See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/330997554

An angle speed and thrust relationship of the quadcopter rotor

Article  in  Indonesian Journal of Electrical Engineering and Computer Science · February 2019

DOI: 10.11591/ijeecs.v13.i2.pp469-474

CITATIONS READS

4 2,569

4 authors, including:

Al Al
ITP Padang
8 PUBLICATIONS   18 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

For Quadcopter Capability Development Additional Low Voltage Distribution Network Location Tracking View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Al Al on 13 October 2020.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 Aerospace Science and Technology 106 (2020) 106125

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Aerospace Science and Technology

www.elsevier.com/locate/aescte

Pilot-in-the-loop simulation of simple adaptive fault-tolerant controller

Ryoichi Takase ∗ , Jorg O. Entzinger, Shinji Suzuki
School of Engineering, Department of Aeronautics and Astronautics, The University of Tokyo, 7-3-1 Hongo, Bunkyo-ku, Tokyo, 113-8656, Japan

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: A piloted simulator evaluation is an important step for making a Fault-Tolerant Flight Control (FTFC)
Received 2 July 2019 system more practical and reliable. Especially, in the case of an adaptive technique, conformance of the
Received in revised form 29 May 2020 adaptive controller to the human pilot’s intended maneuver must be investigated carefully since the
Accepted 4 August 2020
overall control performance will be changed by the additional loop closed by the pilot. In this paper,
Available online 10 August 2020
Communicated by Huihe Qiu
we present a pilot-in-the-loop simulation of Simple Adaptive Control (SAC) with a PID compensator. By
SAC adjusting to the faulty aircraft dynamics, the proposed FTFC system reduces the pilot workload in
Keywords: emergency situations.
Fault-tolerant control © 2020 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Masson SAS. This is an open access article under the CC BY
Simple adaptive control license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Pilot-in-the-loop simulation

1. Introduction plicated [13]. In addition, this adaptive technique, in principle, does

Improvement of aircraft performance, fault tolerance, and pi-
lot handling qualities in emergency situations are essential to re-
duce pilot workload and to enable high-automation systems [1–3].
These topics, in the area of flight controller design, are generally
recognized as Fault-Tolerant Flight Control (FTFC) systems [4]. A
FTFC system is a backup technique for controlling faulty or dam-
aged aircraft in order to ensure the flight safety in such emergency
situations. From an analysis of aircraft accidents, it was found that
Loss-of-Control (LOC) is a major contributor to fatal aircraft acci-
dents [5], and subsequently the recovery from LOC situations has
received considerable attention in the research on FTFC systems.
Refs. [4,6] provide more details about the research background and
recent topics.
A basic FTFC system consists of failure detection, failure iden-
tification, and reconfiguration of the controller [7]. While this ba-
sic approach is easy to understand, it remains difficult to actually
deal with unexpected failures. In order to cope with this difficulty,
adaptive controllers have been investigated as a fault-tolerant flight
controller [8–13]. Among them, direct adaptive controllers gener-
ally can reconfigure controllers based on model reference adaptive
control algorithms without a system identification scheme. The au-
thors’ group has developed Simple Adaptive Controllers with a PID
compensator. This method is easy to apply to existing PID flight
control systems and adjustment of tuning parameters is not com-
* Corresponding author.
E-mail address: takase-aero@g.ecc.u-tokyo.ac.jp (R. Takase).
not need information from a Fault Detection and Isolation (FDI)
scheme, which means that the controller can be reconfigured with-
out knowledge of the faults and damage to the aircraft. By using
Simple Adaptive Control (SAC) with a PID controller, control perfor-
mance is improved compared with the classical PID method [10].
Our previous simulations and flight experiments demonstrated
that SAC with a PID controller could automatically keep a faulty
aircraft at a predetermined desired attitude [10,13].
The next task of our study is investigating the performance of
the proposed FTFC system throughout various piloted flight ma-
neuvers, instead of only a predetermined desired attitude. This
evaluation is an important task in order to make a FTFC system
more practical and reliable [14]. Especially for adaptive systems,
controller stability and convergence are major topics to be con-
sidered in safety-critical applications [14,15], since the nominal
control performance of an adaptive flight system will continuously
change due to external disturbances and the varying reference ob-
tained from the outer loop closed by a human pilot. This con-
tinuous change may impose additional workload on pilots even
without faults. Therefore, the objective of this study is to evaluate
the stability and the convergence of the proposed adaptive fault-
tolerant system and to investigate pilot workloads through a series
of a pilot in the loop simulations.
In this paper, we present a pilot-in-the-loop simulation of SAC
with a PID compensator (PID-SAC). In Ref. [16], we applied the
proposed system to the aircraft longitudinal motion and piloted
simulations were carried out in level flight and the final approach
to landing. In contrast, this paper deals with the piloted evalua-
tion of lateral motion, which is a more challenging task than the

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ast.2020.106125
1270-9638/© 2020 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Masson SAS. This is an open access article under the CC BY license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
2 R. Takase et al. / Aerospace Science and Technology 106 (2020) 106125

previous study since aircraft lateral motion is a MIMO system. In

addition, this time we also carried out simulations under distur-
bance by wind gusts. The results of this paper will show that the
PID-SAC can cope with faults and assist manual control once the
system adapts to the fault and pilot inputs. By adapting to the fault
instead of the pilot, the proposed system reduces pilot workload,
almost similar to the no fault case even after the faults occur on
the aircraft.
Fig. 1. The integrated FTFC system with an outer loop closed by the human pilot.
The rest of this paper is organized as follows. Section 2 de-
scribes the FTFC system considering pilot inputs. Section 3 shows
the simulation result with pilot model. Section 4 describes the pi- where symbols g, θ0 , U 0 and W 0 are the acceleration due to grav-
loted simulation results, and section 5 concludes this paper. ity, steady equilibrium pitch angle, and steady equilibrium veloci-
ties in X - and Z -directions, respectively. The state vector xi (t ) and
2. Fault-tolerant flight control system the input vector u i (t ) are given by

2.1. Integrated FTFC system with pilot inputs xi (t ) = [ v (t ), p (t ), r (t ), φ(t )] T (2)

T
u i (t ) = [δa (t ), δr (t )] (3)
In modern aircraft, pilots control the aircraft with the help of
the electrical ‘fly-by-wire’ system [1]. Based on the pilot control in- where v (t ), p (t ), r (t ), φ(t ), δa (t ), and δr (t ) are the velocity in
puts and available measured signals, the flight computer calculates Y -direction, roll rate, yaw rate, roll angle, aileron deflection and
the required surface deflections and gives the appropriate elec- rudder deflection, respectively. Note that these parameters are de-
tronic commands to all actuators. With the advances of computer viations from the trim (steady-state) condition. The relation be-
performance, such computer-based (software-based) flight control tween coefficients [ • ]β and [ • ] v is given by [ • ]β = [ • ] v /U 0 ,
systems provide multiple backups or redundancies to deal with where β(t ) is the sideslip angle.
aircraft faults and damage. However, in spite of the advances in In order to ensure satisfactory aircraft responses to the pilot
autopilot systems, a pilot’s manual control is still required and par- inputs, some proportional gains have been added in the input
ticularly so in non-normal operations. Since the integrated system and output channel of the ideal aircraft model. In addition, the
is influenced by the additional closed loop including the human roll and sideslip angle, which are the outputs of the ideal model,
are selected as the reference values to be tracked by the PID-
pilot, the interaction between the pilot’s commands and the flight
SAC.
system’s actions must be addressed carefully in the design of the
controllers.
Fig. 1 shows the proposed FTFC system which is integrated with 2.3. Outline of simple adaptive control
the pilot input. In the case of manual control, an outer loop is
needed since pilots determine the desired aircraft state from the Let us consider the following linear system:
cockpit displays or motions of the aircraft. In this paper, we pro-
pose a nominal model following SAC with PID controller. In order ẋ(t ) = Ax(t ) + Bu (t ) (4)
to support pilot manual control, we would like to know the pilot’s y (t ) = C x(t ) (5)
intention without faults (even if the actual aircraft is damaged by
faults). By using this ideal aircraft model, the ideal aircraft states where x(t ) ∈ R is the state vector, u (t ) ∈ R is the control input,
n m

are calculated from the pilot’s control inputs. These ideal states are and y (t ) ∈ Rm is the measurement output. In addition, Eqs. (4) and
then used as reference values, to be tracked as closely as possible (5) are supposed to satisfy the Almost Strictly Positive Real (ASPR)
by the damaged aircraft using the PID-SAC system. This way, pi- condition.
lots will feel as if they are controlling the ordinary (undamaged) In this paper, we define the following linear system as the so
aircraft. called ‘reference model’ G m (s), which is not to be confused with
the ‘ideal model’ discussed in the previous subsection.
2.2. Ideal model
ẋm (t ) = A m xm (t ) + B m um (t ) (6)
Although a nonlinear aircraft dynamics model (e.g. the actual ym (t ) = C m xm (t ) (7)
plant model used in the simulation) might seem an obvious choice
for the ideal model, any model generating a meaningful reference where xm (t ) ∈ R , um (t ) ∈ R , and ym (t ) ∈ R , and we assume
nm m m

signal can be considered. In this paper, we choose a linearized nm ≤ n. Even if the parameters of the system in Eqs. (4) and (5)
model to illustrate that the ideal model and the plant do not are unknown, we can find a control input u (t ) which drives the
need to be the same, while not unnecessarily complicating the pi- plant output y (t ) to the reference model output ym (t ), only when
lot’s control task. In addition, FTFC should in particular support the ASPR condition is satisfied [17]. In this case, the control input
the pilot in keeping the steady-state flight condition, where the is given by
linearized model provides a good approximation of the nonlinear
u (t ) = K (t ) z(t ) (8)
dynamics. Thus, we use the following linearized model as the ideal
T T T T
model: z(t ) = [e (t ) xm (t ) um (t ) ] (9)
K (t ) = [ke (t ) kxm (t ) kum (t )] (10)
ẋi (t ) = A i xi (t ) + B i u i (t ) (1)
⎡ ⎤ ⎡ ⎤ e (t ) = y (t ) − ym (t ) (11)
Yv W0 + Y p −U 0 + Y r g cos θ0 Y δa Y δr
⎢ Lv Lp Lr 0 ⎥ ⎢ Lδ L δr ⎥ and shown in the block diagram in Fig. 2. Since the typical aircraft
Ai = ⎢
⎣ Nv
⎥ Bi = ⎢ a
⎦ ⎣ N δa
⎥
Np Nr 0 N δr ⎦ dynamics equations are not ASPR, a parallel feedforward compen-
0 1 tan θ0 0 0 0 sator (PFC) is added. Details can be found in [17].
 R. Takase et al. / Aerospace Science and Technology 106 (2020) 106125
Fig. 2. The structure of SAC system with PID compensator.
We use the following adjustment rule for adapting the control
gains [18].
K̇ (t ) = −e (t ) z(t ) T  I − σ K (t )
where σ is a constant in order to avoid the burst phenomena, and
I ∈ R (nm +2m)×(nm +2m) is an adaptation rate. A detailed investiga-
tion of SAC algorithms and their control performance can be found
in e.g. [19,20].
2.4. Application of SAC to flight control
The authors’ group has applied SAC with PID control to MIMO
flight dynamics and the flight experiment results have been re-
ported [10]. In Ref. [10], adaptive gains were updated for roll and
yaw angle simultaneously. However, this method may not be ap-
propriate for the fault tolerant flight controller considering pilot
inputs. The reason is explained as follows.
In the case of pilot manual control, the roll and sideslip an-
gle are mainly controlled by the aileron and rudder respectively.
In addition, pilots firstly try to control the roll angle since the
roll angle is the innermost loop in the flight dynamics. These
facts suggest that adaptive gains of aileron inputs should be up-
dated for only desired roll angle. This means that adaptive gains
of aileron and rudder inputs should be independently updated for
roll and sideslip angle even in the case of MIMO lateral motion.
Thus, the structure of SAC is a combination of two SISO systems,
which means that in the case of the roll angle, SAC is applied
for the transfer function from aileron input to roll angle, while
another SAC takes care of the rudder to sideslip angle transfer
function.
The reference models and adjustment parameters of the roll
and sideslip angle are the same, and as follows.
0.05 · ẋm (t ) = −xm (t ) + um (t )
ym (t ) = xm (t )
1 states at 80 s. The reductions in aileron and rudder effectiveness
G m (s) =
0.05s + 1
 I = diag(3, 0.01, 0.01)
σ = 0.01
where xm (t ) ∈ R, um (t ) ∈ R, and G m (s) is the transfer function of
the reference model.
The PID compensator C P I D (s) is described as
1 value after the fault, reflecting the “ideal” way of coping with the
C P I D (s) = K P + K I + KDs
s
3
Table 1
Parameters of the pilot model.
Roll Sideslip
K Pa -0.20 K Pr 0.10
T La 0.01 T Lr 0.001
T Ia 0.1 T Ir 0.01
Table 2
Assumed scenarios for the piloted evaluation.
Fault No. Scenario characteristics
0 No fault (before 80 s)
1 only 20% of aileron
effectiveness after 80 s
2 only 20% of aileron & rudder
effectiveness after 80 s
where the parameters of the PID compensator were set so as to
have high target tracking performance before the fault occurs. The
PID gains of the aileron input are ( K P , K I , K D ) = (3.0, 2.07, 0.5),
(12) and PID gains of the rudder input are ( K P , K I , K D ) = (8.0, 1.3,
0.03).
The PFC used in this paper was designed via Iterative Linear
Matrix Inequalities (ILMI) following Ref. [10]. The idea of design-
ing a PFC and the details of the ILMI algorithm are described in
Ref. [8] and Ref. [21], respectively. Note that the PFC is designed
only for the nominal plant model, which means that the ASPR
condition may not be satisfied after the faults. Therefore, after de-
signing the PFC for the nominal model, it has been confirmed that
the PFC works appropriately for both the nominal and fault condi-
tions through a ground and an actual flight test [10].
3. Simulation with pilot model
Before the human-in-the-loop experiments, the basic control
performance is investigated through a series of simulations with
a pilot model. In this study, we use the following pilot model [22].
TLs + 1 τs
Y p (s) = K p e (19)
TIs + 1
where K P , T L , T I , and τ are the pilot static gain, the lead time
constant, the lag time constant, and the effect of time delay, re-
spectively. The parameters are tuned to satisfy the desired tracking
performance in the fault free case, and are summarized in Ta-
ble 1.
The simulation is carried out in a MATLAB/Simulink environ-
ment around a trim condition. The aircraft dynamics model is
representing JAXA’s Multi-Purpose Aviation Laboratory (Mupal-α ),
a modified Do228-200. For the simulation, the linearized aircraft
model is used, whose trim condition is at an altitude of 1,520
m and an airspeed of 66.8 m/s [23]. We assume two fault cases
(13) (Table 2). The first is that the ailerons’ effectiveness reduces to
20% of their ordinary state at 80 s. The second is that both the
(14) aileron and rudder effectiveness reduce to 20% of their ordinary
(15) are emulated by reducing the control gains and limits in the sim-
ulation.
(16) Fig. 3 shows the time histories of roll angle in the upper fig-
ure and that of sideslip angle in the lower one for the case of the
(17) Fault No. 2. The solid line denoted by “Pilot model with FTFC” is
the behavior of the pilot model with PID-SAC. The dash-dot line
denoted by “Pilot model” is the behavior of only the pilot model.
The dotted line denoted by “Pilot model (switched)” is the behav-
ior of the pilot model whose gain becomes five times the original
(18) reduced control surface effectiveness. After the fault occurs on the
4 R. Takase et al. / Aerospace Science and Technology 106 (2020) 106125

Fig. 3. Comparison of roll and sideslip angle time histories with and without the Fig. 4. Time histories of adaptive gains for aileron command (Fault No. 2).
proposed PID-SAC FTFC when the system is controlled by a pilot model (Fault No. 2).
(For interpretation of the colors in the figure(s), the reader is referred to the web
version of this article.)

aircraft, the tracking performance of the roll angle clearly deterio-

rates when the pilot model is not assisted by the FTFC. In order to
get the better tracking performance after the fault, the parameters
of the pilot model should be changed as in the case of the dot-
ted line denoted by “Pilot model (switched)”. Although it obtains
the good tracking performance, the pilot workload also increased
to deal with the fault as explained in the next paragraph. Regard-
ing the tracking performance of the sideslip angle, it is affected by
the change of the roll angle since the primary task is to track the
roll angle in the simulation.
A pilot work analysis (or handling qualities analysis) is per-
formed by calculating the average absolute deflection:

1 
N
AVGdefl = |δctrl (k)| (20)
N
k =1
Fig. 5. Time histories of adaptive gains for rudder command (Fault No. 2).
where δctrl (t ) is the pilot control input and N is the number of
recorded data samples. In order to compare between the no fault
case and the fault cases, the values of the average absolute de-
flection are normalized by those obtained in the no fault case
(Fault No. 0). Fig. 6 shows the normalized average absolute aileron
and rudder deflections. In the case that the pilot model is ideally
switched after the fault, the normalized average absolute deflec-
tions become larger due to the fault. Note that the workloads
become five times as large as comparing similar sections before
and after the fault, e.g., the section of [20, 80] s and [100, 160] s.
This means that in the case of a human pilot, he has to adjust to
the faulty dynamics, so the pilot workload will be larger after the
fault. On the other hand, the FTFC can track the desired value af-
ter the fault by automatically adjusting the adaptive gains (Figs. 4
and 5). This means that the FTFC adjusts to the faults instead of
the pilot model. From this simulation, the basic performance of
the proposed FTFC system has been shown for the pilot model. In
the next section, we will explain the human-pilot-in-the-loop sim-
ulation result.
Fig. 6. Average absolute deflection of control surface normalized by the no-fault case
4. Human-piloted simulation deflection when the system is controlled by a pilot model.

4.1. Simulation condition

maneuver is investigated for the lateral directional motion (i.e., the
A human-piloted simulation was carried out in a fixed-based longitudinal motion is automatically controlled). The aileron and
flight simulator at the University of Tokyo (Fig. 7). In the exper- rudder are operated by a retired airline pilot. We assume the same
iment, the interaction between the SAC and the pilot’s desired two fault cases (Table 2) as in the evaluation with the pilot model.
 R. Takase et al. / Aerospace Science and Technology 106 (2020) 106125
Fig. 7. Fixed-based flight simulator.
Fig. 8. Average absolute deflection of control surface normalized by the no-fault case
deflection when the system is controlled by a human pilot.
The pilot’s task is to keep the yaw angle 0 deg under moderate
turbulence.
4.2. Time history analysis
The piloted simulation result in the case of Fault No. 1 is sum-
marized in Fig. 9. Fig. 9-(a) shows the time histories of a selection
of the aircraft states for the lateral directional motion. The dash-
dotted line shows the manual control only case and the solid line
is the manual control with the proposed FTFC system. In both
cases, the behaviors of the aircraft states are similar before the
faults occur on the aircraft. This fact suggests that the proposed
FTFC system can work as usual aircraft dynamics for the pilot.
Figs. 9-(c) to (f) show the states related to the FTFC system.
The FTFC system tracks the ideal model output by adjusting to
the faulty aircraft dynamics within the reduced deflection limits
(Fig. 9-(c) and (d)). Adaptive gains for the aileron command mainly
change in three parts: the beginning of the simulation, the timing
of the fault occurrence, and at around 140 s (Fig. 9-(e)). At the be-
ginning of the simulation, the adaptive gains change in order to
adjust to the pilot’s desired maneuver. The second change of the
gains at about 80 s is for adjusting to the faulty aircraft dynamics.
The third adaptation at around 140 s is due to the pilot’s desired
maneuver (see also the ideal model output in Fig. 9-(c)). When a
stronger maneuver is required, larger adaptive gains are needed to
relieve the pilot’s workload, since the effectiveness of aileron re-
duces to 20% of its ordinary state. Adaptive gains for the rudder
command are almost not different except for the beginning of the
simulation (Fig. 9-(f)). This means that the adaptive gains for the
5
rudder command do not impose additional workload on the pilot
if there is no rudder fault after they adjust to the pilot desired ma-
neuver at the beginning of the simulation. These facts suggest that
the proposed FTFC system can work appropriately in both no fault
and fault cases.
In the case of Fault No. 1, both methods (unsupported and sup-
ported manual cases) are almost the same before the fault occurs
and even after the fault (Fig. 9-(b)). This is considered to be be-
cause Fault No. 1 is a mild fault for manual control and may not
impose significant additional workload on a pilot. However, more
remarkable differences between the unsupported and supported
cases can be seen in the case of Fault No. 2.
Fig. 10 shows the piloted simulation result with Fault No. 2.
In the case of manual control only, the control surface deflections
are increased after the faults occur on the aircraft. This means
that the pilot adapted his control to the situation, which means
that the pilot workload is increased by the reduction of control
surface effectiveness. On the other hand, in the case with the pro-
posed system, the pilot’s control inputs remain similar even after
the faults occur on the aircraft, which means that the FTFC system
automatically reconfigures the control law according to the fault,
and in effect relieves the pilot.
4.3. Pilot work analysis
Fig. 8 shows the normalized average absolute aileron and rud-
der deflections. In the unsupported manual control case, the nor-
malized average absolute deflections become larger due to the
faults. On the other hand, in the supported manual control case,
the values are almost similar to the no fault case even after the
faults occur on the aircraft. An interesting point compared to the
case of the pilot model, the pilot workloads do not become five
times as large as the no-fault case. In the case of Fault No. 1, the
pilot workload for the aileron command after the fault is almost
two times the no-fault case; in the case of Fault No. 2, the pilot
workloads after the faults become larger than five times as the no-
fault case. These facts suggest that the rudder fault severely affects
the pilot.
From the pilot-model-in-the-loop and the human-pilot-in-the-
loop simulations, we can conclude that now the system adapts
instead of the pilot, the pilot will be able to attend to other is-
sues like the failure’s case or secondary effects. In fact, the human
pilot commented that the behaviors between healthy and faulty
aircraft are almost indistinguishable when the proposed adaptive
system supports his manual control.
5. Conclusion
In this paper, we proposed a fault-tolerant flight control sys-
tem using SAC with a PID compensator and analyzed the interac-
tion between the adaptive control system and the pilot’s desired
maneuver. In the evaluation of pilot handling qualities, we have
focused on investigating how much the pilot control changes ac-
cording to the faults. The piloted simulation results showed that
the normalized absolute value is not different between the healthy
and fault cases in the case of the supported manual control. Once
the system adapts to the faulty aircraft and the pilot inputs, the be-
havior of the faulty aircraft with the fault-tolerant system is very
similar to the behavior of the ordinary aircraft due to the PID-SAC
tracking the ideal model output. This result suggests that the pi-
lot feels as if he is controlling the ordinary aircraft even after the
faults occur. In order to obtain more comprehensive results, our
future works will include simulations for both longitudinal and lat-
eral directional motions at the same time with more pilots, more
maneuvers, and additional fault cases.
6 R. Takase et al. / Aerospace Science and Technology 106 (2020) 106125

Fig. 9. States of FTFC systems (Fault No. 1: aileron effectiveness).

Declaration of competing interest Acknowledgements

The authors declare that they have no known competing finan- We would like to thank Mr. Tsuneharu Uemura for the technical
cial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to assistance and useful comments in the flight simulation with his
influence the work reported in this paper. experience being a skilled pilot.
 R. Takase et al. / Aerospace Science and Technology 106 (2020) 106125 7

Fig. 10. States of FTFC systems (Fault No. 2: aileron & rudder effectiveness).

References [3] P. Goupil, J. Boada-Bauxell, A. Morcos, P. Rosa, M. Kerr, L. Dalbies, An overview

[1] C. Favre, Fly-by-wire for commercial aircraft: the Airbus experience, Int. J. Con-
trol 59 (1) (1994) 139–157.
[2] P. Goupil, AIRBUS state of the art and practices on FDI and FTC in flight control
system, Control Eng. Pract. 19 (6) (2011) 524–539.
of the FP7 RECONFIGURE project: industrial, scientific and technological objec-
tives, IFAC-PapersOnLine 48 (21) (2015) 976–981.
[4] C. Edwards, T. Lombaerts, H. Smaili, Fault Tolerant Flight Control, Springer, Apr
18, 2010.
[5] Boeing Commercial Airplanes, Statistical Summary of Commercial Jet Airplane
Accidents, Worldwide Operations, 1959–2011, 2012.
8 R. Takase et al. / Aerospace Science and Technology 106 (2020) 106125
[6] M. Sato, G. Hardier, G. Ferreres, C. Edwards, H. Alwi, L. Chen, A. Marcos, Fault
tolerance-background and recent trends, J. Soc. Instrum. Control Eng. 57 (4)
(2018) 279–286.
[7] Y. Zhang, J. Jiang, Bibliographical review on reconfigurable fault-tolerant control
systems, Annu. Rev. Control (2008).
[8] A. Belkharraz, K. Sobel, Simple adaptive control for aircraft control surface fail-
ures, IEEE Trans. Aerosp. Electron. Syst. 43 (2) (2007) 600–611.
[9] I. Gregory, E. Xargay, C. Cao, N. Hovakimyan, Flight test of an L1 adaptive con-
troller on the NASA AirSTAR flight test vehicle, in: AIAA Guidance, Navigation,
and Control Conference, 2010, p. 8015.
[10] T. Nishiyama, S. Suzuki, M. Sato, K. Masui, Simple adaptive control with PID for
MIMO fault tolerant flight control design, in: AIAA SciTech Forum, 2016.
[11] M. Gao, J. Yao, Finite-time H ∞ adaptive attitude fault-tolerant control for reen-
try vehicle involving control delay, Aerosp. Sci. Technol. 79 (2018) 246–254.
[12] Y. Xi, Y. Meng, Adaptive actuator failure compensation control for hypersonic
vehicle with full state constraints, Aerosp. Sci. Technol. 85 (2019) 464–473.
[13] H. Matsuki, T. Nishiyama, Y. Omori, S. Suzuki, K. Masui, M. Sato, Flight test
of fault-tolerant flight control system using simple adaptive control with PID
controller, Aircr. Eng. Aerosp. Technol. 90 (1) (2018) 210–218.
[14] S. Jacklin, J. Schumann, P. Gupta, M. Richard, K. Guenther, F. Soares, Develop-
ment of advanced verification and validation procedures and tools for the certi-
View publication stats
fication of learning systems in aerospace applications, in: Infotech@ Aerospace,
2005, p. 6912.
[15] S. Bhattacharyya, D. Cofer, D.J. Musliner, J. Mueller, E. Engstrom, Certification
Considerations for Adaptive Systems, 2015.
[16] R. Takase, J.O. Entzinger, S. Suzuki, Interaction between a fault-tolerant flight
control system using simple adaptive control and pilot’s pitch control, in: Asian
Control Conference, 2017.
[17] I. Barkana, Simple adaptive control - a stable direct model reference adaptive
control methodology - brief survey, in: IFAC, 2007.
[18] P.A. Ioannou, K.S. Tsakalis, A robust direct adaptive controller, IEEE Trans. Au-
tom. Control 31 (11) (1986) 1033–1043.
[19] I. Barkana, Gain conditions and convergence of simple adaptive control, Int. J.
Adapt. Control Signal Process. 19 (1) (2005) 13–40.
[20] I. Barkana, Robustness and perfect tracking in simple adaptive control, Int. J.
Adapt. Control Signal Process. 30 (8–10) (2016) 1118–1151.
[21] Y. Cao, J. Lam, Y. Sun, Static output feedback stabilization: an ILMI approach,
Automatica 34 (12) (1998) 1641–1645.
[22] D.T. McRuer, H.R. Jex, A review of quasi-linear pilot models, IEEE Trans. Hum.
Factors Electron. (3) (1967) 231–249.
[23] M. Sato, A. Satoh, Flight control experiment of multipurpose-aviation-
laboratory-alpha in-flight simulator, J. Guid. Control Dyn. 34 (2011) 1081–1096.