Pitch Control System Using LQR and

Fuzzy Logic Controller

Nurbaiti Wahid
Faculty of Electrical Engineering
Universiti Teknologi MARA
23000 Dungun, Terengganu, Malaysia
[email protected]

Mohd Fuaad Rahmat
Faculty of Electrical Engineering
Universiti Teknologi Malaysia
81310 Skudai, Johor, Malaysia
[email protected]



AbstractThis paper presents a comparative assessment
based on time response specification performance between
modern and intelligent controller for a pitch control system
of an aircraft system. The dynamic modeling of pitch
control system is considered on the design an autopilot that
controls the pitch angle of an aircraft. It begins with a
derivation of suitable mathematical model to describe the
dynamics of an aircraft. To study the effectiveness of the
controllers, the Linear Quadratic Controller (LQR) and
Fuzzy Logic Controller (FLC) is developed for controlling
the pitch angle of an aircraft system. Simulation results for
the response of pitch controller are presented in time
domain. Finally, the performances of pitch control systems
are investigated and analyzed based on common criteria of
steps response in order to identify which control strategy
delivers better performance with respect to the desired pitch
angle and pitch rate. It is found from simulation, LQR
controller give the best performance compared to fuzzy
logic controller.
KeywordsAircraft; Flight control; Autopilot; Longitudinal
dynamic; LQR; Fuzzy logic.
I. INTRODUCTION
Todays aircraft designs rely heavily on automatic
control system to monitor and control many of aircrafts
subsystem. The development of automatic control system
has played an important role in the growth of civil and
military aviation. Modern aircraft include a variety of
automatic control system that aids the flight crew in
navigation, flight management and augmenting the
stability characteristic of the airplane. For this situation an
autopilot is designed that control the pitch of aircraft that
can be used by the flight crew to lessen their workload
during cruising and help them land their aircraft during
adverse weather condition in the real situation [1]. The
autopilot is an element within the flight control system. It
is a pilot relief mechanism that assists in maintaining an
attitude, heading, altitude or flying to navigation or
landing references [2]. Designing an autopilot requires
control system theory background and knowledge of
stability derivatives at different altitudes and Mach
numbers for a given airplane [3]. Lot of works has been
done in the past to control the pitch of an aircraft for the
purpose of flight stability and yet this research still
remains an open issue in the present and future works [4],
[5], [6], [7] and [8].
Pitch is controlled by the rear part of the tail plane's
horizontal stabilizer being hinged to create an elevator. By
moving the elevator control backwards the pilot moves the
elevator up (a position of negative camber) and the
downwards force on the horizontal tail is increased. The
angle of attack on the wings increased so the nose is
pitched up and lift is generally increased. In micro-lights
and hang gliders the pitch action is reversed and the pitch
control system is much simpler, so when the pilot moves
the elevator control backwards it produces a nose-down
pitch and the angle of attack on the wing is reduced. The
pitch angle of an aircraft is controlled by adjusting the
angle and therefore the lift force of the rear elevator. The
aerodynamic forces (lift and drug) as well as the aircrafts
inertia are taken into account. This is a third order,
nonlinear system which is linearized about the operating
point.
This work presents investigation into the development
of pitch control schemes for pitch angle and pitch rate of
an aircraft systems. Pitch control systems with full state
feedback controller are investigated. A modern controller
(LQR) and intelligent fuzzy logic controller (FLC) is
developed for control the pitch of an aircraft systems.
Performance of both control strategy with respect to the
pitch angle and pitch rate is examined. Comparison of
both control schemes to the system performance of
aircraft system is presented and discussed
II. MODELLING OF A PITCH CONTROL
Flight control system has been designed using
mathematical models of the aircraft linearized at various
flight condition parameters varied with the flight
operating conditions [9]. This work is developed to
control the pitch angle of an aircraft for pitch control in
order to stabilize the system when the airplane is nose up
and nose down. The pitch control system considered in
this work is shown in Fig. 1 where X
b
, Y
b
and Z
b
represent
the aerodynamics force components. , and e represent
the orientation of aircraft (pitch angle), orientation of
aircraft (roll angle) in the earth-axis system and elevator
deflection angle.






2010 IEEE Symposium on Industrial Electronics and Applications (ISIEA 2010), October 3-5, 2010, Penang, Malaysia
978-1-4244-7647-3/10/$26.00 2010 IEEE 389




















Fig. 2 shows the forces, moments and velocity
components in the body fixed coordinate of aircraft
system. The aerodynamics moment components for roll,
pitch and yaw axis are represent as L, M and N. The term
p, q, r represent the angular rates about roll, pitch and yaw
axis while term u, v, w represent the velocity components
of roll, pitch and yaw axis. and are represents as the
angle of attack and sideslip. In this study the data from
General Aviation Airplane [1] is used in system analysis
and modeling. The parameter include in dimensional
derivatives Q = 36.8lb/ft2, QS = 6771lb, QS c =
38596ft.lb and (
0
2 / u c ) = 0.016s is considered.




















The longitudinal stability derivatives parameter used
are denoted in Table I.
















A few assumption need to be considered before
continuing with the modeling process. First, the aircraft is
steady state cruise at constant altitude and velocity, thus
the thrust and drag are cancel out and the lift and weight
balance out each other. Second, the change in pitch angle
does not change the speed of an aircraft under any
circumstance.
The section provides a brief description on the
modeling of the pitch control system. In order to analyze
the dynamics of aircraft in flight, the aircraft dynamic
system must be model in terms of mathematical equations.
Mathematical modeling involves process to describe
dynamics of a system in a set of differential equations.
Referring to the Fig. 1 and Fig. 2, the following
dynamic equations include force and moment equations
are determined.

) ( rv qv u m mgS X + =

(1)
) ( qu pv w m C mgC Z + = +

(2)
) ( ) (
2 2
r p I I I rq q I M
xz z x y
+ + = (3)

It is required to completely solved the aircraft problem
with considering the following assumption: (1) rolling
rate,

S p

= , (2) yawing rate,

+ = S C C q

, (3)
pitching rate,

= S C C r


, (4) Pitch Angle,

= rS qC

, (5) roll Angle,

T rC T qS p

+ + =

, and
(6) Yaw Angle, sec ) (

+ = rC qS .
Equation (1), (2) and (3) should be linearized using
small disturbance theory. The equations are replaced by a
variables or reference value plus a perturbation or
disturbance, as shown below.

w w w v v v u u u
o o o
+ = + = + =
r r r q q q p p p
o o o
+ = + = + =
Z Z Z MY M M X X X
o o o
+ = + = + =
+ =
o





Figure 1. Description of pitch control system.

Figure 2. Definition of force, moments and velocity in body fixed
coordinate.
TABLE I.
LONGITUDINAL STABILITY DERIVATIVE PARAMETERS
Longitudinal
Derivatives
Components
X-Force
(S
-1
)
Z-Force
(F
-1
)
Pitching
Moment (FT
-1
)
Rolling
velocities
Xu = -0.045 Zu = -0.369 Mu = 0
Yawing
velocities
Xw = 0.036
X
w
= 0
Zw = -2.02
Z
w
= 0
Mw = -0.05
M
w
= -0.051
Angle of
attack
X

= 0
X

= 0
Z

= -355.42
Z

= 0
M

= -8.8
M

= -0.8976
Pitching rate
Xq = 0 Zq = 0 Mq = -2.05
Elevator
deflection
Xe = 0 Ze = -28.15 Me = -11.874

390
For convenience, the reference flight condition is
assumed to be symmetric and the propulsive forces are
assumed to remain constant. This implies that,
0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0
= = = = = = = w r q p v . After linearization
the (4), (5) and (6) are obtained.

e e o w u
X g w X u X
dt
d
= +

) cos ( (4)
e e q o w w u
Z g
dt
d
Z u w Z
dt
d
Z u Z

=

+
0
sin ) ( ) 1 (
(5)
e e q w w u
M
dt
d
M
dt
d
w M
dt
d
M u M

=

+
2
2
(6)

By manipulating the (4), (5), (6) and substituting the
parameters values of the longitudinal stability derivatives,
the following transfer function for the change in the pitch
rate to the change in elevator deflection angle is shown as
(7) obtained.

) / ( ) / (
) / / ( ) / (
) (
) (
0 0
2
0 0 0


M u M Z s u Z M M s
u Z M u Z M s u Z M M
s
s q
q q
e e e e
e
+ + +
+
=

(7)

The transfer function of the change in pitch angle to the
change in elevator angle can be obtained from the change
in pitch rates to the change in elevator angle in the
following way.

= q (8)
) ( ) ( s s s q = (9)
) (
) ( 1
) (
) (
s
s q
s s
s
e

(10)

Therefore the transfer function of the pitch control
system is obtained in (11) and (12) respectively.

) / ( ) / (
) / / ( ) / ( 1
) (
) (
0 0
2
0 0 0

M u M Z s u Z M M s
u Z M u Z M s u Z M M
s s
s
q q
e e e e
e
+ + +
+
=

(11)
s s s
s
s
s
e
941 . 12 9676 . 4
578 . 22 7304 . 11
) (
) (
2 3
+ +
+
=

(12)

The transfer function can be represented in state-space
form and output equation as state by (13) and (14).

[ ]
e
q q

0
7304 . 11
16 . 0
0 1 0
0 9476 . 2 9868 . 6
0 1 02 . 2

(13)
[ ] [ ] 0 1 0 0 +

q y
(14)
III. METHODOLOGY
In this section, two control schemes are proposed and
describe in detail which is Linear Quadratic Regulator
(LQR) and Fuzzy Logic Controller (FLC). Furthermore, a
few of design specification have to be set to investigate
the performance of both control strategies. In this work,
four considerations have to be met which are rising time
less than 3 second, settling time less than 5 second,
percentage of overshot less than 10% and steady state
error less than 2% for controlling the pitch angle of 0.2
radian (11.5 degree).
A. LQR Controller
LQR is a method in modern control theory that used
state-space approach to analyze such a system. Using
state space methods it is relatively simple to work with a
multi-output system. The system can be stabilized using
full-state feedback system. The configuration of this
control system is shown in Fig. 3.









In designing LQR controller, lqr function in Matlab
can be used to determine the value of the vector K which
determined the feedback control law. This is done by
choosing two parameter values, input R = 1 and Q =
C
T
*C where C
T
is the matrix transpose of C from state
equation (14). The controller can be tuned by changing
the nonzero elements in q matrix which is done in m-file
code as obtained.
R = 1;
Q = [0 0 0;0 0 0;0 0 x];
K = lqr [A, B, Q, R];
Consequently, by tuning the value of x = 500, the
following values of matrix K are obtained. If x is
increased even higher, improvement to the response
should be obtained even more. But for this case, the
values of x = 500 is chosen because it satisfied the design
requirements while keep x as small as possible.
Matrix K = [-0.5704 1.6929 22.3607]
In order to reduce steady state error of the system
output, a value of constant gain Nbar should be added
after the reference. With a full-state feedback controller
all the states are feedback. The steady-state value of the
states should be computed, multiply that by the chosen
gain K, and used a new value as the reference for
computing the input. Nbar can be found using the user-
defined function which can be used in m-file code. The
method used in simulation work is done by exported both
value of matrix K and constant gain, Nbar as shown in
Fig. 4. For this controller design, the value of constant
gain, Nbar are found to be, Nbar = 22.360.










Figure 3. Full-state feedback controller with reference input.

Figure 4. Block diagram of the system with matrix, K and gain
Nbar.
391

B. Fuzzy Logic Controller
In this work, fuzzy logic controller has been applied for
stabilization of the pitch control system. FLC is conceived
as a better method for sorting and handling data but has
proven to be an excellent choice for many control system
applications because of non-linearity, complex
mathematical computation and real-time computation
need. It can be built into anything from small, hand-held
products to large computerized process control systems. It
uses an imprecise but very descriptive language to deal
with input data more like a human operator. It is very
robust and forgiving of operator and data input and often
works when first implemented with little or no tuning.
Based on these properties, fuzzy logic controller plays the
best to fit the requirements in such cases. FLC
incorporates a simple rule-based If X and Y then Z
approach to solving control problem rather than
attempting to model a system mathematically.
Fig. 5 shows the overall closed-loop system for FLC
with the pitch control of an aircraft. The inputs to the
fuzzy controller are the error (e) which measures the
system performance and the rate at which the error
changes (e), whereas the output is the change of the
control signal (u). From the Fig. 5, the error (e) is
computed by comparing the reference point (desired
angle) with the plant output. The change of error (e) is
generated by the derivation of the error. The error and
change of error is fed to the fuzzy controller through a
multiplexer.







Fuzzification involves the conversion of the input and
output signal into a number of fuzzy represented values
(fuzzy set). Each fuzzy set consists of three types
membership function, which is negative (N), zero (Z) and
positive (P). The appropriate membership function to
represent each fuzzy set need to be defined and each fuzzy
set must have the appropriate universe of discourse. In
addition, the membership functions are evenly distributed
so that the tuning process of the controller can be easily
done. In designing FLC, the standard fuzzy rules
generated from the under damped response curve. This
response is transform into fuzzy rules using the formula
obtained below.
) ( ) ( ) ( k y k r k e = and ) 1 ( ) ( ) ( = k e k e k e
In this work, the triangular and trapezoidal membership
functions are chosen for each fuzzy set. The universe of
discourse is set between -0.4 to 0.4 that implies the range
of pitch angle (0.4 radian). A two input, one output fuzzy
pitch control can be designed by defining error as the
reference angle minus the measured angle, and
implementing the expert knowledge in a form of IF-
THEN rule structure. These are nine rules that have been
utilized in designing the controller and the rule is defined
in Table II.













Since there are a total of three fuzzy variables (two
inputs and one output), and each fuzzy variable has three
membership functions, the fuzzy controller for pitch
control of an aircraft has a total of nine membership
functions. Each membership function is constrained to be
triangular so each membership function has three
parameters (a modal point and two half-width).
In this study, the triangular and trap membership
function are chosen for each fuzzy set. Fig. 6, Fig. 7 and
Fig. 8 shows the fuzzy set of the input error and error
and the output output1.
































Figure 5. Fuzzy logic controller in feedback loop of pitch control
system.
TABLE II.
RULES FOR THE FUZZY CONTROLLER
Error, e Delta error. de Delta u, du
1 N N N
2 N Z N
3 N P N
4 Z N N
5 Z Z Z
6 Z P P
7 P N P
8 P Z P
9 P P P


Figure 6. Fuzzy set of the input error.

Figure 7. Fuzzy set of the input error

Figure 8. Fuzzy set of the input outout1.
392
IV. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
In this section, the proposed of control schemes are
implemented and the corresponding results are presented.
A unit step command is required in order for pitch angle
to follow the reference value of 0.2 radian = 11.5 degree.
The pitch control system with both LQR and fuzzy
logic controller produced the response of pitch angle, .
The system response with the linear quadratic regulator
(LQR) is shown in Fig. 9. The summary for the
performance characteristics of the step response for the
pitch angle between LQR and fuzzy logic controller is
shown in Table III quantitatively. By referring to the Fig.
9 and Table III, the results clearly demonstrate that LQR
controller has the fastest response with the settling time
of 0.3655 second and rising time of 0.1335 second. For
the percent of overshoot (%OS), LQR has 4.35% which
is met the desired requirement of controller design.
Furthermore the LQR controller tends to produce very
small steady state error (E
ss
) and it is within the limit that
is 0.01%. This can be indicating that LQR controller can
handle the effect of disturbances in the system.
Fig. 10 shows the closed loop system response of the
pitch angle, with fuzzy logic controller. Two inputs
have been applied to fuzzy logic controller which is the
error (e) that computed by comparing the reference point
(desired angle) with the plant output and the change of
error (e) which generated by the derivation of the error.
The fuzzy logic controller provides good performance in
term of percent overshoot that is 0%. As depicted from
Fig. 10, it can be observed that the pitch angle follows the
reference value respectively. This controller is able to
give a good response without produce any overshoot. The
response is comparatively fast that give the settling time
(T
s
) about 2.002 second and rise time (T
r
) about 1.03
second. The results also demonstrated that the artificial
fuzzy logic controller can eliminate the effect of
disturbances in the system up to 0.5%.





































For comparison of controller performance, the
response for pitch control of an aircraft system using
LQR and fuzzy logic controller are shown with overall
response of both controllers in Fig. 11 and the bar graphs
in Fig. 12. The results clearly shows that LQR controller
has the best performance as compared to fuzzy logic
controller in term of rising time (T
r
) that is 0.1335 second,
settling time (T
s
) that is 0.3655 second and percent of
steady state error (E
ss
) about 0.01%. The results also show
the LQR controller is good in eliminating the error from the
system which is almost tend to the zero value. However, for
the percent of overshoot (%OS) fuzzy logic controller have
the best range which is 0%. Therefore, from the result
obtained in Fig. 11 and Fig. 12, it can be concluded that
the LQR controller provide higher ability in controlling
the pitch angle as compared to the fuzzy logic controller.






























0 1 2 3 4 5 6
-0.05
0
0.05
0.1
0.15
0.2
0.25
Time (sec)
P
itc
h
a
n
g
le
(r
a
d
ia
n
)

Reference
Pitchangle-LQR
Figure 9. Pitch angle response with LQR controller.
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
-0.05
0
0.05
0.1
0.15
0.2
0.25
Time (sec)
P
i
tc
h
a
n
g
le
(r
a
d
ia
n
)


Reference
Pitchangle-FLC
Figure 10. Pitch angle response with fuzzy logic controller.
TABLE III.
SUMMARY OF PERFORMANCE CHARACTERISTIC FOR PITCH ANGLE
Response
characteristic
Pitch angle
LQR Fuzzy Logic
Rising Time
(Tr)
0.1335s 1.03s
Settling Time
(Ts)
0.3655s 2.002s
Percent Overshoot
(%OS)
4.35 0
Steady-state Error
(ess) (%)
0.01 0.5

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
0
0.05
0.1
0.15
0.2
0.25
Time (sec)
P
itc
h
a
n
g
le
(
r
a
d
)


Reference
LQR
FLC
Figure 11. Pitch angle response with LQR and fuzzy logic
controller.
393
















V. CONCLUSION
The validated model of pitch control of an aircraft is
very helpful in developing the control strategy for actual
system. Pitch control of an aircraft is a system which
requires a pitch controller to maintain the angle at it
desired value. This can be achieved by reducing the error
signal which is the difference between the output angle
the desired angle.
Two controllers, LQR and fuzzy logic are successfully
designed and presented. Based on the result and the
analysis, a conclusion has been made that, the control
approach of LQR and fuzzy logic is capable of controlling
the pitch angle of the aircraft system for value of 0.2
radian (11.5degree). Simulation and analysis results show
that, LQR controller relatively give the better performance
compared to fuzzy logic controller in controlling the pitch
angle of an aircraft system. For further research, effort can
be devoted through adding another element that make up
the control system, following by develop more advanced
and robustness control techniques. Beside, the proposed
control algorithm can be implements to real plant for
validating of theoretical result.

REFERENCES
[1] R.C. Nelson, Flight Stability and Automatic Control, McGraw
Hill, Second Edition, 1998.
[2] Thomas J. Redling, Integrated Flight Control System; A New
Paradigm for an Old Art, IEEE Aerospace and Electronic
Systems Society (AESS) Systems Magazine, 2001.
[3] B. Stojiljkovic, L. Vasov, C. Mitrovic, D. Cvetkovic, The
Application of the Root Locus Method for the Design of Pitch
Controller of an F-104A Aircraft, Journal of Mechanical
Engineering, Vol 55, 2009.
[4] Pavle Boskoski, Biljana Mileva, Stojche Deskoski, Auto Landing
Using Fuzzy Logic, 6th International PhD Workshop on Systems
and Control, Slovenia, 2005.
[5] D. Choe, Y. Lee, S. Cho, Nonlinear Pitch Autopilot Design with
Local Lines Linear System Analysis, International Conference
on Automatic Control and Systems Engineering, Cairo, Egypt,
2005.
[6] Robert S. Eick, A Reconfiguration Scheme for Flight Control
Adaptation to Fixed Position Actuator Failures, Ph. D Theses,
University of Florida, 2003.
[7] D. G. Bates, R. Kureemun and I. Postlethwaite, Quantifying the
Robustness of Flight Control Systems Using Nichols Exclusion
Regions and the Structured Singular Value, Proc InstnMech
Engrs, Vol 215, Part I, 2001.
[8] Hamid R. Berenji, Sujit Saraf, Ping-Wei Chang, and Steven R.
Swanson, Pitch Control of the Space Shuttle Training Aircraft,
IEEE Transaction on Control System Technology, Vol 9, No 3,
2001.
[9] Ekprasit Promtun, Sridhar Seshagiri, Sliding Mode Control of
Pitch Rate of an F-16 Aircraft, International Journal on Applied
Science, Engineering and Technology, Vol 5, No 5.































Figure 12. Performance comparison between LQR and fuzzy logic
controller.
394