Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-jn8rn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-22T11:52:30.087Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Optimising the roll-sway motion cues available from a short stroke hexapod motion platform

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 January 2016

S.J. Hodge*
Affiliation:
Simulation Department, BAE Systems, Preston, UK
P. Perfect
Affiliation:
Department of Engineering, University of Liverpool, Liverpool, UK
G.D. Padfield
Affiliation:
Department of Engineering, University of Liverpool, Liverpool, UK
M.D. White
Affiliation:
Department of Engineering, University of Liverpool, Liverpool, UK

Abstract

This paper presents findings from research conducted at the University of Liverpool aimed at optimising the motion cues available from a short-stroke hexapod motion platform. Piloted simulations were conducted for a typical helicopter low-speed sidestep manoeuvre. To correctly simulate the sidestep manoeuvre the motion platform must translate laterally at the same time as it rolls. If the motion in these two axes is not properly harmonised then the pilot can experience significant false motion cues. This is a particular concern for short-stroke hexapod platforms, where displacement limits can severely constrain the available lateral travel particularly during motion in multiple axes (e.g. roll and sway). During the experiment the motion filter gains in the roll and sway axes and the roll-axis motion filter break-frequency were varied. Objective and subjective measures of pilot performance and motion fidelity were gathered for each motion filter configuration, the latter using a new motion fidelity rating scale. The key findings show that acceptable motion cues could only be achieved by careful harmonisation of the motion filter gains in the roll and sway axes. A high gain in the roll axis coupled with a low gain in the sway axis resulted in motion which was abrupt and uncomfortable. On the other hand, too large a gain in the sway axis resulted in extreme lateral displacements of the motion platform leading to undesirable side-effects. The phase distortion between the visual and platform motion cues, introduced by the roll-axis motion filter, also had a significant impact on the pilot’s perception of motion fidelity. These results are presented in the form of proposed motion fidelity criteria for short-stroke hexapod platforms and compared with results from previous research conducted on a range of large motion systems.

Type
Research Article
Copyright
Copyright © Royal Aeronautical Society 2015

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1.Reid, L.D. and Nahon, M.A.Response of airline pilots to variations in flight simulator motion algorithms, J Aircr, July 1988, 25, (7), pp 639646.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
2.Grant, P.R. and Reid, L.D.Motion washout filter tuning: Rules and requirements, J Aircr, March-April 1997, 34, (2), pp 145151.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
3.Schroeder, J.A., Chung, W.W. and Laforce, S.Effects of roll and lateral flight simulation motion gains on a sidestep task, 1997, American Helicopter Society 53rd Annual Forum, 29 April-1 May 1997, Virginia Beach, VA, USA.Google Scholar
4.Stapleford, R.L., Peters, R.A. and Alex, F.R. Experiments and a model for pilot dynamics with visual and motion inputs, 1969, NASA CR-1325.Google Scholar
5.Jex, H.R., Magdaleno, R.E. and Junker, A.M. Roll tracking effects of G-vector tilt and various types of motion washout, 1978, NASA CP-2060, pp 463502.Google Scholar
6.Bray, R.S. Initial operating experience with an aircraft simulator having extensive lateral motion, 1972, NASA-TM-X-62155.Google Scholar
7.Van Gool, M.F.C.Infuence of motion wash-out filters on pilot tracking performance, 1978, AGARD-CP-249, AGARD Flight Mechanics Panel Specialists’ Meeting on ‘Piloted Aircraft Environment Simulation Techniques’, 24-27 April 1978, Brussels, Belgium.Google Scholar
8.Bergeron, H.P., Adams, J.J. and Hurt, G.J. The effects of motion cues and motion scaling on one- and two-axis compensatory control tasks, 1971, NASA TN D-6110.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
9.Shirachi, D.K. and Shirley, R.S. Visual/motion cue mismatch in a coordinated roll maneuver, 1981, NASA-CR-166259.Google Scholar
10.Ashkenas, I.L.Collected flight and simulation comparisons and considerations, 1985, AGARD-CP-408, AGARD Flight Mechanics Panel Symposium on ‘Flight Simulation’, 30 September-3 October 1985, Cambridge, UK.Google Scholar
11.Sinacori, J.B. The determination of some requirements for a helicopter flight research simulation facility, 1977, NASA-CR-152066.Google Scholar
12.Schroeder, J.A. Helicopter flight simulation motion platform requirements, 1999, NASA-TP-1999-208766.Google Scholar
13.Mikula, J., Chung, W.W. and Tran, D.Motion fidelity criteria for roll-lateral translational tasks, 1999, AIAA Paper 99-4329, AIAA Modeling and Simulation Technologies Conference, 9-11 August 1999, Portland, OR, USA.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
14.Chung, W.W., Robinson, D.J., Wong, J. and Tran, D.Investigation of roll-lateral coordinated motion requirements with a conventional hexapod motion platform, 1998, AIAA Paper 98-4172, AIAA Modeling and Simulation Technologies Conference, 10-12 August 1998, Boston, MA, USA.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
15.Beykirch, K., Nieuwenhuizem, F.M., Teufel, H.J., Nusseck, H.G., Bulter, J.S. and Bulthoff, H.H.Control of a lateral helicopter side-step maneuvre on an anthropomorphic robot, 2007, AIAA Paper 2007-6801, AIAA Modeling and Simulation Technologies Conference, 20-23 August 2007, Hilton Head, SC, USA.Google Scholar
16.Van Biervliet, F.LM2 — Lateral manoeuvring motion, 2008, RAeS Flight Simulation Group ‘Expanding Horizons: Technology Advances in Flight Simulation’ conference, 4-5 June 2008, London, UK.Google Scholar
17.Hodge, S.J., Perfect, P., padfield, G.D. and White, M.D.Optimising the yaw motion cues available from a short stroke hexapod motion platform, Aeronaut J, January 2014, 118, (1210).Google Scholar
18.Fielding, C. and Southworth, M.R.Piloted simulation developments of STOVL aircraft handling qualities, 2001, AIAA Paper 2001-4263, AIAA Guidance, Navigation and Control Conference, 6-9 August 2001, Montreal, Canada.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
19.Padfield, G.D.Helicopter Flight Dynamics: The Theory and Application of Flying Qualities and Simulation Modelling, Second Edition, 2007, Blackwell Publishing, Oxford, UK.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
20.Cooper, G.E. and Harper, R.P. The use of pilot rating in the evaluation of aircraft handling qualities, 1969, NASA TN D-5153.Google Scholar
21.Perfect, P., White, M.D., Padfield, G.D. and Gubbels, A.W.Rotorcraft simulation fidelity: New methods for quantification and assessment, Aeronaut J, March 2013, 117, (1189), pp 235282.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
22.Hodge, S.J., Perfect, P., Padfield, G.D. and White, M.D.Optimising the cues available from a short-stroke hexapod motion platform, 2011, American Helicopter Society 67th Annual Forum, 3-5 May 2011, Virginia Beach, VA, USA.Google Scholar
23.Venrooij, J., Yilmaz, D., Pavel, M.D., Quaranta, G., Jump, M. and Mulder, M.Measuring biodynamic feedthrough in helicopters, 2011, 37th European Rotorcraft Forum, 13-15 September 2011, Gallarate, Italy.Google Scholar
24.Grant, P.R. and Haycock, B.Effect of jerk and acceleration on perception of motion strength, J Aircr, July-August 2008, 45, (4), pp 11901197.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
25.Bray, R.S.Visual and motion cueing in helicopter simulation, 1985, AGARD-CP-408, AGARD Flight Mechanics Panel Symposium on ‘Flight Simulation’, 30 September-3 October 1985, Cambridge, UK.Google Scholar
26.Grant, P.R. and Lee, P.T.S.Motion-visual phase-error detection in a flight simulator, J Aircr, May-June 2007, 44, (3), pp 927935.CrossRefGoogle Scholar