' $

Adaptive Control
Basics and Research
Gang Tao

& %
 1
' $

Feedback Control System

r(t)  e(t) u(t) y(t)

- - Controller - Plant -

−
6

w(t)
Feedback 

& %
 2
' $

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 φ = roll angle
u, v, w = velocity coordinates θ = pitch angle
p = roll rate ψ = yaw angle
q = pitch rate β = side-slip angle
r = yaw rate α = angle of attack

& %
 5
' $

• Nonlinear equations of motion (in body axis)

– Force equations:

m(u̇ + qw − rv) = X − mg sin θ + T cos ε

m(v̇ + ru − pw) = Y + mg cos θ sin φ
m(ẇ + pv − qu) = Z + mg cos θ cos φ − T sin ε

T : engine thrust; κ: thrust angle; X,Y, Z: aerodynamic forces

– Moment equations:

Ix ṗ + Ixz ṙ + (Iz − Iy )qr + Ixz qp = L

Iy q̇ + (Ix − Iz )pr + Ixz (r2 − p2 ) = M
Iz ṙ + Ixz ṗ + (Iy − Ix )qp − Ixz qr = N

L, M, N: aerodynamic torques

& %
 6
' $

• Linearized longitudinal equations

 u̇   X Xw −W0 −g0 cos θ0  u   Xδe 

u
 ẇ   Zu Zw U0 −g0 sin θ0    
 =  w + Zδe δe
 q̇   Mu Mw Mq 0  q   M 
δe
θ̇ 0 0 1 0 θ 0
output = θ: pitch angle perturbation

• Linearized lateral equations

 β̇   Y −U0 V0 g0 cos θ0  β   Yδr Yδa 

v
 
 ṙ   Nv Nr Np 0  r   Nδr 
Nδa  δr
 =  +
 ṗ   Lv Lr Lp 0  p   L Lδa  δa
δr
φ̇ 0 tan θ0 1 0 φ 0 0
output = r: yaw rate perturbation

& %
 7
' $

Direct Adaptive Control System

ym (t)
- Reference model

θ(t) ?−

Adaptive law 
θ̇(t) 
6
6 6
?
r(t) u(t) y(t)
- Controller - -
Plant
C(s; θ(t))
6

& %
 8
' $

Indirect Adaptive Control System

θ p (t)
Design  Parameter estimator
equation θ̇ p (t)
θc (t) 6 6
?
ym (t) u(t) y(t)
- Controller - Plant -
C(s; θc (t)) G(s; θ∗p )
6

& %
 9
' $

Our Recent Work

• G. Tao and P. V. Kokotović, 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
' $

& %
' $

Adaptive Control Technologies for

Aerospace Systems
Gang Tao
University of Virginia

& %
' $

& %
1
' $

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
' $

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
' $

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
' $

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
' $

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
' $

Spool position v(t)

Return
Piston
Pressure
source

Return

M, f y(t)
Load
Figure 1: Dead-zone in a servo-valve.
& %
7
' $

6
v u y
- - - K -
 s(Ms+B)



Figure 2: Block diagram of the servo-valve.

& %
8
' $

v(t)

u(t)

-cl cr

Figure 3: Backlash in mechanical links.

& %
9
' $

m
cl
0 cr v

Figure 4: Backlash characteristic.

& %
10
' $

v control
gear-train
backlash
u
h(s) = G(s)(u(s) - d(s))
u = B(v) G(s) = k/s

Figure 5: Backlash in the valve control mechanism of a liquid tank.

& %
11
' $

ym Amplifier y
Controller Gear
and train
- motor
Mirror

Figure 6: Output backlash in a positioning system.

& %
12
' $

ωl ωm
bl bm
J Jm u
l
θl θm

backlash and flexibility

(a)

-b b -b b

(b) (c)
Figure 7: (a) Gear-train with backlash and flexibility; (b) Backlash for rigid gears:
θl = B(θm ); (c) Dead-zone: δ = D(θm − θl ).
& %
13
' $

f- f- 1 ω- θ- δ ω-l θl
−
u ? v - f-
- m 1 m f-
D(·) - k
1 1 -
− 6 Jm s s −6 −6 Jl s s

bm  bl 

Figure 8: Sandwich nonlinear system with feedback blocks.

& %
14
' $

&Figure 9: Hysteresis characteristic in precision control actuators. %

15
' $

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
' $

Adaptive Inverse Compensation

r ud v u y
- i - C1 (D) - NI

a (·) - Na (·) - G(D) -
−
6

C2 (D) 

Figure 10: Adaptive inverse control for actuator nonlinearity.

& %
17
' $

Adaptive Inverse Control Designs

• Parametrization of nonlinearity u(t) = N(v(t))

u(t) = N(v(t)) = N(θ∗ ; v(t)) = −θ∗T ω∗ (t) + a∗s (t)

d (t))
• Parametrization of nonlinearity inverse v(t) = NI(u

ud (t) = −θT (t)ω(t) + as (t)

• Feedback control law for ud (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 θ(t)
Γε(t)ζ(t)
θ̇(t) = − + f (t)
m (t)
2
& %
18
' $

An Illustrative Example

r v u y
- k - α + βs - B(·) - 1
s
-
−6

PI controller Plant

Figure 11: One-integrator plant with input backlash and PI controller.

& %
19
' $

4 6

2
4
0
2
-2
0
-4

-6 -2
-2 0 2 4 -2 0 2 4
(a) e(t) vs. v(t). (b) u(t) vs. v(t).

-2

-4

-6
0 10 20 30 40 50
(c) Tracking error e(t).

& System response without backlash inverse.

%
20
' $
2 5

4
0
3

−2 2

1
−4
0

−6 −1
−2 0 2 4 −2 0 2 4
(a) e(t) vs. v(t). (b) u(t) vs. v(t).

2 1

0.5
−2

−4
0

−6
0 10 20 30 40 0 10 20 30 40
(c) Tracking error e(t). ^
(d) Parameter error c(t) − c.

Figure 12: Adaptive backlash inverse control response.

& %
21
' $

Adaptive Inverse Control of Sandwich Systems

y- zr u- v u z y
r
NIo (·) - g d
NIi (·) - Ni (·) - -
G(s) No (·) -
CO
6
C
C θ∗T a (s) 
1 λ

z̄
θ∗T
2 bλ (s)
 NIo (·) 

Figure 13: Adaptive compensation of actuator/sensor nonlinearities.

& %
22
 ' $

r ud w v u z y
- θ23 - g - NI(·) - - θ13 - g - Gi (s) - N(·) - Go (s) -
66
CO 6
CO
C C
C θT ω21  C θT ω11 
21 11

f (·)  θT12 ω12  

θT22 ω22 

Figure 14: Inverse control scheme I for sandwich nonlinear systems.

& %
23
 ' $

r ud w v u z y
- θ23 - g - - NI(·) - θ13 - g - Gi (s) - N(·) - Go (s) -
66
CO 6
CO
C C
C θT ω21  C θT ω11 
21 11

f (·)  θT12 ω12  NI(·)  

θT22 ω22 

Figure 15: Inverse control scheme II for sandwich nonlinear systems.

& %
24
' $

Adaptive Inverse Control for Synthetic Jet Actuators

• Research motivation

• Synthetic jets for aircraft control

• Adaptive inverse approach

• Adaptive inverse control design and evaluation

& %
25
' $

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
' $

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 airfoil—virtual shaping.
& %
27
' $

• Tailless aircraft with jets (top view)

& %
28
' $

• Mathematical model of synthetic jet actuators

θ∗
u(t) = θ∗2 − 1 = N(v(t); θ∗ )
v(t)
u(t): equivalent virtual airfoil deflection (lift force)
v = A2pp : peak-to-peak voltage amplitude
θ∗ = [θ∗1 , θ∗2 ]T : unknown parameters dependent on many factors

• Control objective
adaptive compensation of N(·; θ∗ )
tracking control for aircraft flight trajectory

• Design strategy
adaptive inversion of N(·; θ∗ )
feedback control for aircraft dynamics

& %
29
' $
Variation of deflection with actuation voltage (θ∗2 = 15)

15
*
θ1 = 20
10 *
θ = 30
1
u(t), the virtual deflection on the airfoil

*
θ = 40
5 1

−5

−10

−15

−20

−25
0 2 4 6 8 10 12
v(t), the input voltage in volts
& %
30
' $

Adaptive Inverse Approach

& %
31
' $

• Nonlinearity parametrization

∗ ∗T 1
u(t) = N(θ ; v(t)) = −θ ω(t), ω(t) = [ , −1]T
v(t)

• Nonlinearity inverse

d (t)) = θ1 (t)
v(t) = NI(u
θ2 (t) − ud (t)

ud (t) = −θT (t)ω(t), θ = [θ1 , θ2 ]T

ud (t): a desired feedback control signal

• Control error
 
θ2 (t) − ud (t)
u(t) − ud (t) = (θ1 (t) − θ∗1 ) − (θ2 (t) − θ∗2 )
θ1 (t)
= (θ(t) − θ∗ )T ω(t)

& %
32
' $

Design Example: Linear Dynamics

• System model
ẋ(t) = Ax(t) + Bu(t)

• Feedback control signal

ud (t) = −Kx(t) + r(t)

• Control error
u(t) − ud (t) = (θ(t) − θ∗ )T ω(t)

• Reference model
ẋr (t) = (A − BK)xr (t) + Br(t)
• Error system

ė(t) = (A − BK)e(t) + B(θ(t) − θ∗ )T ω(t), e(t) = x(t) − xr (t)

& %
33
' $
• Adaptive laws

θ̇i (t) = gi (t) + f i (t)

 
θ2 (t) − ud (t)
g1 (t) = −γ1 eT (t)PB , γ1 > 0
θ1 (t)
g2 (t) = γ2 eT (t)PB, γ2 > 0


 0 if θ (t) > θa , or
 i i
f i (t) = if θi (t) = θai and gi (t) ≥ 0



−gi (t) otherwise

initial estimates θi (0) of θ∗i : θi (0) ≥ θai > 0

• Assumption (no saturation): ud (t) < θ2 (t)
• Closed-loop system properties
– boundedness of x(t) and θ(t), and θi (t) > θai
– asymptotic tracking: limt→∞ (x(t) − xr (t)) = 0.
& %
34
' $

Simulation Results

• System state variables

lateral velocity: x1 (t) roll rate: x2 (t)
yaw rate: x3 (t) roll angle: x4 (t)
• System model
   
−0.0134 48.5474 −632.3724 32.0756 0
   
 −0.0199 −0.1209   −0.0431 
 0.1628 0   
A= , B =  
 −0.0024 −0.0526 −0.0252 0   −0.0076 
   
0 1 0.0768 0 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
' $

• Control gain K
– LQRdesign with Q = I4 , R = 10 
–K= 1.0113 −77.1793 115.8959 −9.1691
 
0.751 14.980 −159.812 8.2617
 
 14.980 −138979.668 
 27181.878 7843.345 
P= 
 −159.813 −138979.668 723352.800 −40670.052 
 
8.262 7843.345 −40670.052 2301.187

• Reference signal:

 1.5 sin(t) 0 ≤ t ≤ 60
r(t) =
 1.5 sin(t) + 3 sin(2t) t ≥ 60

• Adaptation gains: γ1 = 1, γ2 = 2

& %
36
' $
Simulation I: Adaptive inverse performance

10

ft/sec
0
−10
0 50 100 150 200
Plant state x (t) (solid), reference state x (t) (dotted) vs. time (sec)
1 m1
0.1
deg/sec

0
−0.1
0 50 100 150 200
Plant state x2(t) (solid), reference state xm2(t) (dotted) vs. time (sec)
0.05
deg/sec

0
−0.05
0 50 100 150 200
Plant state x3(t) (solid), reference state xm3(t) (dotted) vs. time (sec)
0.5
deg

−0.5
0 50 100 150 200
Plant state x4(t) (solid), reference state xm4(t) (dotted) vs. time (sec)

Figure 16: Plant and reference states.

& %
37
' $

10

ft/sec
0
−10
0 50 100 150 200
Tracking error e1(t) vs. time (sec)
0.2
deg/sec

0
−0.2
0 50 100 150 200
Tracking error e2(t) vs. time (sec)
0.05
deg/sec

0
−0.05
0 50 100 150 200
Tracking error e3(t) vs. time (sec)
0.5
deg

−0.5
0 50 100 150 200
Tracking error e4(t) vs. time (sec)

Figure 17: State tracking errors.

& %
38
' $
Simulation II: Comparison with a fixed inverse

ft/sec
−5
−10
0 50 100 150 200
Tracking error e (t) vs. time (sec)
1
0.1
deg/sec

0
−0.1
0 50 100 150 200
Tracking error e2(t) vs. time (sec)
0.1
deg/sec

0
−0.1
0 50 100 150 200
Tracking error e3(t) vs. time (sec)
0
deg

−0.5

−1
0 50 100 150 200
Tracking error e4(t) vs. time (sec)

Figure 18: State tracking errors with a fixed inverse.

& %
39
' $

Simulation III: Effect of saturation

• A possible modification for control signal

ūd (t) = −Kx(t) + r(t)


 θ −δ if ūd (t) ≥ θ2 − δ
2
ud (t) =
 ūd (t) otherwise
δ > 0 is a small constant

• Simulation signals
(i) r1 (t) = 5r(t) (convergent)
(ii) r2 (t) = 6r(t) (non-covergent)
both leading to saturation of ud (t).

& %
40
' $
(i) convergent results

50

ft/sec
0
−50
0 50 100 150 200
Plant state x (t) (solid), reference state x (t) (dotted) vs. time (sec)
1 m1
0.5
deg/sec

0
−0.5
0 50 100 150 200
Plant state x2(t) (solid), reference state xm2(t) (dotted) vs. time (sec)
0.1
deg/sec

0
−0.1
0 50 100 150 200
Plant state x3(t) (solid), reference state xm3(t) (dotted) vs. time (sec)
0.5
deg

−0.5
0 50 100 150 200
Plant state x4(t) (solid), reference state xm4(t) (dotted) vs. time (sec)

Figure 19: Plant and reference states (with saturation).

& %
41
' $

10

ft/sec
0
−10
0 50 100 150 200
Tracking error e1(t) vs. time (sec)
0.2
deg/sec

0
−0.2
0 50 100 150 200
Tracking error e2(t) vs. time (sec)
0.05
deg/sec

0
−0.05
0 50 100 150 200
Tracking error e (t) vs. time (sec)
3
0.5
deg

−0.5
0 50 100 150 200
Tracking error e4(t) vs. time (sec)

Figure 20: State tracking errors (convergent).

& %
42
' $
(ii) non-convergent results

50

ft/sec
0
−50
0 50 100 150 200
Plant state x (t) (solid), reference state x (t) (dotted) vs. time (sec)
1 m1
1
deg/sec

0
−1
0 50 100 150 200
Plant state x2(t) (solid), reference state xm2(t) (dotted) vs. time (sec)
0.2
deg/sec

0
−0.2
0 50 100 150 200
Plant state x3(t) (solid), reference state xm3(t) (dotted) vs. time (sec)
0.5
deg

−0.5
0 50 100 150 200
Plant state x4(t) (solid), reference state xm4(t) (dotted) vs. time (sec)

Figure 21: Plant and reference states (with saturation).

& %
43
' $

20

ft/sec
0
−20
0 50 100 150 200
Tracking error e1(t) vs. time (sec)
0.5
deg/sec

0
−0.5
0 50 100 150 200
Tracking error e2(t) vs. time (sec)
0.1
deg/sec

0
−0.1
0 50 100 150 200
Tracking error e (t) vs. time (sec)
3
0.5
deg

−0.5
0 50 100 150 200
Tracking error e4(t) vs. time (sec)

Figure 22: State tracking errors (non-convergent).

& %
44
' $

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
' $

Adaptive Actuator Failure Compensation

• Research motivation

• Systems with actuator failures

• Research goals and technical issues

• Adaptive failure compensation techniques

• Study of aircraft flight control applications

& %
46
' $

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
' $
• 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 flight control
– smart structure vibration control
– space robot control
& %
48
' $

Systems with Actuator Failures

System Models
m
ẋ = f (x) + ∑ g j (x)u j , y = h(x)
j=1

m
ẋ = Ax + ∑ b j u j , y = Cx
j=1

– state variable vector: x(t) ∈ Rn

– output: y(t)
– input vector: u = [u1 , . . . , um ]T ∈ Rm whose components may
fail during system operation
– f (x), g j (x), h(x), A, b j , C with unknown parameters.

& %
49
' $
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) = ū j , t ≥ t j , j ∈ {1, 2, . . . , m}

• Lost control

u j (t) = ū j + ∑ d¯jk ω jk (t) + δ j (t),t ≥ t j , j ∈ {1, . . . , m}

k

• Failure uncertainties
the failure values k j , ū j and d¯jk , failure time t j , pattern j, and
components δ j (t) are all unknown.
How much, how many, which and when the failures happen??
& %
50
' $

• 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
' $

System Input (for “lost control” failures ū j (t))

System input in the presence of actuator failures is

u(t) = v(t) + σ(ū(t) − v(t))

v = [v1 , v2 , . . . , vm ]T : a designed control input, and

ū(t) = [ū1 (t), ū2 (t), . . . , ūm (t)]T

σ = diag{σ1 , σ2 , . . . , σm }

 1 if the jth actuator failed, i.e., u j (t) = ū j (t)
σj =
 0 otherwise

Actuation error u(t) − v(t) = σ(ū(t) − v(t)) is uncertain.

& %
52
' $

Block Diagram

ū1 - σ
1

- 1−σ1 -?

r- v1 .. u1 -
. .. y
.. .. ū m - σm . -
.
-
Controller . - System
vm - 1−σm -?

um

& %
53
' $

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
' $

Technical Challenges

• Redundancy
– necessary for failure compensation
– problematic for control: up to m − q 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
' $

Adaptive Failure Compensation

Control Objective
Stability and asymptotic tracking for up to m−q failures.

Basic Assumption
The system is so constructed that for any up to m − q (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
' $

Design Tools

• State feedback for state tracking

u = K T x + kr r + kc , lim (x(t) − xr (t)) = 0

t→∞

• State feedback for output tracking

u = K T x + kr r + kc , lim (y(t) − yr (t)) = 0

t→∞

• Output feedback for output tracking

u = θT1 ω1 + θT2 ω2 + θ3 r + kc , ω1 = F1 (s)u, ω2 = F2 (s)y

lim (y(t) − yr (t)) = 0.

t→∞

& %
57
' $

• 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 flight control applications

lateral: Boeing 737, Boeing 747, DC-8
longitudinal: Boeing 737, Twin Otter, hypersonic.

& %
58
' $

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
' $

Example: Boeing 737 Landing

• System model

ẋ(t) = Ax(t) + Bu(t), y(t) = θ, B = [b1 , b2 ]T

x = [Ub ,Wb , Qb , θ]T : forward speed Ub , vertical speed Wb , pitch angle

θ, pitch rate Qb ; u = [dele1 , dele2 ]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 (fixed feedback)
– response with adaptive compensation.
& %
60
' $

0.08
y(t)
y(t), ym(t) (rad) 0.06 y (t)
m

0.04

0.02

0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
time (sec)
0.015
e(t) (rad)

0.01

0.005

0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
time (sec)
0

−1
v(t) (deg)

−2

−3

−4
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
time (sec)

& %
61
' $

0.08
y(t)

y(t), ym(t) (rad)

0.06 y (t)
m

0.04

0.02

0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
time (sec)
0.02
e(t) (rad)

0.01

−0.01
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
time (sec)
0

−1
v(t) (deg)

−2

−3

−4
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
time (sec)

& %
62
' $

Example: Boeing 737 Lateral Motion

• MIMO system model

ẋ = Ax + Bu, y = Cx

x = [vb , pb , rb , φ, ψ]T : lateral velocity vb , roll rate pb , yaw rate rb , roll

angle φ, yaw angle ψ
y = [φ, ψ]T : roll angle φ, yaw angle ψ
u = [dr , da ]T : rudder position dr , aileron position da ,
segmented into: dr1 , dr2 , da1 , da2

• Actuator failures
dr2 fails at t = 50, da2 fails at t = 100 seconds

• Simulation results
& %
63
' $

4
deg

0
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200
Roll angle φ (t): −, reference output φm (t): −−

10

6
deg

0
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200
Yaw angle ψ(t): −, reference output ψm (t): −−

& %
64
' $

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 verified on numerous aircraft models
• There is high potential for other applications.
& %
65
' $

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 verified on aircraft system models
• Further research and more advances are critical.
& %
66
' $

Our Research Interests

• Adaptive control theory

– actuator/sensor/component failure compensation
– multivariable and nonlinear systems
– actuator and sensor nonlinearity compensation
• Adaptive control applications
– aircraft flight 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
' $

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
' $

Questions?

Gang Tao
University of Virginia

Tel: (434) 924-4586

Email: gt9s@virginia.edu
(http://www.people.virginia.edu/∼gt9s)

& %
69