飞行器与旋翼机系统识别：工程方法与飞行测试实例

需积分: 33 142 浏览量更新于2024-07-21 1 收藏 51.01MB PDF 举报

"Aircraft and Rotorcraft System Identification" 是一本专注于飞行器系统辨识的工程方法书籍，包含飞行测试实例。本书由Mark B. Tischler和Robert K. Remple共同撰写，Tischler是美国陆军航空飞行动力 directorate 的飞行控制小组组长和资深科学家，而Remple则是加州大学圣克鲁兹分校的高级技术作家，在阿姆斯研究中心工作。该书属于美国航空航天教育系列，由Joseph A. Schetz担任主编，他在弗吉尼亚理工学院和州立大学任职。 “System Identification”（系统辨识）是工程领域的一个关键概念，主要涉及通过实测数据来建模和理解复杂动态系统的特性。在飞行器领域，系统辨识尤为重要，因为它帮助工程师理解和预测飞机或旋翼机的行为，这对于飞行控制系统的开发、性能优化以及故障诊断至关重要。本书的内容可能涵盖了以下几个方面： 1. **系统理论基础**：介绍系统辨识的基本原理，包括随机过程、统计建模和估计理论，这些都是分析飞行器行为的基础。 2. **飞行测试技术**：详细讨论如何在实际飞行中收集数据，包括传感器的选择、安装和校准，以及数据记录和处理的方法。 3. **模型开发**：阐述如何利用飞行测试数据建立飞行器的动力学模型，这可能包括线性化模型、非线性模型以及时间延迟效应的处理。 4. **数据分析与验证**：介绍如何评估模型的准确性，可能包括根轨迹分析、频域分析和时域分析等方法，以及模型的验证和改进过程。 5. **应用实例**：书中很可能包含多个飞行测试案例，展示如何将理论应用于实际问题，如飞行控制系统的校正、飞行性能的改进或故障诊断。 6. **软件工具**：可能会讨论用于系统辨识的软件工具和算法，如MATLAB的System Identification Toolbox或其他专业软件。 7. **飞行安全与法规**：鉴于其军事和航空背景，本书可能也会提及飞行安全标准和法规要求，这些在进行飞行测试和系统辨识时必须遵守。通过对这本书的深入学习，读者可以掌握飞行器系统辨识的核心技术和实践方法，提升在飞行控制、性能优化和故障诊断等方面的专业能力。对于航空工程的学生、研究人员以及从事飞行器设计和测试的专业人士来说，这是一本不可或缺的参考书。

Fig. P8.5 Process noise for unstable pendulum problem . . . . . . . . . . . 227

Fig. P8.7 Process noise reflected to output . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 227

Fig. P8.9 Pendulum broken-loop exercise . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 228

Fig. 9.1 Schematic model of roll-rate response to rudder and

aileron inputs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 232

Fig. 9.2 Rudder and aileron control inputs during directional

sweep (XV-15, cruise) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 240

Fig. 9.3 Cross-control coherence (XV-15, cruise) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 241

Fig. 9.4 Rudder input autospectrum: SISO vs MISO

(XV-15, cruise) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 241

Fig. 9.5 Roll-rate output autospectrum: SISO vs MISO

(XV-15, cruise) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 242

Fig. 9.6 Rudder-to-roll-rate cross spectrum: SISO vs MISO

(XV-15, cruise) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 242

Fig. 9.7 Off-axis frequency-response identiﬁcation: SISO vs MISO

(XV-15, cruise) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 243

Fig. 9.8 Partial coherence for aileron inputs (XV-15, cruise) . . . . . . . 244

Fig. 9.9 Multiple coherence (XV-15, cruise) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 244

Fig. 9.10 On-axis frequency response and coherence: SISO vs

MISO (XV-15, cruise) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 245

Fig. 9.11 MISO identiﬁcation of roll-rate response for SH-2G

(four inputs) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 251

Fig. 9.12 Partial coherences for secondary inputs and

multiple coherence . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 252

Fig. 9.13 Comparison of MISO and SISO solutions for on-axis

roll-rate response . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 253

Fig. 9.14 Comparison of MISO and SISO solutions for off-axis

pitch-rate response . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 254

Fig. 9.15 Multi-input maneuver. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 255

Fig. 9.16 Determination of broken-loop pitch response for

MIMO control system . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 256

Fig. 10.1 Fundamental tradeoff in window-size selection . . . . . . . . . . . 260

Fig. 10.2 Identiﬁcation results for pendulum example using three

window sizes. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 264

Fig. 10.3 Comparison of composite and nominal (15-s) window for

pendulum . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 265

Fig. 10.4 COMPOSITE windowing in single-input analyses . . . . . . . . 266

Fig. 10.5 COMPOSITE windowing in multi-input analysis . . . . . . . . . 267

Fig. 10.6 Closed-loop roll-rate response for 40-s and 10-s windows

(XV-15, hover) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 269

Fig. 10.7 Composite closed-loop roll-rate response using ﬁve

spectral windows (XV-15, hover). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 270

Fig. 10.8 Coherence functions for three different window sizes

(Bo-105 helicopter) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 271

CIFER TextbookLOF.fm Page xv Friday, June 16, 2006 3:13 PM

Downloaded by NORTHWESTERN POLYTECHICAL UNIV. on November 25, 2015 | http://arc.aiaa.org | DOI: 10.2514/4.861352

xvi

Fig. 10.9 Frequency response and coherence for composite

window result (Bo-105 helicopter). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 272

Fig. 10.10 Structural system identiﬁcation using composite windowing . . . 273

Fig. 10.11 Composite-window result for spectral analysis . . . . . . . . . . . 274

Fig. 11.1 Comparison of identiﬁed transfer-function model and

frequency-response data for stable pendulum . . . . . . . . . . . . 286

Fig. 11.2 ADOCS pitch-rate response and transfer-function

model (hover) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 288

Fig. 11.3 Analysis of ADOCS handling qualities based on

equivalent system data (from Ref. 154) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 290

Fig. 11.4 Effect of equivalent time delay on handling qualities

(from Ref. 155). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 291

Fig. 11.5 ADOCS transfer-function model veriﬁcation (hover) . . . . . . 292

Fig. 11.6 Roll-rate and sideslip transfer-function models

(XV-15, cruise) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 295

Fig. 11.7 Error functions for transfer-function models

(XV-15, cruise) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 296

Fig. 11.8 Block diagram representation of rotor-body coupling . . . . . . 301

Fig. 11.9 Root locus of rotor-body coupling with increasing

rotor-ﬂap stiffness (following Hefﬂey et al.

) . . . . . . . . . . . . 302

Fig. 11.10 Cascade model of rotor-body response applicable to

small ﬂap stiffness . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 303

Fig. 11.11 Comparison of coupled rotor-body and quasi-steady model

structures for the UH-1 helicopter . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 304

Fig. 11.12 OH-58D helicopter . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 306

Fig. 11.13 Roll-response transfer-function models (OH-58D, hover). . . 307

Fig. 11.14 Helicopter roll-attitude response model

(

Bo-105, hover). . . . 309

Fig. 11.15 Root-locus varying roll-rate gain (Bo-105, 80 kn) . . . . . . . . . 310

Fig. 11.16 Frequency-sweep input and wing-bending strain-gauge

response (XV-15, 180 kn). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 311

Fig. 11.17 Aeroelastic transfer-function model (XV-15, 180 kn) . . . . . . 313

Fig. 11.18 Symmetric wing beam mode (XV-15, 180 kn). . . . . . . . . . . . 314

Fig. 11.19 AFCS actuator model identiﬁcation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 316

Fig. 11.20 Simulation model of actuator . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 316

Fig. 12.1 Frequency-response results for stable pendulum

identiﬁcation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 349

Fig. 12.2 Closed-loop roll-response identiﬁcation (XV-15, hover) . . . . 351

Fig. 12.3 NASA V/STOL system research aircraft (VSRA)

(NASA photo). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 353

Fig. 12.4 Aeroelastic response identiﬁcation (VSRA, 120 kn) . . . . . . . 354

Fig. 12.5 Root locus for roll-rate feedback to aileron

(VSRA, 120 kn) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 357

Fig. 13.1 Identiﬁcation model structure for cruise (XV-15) . . . . . . . . . 381

CIFER TextbookLOF.fm Page xvi Friday, June 16, 2006 3:13 PM

Downloaded by NORTHWESTERN POLYTECHICAL UNIV. on November 25, 2015 | http://arc.aiaa.org | DOI: 10.2514/4.861352

xvii

Fig. 13.2 Identiﬁcation model structure for cruise (XV-15) . . . . . . . . . 381

Fig. 13.3 GTR simulation and ﬁnal identiﬁcation models for cruise

(XV-15). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 387

Fig. 13.3 GTR simulation and ﬁnal identiﬁcation model for cruise

(XV-15) (continued) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 388

Fig. 13.3 GTR simulation and ﬁnal identiﬁcation model for cruise

(XV-15) (continued) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 389

Fig. 13.3 GTR simulation and ﬁnal identiﬁcation model for cruise

(XV-15) (continued) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 390

Fig. 13.4 Yaw-equation time vector for Dutch-roll mode . . . . . . . . . . . 393

Fig. 13.5 Identiﬁcation model structure for hover (XV-15). . . . . . . . . . 395

Fig. 13.6 Identiﬁcation model structure for hover (XV-15). . . . . . . . . . 396

Fig. 13.7 GTR simulation and ﬁnal identiﬁcation model for hover

(XV-15). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 399

Fig. 13.7 GTR simulation and ﬁnal identiﬁcation model for hover

(XV-15) (continued) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 400

Fig. 13.7 GTR simulation and ﬁnal identiﬁcation model for hover

(XV-15) (continued) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 401

Fig. 13.8 Frequency-response comparison of STOVL perturbation

and identiﬁcation models (from Engelland et al

194

). . . . . . . . 404

Fig. 13.9 Time-response comparison of STOVL perturbation

and identiﬁcation models (from Engelland et al

194

). . . . . . . . 405

Fig. 13.10 Shadow™ 200 ﬁxed-wing UAV (U.S. Army photo) . . . . . . . 407

Fig. 13.11 Identiﬁcation of Shadow™ 200 UAV longitudinal

dynamics. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 408

Fig. 13.11 Identiﬁcation of Shadow™ 200 UAV longitudinal dynamics

(continued) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 409

Fig. 13.11 Identiﬁcation of Shadow™ 200 UAV longitudinal model

(continued) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 410

Fig. 13.12 Time-response veriﬁcation of Shadow™ 200 UAV model

for elevator input. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 411

Fig. 13.13 Time-response veriﬁcation of Shadow™ 200 UAV model

for engine RPM input . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 412

Fig. 13.14 Fire Scout P2 demonstrator — a variant of the

Schweitzer 333 (Northrop Grumman photo) . . . . . . . . . . . . . 414

Fig. 13.15 Vertical acceleration response to collective in hover

(Fire Scout P2) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 416

Fig. 13.16 Identiﬁcation of lateral speed damping for hover

(Fire Scout P2) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 418

Fig. 13.17 Identiﬁcation of six-DOF helicopter model in hover

(Fire Scout P2) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 424

Fig. 13.17 Identiﬁcation of six-DOF helicopter model in hover

(Fire Scout P2) (continued) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 425

CIFER TextbookLOF.fm Page xvii Friday, June 16, 2006 3:13 PM

Downloaded by NORTHWESTERN POLYTECHICAL UNIV. on November 25, 2015 | http://arc.aiaa.org | DOI: 10.2514/4.861352

xviii

Fig. 13.17 Identiﬁcation of six-DOF helicopter model in hover

(Fire Scout P2) (continued) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 426

Fig. 13.18 Time-response veriﬁcation for longitudinal stick doublet

(Fire Scout P2, hover). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 428

Fig. 13.19 Component contributions to overall pitch response . . . . . . . . 429

Fig. 14.1 Lateral step input for closed-loop model veriﬁcation

(XV-15, hover) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 441

Fig. 14.2 Control inputs for roll-response veriﬁcation

(XV-15, cruise) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 443

Fig. 14.3 Roll-response veriﬁcation of bare-airframe model

(XV-15, cruise) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 444

Fig. 14.4 Control inputs for yaw-response veriﬁcation

(XV-15, cruise) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 445

Fig. 14.5 Yaw-response veriﬁcation of bare-airframe model

(XV-15, cruise) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 446

Fig. 14.6 Control inputs for roll-response veriﬁcation

(XV-15, hover) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 447

Fig. 14.7 Veriﬁcation of bare-airframe model (XV-15, hover) . . . . . . . 448

Fig. 15.1 Rotor tip-path-plane degrees of freedom . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 454

Fig. 15.2 Rotor lead-lag degrees of freedom . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 458

Fig. 15.3 U.S. Navy version of the SH-2G

(Kaman Aerospace Corporation photo) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 465

Fig. 15.4 Identiﬁcation and simulation models for hover

(SH-2G) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 470

Fig. 15.4 Identiﬁcation and simulation models for hover

(SH-2G) (continued). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 471

Fig. 15.4 Identiﬁcation and simulation models for hover

(SH-2G) (continued). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 472

Fig. 15.5 Time-response veriﬁcation of identiﬁed model for hover

(SH-2G) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 484

Fig. 15.5 Time-response veriﬁcation of identiﬁed model for hover

(SH-2G) (continued). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 485

Fig. 15.6 Time-response veriﬁcation of identiﬁed model

for 60 kn (SH-2G) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 486

Fig. 15.6 Time-response veriﬁcation of identiﬁed model for 60 kn

(SH-2G) (continued). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 487

Fig. 15.7 Time-response veriﬁcation of identiﬁed model for 100 kn

(SH-2G) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 488

Fig. 15.7 Time-response veriﬁcation of identiﬁed model for 100 kn

(SH-2G) (continued). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 489

Fig. 15.8 Hybrid model identiﬁcation including lead-lag dynamics

(S-92, hover). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 490

CIFER TextbookLOF.fm Page xviii Friday, June 16, 2006 3:13 PM

Downloaded by NORTHWESTERN POLYTECHICAL UNIV. on November 25, 2015 | http://arc.aiaa.org | DOI: 10.2514/4.861352

xix

List of

Tables

Table 1.1 Models of ﬁxed-wing aircraft dynamics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6

Table 1.2 Models of rotary-wing aircraft dynamics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7

Table 1.3 Nonparametric vs parametric models . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10

Table 1.4 Comparison of frequency-response and

time-response methods . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15

Table 1.4 Comparison of frequency-response and

time-response methods (continued) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16

Table 2.1

-matrix identiﬁcation for XV-15 in cruise . . . . . . . . . . . . 45

Table 2.2

-matrix identiﬁcation for XV-15 in cruise . . . . . . . . . . . . 45

Table 2.3

-matrix identiﬁcation for XV-15 in hover . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51

Table 2.4

-matrix identiﬁcation for XV-15 in hover . . . . . . . . . . . . 51

Table 3.1 XV-15 hover test case (database #1) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 63

Table 3.3 System characteristics for databases #1 and #2 . . . . . . . . . 64

Table 3.2 SCAS conﬁgurations for hover maneuvers (database #1) . . . 64

Table 3.4 XV-15 cruise test case (database #2) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 66

Table 3.5 SCAS conﬁgurations for cruise maneuvers (database #2) . . . 67

Table 4.1 Mapping between the components of Fig. 4.1 and

chapters in this book . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 72

Table 4.2 Frequency-response analysis utilities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 74

Table 4.3 Program parameter utilities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 75

Table 4.4 Results utilities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 75

Table 4.5 Database and setup utilities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 75

Table 4.6 Navigating between CIFER

screens using the F keys . . . . 76

Table 6.1 Effect of correcting for instrumentation system dynamics. . . 135

Table 7.1 AH-64 vibration analysis (130 kn) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 181

Table 7.2 Handling-qualities characteristics for the OH-58D pitch

response in hover (SCAS-off) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 186

Table 7.3 MIL-F-9490D gain-and-phase margin requirements

(dB, deg) (from Ref. 88) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 194

Table 7.4 Stability-margin results for a large helicopter . . . . . . . . . . . 195

Table 9.1 Lateral-sweep-data analysis (cruise) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 249

Table 9.2 Pedal-sweep-data analysis (cruise) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 250

Table 10.1 Lateral-sweep-data analysis (cruise) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 267

Table 10.2 Pedal-sweep data analysis (cruise) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 268

CIFER TextbookLOT.fm Page xix Friday, June 16, 2006 3:14 PM

Downloaded by NORTHWESTERN POLYTECHICAL UNIV. on November 25, 2015 | http://arc.aiaa.org | DOI: 10.2514/4.861352

剩余561页未读，继续阅读

nitu_huang

粉丝: 0
资源: 1

飞行器与旋翼机系统识别：工程方法与飞行测试实例

AircraftAdmin-Free

Aircraft Engine Design (2nd Edition) 2002.pdf

北航无人机系统辨识课程论文

Aircraft and Rotorcraft System Identification

飞机系统辨识Aircraft and Rotorcraft System Identific.pdf

Aircraft System Identification Theory And Practice

Simulation on aircraft generator control system using genetic algorithms

Aircraft System

Modeling, Identification and Control of a Quadrotor Aircraft

Fundamentals of Aircraft and Airship Design, Volume 2

最新资源