Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-8bhkd Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-18T23:42:26.775Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Diagonally dominant backstepping autopilot for aircraft with unknown actuator failures and severe winds

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 January 2016

S. Ismail ,
A. A. Pashilkar ,
R. Ayyagari  and
N. Sundararajan
S. Ismail
Affiliation:
National Aerospace Laboratories, Bangalore, India
A. A. Pashilkar*
Affiliation:
National Aerospace Laboratories, Bangalore, India
R. Ayyagari
Affiliation:
National Institute of Technology, Tiruchirappalli, India
N. Sundararajan
Affiliation:
Nanyang Technological University, Singapore
*
apash@nal.res.in
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

A novel formulation of the flight dynamic equations is presented that permits a rapid solution for the design of trajectory following autopilots for nonlinear aircraft dynamic models. A robust autopilot control structure is developed based on the combination of the good features of the nonlinear dynamic inversion (NDI) method, integrator backstepping method, time scale separation and control allocation methods. The aircraft equations of motion are formulated in suitable variables so that the matrices involved in the block backstepping control design method are diagonally dominant. This allows us to use a linear controller structure for a trajectory following autopilot for the nonlinear aircraft model using the well known loop by loop controller design approach. The resulting autopilot for the fixed-wing rigid-body aircraft with a cascaded structure is referred to as the diagonally dominant backstepping (DDBS) controller. The method is illustrated here for an aircraft auto-landing problem under unknown actuator failures and severe winds. The requirement of state and control surface limiting is also addressed in the context of the design of the DDBS controller.

Type
Research Article
Information
The Aeronautical Journal , Volume 118 , Issue 1207 , September 2014 , pp. 1009 - 1038
Copyright
Copyright © Royal Aeronautical Society 2014 

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. Kato, O. and Sugiura, I. An interpretation of airplane general motion and control as inverse problem, J of Guidance, March-April 1986, 9, (2), pp 198–204.Google Scholar
2. Krstic, M., Kanellakopoulos, I. and Kokotovic, P.V. Nonlinear and Adaptive Control Design, 1995 John Wiley & Sons, New York, USA.Google Scholar
3. Harkegard, O. Backstepping and Control Allocation with Applications to Flight Control, PhD dissertation, 2003, Department of Electrical Engineering, Linkoping University, Sweden.Google Scholar
4. van Oort, E.R. Adaptive Backstepping Control and Safety Analysis for Modern Fighter Aircraft, 2011, PhD dissertation, Faculty of Aerospace Engineering, TU Delft, The Netherlands.Google Scholar
5. Thunberg, J. and Robinson, J.W.C. Block backstepping, NDI and related cascade designs for effcient development of nonlinear fight control laws, 2008, AIAA-2008-6960, AIAA Guidance, Navigation and Control Conference and Exhibition, 18-21 August 2008, Honolulu, Hawaii, USA.Google Scholar
6. Knoos, J., Robinson, J.W.C. and Berefelt, F. Nonlinear dynamic inversion and block backstepping: A comparison, 2012, AIAA-2012-4888, AIAA Guidance, Navigation and Control Conference, 13-16 August 2012, Minneapolis, Minnesota, USA.Google Scholar
7. Sonneveldt, L., van Oort, E.R., Chu, Q.P. and Mulder, J.A. Nonlinear adaptive trajectory control applied to an F-16 model, J Guidance, Control and Dynamics, January-February 2009, 32, (1), pp 25–39.Google Scholar
8. Isiodori, A. Nonlinear Control Systems, 1989, Springer-Verlag, Berlin, Germany.Google Scholar
9. Meyer, G., Su, R. and Hunt, L.R. Application of nonlinear transformations to automatic fight control, Automatica, January 1984, 20, (1), pp 103–107.Google Scholar
10. Menon, P.K.A., Badgett, M.E., Walker, R.A. and Duke, E.L. Nonlinear fight test trajectory controller for aircraft, J Guidance, Control and Dynamics, Jan-Feb 1987, 10, (1), pp 67–72.Google Scholar
11. Lane, S.H. and Stengel, R.F. Flight control design using nonlinear inverse dynamics, Automatica, July 1988, 24, (4), pp 471–483.Google Scholar
12. Bugajski, D.J. and Enns, D.F. Nonlinear control law with application to high angle-of-attack, J Guidance, Control and Dynamics, May-June 1992, 15, (3), pp 761–767.Google Scholar
13. Snell, S.A., Enns, D.F. and Garrard, W.L. Nonlinear inversion control for a supermaneuverable aircraft, J Guidance, Control and Dynamics, July-August 1992, 15, (4), pp 976–984.Google Scholar
14. Miller, C.J. Nonlinear dynamic inversion baseline control law: fight-test results for the full-scale advanced systems testbed F/A-18 airplane, 2011, AIAA-2011-6468, AIAA Guidance, Navigation and Control Conference, Portland, Oregon, USA.Google Scholar
15. Brinker, J.S. and Wise, K. Stability and fying qualities robustness of a dynamic inversion aircraft control law, J Guidance, Control and Dynamics, November-December 1996, 19, (6), pp 1270–1277.Google Scholar
16. Adams, R.J. and Banda, S.S. An integrated approach to fight control design using dynamic inversion and mu-synthesis, 1993, Proceedings of the ACC, pp 1385–1389.Google Scholar
17. Buffington, J.M., Adams, R.J. and Banda, S.S. Robust nonlinear high angle of attack control design for a supermaneuverable vehicle, 1993, AIAA Guidance, Navigation and Control Conference, pp 690–700.Google Scholar
18. Goman, M.G. and Kolesnikov, E.N. Robust nonlinear dynamic inversion method for an aircraft motion control, 1998, AIAA-98-4208, AIAA Guidance, Navigation and Control Conferencve and Exhibition, 10-12 August 1998, Boston, MA, USA.Google Scholar
19. Reigelsperger, W.C., Banda, S.S. and Lemaster, D.P. Application of multivariable control theory to aircraft control laws, Final Report – Multivariable control design guidelines, May 1996, WL-TR-96-3099, Flight Dynamics Directorate, Wright Laboratory, Wright-Patterson AFB, OH, USA.Google Scholar
20. Farrell, J., Sharma, M. and Polycarpou, M. Backstepping nased fight control with adaptive function approximation, J Guidance, Control and Dynamics, November-December 2005, 28, (6), pp 1089–1102.Google Scholar
21. Stein, G. Respect the unstable, IEEE Control Systems Magazine August 2003, 23, (4), pp 12–25.Google Scholar
22. Nguyen, L.T., Ogburn, M.E., Gilbert, W.P., Kibler, K.S., Brown, P.W. and Deal, P.L. Simulator study of stall/post-stall characteristics of a fghter airplane with relaxed longitudinal static stability, 1979, NASA TP-1538.Google Scholar
23. Teo, S.G. Autolanding system study: Aerodynamic data of an aircraft with independent control surfaces by CFD, 2003, Technical Report of DSO National Lab, Singapore.Google Scholar
24. Pashikar, A.A., Sundararajan, N. and Saratchandran, P. Adaptive nonlinear neural controller for aircraft under actuator failures, J Guidance, Control and Dynamics, May-June 2007, 30, (3), pp 835–847.Google Scholar
25. Miele, A. Flight Mechanics Volume I: Theory of Flight Paths, 1962, Addison-Wesley Pub Co.Google Scholar
26. Ismail, S., Pashilkar, A.A., Ayyagari, R. and Sundararajan, N. Improved autolanding controller for aircraft encountering unknown actuator failures, 2013, IEEE Symposium on Computational Intelligence for Security and Defense Applications (IEEE CISDA 2013), Singapore.Google Scholar
27. Valasek, J., Akella, M.R., Siddarth, A. and Rollins, E. Adaptive dynamic inversion control of linear plants with control position constraints, IEEE Transactions on Control Systems Technology, July 2012, 20, (4), pp 918–933.Google Scholar
28. Menon, P.P., Lowenberg, M., Herrmann, G., Turner, M.C. Bates, D.G. and Postlethwaite, I. Experimental implementation of a nonlinear dynamic inversion controller with antiwindup, J Guidance, Control and Dynamics, July-August 2013, 36, (4), pp 1035–1046.Google Scholar