RECONFIGURATION OF THE AIRCRAFT INTEGRATED CONTROL SYSTEM REGARDING CONTROL CONSTRAINTS UNDER ACTUATOR FAILURES

The aircraft integrated control system reconfiguration laws under failures of actuators, calculated disregarding physical constraints on control surfaces saturation, can lead to a complete loss of aircraft controllability and stability. Despite the large number of scientific publications in this field, practical systematic results have been obtained only for SISO (single input – single output) systems. Problems of the convergence of iterative algorithms restricting the set of admissible solutions and the conservatism of the reconfiguration laws designed using weight matrices do not allow solving this problem in general. For complex MIMO (multi input – multi output) systems there is still no widely accepted universal approach. In this work, control surfaces constraints are regarded in terms of the power of reconfiguration control. It is shown that by slight modification of pseudoinverse (optimal) solution it is possible to obtain approximate pseudoinverse (suboptimal) solutions with priory known minimum power (compensation matrix norm) and error (residual matrix norm) of the reconfiguration for a given degree of approximation. This allows for a multistep consistent reduction in power and increasing in error of reconfiguration, until an acceptable solution is obtained. By providing the greater reconfiguration error at each step we have additional freedom in reducing the reconfiguration power. This leads to a decrease in the amplitude of the deviations of the control surfaces, to which the signals from the failed control channels are redistributed. The simulation example of the aircraft integrated control system reconfiguration under the stabilizer’s actuator failure is presented. It is shown that the pseudoinverse reconfiguration problem solution leads to the significant ailerons’ constraints violation and the loss of aircraft controllability. Regarding control constraints solution reduces several times the deviation of the control surfaces and provides an effective problem solution in the permissible power and error reconfiguration range.

1. Zolghadri, A. (2018). The challenge of advanced model-based FDIR for real-world flightcritical applications. Engineering Applications of Artificial Intelligence, vol. 68, pp. 249–259.

2. Fekih, A. (2014). Fault diagnosis and fault tolerant control design for aerospace systems: a bibliographical review. IEEE American Control Conference (ACC), pp. 1286–1291.

3. Zhang, Y. and Jiang, J. (2008). Bibliographical review on reconfigurable fault-tolerant control systems. Annual Reviews in Control, vol. 32, no. 2, pp. 229–252.

4. Fekih, A. (2014). Fault-tolerant flight control design for effective and reliable aircraft systems. Journal of Control and Decision, vol. 1, no. 4, pp. 299–316.

5. Zybin, E.Yu., Kosyanchuk, V.V. and Kulchak, A.M. (2014). Analiticheskoe reshenie zadachi optimalnoy rekonfiguratsii sistemy upravleniya letatelnogo apparata pri otkaze neskolkikh organov upravleniya [An analytical solution of optimal aircraft control system reconfiguration problem with the failure of several controls]. Mekhatronika, avtomatizatsiya, upravlenie [Mechatronics, Automation, Control], no. 7, pp. 59–66. (in Russian)

6. Akimov, A.N., Vorobyev, V.V., Konoplev, Yu.K. and Shabalin, V.A. (2005). Otkazoustoychivost sistem upravleniya letatelnykh apparatov [Fault tolerance of aircraft control systems]. Moscow: VVIA im. N.E. Zhukovskogo. (in Russian)

7. Zemlyakov, S.D., Rutkovskiy, V.Yu. and Silaev, A.V. (1996). Reconfiguring aircraft control systems in case of failures. Automation and Remote Control, vol. 57, no. 1, part 1, pp. 1–13.

8. Kosyanchuk, V.V. (2004). Checking and diagnostics of subsystems in a closed control loop. Journal of Computer and Systems Sciences International, vol. 43, no. 1, pp. 62–71.

9. Bukov, V.N. and Kosyanchuk, V.V. (2001). System embedding. Linear observation. Automation and Remote Control, vol. 62, no. 2, pp. 169–180.

10. Gao, Z. and Antsaklis, P.J. (1991). Stability of the pseudo-inverse method for reconfigurable control systems. International Journal of Control, vol. 53, no. 3, pp. 717–729.

11. Rotondo, D. (2017). Advances in gain-scheduling and fault tolerant control techniques. Springer.

12. Shen, Q., Wang, D., Zhu, S. and Poh, K. (2015). Finite-time fault-tolerant attitude stabilization for spacecraft with actuator saturation. IEEE Transactions on Aerospace and Electronic Systems, vol. 51, no. 3, pp. 2390–2405.

13. Zuo, Z., Ho, D. and Wang, Y. (2010). Fault tolerant control for singular systems with actuator saturation and nonlinear perturbation. Automatica, vol. 46, pp. 569–576.

14. Rotondo, D., Ponsart, J.-C., Theilliol, D., Nejjari, F. and Puig, V. (2015). A virtual actuator approach for the fault tolerant control of unstable linear systems subject to actuator saturation and fault isolation delay. Annual Reviews in Control, vol. 39, pp. 68–80.

15. Jiang, J. and Zhang, Y.M. (2006). Accepting performance degradation in fault tolerant control system design. IEEE Transactions on Control Systems Technology, vol. 14, no. 2, pp. 284–292.

16. Mhaskar, P., Gani, A. and Christofides, P.D. (2006). Fault-tolerant control of nonlinear processes: Performance-based reconfiguration and robustness. International Journal of Robust and Nonlinear Control, vol. 16, no. 3, pp. 91–111.

17. Kapila, V. and Grigoriadis, K. (2002). Actuator saturation control. CRC Press.