Integrated Reconfigurable Controller

for Vehicle Resilience

RonaldChoe,EnricXargay,andNairaHovakimyan
ld Ch
i X
d i H ki
CoordinatedScienceLaboratory,UniversityofIllinoisatUrbanaChampaign
email:{choe19,xargay,nhovakim}@illinois.edu
http://naira.mechse.illinois.edu/

AerospaceDecisionandControlWorkshop::GeorgiaTech::11June2012

Outline
Aircraft LossofControl
9 Characterization
9 Prevention
Previous Research: AirSTAR Project
j & L1 Adaptive
p
Control
9 Main challenges
9 Flight test results
iReCoVeR: LOC Prevention through Adaptive Reconfiguration
9 Limitations of the current technology
9 iReCoVeR architecture
9 Fullscale aircraft validation: U of Is Beckman Institute
Concluding Remarks

AircraftLossofControl
AmericanAirlines587
BelleHarbor,NY

Wakevortices&piloterror
p

AmericanEagle4148
Roselawn IN
Roselawn,IN

Asymmetriciceaccretion

Air France 447

AirFrance447
AtlanticOcean

Inconsistentairspeedreadings
&spatialdisorientation

LOCeventscanresultfromawiderangeofcausalandcontributingfactors
g
g
thatoccurindividually orincombinationsequentiallyintime

LossofControlCharacterization
Quantitative LossofControl Criteria:
Airplane flight dynamics, aerodynamics, structural integrity, and flight
control use.

LOC=Excursion
outside 3 envelopes
outside3envelopes
Wilborn&Foster2004

LossofControlPrevention
Integrated architecture for LOC prevention:

*AIRSAFEconcept

AirSTAR &L1AdaptiveControl:
FlightTestEvaluations
Flight
Test Evaluations
andResearchModelingTasks

NASAAirSTAR &GTM
Predictable::Repeatable::Testable::Safe
Controllawobjectives:
ll
b
Provide predictable aircraft response to help
the pilot avoid excursions outside the wind
tunnel data envelope in the presence of
aircraft impairment.

IsA/Ccontrollable
here?

Safe
envelope

Source: NASA

Highriskflightconditions,someunabletobe
testedintargetapplicationenvironment.
5
5.5%geometricallyanddynamicallyscaledmodel
5 % geometrically and dynamically scaled model
82inwingspan,96inlength,49.6lbs(54lbsfull),53mphstallspeed
Modelangularresponseis4.26faster thanfullscale
Modelvelocityis4.26timesslower thanregularscale

NASAAirSTAR ::Challenges
Innerloopstatefeedbackcontrollerfortrackingangleofattack,rollrate,and
sideslipanglecommands

Challenges:
SingleCASdesignfortheentireflightenvelope(includingstallandpoststallhigh conditions)
Compensationforstructuraldamage/actuatorfailureswithoutFDImethods
Compensationforunmatcheduncertainties variationsin,,V dynamicswithflightcondition
Strictperformancerequirements:
S i
f
i
Highprecisiontracking
Reducedworkload
Predictableresponse!!!
P di t bl
!!!
Hardwarerequirements:
Eulerintegrationat600Hz

L1
AFCS

FlightControlLawEvaluationMatrix
EvaluationTask

1st straightleg

2nd straightleg

Turns

Scope

Latencyinjection
(5msec/5sec)

FaultEngaged
RollDoublet

FaultEngaged
PitchDoublet

FaultEngaged

NominalStability

(Cm&Clp )0%

FaultEngaged
RollDoublet

FaultEngaged
PitchDoublet

N/A

NominalStability

(Cm&Clp )50%

FaultEngaged
RollDoublet

FaultEngaged
PitchDoublet

DisengageFault

RobustStability

(Cm&Clp )75%

FaultEngaged
RollDoublet

FaultEngaged
PitchDoublet

DisengageFault

RobustStability

(Cm&Clp )100%
(neutrallystable)

FaultEngaged
RollDoublet

FaultEngaged
PitchDoublet

Disengage Fault
DisengageFault

Robust Stability
RobustStability

(Cm&Clp )125%
(unstable)

FaultEngaged
RollDoublet

FaultEngaged
PitchDoublet

DisengageFault

RobustStability

Poststall tracking

NoFault
NoDoublet

NoFault
NoDoublet

N/A

RobustPerformance

EvaluationTask

Downwind/straightleg

Upwind/straightleg

Turns

Scope

Offsettolanding
(nominal)

Achieve
goodtrim

Nofault
1st:Practicelanding
2nd:Evaluationlanding
: Evaluation landing

N/A

NominalPerformance

Offsettolanding
(Cm&Clp )100%
(neutrally stable)

Achieve
goodtrim

FaultEngaged
Evaluationlanding

DisengageFault

RobustPerformance

Offsettolanding
(C
(Cm&Clp
& Cl )125%
) 125%
(unstable)

Achieve
goodtrim

FaultEngaged
g g
Evaluationlanding

Di
DisengageFault
F lt

R b tP f
RobustPerformance

Cm degradedby2inboardelevatorsegments 50% reductioninpitchcontroleffectiveness

Clp degradedbyspoilers

L1SupportTasksonModeling

ResearchTask

Airdatavane
calibration

Subtask
vanecalibration
vanecalibration

1st straightleg
Variable
Variable
Constant
Flatturn

2nd straightleg

Deployment

Flights

Repeat

SSep2010
20 0
May 2011

28,56

Repeat

Sep2010
May2011

29,31,56

Regainaltitude

Sep2010

31,35,52

Multistep
Unsteady
aerodynamic
modeling work
modelingwork

Explorationof
departureprone
edges

Poststall tracking

Schroedersweep
Multisine

Rollforcedoscillations

Rollwavetrain

Regainaltitude

May2011

49,50,53,
56,57

sweepfromlow
angles,throughstall,to
departure

Controlsurface
wavetrains

Regainaltitude

May2011

54,55,58

Xargay, Hovakimyan,
Xargay
Hovakimyan Dobrokhodov,
Dobrokhodov Kaminer,
Kaminer Cao & Gregory,
Gregory L1
L1 adaptive control in flight,
flight in
Intelligent and Autonomous Aerospace Systems, ser. Progress in Aeronautics and Astronautics Series,
J. Valasek, Ed. American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics, 2012, to appear.

UnsteadyAero::HighAOATracking(September2010)
Modeling unsteady aerodynamics by emulating the dynamic motion in the
wind tunnel determining efficacy of GTM to be a flying wind tunnel
Target
a get AOA
O = 18
8 deg post
poststall
sta
Injected inputs for L1 FCL to track Step, Schroeder, Sinusoids
Step Input
StepInput

Schroeder Input
SchroederInput
22
cmd

18

Angle of attack, deg

g

Angle of attack, deg

g

20

16
14
12
10

22

20

cmd

20

cmd

18

18

Angle of attack, deg

g

22

Sinusoids Input
SinusoidsInput

16
14
12
10

16
14
12
10

4
650

655

660

665
670
Time, sec

675

4
680 740

750

760
Time, sec

770

4
780 800

810

820
Time, sec

Awellcontrollableaircraftduringstallandpoststallflight
DanMurri
AirSTAR GTMT2researchpilot

830

840

FlightTestEvaluation&ModelingSupportSummary

Adaptive FCS that provides nominal aircraft performance and takes care of large
changes in aircraft dynamics;

Predictable response to the pilot under stability degradation and graceful

performance degradation once nominal response was unachievable;

Departure resistant in poststall flight: L1 provides a controllable aircraft to the

pilot and facilitates safe return to normal flight;

Protected against input control saturation (persistent control surface saturation

occurred during high AOA flight and vane calibration);

Enabled
bl d operation near stallll and
d departure
d
f longer
for
l
periods
i d off time,
i
allowing
ll
f
for
data collection for a wide range of flight conditions.
L1adaptivecontrollawprovides:
L1
adaptive control law provides:
tighteracquisitionoftargetflightconditions
precisiontrackingcapabilityacrosstheflightenvelope
gracefulperformancedegradation
graceful performance degradation
targetflightconditionsarebeyondachievablevalues
controlsurfacesarepersistentlysaturated

+15flights
15 fli h

Source:
NASA LaRC (internal review)

OngoingCollaborationsinEurope

CessnaCitationII
Businessjetaircraft
Business
jet aircraft
TUD,TheNetherlands

DA 42
DA42
Twinseat,propellerdrivenaircraft
TUM,Germany

iReCoVeR:
Loss of ControlPrevention
LossofControl
Prevention
throughAdaptiveReconfiguration

LimitationsoftheCurrentL1Technology
Stability might be compromised in the case of extremely severe failures:
For example, roll instability for 125% Cm/Clp degradation
Rollaxis p_cmd doublet

Pitchaxis _cmd doublet

20

100

125%

Roll axxis, deg, deg/sec

Pitch axxis, deg, deg/secc

15
10
5
0
-5
-10
-15

cmd

80

p
pcmd

60

40
20
0
-20
20
-40

-60

-80
740

750
Time, sec

760

770

125%

740

750
Time, sec

760

770

Controllawreconfigurationisneededforpredictableaircraftbehavior
Control
law reconfiguration is needed for predictable aircraft behavior
withoutadversepilotaircraftcoupling

IntegratedSystemsforLOCPrevention
Control reconfiguration (active L1 controller):
Online readjustment of controller gains;
Use of unconventional control configurations;
g
;

iReCoVeR

Flight envelope protection:

Online flight envelope determination;
LOC prediction;

Pilot error:
Development of quantitative and computational metrics
and models;
Environmental and task conditions leading to error;

Situation awareness:

AlexKirlik
UIUC

Monitoring of both aircraft and automation;

Safe and effective humanautomation interaction;

Control software/hardware fault tolerance:

Extended Simplex architecture (software faults);
Implementation of PALS middleware (hardware faults).

Lui Sha
UIUC

iReCoVeR

Resilient Flight Controller

Flight Envelope Protection and LOC Prediction
Fa lt Detection and Isolation
Fault
Flight Envelope Determination

Control
Reconfiguration

ResilientFlightController
Highperformance flight control law:
Shortterm aircraft stabilization;
Improved
p
maneuverabilityy margins
g at challenging
g g flight
g conditions or in the
event of moderate faults and failures;

Consists of:
Baseline controller: designed for a nominal aircraft model with the purpose
of optimizing system performance;
L1 adaptive augmentation: provides improved resilience by compensating
for the undesirable effects of system uncertainty;

Reconfigured based on the information provided by the FDI module:

Reconfiguration
f
l
logic:
safe
f transition with
h prompt recovery;
Use of unconventional control configurations;
Adaptive control allocation schemes.

FlightEnvelopeProtection
Ensures that the aircraft stays within its safe operational envelope by
overriding, limiting , or shaping commands generated by the pilot;
Minimi
Minimizes
es adverse
ad erse pilotaircraft
pilot aircraft coupling
co pling and
d stops
t
th pilot
the
il t from
f
making control inputs that would put the aircraft in a hazardous state;
Approaches:
L1MPC;
L1 adaptive control with input and/or output constraints;

Command governor control (Casavola et al.).

LOC=Excursion
outside3envelopes

Wilborn&Foster2004

FaultDetectionandIsolation
Responsible for detecting and isolating adverse conditions:

Sensor failures;
Structural damage;
g ;
Ice accretion (symmetric and asymmetric);

Approach:

MichaelBragg
Michael
Bragg
UIUC

Analytical redundancy based on multiplemodel FDI methods;

Online aerodynamic parameter estimation (convergence?);
Health management systems;

Challenges:
Choice
h
off the
h number
b and nature off offnominal
ff
l models;
l
Quantification of the runtime required for the FDI module to converge;
Selection of triggering signals for the FDI module.

FlightEnvelopeDetermination
Responsible for determining an estimate of the operational envelope of
the possibly impaired aircraft:
Relies on a library of pre
precomputed
computed safe flight envelopes;
Estimate is obtained by simple interpolation;
Requires FDI to reliably isolate the adverse condition.

Computationally
Computationally
efficient

Vehicle
impairment
Safeenvelope

Updated
safeenvelope

FlightEnvelopeProtectionandLOCPredictionneedtobeupdated!
Pilotneedstobeinformed!(Situationawareness)

VerificationandValidation
University of Illinois Beckman Institute:
Fullscale aircraft humanintheloop experiments;
Large
g outthewindow display
p y screens;;
XPlane 9.40:
9
9
9
9
9
9
9

Modify dynamics of pilot control inputs;

Change aircraft control surface behavior;
Modify center of gravity;
Simulate loss of a control surface;
Introduce cockpit instrumentation failure;
Introduce engine failures;
Control weather conditions;

Stateoftheart
S
f h
eyetracking
ki technology;
h l
Information displays reconfigured via software.

FlightSimulator
BeckmanInstitute

Eyetrackingtechnology
Beckman Institute
BeckmanInstitute

ConcludingRemarks
Integrated system for LOC prevention:
Resilient controller, FDI module, flight envelope determination and
protection systems;
p
y
;
Reconfigurable control for improved stability and maneuverability margins;
The system constantly predicts the current flight envelope and imminent
LOC developments, and prevents and recovers from upset conditions.

L1 Adaptive Control:
Predictable aircraft behavior under significant system uncertainty as well
as limited control authority;
Graceful performance degradation under increasingly severe adversity.
adversity

Crew input errors:

Design scenarios that reliably lead to pilotinduced LOC events;
Develop a set of metrics to characterize pilotinduced LOC events.

Situation awareness:
Avoid adverse pilot
pilotaircraft
aircraft coupling by providing precise and timely
situation awareness to pilots during automated compensation of faults;
Should not lead to an increase in pilots workload.

Thankyou!
{choe19,xargay,hovakim}@illinois.edu
{choe19
xargay hovakim}@illinois edu
http://naira.mechse.illinois.edu/

Past research was supported by NASA.