AIRBUS Benchmark Overview - · PDF fileAIRBUS Benchmark Overview Final COFCLUO workshop Presented by Guilhem PUYOU1, Adrien BERARD2 ... Two major issues: – Assess performance

28-29 January 2010

AIRBUS Benchmark Overview

Final COFCLUO workshop

Presented by

Guilhem PUYOU1, Adrien BERARD2

1 Stability and Control Department2 Load and Aeroelasticity DepartmentAIRBUS

28-29 January 2010P

age 2

© AIRBUS FRANCE S.A.S. All rights reserved. Confidential and proprietary document. Contents

•A

IRB

US

motivations

•O

ne word about A

IRB

US

flight control philosophy•

Nonlinear benchm

ark�

Modelling

�Flight envelope &

Varying param

eters�

Criteria

•Integral benchm

ark �

Modelling

�Flight envelope &

Varying param

eters�

Criteria

•B

aseline pratices

28-29 January 2010P

age 3

© AIRBUS FRANCE S.A.S. All rights reserved. Confidential and proprietary document. Motivations

•N

on linear benchmark:

�N

on linearmodelling of rigid body

aircraft and control laws.

�Tw

o major issues:

–A

ssess performance in a non linear

framew

ork–

Validate full flight dom

ain protection�

AIR

BU

S expectations:

–A

lternative to the Monte-C

arlo approaches–

Reduce w

orkloadinduced by “m

anual” validation of flight domain

protection

•Integral benchm

ark:�

Linear modelling of flexible body

aircraft (including rigid one).�

Challenges:–

Manage high order

of state space representations–

Provide continuous

validation process on the whole param

etrical domain

–A

fast method for w

orst case search and identification of critical param

eters combinations

28-2

9 Ja

nuar

y 20

10P

age

4

© AIRBUS FRANCE S.A.S. All rights reserved. Confidential and proprietary document.

Flig

ht c

ontro

l law

s ph

iloso

phy

Pilo

ting

devi

ces

28-29 January 2010P

age 5

© AIRBUS FRANCE S.A.S. All rights reserved. Confidential and proprietary document. Flight control laws philosophy

Flight domain protection

Peripheral flight envelope

Protection laws activated

Permanent deflexion on stick is required to keep the

steady state

Norm

al flight envelope“N

ormal” law

activated

Protection not activated

Stick released or AP active w

ill not fly beyond this limit

Manoeuvring A/C

will fly at

this safe limit w

ith controls on stops

If exceptional upset brings the A/C

in this domain, protections are

deactivated and full authority is restored

Overspeed

Vc

Bank angle

ϕϕϕ ϕ

Load factorN

z

Pitch attitude

θθθ θ

Angle of attackLow

speedααα α

28-29 January 2010P

age 6


Longitudinal axis control: Pitch control (1/2)

•Pitch norm

al law (N

zlaw

):�

Control the

flight pathof the aircraft, through

a load factordem

and. �

Load factor is limited

to [-1g ; 2.5g]in clean configuration �

Impulse on the

stick leadsto a flight path

angle change. Atconstant

speed, theflight path

angle remains roughly

constant, stick released.

+2.5gN

z-1g

28-29 January 2010P

age 7


Longitudinal axis control: Pitch control (2/2)

Pitch control principle

Longitudinal stick deflection

Objective =

Pitch rate

28-29 January 2010P

age 8


Longitudinal axis control: angle of attack protection (1/2)

•A

ngle of attackprotection (low

speed or stallprotection):�

Theobjectives of the

angle of attackprotection law

are:–

introduce static stability at lowspeed,

–protect the aircraftagainst stall,

–provide the

best possible manoeuvrability

when necessary

�The

angle of attack target is'alpha prot'w

ith neutral stick and 'alpha m

ax' with

full back-stick.

CL

(Cz)

Angle of attack ααα α

ααα αStall : Loss of lift and/or aircraft control (aural stall w

arning before)

ααα αm

ax : in AOA protection law

, AO

A reached with fully aft stick

ααα αfloor : activation (close to ααα α

floor) of alpha floor function

ααα αprot: entry in AO

A protection law

ααα αVLS : AO

A reached the Lowest Selectable Speed (VLS is com

puted in FMG

EC)

28-29 January 2010P

age 9


Longitudinal axis control: angle of attack protection (2/2)

Stall protection

28-29 January 2010P

age 10


Longitudinal axis control: high speed protection (1/2)

•H

ighspeed protection

�H

ighspeed protection law

limits the

possible speed/mach

excursionsbeyond

maxim

um speed (V

max) and M

ach number

(Mm

ax).�

The Vm

ax/Mm

ax target isV

MO

/MM

O stick free and (roughly)

VMO

/MM

O+15kts full forw

ardstick.

•Pitch attitude protection�

Enhance the effectivenessof angle of attack

and highspeed

protectionsin extrem

econditions, by lim

iting the aircraft dynamic

close to theangle of attack

and speed limits.

28-29 January 2010P

age 11


Longitudinal axis control: high speed protection (2/2)

Hight speed protection

28-29 January 2010P

age 12


Lateral axis control

•The objective of the lateral norm

al law is to control the

roll and yaw axis

of the aircraft, through roll rate and sideslip dem

ands.

•The m

ain features of the lateral normal law

are the follow

ing:�

the roll stickis translated into a roll rate dem

andat zero sideslip: the m

aximum

roll rate demand m

ust not exceed 15°/s.

�neutral spiral stability

must be achieved up to 33°

bank (constant bank angle with stick at neutral),

while positive spiral stability

must be restored

above 33° bank(bank angle com

es back to 33° w

ith stick at neutral)�

the maxim

um bank angle m

ust be limited to 66°

�the pedal inputcom

mands a com

bination of sideslip and roll angle

-15°/sdϕϕϕ ϕ/dt

+15°/s

βββ β+ kϕϕϕ ϕ

28-29 January 2010P

age 13


Lateral axis control

Bank angle lim

it depends upon the condition :

•αprotlaw

•High speed protection

•External disturbance

Roll objectives

Roll rate value depends upon the condition :

•A

lpha prot

•E

ngine dissymetry

automatic

pitch trim

negative stick entry

(dpm)

positive roll rate dΦΦΦ Φ

/dt(m

ax 15°/s)

return to 33°

attitude maintained

33°

67°

when pilot

releases the stick

Bankangle

limit

67°

Bankangle

limit

pitch remain

constant

pitch compen

sation reduced

automatic

turn co-ordination

ΦΦΦ Φ> 0

dpm< 0

automatic

pitch trim

negative stick entry

(dpm)

positive roll rate dΦΦΦ Φ

/dt(m

ax 15°/s)

return to 33°

attitude maintained

33°

67°

when pilot

releases the stick

Bankangle

limit

67°

Bankangle

limit

pitch remain

constant

pitch compen

sation reduced

automatic

turn co-ordination

return to 33°

attitude maintained

33°

67°

when pilot

releases the stick

Bankangle

limit

67°

Bankangle

limit

pitch remain

constant

pitch compen

sation reduced

automatic

turn co-ordination

ΦΦΦ Φ> 0

ΦΦΦ Φ> 0

dpm< 0

dpm< 0

28-29 January 2010P

age 14

© AIRBUS FRANCE S.A.S. All rights reserved. Confidential and proprietary document. Benchm

arksN

on linear benchmark

Non linear Benchmark

double clickto launch scenario.m

WIN

D

SENSO

RS

PILOT O

RD

ERS

& IN

PUTS

yOU

TPUTS

AIRBU

S FRAN

CE S.A.S. 2007.

ALL RIG

HTS R

ESERVED

. C

ON

FIDEN

TIAL AND

PRO

PRIETAR

Y DO

CU

MEN

T.

CO

NTR

OL LAW

S

AIRC

RAFT

ACTU

ATOR

S

Control devices or pilot

model used to perform

«

hold » comm

and

Sim

plified actuators including first order

dynamic and position

and rate saturations

Flight dynamics

equations using quaternion and based on a N

N m

odelling of the aerodynam

ic coefficients

Main filters and delays

Full flight control law

system including

protections

28-29 January 2010P

age 15

© AIRBUS FRANCE S.A.S. All rights reserved. Confidential and proprietary document. Modelling

Control surfaces and actuators


1dq (deg)

Realized order

upulo

y

Saturation

Rate lim

iter

LIMU

P

LIMLO

1

0.1s+11st or 2nd order transfer function

1dqco (deg)

Com

manded order

28-29 January 2010P

age 16


Flight Mechanics (1/3)


•Fundam

ental equation(V

velocity vector, Ωrotation vector)

�Forces

Mom

ents� ��

� �� ∧

+∂ ∂

=V

t V

mF

��

��

()

()

I

t I

M

��

��

⋅∧

+∂ ⋅

∂=

FyA

ERO

FxA

ERO

FzA

ERO

MrA

ERO

Mp

AER

O

Mq

AER

O

FyA

ERO

FxA

ERO

FzA

ERO

MrA

ERO

Mp

AER

O

Mq

AER

O

Fzg

FygFzg

Fxg

mg

mg

Fzg

FygFzg

Fxg

mg

mg

�G

ravity

FxEN

G R

FxEN

G L

FxEN

G R

FxEN

G L

�E

ngines

•Forces and m

oments

�A

erodynamic loads

28-29 January 2010P

age 17


Flight Mechanics (2/3)


•Focus on aerodynam

ic loads modelling:

•Local m

odellingof aerodynam

ic coefficients by neural networks:

�(M

ach,alpha,beta)domain for longitudinal coefficients

�(M

ach)domain for lateral coefficients

•Local m

odels dependencies:�

Longitudinalaerodynamic coefficients (C

y,Cl,C

n): alpha,beta,M

ach,q,altitude,centerof gravity position, horizontal tail plane deflexion, elevator deflexion, spoiler deflexion

�Lateralaerodynam

ic coefficients (Cx,C

z,Cm

) : alpha,beta,M

ach,p,r,altitude,centerof gravity position, inner ailerons deflexion, outer ailerons deflexion, rudder deflexion, spoiler deflexion

•G

lobalcoefficient computation by

local models interpolation.

Cx

V

S 2 1

Fx2

AIR

AER

O−

=C

l

V c

S 2 1

Mp

2A

IRA

ERO

AER

O=

Cy

V

S 2 1 -

Fy

2A

IRA

ERO

=C

m

V c

S 2 1

Mq

2A

IRA

ERO

AER

O=

Cz

V

S 2 1

Fz2

AIR

AER

O−

=C

n

V c

S 2 1

Mr

2A

IRA

ERO

AER

O=

28-29 January 2010P

age 18


Flight control laws (1/2)


FLIGH

T MAN

AGEM

ENT

SYSTEMN

avigation P

erformances -Flight planning

Guidance

long term control

(~ 60s)

FLIGH

T GU

IDAN

CE &

AU

TO-THR

UST SYSTEM

Flight path & speed control

medium

term control

(~ 10s)

FLIGH

T CO

NTR

OL SYSTEM

Attitude &

acceleration control S

tructural modes dam

pingS

urfaces servo-loops short term

control (~ 5s)

Engines

Surfaces

SENSO

RS

Aircraft R

esponse

Piloting O

rders

Thrust Orders

Guidance

Objectives

ErtrtetErtertErtertttrrrreteeErterterttErtertete

ErtrtetErtertErtertttrrrreteeErterterttErtertete

NDND

Flight plan selection and optim

isationAltitude, slope heading

and speed selection

PFDPFD

ECA

MEC

AM

Attitu

de and acceleration piloting

RU

D TR

IM10,4

RESET

RU

D TR

IM10,4

RESET

0123F

0123F

0123F

0123FW

arning

Manual flight control law

validation benchmark

A/TH

R is provided for easier m

anoeuvre simulation

28-29 January 2010P

age 19


Flight control laws (2/2)


•Pitch axis control: scheduling param

eters (Vc, Mach, cg)

•Lateral axis control: scheduling param

eters (Vc, M

ach)

•Speed control: scheduling param

eters (Vc, M

ach)

VMO

/MM

O

PRO

TECTIO

N

?PR

OTEC

TION

nzN

OR

MA

L LAWD

QE

?PR

OTEC

TION

DQ

OR

DER

S C

HO

ICE

INTEG

RATO

R

MAN

AGEM

ENT AN

D

ELEVATOR

D

EFLECTIO

N

CO

MPU

TATIO

ND

QM

OD

Q*

OIH

DQ

/THS

CO

UPLIN

G

LATE

RA

L NO

RM

AL

LAW

PE

DA

LS

MA

NA

GE

ME

NT

DRE

DPELEC

DRN

DPN

DPE

DP

/DR

O

RD

ER

C

HO

ICE

DPM

OA

LE*O

ALI*

OS

P1*O

SP2*

OS

P3*O

SP4*

OS

P5*O

SP6*

OLD

EGRY

D

LATE

RA

L K

INE

MA

TICS

Elevator

Horizontal tail plane

Ailerons

Spoilers

Rudder

Engine 1

Engine 2

AUTO

-THR

UST

SP

EE

D

TAR

GE

TP

I/MG

1

PI/M

G2

28-29 January 2010P

age 20

© AIRBUS FRANCE S.A.S. All rights reserved. Confidential and proprietary document. Flight envelope & varying param

etersFlight envelope

•N

ormal flight envelope

�Load factor: -1g < N

z< 2.5g in clean configuration and 0g < N

z< 2g in

high lift configurations�

Pitch attitude: -15° < θ

< 30°�

Angle of attack: -5° < α

< αprot

�A

ltitude: 0 < Zp< 41000 ft

�S

peed (in flight): Vα

prot < Vcas

< VM

O (=330 kts)

�M

ach (in flight): 0.2 < Mach < M

MO

(=0.86)�

Roll angle: -33° < ϕ

< 33 °�

Weight and

Centerof gravity location: w

ithin the weight and balance

diagram

•Peripheral flight envelope

�A

ngle of attack: -5° < α< α

max

�S

peed (in flight): Vα

max < Vcas

< VD (=365 kts)

�M


D (=0.93)

�R

oll angle: -66° < ϕ< 66 °


28-29 January 2010P

age 21


etersFlight envelope

Peripheral flight envelope

Norm

al flight envelopeO

verspeedVc

Bank angle

ϕϕϕ ϕ

Load factorN

zPitch

attitudeθθθ θ

Angle of attackLow

speedααα α

VD

MD

MM

O

VMO

ααα αprot

ααα αm

ax

-15°/ +30°33°

66°-1g / +2.5g

28-29 January 2010P

age 22


etersFlight dom

ain

TO D

O


0

5000

10000

15000

20000

25000

30000

35000

40000100150

200250

300350

400450

500550

6 0

VTAS (kts)

Altitude (ft)

Mach

0.20.3

0.40.5

0.60.7

0.80.9

MM

O

VM

O

MD

VD

Vααα α

stallV

ααα αm

axV

ααα αprot

MM

OM

D

VMO

VD

Zpm

ax

28-29 January 2010P

age 23


arksN

on linear benchmark


•C

riteria�

Unpiloted aircraft stability

�P

iloted aircraft stability�

Perform

ance assessment: Turn coordination

�M

anoeuvrability requirements: longitudinal axis

�Flight dom

ain protection (AoA

, Pitch, S

peed/Mach, R

oll, Load factor)

•C

onditions:�

For any initial flight conditions within the flight envelope

�For any pilot inputs

�For any w

ind perturbations within the certified set

�A

ssuming uncertainties on aerodynam

ic coefficients

28-29 January 2010P

age 24

© AIRBUS FRANCE S.A.S. All rights reserved. Confidential and proprietary document. Clearance problem

Unpiloted aircraftstability

•Initial pointA

ny trimm

ed point in the overall flight domain w

ithout pilot inputs.

•C

riteria�

Closed loop m

ust remain stable

�Stability can be relaxed to the existence of slow

ly divergent modes,

provided that the time of doubling

of the divergent variable is more

than 6s.

•U

ncertainties�

robustness to CG

data must be guaranteed.

Even w

ith wrong cg values used by the control law

s (between m

in and m

ax CG

values), the closed-loop stability must be guaranteed.

Therefore uncertain parameter to be considered is cg value in input of

the flight control laws. This value can vary from

the minim

um value to

the maxim

um value w

hatever the trimm

ed point value.


28-29 January 2010P

age 25


Piloted aircraftstability

•Initial point

�A

ny trimm

ed point in the overall flight domain.

�C

onstant pedal input (so the sideslip will be zero or non zero) and the

right side-stick input necessary to maintain constant heading.

•C

riteriaS

tarting from the trim

med point w

ith deflected control devices, so sideslip and heading are both steady, and w

ith or without w

ind. The aircraft must

reach an other stable situation, within the norm

al flight envelope, when the

control devices are released or when the w

ind stops.

•U

ncertainties �

Global aerodynam

ic coefficients uncertainties: 10% on

(Cx,C

y,Cz,C

l,Cm

,Cn)

�W

ind gradient occurrence (gradient between [1;5kts/s], am

plitude<20kts, any orientation).


28-29 January 2010P

age 26


Piloted aircraftstability

•M

anoeuvre


Longitudinal stick

Lateral stick

Pedals

Altitude hold

time

dpm

Release

Heading hold

time

dre

Release

Constant input

28-29 January 2010P

age 27


Perform


•Initial pointA

ny trimm

ed point in the normal flight dom

ain.

•C

riteriaFor any lateral stick input, w

ithout pedal input, the sideslip value must

remain low

er than 1° while the bank angle does not re

ach 33°.

•U

ncertainties�

Flight path angle value (included in the initial point selection).�

Constant lateral side stick value w

ithin devices capabilities.�

Global aerodynam

ic coefficients uncertainties: 10\% on

(Cx,C

y,Cz,C

l,Cm

,Cn).


28-29 January 2010P

age 28


Perform


•M

anoeuvre


Longitudinal stick

Lateral stick

Pedals

Flight path hold

No input

time

dpm

Constant input

28-29 January 2010P

age 29


Manoeuvrability requirem

ents: longitudinal axis

•Initial pointA

ny trimm

ed point in the peripheral flight domain w

ithout pilot inputs.

•C

riteria�

low speed: pilot m

ust be able to modify short term

trajectory within the

flight envelope. When pulling the stick, the short term

Cz

response must

be compared to the natural aircraft capability:

�high speed: betw

een VM

O and V

MO

+15kts, nose-down authority m

ust rem

ain greater than 0.3g.

•U

ncertainties�

Global aerodynam

ic coefficients uncertainties: 10% on

(Cx,C

y,Cz,C

l,Cm

,Cn).

�Longitudinal side-stick constant input w

ithin the devices capabilities .


28-29 January 2010P

age 30


Manoeuvrability requirem

ents: longitudinal axis

•M

anoeuvre


Longitudinal stick

Lateral stick

Pedals

No input

No input

time

dqm

Constant input

28-29 January 2010P

age 31


Flight domain protection

•Initial pointA

ny trimm

ed point in the normal flight dom

ain without pilot inputs

•C

riteriaFor any pilot inputs and w

ind perturbations included in lower-described

subsets, the aircraft response must rem

ain in the following envelope :

�Load factor: -1g < N

z< 2.5g | no overshoot

�P

itch attitude: –

-15° < θ< 30°

–overshoot: low

er than 1 degree at high mach and low

er than 2 degrees at low m

ach (M

<0.5). �

Angle of attack: –

-5° < α< α

max

–overshoot: low

er than 1 degree at high mach and low

er than 2 degrees at low m

ach (M

<0.5). �

Altitude: 0 < Zp

< 41000 ft�

Speed (in flight): V

αm

ax <V

cas< V

D | no overshoot

�M


D | no overshoot

�R

oll rate p must not exceed 15°/s.

�R

oll angle: -66° < ϕ< 66 °


28-29 January 2010P

age 32


arksIntegral B

enchmark

Integral Benchmark

Kernel part of the law

s (w

ithout protections). R

oughly linear but scheduled

Sim

plified actuators including first order

dynamic and position and

rate saturations

State space representation

provided for several (V

c,Mach,M

ass,Fuel tanks) cases

Main filters and delays

28-29 January 2010P

age 33


Naturalaircraft: basic equations

•Origin:

�S

tructural dynamics equation

�G

eneralized aerodynamic loads (m

ovement, turbulence, control

surfaces)�

Rationalization of generalized aerodynam

ic loads

Integral Benchmark

28-29 January 2010P

age 34

© AIRBUS FRANCE S.A.S. All rights reserved. Confidential and proprietary document.

Integral model

Aerodynamic m

odel

•steady and unsteady airforces

•methods of different accuracy

(DLM

, unsteady CFD

)

A

Modelling

Natural aircraft: D

ata computation

•finite elem

ents•stiffness•m

asses incl. fuel & payload

Structuralmodel

KM

Integral Benchmark

28-29 January 2010P

age 35


Natural aircraft: State space m

atrices

Integral Benchmark

Rigid

modes

Flexiblem

odes

Delays

modes

Control surfaces

deflexion

Vertical and lateral

Wind

++

p, q, r, ϕ, θ, α,N

y,N

z, β

Flight m

echanics

Loads and accelerations

for ≠pts

Tx,Ty,Tz, M

x,My, M

z, N

z, Ny

All state m

atrices havethe sam

estructure butthe

statenum

ber canchange:consistency loss

28-29 January 2010P

age 36


Natural aircraft: flight points and m

ass cases

•A

wide set of linear a/c m

odels are delivered covering: mass, cg,

fuel, speed, Mach num

ber�

State-space integral m

odel with som

e hundreds of states�

Flight points: 3 Mach w

ith 3 speed cases = 9 flight points�

Mass cases: 18 m

ass cases (described by ratios of fuel tank loads)�

2 flight situations: longitudinal and lateralŁ

324 integral models

Integral Benchmark

0.650.7

0.750.8

0.850.9

0.951

200

250

300

350

400

Mach num

ber

Vc (kts)

28-29 January 2010P

age 37


arksIntegral B

enchmark

Integral Benchmark

•A

eroelastic stability criterion�

Eigenvalues stability–

max

i (Re(λ

i ))<α�

Stability m

argins requirement:

–A

llowable gain range: gains x2

–A

llowable phase range: [-90°,+90°]

•C

omfort in turbulence

�||T

wind→

acc, CL (s)||2 ≤

||Tw

ind→acc, O

L (s)||2•

Loads in turbulence•

Loads during manoeuvres

28-29 January 2010P

age 38


Aeroelastic stability criterion

�Flutter curves analysis (frequency and dam

ping) …

�S

tability margins requirem

ent: A

llowable gain range: gains x2

Allow

able phase range: [-90°,+90°]

Integral Benchmark

28-29 January 2010P

age 39


Load response to turbulence

•The target is to compute the variance of the load outputs.

•The variance is the area under the power spectral density (P

SD

)curve.•The variance can be w

ritten as the H2 norm

of the transfer between w

hite noise input and load outputs using a von K

arman

filter.

•Criteria:

The variance must not overshoot a given m

aximum

value. In practice, increm

ental results are used.

Integral Benchmark

28-29 January 2010P

age 40


Com

fort criterion

•The target is to compute the variance of filtered accelerations.

•The variance is the area under the power spectral density (P

SD

)curve.•The variance can be w

ritten as the H2 norm

of the transfer between w

hite noise input and filtered acceleration outputs using a von K

arman

filter.

•Criteria:

The objective is to verify a certain improvem

ent (or to see worsening) in

comfort w

hen compared to the open-loop case.

Integral Benchmark

28-29 January 2010P

age 41


Manœ

uvre criteria

•R

oll manoeuvre:

apply full roll stick. When p

max (m

ax roll speed) is reached, release the stick back to zero.p

max = 15°/s

•Pitch m

anoeuvre:pull (or push) the stick. W

hen 1.5g (or -1g) for incremental load factor is

reached, release the stick back to zero.•

Yaw m

anoeuvre:apply full pedal (rpedal). W

hen a given βm

ax (max yaw

angle, function of Vcand high-lift configuration) is reached, release the pedal back to zero. Integral m

odels use clean configuration.

•C

riteria:Theobjective is

to find faster the worstm

ass cases for the loadpoint of view

.

Integral Benchmark

28-29 January 2010P

age 42

© AIRBUS FRANCE S.A.S. All rights reserved. Confidential and proprietary document. Validation m

ethodsP

rogram

launchD

evelopment

launch1rst Flight

Certification

EIS

Feasibility studiesD

evelopment

Series

t

Major H

Q m

odel update after identification

Design methods

Linear design on rigid A/C

(normal law

s)

Linear design on flexible A/C

*

Nonlinear design (H

Q protection law

s)Fine Tuning

Linear analysis •H

Q:

OL/C

L stability, margins, frequency dom

ain response, tim

e-domain perform

ance (v.s. nominal dom

ain)•A

eroelastic:O

L/CL stability, m

argins•Loads :frequency dom

ain response

Validation methods

Nonlinear analysis

•HQ

:N

L margins (P

IO), tim

e-domain perform

ance (v.s. full flight dom

ain)•Loads :tim

e-domain perform

ance

Robustness analysis (gridding

based)R

obustness v.s. : more flight points, m

ore scenarios, aero-data uncertainties, delays, pilot dynam

ics

STR

(simulation test request)

FTR (flight test request)

1rst HQ

and Load m

odels

Failure cases analysis **

Out of C

OFC

LUO

scope

1rst Aeroelastic

model

Nonlinear design (Loads protection law

s)

*If necessary after analysis on aeroelastic m

odel

Program

launch

Developm

ent launch

1rst FlightC

ertificationE

IS


evelopment

Series

t

Major H

Q m


Design methods

Linear design on rigid A/C

(normal law

s)

Linear design on flexible A/C

*

Nonlinear design (H

Q protection law

s)Fine Tuning

Linear analysis •H

Q:

OL/C

L stability, margins, frequency dom

ain response, tim

e-domain perform

ance (v.s. nominal dom

ain)•A

eroelastic:O

L/CL stability, m

argins•Loads :frequency dom

ain response

Validation methods

Nonlinear analysis

•HQ

:N

L margins (P

IO), tim

e-domain perform

ance (v.s. full flight dom

ain)•Loads :tim

e-domain perform

ance

Robustness analysis (gridding

based)R

obustness v.s. : more flight points, m

ore scenarios, aero-data uncertainties, delays, pilot dynam

ics

STR

(simulation test request)

FTR (flight test request)

1rst HQ

and Load m

odels

Failure cases analysis **

Out of C

OFC

LUO

scope

1rst Aeroelastic

model

Nonlinear design (Loads protection law

s)

*If necessary after analysis on aeroelastic m

odel

28-29 January 2010P

age 43

© AIRBUS FRANCE S.A.S. All rights reserved. Confidential and proprietary document. Validation m

eans

Program

launch

Developm

ent launch

1rst FlightC

ertificationE

IS


evelopment

Series

t

real-time

desktop sim

ulator

OC

ASIME (+ basic piloting devices and display)

EPOPE (+ piloting devices and display)

A/C –1 (+ real com

puters)

A/C 0 (+ real actuators and hydraulics)

Flight test A/C

Advanced Sim

ulators

A/C

MATLAB

, SIMPA*, ATO

SMA*, ATLAS*

MATLAB

, SIMPA*, ATO

SMA*, ATLAS*

•Analytical inputs

•Control designer in the loop

•Pilot m

odel in the loop

•Hum

an pilot in the loop

non real-time

desktop sim

ulator

*In-house software

Major H

Q m


1rst HQ

and Load m

odels1rst A

eroelasticm

odel

Program

launch

Developm

ent launch

1rst FlightC

ertificationE

IS


evelopment

Series

t

real-time

desktop sim

ulator

OC

ASIME (+ basic piloting devices and display)

EPOPE (+ piloting devices and display)

A/C –1 (+ real com

puters)

A/C 0 (+ real actuators and hydraulics)

Flight test A/C

Advanced Sim

ulators

A/C

MATLAB

, SIMPA*, ATO

SMA*, ATLAS*

MATLAB

, SIMPA*, ATO

SMA*, ATLAS*

•Analytical inputs

•Control designer in the loop

•Pilot m

odel in the loop

•Hum

an pilot in the loop

non real-time

desktop sim

ulator

*In-house software

Major H

Q m


1rst HQ

and Load m

odels1rst A

eroelasticm

odel

28-29 January 2010P

age 44

© AIRBUS FRANCE S.A.S. All rights reserved. Confidential and proprietary document. Baseline solution

•U

se of non-real time sim

ulator:�

Perform

ance assessment: analysis on fine grids providing calibrated pilot

inputs�

Worst case detection: M

onte-Carlo based analysis

Flight domain coverage

0 %100 %

$$$ $

Validation mean

Non-real tim

e sim

ulator

Real tim

e sim

ulator

Flight test A/C

Series A

/CS

eries A/C


0 %100 %

$$$ $

Validation mean

Non-real tim

e sim

ulator

Real tim

e sim

ulator

Flight test A/C

Series A

/CS

eries A/C

28-29 January 2010P

age 45

© AIRBUS FRANCE S.A.S. All rights reserved. Confidential and proprietary document. Baseline

solution


0 %100 %

$$$ $

Validation mean

Non-real tim

e sim

ulator

Real tim

e sim

ulator

Flight test A/C

Series A

/C??

Series A

/C


0 %100 %

$$$ $

Validation mean

Non-real tim

e sim

ulator

Real tim

e sim

ulator

Flight test A/C

Series A

/C??

Series A

/C

•U

se of non-real time sim

ulator:�

Perform

ance assessment: analysis on fine grids providing calibrated pilot

inputs�

Worst case detection: M

onte-Carlo based analysis

Documents

AIRBUS Benchmark Overview - · PDF fileAIRBUS Benchmark Overview Final COFCLUO workshop Presented by Guilhem PUYOU1, Adrien BERARD2 ... Two major issues: – Assess performance