Adaptive Control

Basics and Research

Gang Tao
1

Feedback Control System

`

E
Plant
E
Controller
Feedback
'
T
E E
r(t) e(t) u(t) y(t)
w(t)

Issues of Automatic Feedback Control

System modeling
Control objectives
stability, transient, tracking, optimality, robustness
Parametric uncertainties
payload variation, component aging, condition change
Structural uncertainties
component failure, unmodeled dynamics
Environmental uncertainties
external disturbances
Nonlinearities
smooth functions and nonsmooth (hard) characteristics
3

Adaptive Control Methodology

Adapting to parametric uncertainties
Robust to structural and environmental uncertainties
Aimed at both stability (signal boundedness) and tracking
Self-tuning of controller parameters
Systematic design and analysis
Real-time implementable
Effective for failures and nonsmooth nonlinearities
High potential for applications
Attractive open and challenging issues
4

Aircraft Flight Control System Models

State variables
x, y, z = position coordinates = roll angle
u, v, w = velocity coordinates = pitch angle
p = roll rate = yaw angle
q = pitch rate = side-slip angle
r = yaw rate = angle of attack
5

Nonlinear equations of motion (in body axis)

Force equations:
m( u+qwrv) = X mgsin+T cos
m( v +ru pw) = Y +mgcossin
m( w+ pv qu) = Z +mgcoscosT sin
T: engine thrust; : thrust angle; X,Y, Z: aerodynamic forces
Moment equations:
I
x
p+I
xz
r +(I
z
I
y
)qr +I
xz
qp = L
I
y
q+(I
x
I
z
)pr +I
xz
(r
2
p
2
) = M
I
z
r +I
xz
p+(I
y
I
x
)qpI
xz
qr = N
L, M, N: aerodynamic torques
6

Linearized longitudinal equations

u
w
q

X
u
X
w
W
0
g
0
cos
0
Z
u
Z
w
U
0
g
0
sin
0
M
u
M
w
M
q
0
0 0 1 0

u
w
q

X
e
Z
e
M
e
0

e
output = : pitch angle perturbation
Linearized lateral equations

r
p

Y
v
U
0
V
0
g
0
cos
0
N
v
N
r
N
p
0
L
v
L
r
L
p
0
0 tan
0
1 0

r
p

Y
r
Y
a
N
r
N
a
L
r
L
a
0 0

r
a

output = r: yaw rate perturbation

7

Direct Adaptive Control System

'

Adaptive law

(t)
Plant
Controller
C(s; (t))
Reference model
E
E
E
T
E
T T
T
'
c
c
u(t) r(t) y(t)
y
m
(t)
(t)
8

Indirect Adaptive Control System

Design
equation
Parameter estimator

p
(t)
Plant
G(s;

p
)
Controller
C(s;
c
(t))
E
E
T
E
T T
'
c
u(t) y
m
(t) y(t)

c
(t)

p
(t)
9

Our Recent Work

G. Tao and P. V. Kokotovi c, Adaptive Control of Systems with
Actuator and Sensor Nonlinearities, John Wiley & Sons, 1996.
G. Tao and F. L. Lewis, eds., Adaptive Control of Nonsmooth
Dynamic Systems, Springer, London, 2001.
A. Taware and G. Tao, Control of Sandwich Nonlinear Systems,
Springer, Berlin, 2003.
G. Tao, Adaptive Control Design and Analysis, John Wiley & Sons,
Hoboken, New Jersey, 2003.
G. Tao, S. H. Chen, X. D. Tang and S. M. Joshi, Adaptive Control of
Systems with Actuator Failures, Springer, 2004.
10

11

12

13

14

9
8
6
7
Adaptive Control Technologies for
Aerospace Systems
Gang Tao
University of Virginia
9
8
6
7
1
9
8
6
7
Part I: Adaptive Control Theory
Issues in Automatic Feedback Control
Adaptive Control Methodology
Direct Model Reference Adaptive Control
Indirect Adaptive Pole Placement Control
Multivariable Adaptive Control
Nonlinear Adaptive Control
Performance, Convergence and Robustness
2
9
8
6
7
Summary
System uncertainties
common in control systems
challenges for system performance
Adaptive control
handles system uncertainties effectively
ensures desired asymptotic performance
Adaptive control theory
mature with systematic design procedures
developing with new challenges
Adaptive control techniques
proved to be useful for many practical control problems
promising for new aerospace applications
3
9
8
6
7
Part II: Adaptive Control for Aerospace Systems
Adaptive Control for Actuator and Sensor Nonlinearities
Adaptive Inversion Control for Synthetic Jet Actuators
Adaptive Actuator Failure Compensation
Design for Linearized Longitudinal B737 Model
Design for Linearized Lateral B737 Model
Open Research Problems
4
9
8
6
7
Adaptive Control for Actuator and Sensor Nonlinearities
Actuator and sensor nonlinearities
Research motivation
Adaptive inverse compensation
Adaptive inverse control designs
Adaptive control of sandwich nonlinear systems
5
9
8
6
7
Actuator and Sensor Nonlinearities
Dead-zones
hydraulic valves, servo motors
Backlash
gear-boxes, mechanical links
Hysteresis
piezoelectric materials
Piecewise-linearity
different operation conditions
Non-linear characteristics
non-uniform hardware properties
6
9
8
6
7
y(t)
Spool position v(t)
Piston
Load
M, f
Return
Return
Pressure
source
Figure 1: Dead-zone in a servo-valve.
7
9
8
6
7
K
s(Ms+B)
E E E E
T

v y u
Figure 2: Block diagram of the servo-valve.
8
9
8
6
7
v(t)
u(t)
c -c
r l
Figure 3: Backlash in mechanical links.
9
9
8
6
7
u
v
c
c
m
m
0
l
r
Figure 4: Backlash characteristic.
10
9
8
6
7
v
u
d
u = B(v)
control
h(s) = G(s)(u(s) - d(s))
G(s) = k/s
h
gear-train
backlash
Figure 5: Backlash in the valve control mechanism of a liquid tank.
11
9
8
6
7
-
Controller
motor
and
Amplifier
train
Gear
y
y
m
Mirror
Figure 6: Output backlash in a positioning system.
12
9
8
6
7

(c)
(b)
(a)
backlash and flexibility
b b
u
J J
l
m
m
l
m
m
l
l
b -b b -b
Figure 7: (a) Gear-train with backlash and exibility; (b) Backlash for rigid gears:

l
= B(
m
); (c) Dead-zone: = D(
m

l
).
13
9
8
6
7
f f f f
c
E E E E E E E E E E E
' '
T T T
1
J
m
s
1
s
D()
k
1
J
l
s
1
s
b
m
b
l
u
m

m
v
l

l

Figure 8: Sandwich nonlinear system with feedback blocks.
14
9
8
6
7
Figure 9: Hysteresis characteristic in precision control actuators.
15
9
8
6
7
Research Motivation
Actuator and sensor nonlinearities limit performance
Actuator and sensor nonlinearities are uncertain
Adaptive compensation is a desirable choice
Algorithm-based compensation is aimed at
reduction of system component cost
improvement of system performance.
16
9
8
6
7
Adaptive Inverse Compensation
i
G(D) N
a
()

NI
a
()
C
2
(D)
C
1
(D)

'
T
E E E E E E
r u
d
y v u
Figure 10: Adaptive inverse control for actuator nonlinearity.
17
9
8
6
7
Adaptive Inverse Control Designs
Parametrization of nonlinearity u(t) = N(v(t))
u(t) = N(v(t)) = N(

; v(t)) =
T

(t) +a

s
(t)
Parametrization of nonlinearity inverse v(t) =

NI(u
d
(t))
u
d
(t) =
T
(t)(t) +a
s
(t)
Feedback control law for u
d
(t)
based on model reference, pole placement, PID, lead/lag
compensator, feedback linearization, or backstepping design
for G(D) known or G(D) unknown, SISO or MIMO
Adaptive law for (t)

(t) =
(t)(t)
m
2
(t)
+ f (t)
18
9
8
6
7
An Illustrative Example
k
1
s
+

s
B()
E E E E E
T
r v u y

PI controller
Plant
Figure 11: One-integrator plant with input backlash and PI controller.
19
9
8
6
7
-2 0 2 4
-6
-4
-2
0
2
4
(a) e(t) vs. v(t).
-2 0 2 4
-2
0
2
4
6
(b) u(t) vs. v(t).
0 10 20 30 40 50
-6
-4
-2
0
2
4
(c) Tracking error e(t).
System response without backlash inverse.
20
9
8
6
7
2 0 2 4
6
4
2
0
2
(a) e(t) vs. v(t).
2 0 2 4
1
0
1
2
3
4
5
(b) u(t) vs. v(t).
0 10 20 30 40
6
4
2
0
2
(c) Tracking error e(t).
0 10 20 30 40
0
0.5
1
^
(d) Parameter error c(t) c.
Figure 12: Adaptive backlash inverse control response.
21
9
8
6
7
Adaptive Inverse Control of Sandwich Systems
E
y
r
NI
o
()
E
z
r
g E
u
d
NI
i
()
E
v
N
i
()
E
u
G(s)
E
z
N
o
()
E
y
T
' g
g
gy
'
NI
o
()
T
2
b

(s)
'
z

T
1
a

(s)
Figure 13: Adaptive compensation of actuator/sensor nonlinearities.
22
9
8
6
7
f ()
'
T
g g
G
o
(s) N()
23

13
NI() G
i
(s)
E E E E E E E E E E

T
11

11

T
12

12

T
22

22
'
g
g
gy
' '
T
'
T
'

T
21

21
g
g
gy
r y z u v u
d
w
Figure 14: Inverse control scheme I for sandwich nonlinear systems.
23
9
8
6
7
f ()
'
T
E
NI()
E E
NI()
' ' '
g g
G
o
(s) N()
23

13
G
i
(s)
E E E E E E E

T
11

11

T
12

12

T
22

22
'
g
g
gy
T
'
T
'

T
21

21
g
g
gy
r y z u v u
d
w
Figure 15: Inverse control scheme II for sandwich nonlinear systems.
24
9
8
6
7
Adaptive Inverse Control for Synthetic Jet Actuators
Research motivation
Synthetic jets for aircraft control
Adaptive inverse approach
Adaptive inverse control design and evaluation
25
9
8
6
7
Research Motivation
Virtual shaping of airfoils using synthetic jets
Synthetic jet actuators have unknown nonlinearities
Adaptive inverse approach to cancel nonlinearities
Adaptive feedback control for desired performance
26
9
8
6
7
Synthetic Jets for Aircraft Control
Physics of synthetic jet
piezo-electric sinusoidal voltage acts on diaphragm
diaphragm vibrations cause cavity pressure variations
ejection and suction of air, creating vortices
jet is synthesized by a train of vortices
lift is produced on the airfoilvirtual shaping.
27
9
8
6
7
Tailless aircraft with jets (top view)
28
9
8
6
7
Mathematical model of synthetic jet actuators
u(t) =

1
v(t)
= N(v(t);

)
u(t): equivalent virtual airfoil deection (lift force)
v = A
2
pp
: peak-to-peak voltage amplitude

= [

1
,

2
]
T
: unknown parameters dependent on many factors
Control objective
adaptive compensation of N(;

)
tracking control for aircraft ight trajectory
Design strategy
adaptive inversion of N(;

)
feedback control for aircraft dynamics
29
9
8
6
7
Variation of deection with actuation voltage (

2
= 15)
0 2 4 6 8 10 12
25
20
15
10
5
0
5
10
15
v(t), the input voltage in volts
u
(
t
)
,

t
h
e

v
i
r
t
u
a
l

d
e
f
l
e
c
t
i
o
n

o
n

t
h
e

a
i
r
f
o
i
l

*
1
= 20

*
1
= 30

*
1
= 40
30
9
8
6
7
Adaptive Inverse Approach
31
9
8
6
7
Nonlinearity parametrization
u(t) = N(

; v(t)) =
T
(t), (t) = [
1
v(t)
, 1]
T
Nonlinearity inverse
v(t) =

NI(u
d
(t)) =

1
(t)

2
(t) u
d
(t)
u
d
(t) =
T
(t)(t), = [
1
,
2
]
T
u
d
(t): a desired feedback control signal
Control error
u(t) u
d
(t) =

2
(t) u
d
(t)

1
(t)

(
1
(t)

1
) (
2
(t)

2
)
= ((t)

)
T
(t)
32
9
8
6
7
Design Example: Linear Dynamics
System model
x(t) = Ax(t) +Bu(t)
Feedback control signal
u
d
(t) = Kx(t) +r(t)
Control error
u(t) u
d
(t) = ((t)

)
T
(t)
Reference model
x
r
(t) = (ABK)x
r
(t) +Br(t)
Error system
e(t) = (ABK)e(t) +B((t)

)
T
(t), e(t) = x(t) x
r
(t)
33
9
8
6
7
Adaptive laws

i
(t) = g
i
(t) + f
i
(t)
g
1
(t) =
1
e
T
(t)PB

2
(t) u
d
(t)

1
(t)

,
1
> 0
g
2
(t) =
2
e
T
(t)PB,
2
> 0
f
i
(t) =

0 if
i
(t) >
a
i
, or
if
i
(t) =
a
i
and g
i
(t) 0
g
i
(t) otherwise
initial estimates
i
(0) of

i
:
i
(0)
a
i
> 0
Assumption (no saturation): u
d
(t) <
2
(t)
Closed-loop system properties
boundedness of x(t) and (t), and
i
(t) >
a
i
asymptotic tracking: lim
t
(x(t) x
r
(t)) = 0.
34
9
8
6
7
Simulation Results
System state variables
lateral velocity: x
1
(t) roll rate: x
2
(t)
yaw rate: x
3
(t) roll angle: x
4
(t)
System model
A =

0.0134 48.5474 632.3724 32.0756

0.0199 0.1209 0.1628 0
0.0024 0.0526 0.0252 0
0 1 0.0768 0

, B =

0
0.0431
0.0076
0

D. L. Raney, R. C. Montgomery, L. L. Green and M. A. Park, Flight Control

using Distributed Shape-Change Effector Arrays, AIAA paper No.
2000-1560, April 3-6, 2000
35
9
8
6
7
Control gain K
LQR design with Q = I
4
, R = 10
K =

1.0113 77.1793 115.8959 9.1691

P =

0.751 14.980 159.812 8.2617

14.980 27181.878 138979.668 7843.345
159.813 138979.668 723352.800 40670.052
8.262 7843.345 40670.052 2301.187

Reference signal:
r(t) =

1.5sin(t) 0 t 60
1.5sin(t) +3sin(2t) t 60
Adaptation gains:
1
= 1,
2
= 2
36
9
8
6
7
Simulation I: Adaptive inverse performance
0 50 100 150 200
10
0
10
Plant state x
1
(t) (solid), reference state x
m1
(t) (dotted) vs. time (sec)
f
t
/
s
e
c
0 50 100 150 200
0.1
0
0.1
Plant state x
2
(t) (solid), reference state x
m2
(t) (dotted) vs. time (sec)
d
e
g
/
s
e
c
0 50 100 150 200
0.05
0
0.05
d
e
g
/
s
e
c
Plant state x
3
(t) (solid), reference state x
m3
(t) (dotted) vs. time (sec)
0 50 100 150 200
0.5
0
0.5
d
e
g
Plant state x
4
(t) (solid), reference state x
m4
(t) (dotted) vs. time (sec)
Figure 16: Plant and reference states.
37
9
8
6
7
0 50 100 150 200
10
0
10
Tracking error e
1
(t) vs. time (sec)
f
t
/
s
e
c
0 50 100 150 200
0.2
0
0.2
Tracking error e
2
(t) vs. time (sec)
d
e
g
/
s
e
c
0 50 100 150 200
0.05
0
0.05
d
e
g
/
s
e
c
Tracking error e
3
(t) vs. time (sec)
0 50 100 150 200
0.5
0
0.5
d
e
g
Tracking error e
4
(t) vs. time (sec)
Figure 17: State tracking errors.
38
9
8
6
7
Simulation II: Comparison with a xed inverse
0 50 100 150 200
10
5
0
Tracking error e
1
(t) vs. time (sec)
f
t
/
s
e
c
0 50 100 150 200
0.1
0
0.1
Tracking error e
2
(t) vs. time (sec)
d
e
g
/
s
e
c
0 50 100 150 200
0.1
0
0.1
d
e
g
/
s
e
c
Tracking error e
3
(t) vs. time (sec)
0 50 100 150 200
1
0.5
0
d
e
g
Tracking error e
4
(t) vs. time (sec)
Figure 18: State tracking errors with a xed inverse.
39
9
8
6
7
Simulation III: Effect of saturation
A possible modication for control signal
u
d
(t) = Kx(t) +r(t)
u
d
(t) =

2
if u
d
(t)
2

u
d
(t) otherwise
> 0 is a small constant
Simulation signals
(i) r
1
(t) = 5r(t) (convergent)
(ii) r
2
(t) = 6r(t) (non-covergent)
both leading to saturation of u
d
(t).
40
9
8
6
7
(i) convergent results
0 50 100 150 200
50
0
50
Plant state x
1
(t) (solid), reference state x
m1
(t) (dotted) vs. time (sec)
f
t
/
s
e
c
0 50 100 150 200
0.5
0
0.5
Plant state x
2
(t) (solid), reference state x
m2
(t) (dotted) vs. time (sec)
d
e
g
/
s
e
c
0 50 100 150 200
0.1
0
0.1
d
e
g
/
s
e
c
Plant state x
3
(t) (solid), reference state x
m3
(t) (dotted) vs. time (sec)
0 50 100 150 200
0.5
0
0.5
d
e
g
Plant state x
4
(t) (solid), reference state x
m4
(t) (dotted) vs. time (sec)
Figure 19: Plant and reference states (with saturation).
41
9
8
6
7
0 50 100 150 200
10
0
10
Tracking error e
1
(t) vs. time (sec)
f
t
/
s
e
c
0 50 100 150 200
0.2
0
0.2
Tracking error e
2
(t) vs. time (sec)
d
e
g
/
s
e
c
0 50 100 150 200
0.05
0
0.05
d
e
g
/
s
e
c
Tracking error e
3
(t) vs. time (sec)
0 50 100 150 200
0.5
0
0.5
d
e
g
Tracking error e
4
(t) vs. time (sec)
Figure 20: State tracking errors (convergent).
42
9
8
6
7
(ii) non-convergent results
0 50 100 150 200
50
0
50
Plant state x
1
(t) (solid), reference state x
m1
(t) (dotted) vs. time (sec)
f
t
/
s
e
c
0 50 100 150 200
1
0
1
Plant state x
2
(t) (solid), reference state x
m2
(t) (dotted) vs. time (sec)
d
e
g
/
s
e
c
0 50 100 150 200
0.2
0
0.2
d
e
g
/
s
e
c
Plant state x
3
(t) (solid), reference state x
m3
(t) (dotted) vs. time (sec)
0 50 100 150 200
0.5
0
0.5
d
e
g
Plant state x
4
(t) (solid), reference state x
m4
(t) (dotted) vs. time (sec)
Figure 21: Plant and reference states (with saturation).
43
9
8
6
7
0 50 100 150 200
20
0
20
Tracking error e
1
(t) vs. time (sec)
f
t
/
s
e
c
0 50 100 150 200
0.5
0
0.5
Tracking error e
2
(t) vs. time (sec)
d
e
g
/
s
e
c
0 50 100 150 200
0.1
0
0.1
d
e
g
/
s
e
c
Tracking error e
3
(t) vs. time (sec)
0 50 100 150 200
0.5
0
0.5
d
e
g
Tracking error e
4
(t) vs. time (sec)
Figure 22: State tracking errors (non-convergent).
44
9
8
6
7
Discussion
Synthetic jet actuators are for novel aircraft
Compensation of actuator nonlinearity is crucial
Actuator parameters are highly uncertain
Algorithm-based adaptive inverse is promising
It is applicable to jet arrays and nonlinear dynamics
Actuator saturation is an important issue
Actuator failure is another important issue
adaptive failure compensation
adaptive nonlinearity compensation.
45
9
8
6
7
Adaptive Actuator Failure Compensation
Research motivation
Systems with actuator failures
Research goals and technical issues
Adaptive failure compensation techniques
Study of aircraft ight control applications
46
9
8
6
7
Research Motivations
Actuator failures
common in control systems
uncertain in failure time, pattern, parameters
undesirable for system performance
Adaptive control
deals with system uncertainties
ensures desired asymptotic performance
is promising for actuator failure compensation
has potential for critical applications
47
9
8
6
7
Effective methods for handling system failures
multiple-model, switching and tuning
indirect adaptive control
fault detection and diagnosis
robust or neural control
Direct adaptive failure compensation approach
use of a single controller structure
direct adaptation of controller parameters
no explicit failure (fault) detection
stability and asymptotic tracking
Potential applications include
aircraft ight control
smart structure vibration control
space robot control
48
9
8
6
7
Systems with Actuator Failures
System Models
x = f (x) +
m

j=1
g
j
(x)u
j
, y = h(x)
x = Ax +
m

j=1
b
j
u
j
, y =Cx
state variable vector: x(t) R
n
output: y(t)
input vector: u = [u
1
, . . . , u
m
]
T
R
m
whose components may
fail during system operation
f (x), g
j
(x), h(x), A, b
j
, C with unknown parameters.
49
9
8
6
7
Actuator Failures
Loss of effectiveness
u
j
(t) = k
j
(t)v
j
(t), k
j
(t) (0, 1), t t
j
Lock-in-place
u
j
(t) = u
j
, t t
j
, j {1, 2, . . . , m}
Lost control
u
j
(t) = u
j
+

d
jk

jk
(t) +
j
(t), t t
j
, j {1, . . . , m}
Failure uncertainties
the failure values k
j
, u
j
and

d
jk
, failure time t
j
, pattern j, and
components
j
(t) are all unknown.
How much, how many, which and when the failures happen??
50
9
8
6
7
Examples
aircraft aileron, stabilizer, rudder or elevator failures
their segments stuck in unknown positions
their unknown broken pieces (including wings)
satellite motion control actuator failures
MEM actuator/sensor failures on fairing surface
heating device failures in material growth
generator failures in power systems
transmission line failures in power system
power distribution network failures
cooperating manipulator failures
bioagent distribution system failures
etc.
51
9
8
6
7
System Input (for lost control failures u
j
(t))
System input in the presence of actuator failures is
u(t) = v(t) +( u(t) v(t))
v = [v
1
, v
2
, . . . , v
m
]
T
: a designed control input, and
u(t) = [ u
1
(t), u
2
(t), . . . , u
m
(t)]
T
= diag{
1
,
2
, . . . ,
m
}

j
=

1 if the jth actuator failed, i.e., u

j
(t) = u
j
(t)
0 otherwise
Actuation error u(t) v(t) = ( u(t) v(t)) is uncertain.
52
9
8
6
7
Block Diagram

Controller
System
E
E
1
1
.
.
.
.
.
.
E
c

1
E
E
1
m
E
E
c
E
E
E

m
E
r
u
m
u
1
y
u
1
.
.
.
u
m
v
1
.
.
.
v
m
53
9
8
6
7
Research Goals
Theoretical framework for adaptive control of systems with uncertain
actuator (sensor, or component) failures
Guidelines for designing control systems with guaranteed stability
and tracking performance despite parameter and failure uncertainties
Solutions to key issues in adaptive failure compensation: controller
structures, design conditions, adaptive laws, stability, robustness
New adaptive control techniques for critical systems (e.g., aircraft) to
improve reliability and survivability.
54
9
8
6
7
Technical Challenges
Redundancy
necessary for failure compensation
problematic for control: up to mq failures
Failure uncertainties
parametric, structural, and environmental
Robustness and transient performance
Application issues
system modeling and control implementation
aircraft, robot, smart structure, power system, satellite
55
9
8
6
7
Adaptive Failure Compensation
Control Objective
Stability and asymptotic tracking for up to mq failures.
Basic Assumption
The system is so constructed that for any up to mq (0 < q m) failed
actuators, the alive actuators can still achieve some desired performance.
Key Task
Adaptively adjust the remaining actuators (controls) to achieve desired
performance when system and failure parameters are unknown.
56
9
8
6
7
Design Tools
State feedback for state tracking
u = K
T
x +k
r
r +k
c
, lim
t
(x(t) x
r
(t)) = 0
State feedback for output tracking
u = K
T
x +k
r
r +k
c
, lim
t
(y(t) y
r
(t)) = 0
Output feedback for output tracking
u =
T
1

1
+
T
2

2
+
3
r +k
c
,
1
= F
1
(s)u,
2
= F
2
(s)y
lim
t
(y(t) y
r
(t)) = 0.
57
9
8
6
7
Designs for linear systems
model reference for minimum phase systems
pole placement for nonminimum phase systems
decoupling for MIMO systems
Designs for nonlinear systems
feedback linearizable systems
parametric-strict-feedback systems
output-feedback systems
output feedback for state-dependent systems.
Aircraft ight control applications
lateral: Boeing 737, Boeing 747, DC-8
longitudinal: Boeing 737, Twin Otter, hypersonic.
58
9
8
6
7
Adaptive Control of Systems with Actuator Failures
Gang Tao, Shuhao Chen, Xidong Tang, Suresh M. Joshi
(a Springer monograph, March 2004)
Direct failure compensation
with no explicit fault detection and diagnosis
Adaptive compensation design
for failure time, pattern, parameter uncertainties
Model-based approach
for asymptotic tracking despite uncertain failures
59
9
8
6
7
Example: Boeing 737 Landing
System model
x(t) = Ax(t) +Bu(t), y(t) = , B = [b
1
, b
2
]
T
x = [U
b
,W
b
, Q
b
, ]
T
: forward speed U
b
, vertical speed W
b
, pitch angle
, pitch rate Q
b
; u = [dele
1
, dele
2
]
T
: elevator segment angles
Study of an aircraft with two elevator segments
Output feedback output tracking design
One elevator segment fails during landing at t = 30 sec.
Simulation results
response with no compensation (xed feedback)
response with adaptive compensation.
60
9
8
6
7
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
0
0.02
0.04
0.06
0.08
time (sec)

y
(
t
)
,

y
m
(
t
)

(
r
a
d
)
y(t)
y
m
(t)
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
0
0.005
0.01
0.015
time (sec)

e
(
t
)

(
r
a
d
)
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
4
3
2
1
0
time (sec)

v
(
t
)

(
d
e
g
)
61
9
8
6
7
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
0
0.02
0.04
0.06
0.08
time (sec)

y
(
t
)
,

y
m
(
t
)

(
r
a
d
)
y(t)
y
m
(t)
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
0.01
0
0.01
0.02
time (sec)

e
(
t
)

(
r
a
d
)
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
4
3
2
1
0
time (sec)

v
(
t
)

(
d
e
g
)
62
9
8
6
7
Example: Boeing 737 Lateral Motion
MIMO system model
x = Ax +Bu, y =Cx
x = [v
b
, p
b
, r
b
, , ]
T
: lateral velocity v
b
, roll rate p
b
, yaw rate r
b
, roll
angle , yaw angle
y = [, ]
T
: roll angle , yaw angle
u = [d
r
, d
a
]
T
: rudder position d
r
, aileron position d
a
,
segmented into: d
r1
, d
r2
, d
a1
, d
a2
Actuator failures
d
r2
fails at t = 50, d
a2
fails at t = 100 seconds
Simulation results
63
9
8
6
7
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
Roll angle (t): , reference output
m
(t):
d
e
g
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200
0
2
4
6
8
10
Yaw angle (t): , reference output
m
(t):
d
e
g
64
9
8
6
7
Discussion
Effective failure compensation has major interest
Direct adaptive compensation is aimed at
automatic tuning of controller parameters
handling of large class of failures
guaranteed system tracking performance
A solution framework has been developed for
parametrization of actuator failures
failure compensation conditions
adaptive compensation designs
Desired performance was veried on numerous aircraft models
There is high potential for other applications.
65
9
8
6
7
Conclusions
Adaptive control is a mature control methodology
Adaptive controllers adjust themselves to system uncertainties
Effective uncertainty compensation is a key for aerospace systems
Adaptive control technologies have high potential.

Adaptive compensation techniques are developed for
practical actuator and sensor nonlinearities
actuator failures (and sensor failures, in progress)
Applications to aerospace systems have been formulated
Various designs were veried on aircraft system models
Further research and more advances are critical.
66
9
8
6
7
Our Research Interests
Adaptive control theory
actuator/sensor/component failure compensation
multivariable and nonlinear systems
actuator and sensor nonlinearity compensation
Adaptive control applications
aircraft ight control
fairing structure vibration reduction
space robot cooperative and compensation control
synthetic jet actuator compensation control
satellite motion control
high precision pointing systems
dynamic sensor/actuator networks
67
9
8
6
7
Some On-Going Research
Rudder failure compensation by engine differentials
aircraft model with engine differentials
adaptive failure compensation control
Adaptive compensation control for aircraft damages
dynamic modeling of aircraft damages
direct adaptive damage compensation control
Applications to aircraft and UAVs
Adaptive compensation control for synthetic jet actuators
Adaptive failure compensation for space robots
Adaptive compensation of sensor failures
Adaptive control of power systems with failures
68
9
8
6
7
Questions?
Gang Tao
University of Virginia
Tel: (434) 924-4586
Email: gt9s@virginia.edu
(http://www.people.virginia.edu/gt9s)
69