FRINK Linked Data Fragments server

Matches in SemOpenAlex for { <https://semopenalex.org/work/W2332205990> ?p ?o ?g. }

• W2332205990 abstract "The dynamic response characteristics of aircraft are inherently nonlinear. Traditionally, flight control systems have been designed using aircraft models that have been linearized at various flight conditions, with the control parameters scheduled with respect to aircraft configuration and flight condition. In order to guarantee the stability and performance of the resulting gain-scheduled closed-loop systems, linear parameter-varying (LPV) control techniques have been developed as an alternative to classically-designed controllers that do not offer stability guarantees across the entire envelope. This work compares classical proportional-integral-derivative, robust H∞, and LPV control design methods. Three different controllers are designed for the longitudinal flight dynamics of an F-16 aircraft within a defined flight envelope. The primary design objective is model-following of the commanded pitch rate. The desktop analysis and simulation are given here in Part I to quantitatively assess the performance of each controller. A piloted simulation study is given in Part II to gather qualitative pilot ratings and comments to validate or refute the results and conclusions which were based on the preliminary desktop analysis. I. Introduction LIGHT control engineering can be broken into two distinct but inherently interrelated subdivisions: control design and analysis and the study of aircraft handling qualities. Control designers and analysts focus mostly on the vehicle itself. Different control methods are developed and implemented to ensure a robust and well-performing system considering only the end-to-end vehicle response as the primary performance metric. Handling qualities engineers, however, are concerned with the pilot-vehicle system. It is the pilot who is the outermost feedback mechanism of a flight control system, and it is in this loop where aircraft stability and performance should be measured. The metrics used to gauge pilot-vehicle system performance are sometimes subjective; pilot ratings of handling qualities and tendency of the aircraft to enter a pilot-induced oscillation when performing a task are two qualitative measurements of pilot opinion. These qualitative assessments are used in combination with the quantitative metrics derived from flight test data to assess the validity of the preliminary desktop analysis and ultimately determine the goodness of a design. Though the theories used to design and analyze control systems have advanced in the past fifty years 1 , the control methods and architectures employed on many modern aircraft have remained largely the same. Classical proportional-integral-derivative (PID) control systems are the standard for most aircraft due to their simple structure. Today, the existence of heavily instrumented test aircraft allows for complex control systems to be simulated in flight. In recent years, robust design methods, such as H∞ control, have been employed in an attempt to address the problem of aircraft instability in flight due to the lack of robustness offered by classical control. These techniques" @default.
• W2332205990 created "2016-06-24" @default.
• W2332205990 creator A5005396204 @default.
• W2332205990 creator A5011542732 @default.
• W2332205990 date "2010-06-14" @default.
• W2332205990 modified "2023-10-16" @default.
• W2332205990 title "Comparison of Classical, H_?, and LPV Flight Control Design Methods, Part I: Desktop Analysis" @default.
• W2332205990 cites W1970216598 @default.
• W2332205990 cites W1986980338 @default.
• W2332205990 cites W2035654750 @default.
• W2332205990 cites W2038730444 @default.
• W2332205990 cites W2039731570 @default.
• W2332205990 cites W2039867272 @default.
• W2332205990 cites W2103276751 @default.
• W2332205990 cites W2132200595 @default.
• W2332205990 cites W2166683007 @default.
• W2332205990 cites W2172813582 @default.
• W2332205990 doi "https://doi.org/10.2514/6.2010-7940" @default.
• W2332205990 hasPublicationYear "2010" @default.
• W2332205990 type Work @default.
• W2332205990 sameAs 2332205990 @default.
• W2332205990 citedByCount "0" @default.
• W2332205990 crossrefType "proceedings-article" @default.
• W2332205990 hasAuthorship W2332205990A5005396204 @default.
• W2332205990 hasAuthorship W2332205990A5011542732 @default.
• W2332205990 hasConcept C41008148 @default.
• W2332205990 hasConceptScore W2332205990C41008148 @default.
• W2332205990 hasLocation W23322059901 @default.
• W2332205990 hasOpenAccess W2332205990 @default.
• W2332205990 hasPrimaryLocation W23322059901 @default.
• W2332205990 hasRelatedWork W2096946506 @default.
• W2332205990 hasRelatedWork W2130043461 @default.
• W2332205990 hasRelatedWork W2350741829 @default.
• W2332205990 hasRelatedWork W2358668433 @default.
• W2332205990 hasRelatedWork W2376932109 @default.
• W2332205990 hasRelatedWork W2382290278 @default.
• W2332205990 hasRelatedWork W2390279801 @default.
• W2332205990 hasRelatedWork W2748952813 @default.
• W2332205990 hasRelatedWork W2899084033 @default.
• W2332205990 hasRelatedWork W3004735627 @default.
• W2332205990 isParatext "false" @default.
• W2332205990 isRetracted "false" @default.
• W2332205990 magId "2332205990" @default.
• W2332205990 workType "article" @default.