 5 which features an
augmented plant P( s) . Where the general input vector

0.4
0.2

d 1 . The transfer function Win is defined as

Win

0.6

CONCLUSION

An LPV model is generated from a set of linearization of

the nonlinear model of AHV by interpolating the elements
using the least squares method. The LFT representation of the
LPV model is obtained using the graph approach. The control
synthesis structure including this LFT representation and the
uncertainty model of AHV is successfully used for LPV- P

Fidan B., Mirmirani M., and Ioannous P. A., Flight dynamics and
control of air-breathing hypersonic vehilces: review and new direction,
AIAA 12th International Space Planes and Hypersonic Systems and
Technologies, Nofolk, Virginia, AIAA 2003-7081.
[2] H. Bushcek, and A. J. Calise, Uncertainty modeling and fixed-oreder
controller design for a hypersonic vehicle model, AIAA Journal of
Guidance, Control, and Dynamics, vol. 20. pp. 42-48, January, 1997.
[3] I. Gregory, J. McMinn and J. Shaughnessy, Hypersonic vehicle control
law development using H f and P synthesis, AIAA 4th International
Aerospace Planes Conference, Orlando, FL, AIAA 92-5010.
[4] P. Lohsoonthorn, E. Jonckheer and S. Dalzell, Eigenstructure vs
constrained H f design for hypersonic winged cone, Journal of
Guidance, Control, and Dynamics, vol. 24, no. 4, pp. 648-658, June,
2001.
[5] K. P. Groves, D. O. Sigthorsson, A. Serrani, S. Yurkovich, M. A.
Bolender, and D. B. Doman, Reference command tracking for a
linearized model of an air-breathing hypersonic vehicle, AIAA
Guidance, Navigation, and Control Conference and Exhibit, San
Francisco, California, AIAA 2005-6144.
[6] W. J. Rush and J. S. Shamma, Research on gain scheduling,
Automatica, vol. 36, pp. 1401-1425, October, 2000.
[7] K. S. Gunnarsson and J. O. Jacobsen, Design and simulation of a
parameter varying controller for a fighter aircraft, AIAA Guidance,
Navigation, and Control Conference and Exhibit, Montreal, Canada,
AIAA 2001-4105.
[8] Biannic, J. M. and Apkarian, P., Missile autopilot design via a modified
LPV synthesis technique, Aerospace Science and Technology, vol. 3,
No. 3, pp. 153160, 1999.
[9] Roy Smith and Asif Ahmed, Robust parametrically varying attitude
controller designs for the X-33 vehicle, AIAA Guidance, Navigation
and Control Conference and Exhibit, Denver, CO, AIAA 2000-4158.
[10] Xingfang, Qian, Ruixiong, Lin and Yanan Zhao, Missile Flight
Dynamics, Beijing, CHINA: Beijing Institute of Technology Press, 1999
(in Chinese).
[11] Breton M. R., Gain-scheduled aircraft control using linear parameter
varying feedback, Ohio, Air Force Institute of Technology, 1996.