JOURNAL OF GUIDANCE, CONTROL, AND DYNAMICS

Vol. 33, No. 5, September–October 2010

Modeling and Model Reference Adaptive Control of Aircraft

with Asymmetric Damage

Yu Liu∗ and Gang Tao†

University of Virginia, Charlottesville, Virginia 22904
and
Suresh M. Joshi‡
NASA Langley Research Center, Hampton, Virginia 23681
DOI: 10.2514/1.47996
This paper addresses some fundamental issues in adaptive control of aircraft with structural damage. It presents a
thorough study of linearized aircraft models with damage to obtain new details of system descriptions, such as
coupling and partial derivatives of lateral and longitudinal dynamics. A detailed study of system invariance under
damage conditions is performed for generic aircraft models to obtain key system characterizations for model
Downloaded by MCGILL UNIVERSITY on January 27, 2015 | http://arc.aiaa.org | DOI: 10.2514/1.47996

reference adaptive control, such as infinite zero structure and signs of high-frequency gain matrices. A
comprehensive study of multivariable model reference adaptive control systems in the presence of damage is
performed to obtain critical design specifications for adaptive flight control, such as system and controller
parameterizations and adaptive parameter update laws. Both analytical and simulation results are given to illustrate
the design and performance of adaptive control systems for aircraft flight control.

I. Introduction nonlinear aircraft models under damage conditions is studied and a

A DAPTIVE control of aircraft in the presence of damage has
been an important topic in the research of flight control design
for aircraft safety. Damage can cause uncertain parametric and
structural variations, which requires new aircraft modeling and
control approaches.
In [1], a study of aircraft dynamics with damage is presented. A
hybrid adaptive control method is proposed for the control of aircraft
with uncertain structural change. The control design is based on a
neural network parameter estimation blended with a direct adaptive
law. A stability and convergence analysis is presented for this
adaptive control methodology. In [2], equations of motion are
introduced in detail for aircraft with asymmetric mass loss. In [3], a
nonlinear aircraft model with partial wing damage is introduced, and
the linearization of such a model is illustrated. In [4], real time
identification of a damaged aircraft model is studied. A two-step
identification process is introduced, which consists of an aircraft
state-estimation phase and an aerodynamic model identification step.
With such a two-step process, the nonlinear part of the model
identification is isolated in the first phase, and the aerodynamic
parameter identification procedure is simplified to a linear one.
For accommodating unknown changes in the structure and
parameters, multivariable model reference adaptive control (MRAC)
designs offer many advantages. In [5], an MRAC design based on the
LDS decomposition of the high-frequency gain matrix is introduced
for the control of aircraft with multiple wing damage. The key design
conditions are that, both the nominal and postdamage systems should
have a uniform known modified interactor matrix, and the leading
principal minors of their high-frequency gain matrices should be
nonzero with their signs unchanged. In [6], the linearization of
Presented as Paper 2009-5617 at the AIAA Guidance, Navigation, and
Control Conference, Chicago, IL, 10–13 August 2009; received 4 November
2009; revision received 18 May 2010; accepted for publication 18 May 2010.
Copyright © 2010 by the American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics,
Inc. All rights reserved. Copies of this paper may be made for personal or
internal use, on condition that the copier pay the $10.00 per-copy fee to the
Copyright Clearance Center, Inc., 222 Rosewood Drive, Danvers, MA 01923;
include the code 0731-5090/10 and $10.00 in correspondence with the CCC.
∗
Graduate Student, Department of Electrical and Computer Engineering.
Student Member AIAA.
†
Professor, Department of Electrical and Computer Engineering. Member
AIAA.
‡
Senior Scientist. Fellow AIAA.
1500
multivariable MRAC scheme is designed, which does not require the
knowledge of the signs of the high-frequency gain matrix. Potential
extension to aircraft flight control systems with changing signs of the
high-frequency gain matrix remains a topic of future research.
In spite of multiple publications, some key problems in modeling
and MRAC of aircraft with damage have not been answered, among
which the dynamic coupling and key design conditions for MRAC
design are of major interests. For both nonlinear and linearized
aircraft models in the presence of damage, dynamic coupling has
been observed and documented. However, the details of the dynamic
coupling terms have not been described. In this paper, a thorough
study of linearized aircraft models under damage conditions (with
the assumption that a postdamage zero angular velocity equilibrium
exists) is presented, and new details of the dynamic coupling are
obtained. Expressions of the coupling terms are derived that
significantly expand the understanding of the dynamic features of
aircraft under damage conditions.
For multivariable MRAC design, two key conditions are essential:
the infinite zero structure of the system and the signs of principal
minors of the high-frequency matrix. However, whether these
properties will change due to damage, or conditions under which
these changes can occur, has not been systematically studied in
previous work. Therefore, a systematic study based on a generic
aircraft model structure will be presented. Multiple case studies will
be presented for multi-input/multi-output (MIMO) aircraft systems.
A major finding of the modeling study is the invariance of the infinite
zero structure under damage conditions. The explanation for this
dynamic invariance is presented. The case studies also show that the
signs of principal minors of the high-frequency gain matrix may
change under certain realistic damage conditions. The conditions for
the sign changes are derived, and the physical meaning is also
explained.
The paper is organized as follows. Section II contains derivation of
a linearized aircraft model under damage conditions and presents a
generic model structure. In Sec. III, the infinite zero structure and the
high-frequency gain matrix are studied for several MIMO linearized
aircraft models based on the generic model structure. The invariance
of infinite zero structure and the sign change conditions for high-
frequency gain matrix are addressed in detail. In Sec. IV, a
comprehensive study of multivariable MRAC design is presented,
and key technical issues (including plant-model matching, error
dynamics, adaptive laws, and stability analysis) are studied. A
simulation study is presented in Sec. V based on the NASA generic
 LIU, TAO, AND JOSHI
transport model, which shows the desired performance of the
adaptive control system in the presence of damage.
II. Modeling of Aircraft with Asymmetric Damage
In this section, a detailed study of the modeling of aircraft
dynamics under asymmetric damage is presented. A nonlinear
aircraft dynamic model in the presence of asymmetric damage is first
introduced. A linearized aircraft model is then derived about a chosen
equilibrium, and the dynamic coupling features of the damaged
aircraft model are discussed. Several MIMO aircraft systems based
on a generic aircraft model are considered, and the invariance of the
infinite zero structure of the damaged aircraft is illustrated.
A. Nonlinear Model of Aircraft with Asymmetric Damage
1. Force Equations
Several aircraft models under damage conditions have been
proposed recently [1–3]. This subsection introduces the nonlinear
aircraft model under asymmetric damage conditions presented in [2].
Downloaded by MCGILL UNIVERSITY on January 27, 2015 | http://arc.aiaa.org | DOI: 10.2514/1.47996
The force equations can be obtained by applying Newton’s second
law to the aircraft with a shifted center of gravity (after damage):
u_
qw  rv  q2
r2 
x
pq  r
y
_
pr
q
z
_ with Ii being the inertia moments and products in body axes and l
 X=m  g sin

TL
TR =m (1)
v_
ur  pw
pq
r
x
_  p2
r2 
y
qr  p
z
_
 Y=m
g cos
sin  (2)
w_
pv  uq
pr  q
x
_
p_
qr
y  p2
q2 
z
 Z=m
g cos
cos  (3)
where m is the mass of the aircraft; X, Y, and Z are body-axis
aerodynamic forces;
and  are Euler pitch and roll angle of the
aircraft body axes with respect to the reference axes; u, v and w are
the body-axis velocity components of the origin of the body-axis
frame; p, q, and r are the body-axis components of the angular
velocity; 
x;
y;
zT (zero for undamaged aircraft) are the
coordinates of the center of gravity in the body frame, and they are
assumed to be constant between damage events. The engine thrusts
on two sides are denoted as TL and TR , and they are assumed to be
parallel to the body x axis of the aircraft. The mass of the aircraft m is
subject to uncertain change due to the damage. The aerodynamic
forces X, Y, and Z can be expressed as
Xt  X0 t

Xt (4)
Yt  Y0 t

Yt (5)
Zt  Z0 t

Zt (6)
where X0 , Y0 , and Z0 represent the aerodynamic forces under
nominal conditions, and
X,
Y, and
Z are uncertain variations
due to the wingspan changes caused by damage. A short time interval
is considered for aircraft modeling so that the fuel consumption is
negligible.
2. Moment Equations
In standard aircraft modeling, the mass distribution of the aircraft
is assumed to be symmetric about x-z plane, so that the cross products
of inertia Ixy and Iyz are zero [7]. However, with asymmetric mass
1501
distribution due to damage, Ixy and Iyz become nonzero, resulting in
the following moment equations for the asymmetric aircraft:
Ix p_
Ixy q_
Ixz r_  Ixy pr  Iz  Iy qr
Iyz q2  r2 
Ixz pq

m
yw_  qu
pv
m
zv_  ru
pw  L

mg cos
cos 
y  mg cos
sin 
z (7)
Ixy p_
Iy q_
Iyz r_
Ix  Iz pr
Ixy qr
Ixz r2  p2   Iyz pq

m
xqu  w_  pv
m
zu_  rv
qw  M
 mg sin

z  mg cos
cos 
x 
zTL
TR  (8)
Ixz p_
Iyz q_
Iz r_
Iy  Ix pq
Ixy p2  q2   Ixz qr
Iyz pr

m
xv_  pw
ru
m
yrv  u_  qw  N

mg cos
sin 
x
mg sin

y
TL l

y  TR l 
y (9)
being the distance between the engine and the x-z plane. The
aerodynamic moments L, M, and N can be expressed as
Lt  L0 t

Lt (10)
Mt  M0 t

Mt (11)
Nt  N0 t

Nt (12)
where L0 , M0 , and N0 represent the moments under nominal
conditions, and
L,
M, and
N are the uncertain moment
variations due to damage. The force and moment equations (1–3) and
(7–9) are much more complicated than their counterparts without
damage.
3. Controls
In the above aircraft dynamic equations, only engine thrusts are
explicitly included. Other control surfaces (including elevator,
aileron, and rudder) will alter the aerodynamic forces and moments
X, Y, Z, L, M, and N. If the aircraft shape is symmetric about the x-z
plane, then lateral aerodynamic force and moments Y, L, and N
depend on aileron and rudder deflections. Longitudinal forces and
moment X, Z, and M depend on the elevator deflection. However,
when the aircraft shape is not symmetric due to damage, the
dependency of aerodynamic forces and moments on the controls is
no longer decoupled. Any aerodynamic force or moment may
depend on both longitudinal control surface (elevator deflection) and
lateral control surfaces (aileron and rudder deflections). A generic
case would be that X, Y, Z, L, M, and N are functions of u, v, w, p, q,
r, e , a , and r . The engine thrust T is not only a function of engine
throttle t , but also depends on other factors, including the airspeed,
air temperature, and pressure [7,8]. The explicit expression of the
engine thrust with respect to these factors can be found in [8], and
partial derivatives of the engine thrust with respect to aircraft velocity
and engine throttle can be found in [7]. For the study of aircraft under
steady-state conditions, it is assumed that the air temperature and
pressure do not change, and the thrust only depends on engine
throttle setting t and aircraft velocity u, v, and w.
4. Kinematic Equations
The relation between the rates of Euler angles and the angular
velocities p, q, and r is given by
 1502 LIU, TAO, AND JOSHI

_  p
tan
q sin 
r cos  (13) engine thrust (note that they are the control inputs and not their
perturbations). These control inputs act on the aircraft through the
forces X, Y, and Z and moments L, M, and N (whose expressions are

_  q cos   r sin  (14) usually complicated). Let
x,
y. and
z denote the change in the
center-of-mass location due to damage.
The elements in fx; U are expressed as

_  q sin 
r cos  (15) f1  qw
rv
X=m  g sin

TL
TR =m
q2
r2 
x
cos

 pq
y  pr
z
The force equations (1–3), moment equations (7–9), and the
kinematic equations (13–15) will be used in the model linearization f2  uq  pv
Z=m
g cos
cos   pr
x  qr
y
study in the next subsection.
p2
q2 
z

B. Linearized Aircraft Model Under Asymmetric f3  M  mg sin

z  mg cos
cos 
x 
zTL
TR 
Damage Conditions  m
xqu  pv  m
zqw  rv  Ix  Iz pr  Ixy qr
In this subsection, the linearization of the aircraft model with
damage is conducted. The dynamic coupling in the linearized aircraft  Ixz r2  p2 
Iyz pq
model in the presence of damage is examined, and a generic aircraft f4  q cos   r sin 
model structure under damage conditions is obtained.
Downloaded by MCGILL UNIVERSITY on January 27, 2015 | http://arc.aiaa.org | DOI: 10.2514/1.47996

f5  pw  ur
Y=m
g cos
sin   pq
x
p2
r2 
y

1. State-Space Nonlinear Model
As a result of damage, the center-of-mass location, mass distri-
bution, and aerodynamic forces and moments undergo unknown
changes. The six-degree-of-freedom equations of motion, together
with the kinematic equations, can be organized as shown below:
 x_ fx; U
M (16)
 qr
z
f6  N
mg cos
sin 
x
mg sin

y
TL l

y
 TR l 
y  m
xru  pw  m
yrv  qw
 Iy  Ix pq  Ixy p2  q2 
Ixz qr  Iyz pr
f7  L
mg cos
cos 
y  mg cos
sin 
z
m
yqu  pv

where
m
zru  pw
Ixy pr
Iz  Iy qr  Iyz q2  r2 

 Ixz pq
x  u w q
v r p  T (17)
q sin 
r cos 
f8  p
tan
q sin 
r cos ; f9 
cos

It can be seen that M would be decoupled blockwise when there is

U   e tl tr a r T (18)
no damage; i.e., M  12 and M 21 are zero when the center-of-gravity
shift (
x,
y, and
z), Ixy , and Iyz are zero. When damage occurs, M 
evolves from a decoupled matrix to a coupled one, which shows that


  12 the longitudinal and lateral dynamics become coupled under such
  M11
M
M
(19)  22 that change from
 11 and M
 21
M  22
M conditions. There are other terms in M
zero to nonzero when damage occurs, representing additional
with its blocks expressed as coupling within longitudinal and lateral motions, respectively.
2 3
1 0
z 0
2. Equilibria for Linearization of Damaged Aircraft Model
6
 11  4 0 1 
x 07
M 5 In a linearized aircraft model, the state and control vectors are the
m
z m
x Iy 0
perturbations of x and U: that is,
0 0 0 1
2 3
0 
y 0 0 0 x   u w q 
v r p   T (22)
60 0
y 0 07

M12  46 7 (20)
0 Iyz Ixy 0 05
0 0 0 0 0 U   e  tl  tr  a  r  T (23)

Here, u, v, and w represent the velocity perturbations along body
2 3 axes; p, q, and r are the angular velocity perturbations; 
, , and
0 0 0 0
6 m
y 0 Iyz 07  are the pitch, roll, and yaw angle perturbations; e , a , and
6 7 r  are the deflection perturbations of the elevator, aileron, and
M 21  6 0 m
y Ixy 07
6 7 rudder; and tl  and tr  are the left and right throttle pertur-
4 0 0 0 05
bations. For simplicity of notation, in the rest of this paper, the
0 0 0 0 symbol  is dropped, and x and U are used to represent their
2 3
1
x 
z 0 0 deviations from the equilibrium states xo and Uo ; that is,
6 m
x Iz Ixz 0 07
6 7 x  u w q
v r p  T (24)
 22  6 m
z Ixz
M Ix 0 07 (21)
6 7
4 0 0 0 1 05
0 0 0 0 1
U   e tl tr a r T (25)

In the control input vector U, e , a , and r are the deflections of the are used to represent the perturbations (deviations from an
elevator, aileron and rudder, and tl and tr are the left and right equilibrium point) of the system state and control vectors.
 LIU, TAO, AND JOSHI 1503

This study considers the postdamage equilibrium x0 ; U0  0  X=m  g sin
o
T=m (34)
T
xo   uo wo 0
o vo 0 0 o o 
T (26)
Uo   eo to ao ro  0  Z=m
g cos
o (35)
where all angular velocities (p, q, and r) are zero. In this study,
independently adjustable engine thrusts are not considered. So
TL  TR , and the total engine thrust can be denoted as T  TL
TR .
Such an equilibrium choice satisfies that M  x_ o  fxo ; Uo   0: 0  M  mg sin
o
z  mg cos
o
x 
zT (36)
i.e.,
0  X=m  g sin
o
TL
TR =m (27)
0  Y=m (37)
0  Z=m
g cos
o cos o (28)

0  N
mg sin
o
y
T
y (38)

0  M  mg sin
o
z  mg cos
o cos o
x 
zTL
TR 
(29)
Downloaded by MCGILL UNIVERSITY on January 27, 2015 | http://arc.aiaa.org | DOI: 10.2514/1.47996

0  L
mg cos
o
y (39)

0  Y=m
g cos
o sin o (30) In this case, the existence of a solution implies that a set of control
signals can balance the aircraft to a wings-level steady-state
equilibrium point after damage. The existence of such a solution is
crucial for a control system being able to achieve a safe landing,
0  N
mg cos
o sin o
x
mg sin
o
y
TL l

y
which is otherwise much more difficult or impossible to achieve if a
 TR l 
y (31) wings-level flight cannot be maintained during landing by some
control inputs.

0  L
mg cos
o cos o
y  mg cos
o sin o
z (32) 4. Linearized Aircraft Model with Damage
The above equations can have some typical solutions depending on The nonlinear equation (16) can be expanded using its Taylor
the location, type, and magnitude of the damage. To investigate the series about the equilibrium point xo ; Uo  and keeping only the first-
equilibrium solution of the above equations, it is necessary to study order terms:
the dependence of the aerodynamic forces and moments on system
state and control inputs. As mentioned earlier, when damage occurs, M   xo 
BU
 x_ fxo ; Uo 
Ax   Uo  (40)
the aerodynamic forces and moments may depend on all linear and
angular velocities as well as the control surfaces. A generic case where
would be that X, Y, Z, L, M, and N are functions of u, v, w, p, q, r, e ,
a , and r . The engine thrust T is a function of u, v, w, and t . The


@f @f
assumed existence of the solution implies that when damage occurs, A  ; B  (41)
certain control variables can still maintain the system at the equi- @x xo ;Uo @U xo ;Uo
librium state.
Although engine thrusts are assumed to be symmetric in this study, Let x  xo
x and U  Uo
U, so that
as asymmetric damage occurs, a yaw moment will still be generated
by engine thrusts due to the lateral center-of-gravity shift. Based on a  x_ o
x
M 
BU
_  fxo ; Uo 
Ax  (42)
study in [1], the lateral center-of-gravity shift is comparatively small
and not more than 2.5% of the semiwingspan, even when half of the
 x_ o  fxo ; Uo , one can
By subtracting the equilibrium solution M
wing is lost. Therefore, the asymmetric yaw moment generated by
symmetric engine thrusts is comparatively small, and it can be have
assumed that the rudder can compensate for the additional yaw
moment. It should be noted that the damage compensating capacity M 
BU
 x_  Ax  (43)
would be largely enhanced if engine thrusts can be independently
adjustable. The engine thrusts can then assist the rudder to compen- which is a linear differential equation approximating the motion of
sate for the asymmetric yaw moment. Eq. (16) near the equilibrium point xo ; Uo . Equation (43) can then
be expressed as
3. Wings-Level Flight
A particular case is of interest in which the damage is relatively x_  Ax
BU (44)
small. As a special situation, we consider the case when a wings-level
equilibrium with v0  0  0  0 is possible, in addition to zero
where A ≜ M  1 A and B ≜ M
 1 B.

angular rates. This special case will capture the key features of the
As mentioned for Eqs. (24) and (25), using x and U to replace x
linearized aircraft model under damage in a mathematically tractable
and U as a simple notation, the linearized aircraft model about the
manner. This case corresponds to the following xo and Uo ,
equilibrium in Eq. (26) can be derived with the following structure:
xo   uo wo 0
o 0 0 0 0 0 T
1 
1 
(33)

  A4 4

BU
 x_ Ax A 2 
4 5 x
B4 3 B 2
Uo   eo to ao ro T M 4 2 U (45)
3
A 5 4  4
A5 5 B 3
5 3 B 4
5 2
 x_ o  fxo ; Uo   0, which can be
and they satisfy the equation M
expressed as where
 1504 LIU, TAO, AND JOSHI

2 @f @f1 @f1
3 2 3
@u
1
@w @q
g cos
o a11 a12 a13 a14 a15 a16 a17 a18 0
6 @f2 @f2 @f2 7 6 a21 a22 a23 a24 a25 a26 a27 a28 07
6 @u g sin
o cos o 7 6 7
A 1  6 @f @w @q 7 6 a31 a32 a33 a34 a35 a36 a37 a38 07
4 3 @f3 @f3 @f3 5 6 7
@u @w @q @
6 0 0 coso 0 0 sino 0 0 07
0 0 cos o 0 6 7
2 3 A 6
6 a51 a52 a53 a54 a55 a56 a57 a58 077
0 vo 0 0 0 6 a61 a62 a63 a64 a65 a66 a67 a68 07
6 7
60 0 vo g cos
o sin o 0 7 6 a71 a72 a73 a74 a75 a76 a77 a78 07
A 2  6
40
7 6 7
@f3
@r
@f3
@p
@f3
@
05 4 0 0 tan
o sino 0 0 tan
0 coso 1 0 05
0  sin o 0 0 0 0 0 sino =cos
o 0 0 coso =cos
0 0 0 0
2 3 2 3
0 0 0 g sin
o sin o b11 b12 b13 b14
@f6 @f6 @f6 @f6
6 @u @w 7 6 b21 b22 b23 b24 7
6 @q @
7 6 7
A 3  6 @f7 @f7 @f7 @f7 7 6 b31 b32 b33 b34 7
6 @u w @q @
7 6 7
4 0 0 tan
o sin o 0 5 6 0 0 0 0 7
6 7
0 0 sin o = cos
o 0 B 6 7
6 b51 b52 b53 b54 7 (49)
2 @f 3 6 b61 b62 b63 b64 7
5 @f5 @f5
g cos
o cos o 0 6 7
@v @r @p 6 b71 b72 b73 b74 7
6 @f6 @f6 @f6 @f6 7 6 7
6 @v 07 4 0 0 0 0 5
6 @r @p @ 7
A  6 @f7
4
@f7 @f7 @f7
07 0 0 0 0
6 @v 7
Downloaded by MCGILL UNIVERSITY on January 27, 2015 | http://arc.aiaa.org | DOI: 10.2514/1.47996

@r @p @
4 0 tan
o cos o 1 0 05
0 cos o = cos
o 0 0 0 Here, it is assumed that the two engines have identical settings, so
2 @f @f @f 3 that tl and tr are combined: tl  tr  t . The control vector U can
1 1 1
@ @tl @tr thus be expressed as
6 @fe2 7
 6 0 0 7
1
B  6 @e 7; B 2  0 U   t e a r T (50)
4 @f3 @f3 @f3 5
@e @tl @tr
0 0 0 For a damage-free system, many terms in the linearized model
2 3 2 @f @f5
3  1 would be block diagonal, and so
would be zero. Specifically, M
5
0 0 0 @ @r would A and B.
60 @f6 @f6 7 6 @fa6 7
@f6
6 @tl @tr 7 6 @a 7
6 7
@r
B 3  6
60 0 0 7
7; B 4  6 @f7 7
@f7
6. Wings-Level Model
40 6 @a 7 (46)
0 0 5 4 0
@r
0 5 The linearized model for wings-level steady-state flight and its
0 0 0 0 0 generic structure can be obtained following the same procedure.
Corresponding to the wings-level steady-state equilibrium, the
model linearized about this equilibrium has the following structure:

1 
1 
All of the derivatives in A and B are evaluated at the equilibrium point  A 2  B 2
x0 ; U0 . They are subject to uncertain changes due to the unknown M 
BU
 x_ Ax   A4 4 3
4 5 x
B4 3
4 3
4 2 U
4 (51)
A 5 4 A 5 5 B 5 3 B 5 2
changes in the aircraft mass, moments of inertia, and aerodynamic
forces and moments due to damage. where
2 @f @f1 @f1
3
@u
1
@w @q
g cos
o
6 @f2 @f2 @f2 7
6 @u g sin
o 7
A 1  6 @f @w @q 7; A 2  0
5. Generic Structure 4 3 @f3 @f3 @f3 5
@u @w @q @

Generically, the linearized aircraft model is 0 0 1 0
2 3
0 0 0 0
6 @f 6 @f6 @f6 @f6
7
x_  M 
M
 1 Ax  1 BU
  Ax
BU (47) 6 @u @w @q @
7
 3 6 @f
A  6 @u6 @f6 @f7 @f77
@w @q @
7
4 0 0 0 0 5
0 0 0 0
with A  M 1 A and B  M  The structure of M
 1 B.  1 can be 2 @f5 @f5 @f5 3
determined as follows: @v @r @p
g cos
o 0
6 @f6 @f6 @f6 @f6
07
6 @v @r @p @ 7
6 7
A  6 @f7
4 @f7 @f7 @f7
07
2 3 6 @v @r @p @ 7
m11 m12 m13 0 m15 m16 m17 0 0 4 0 tan
o 1 0 05
6 m21 m22 m23 0 m25 m26 m27 0 07 0 1
0 0 0
6 7 cos
o
6 m31 m32 m33 0 m35 m36 m37 0 07 2 @f @f 3
6 7 1 1 @f1
6 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 07 @ @tl @tr
6 7 6 @fe2 7
M 6
 1
6 m51 m52 m53 0 m55 m56 m57 0 077 (48) B 1 
6 @e
6 @f
0 0 7
7; B 2  0
6 m61 m62 m63 0 m65 m66 m67 0 07 4 3 @f3 @f35
6 7 @e @tl @tr
6 m71 m72 m73 0 m75 m76 m77 0 07 0 0 0
6 7
4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 05 2 3 2 @f @f5
3
5
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 @ @r
60 @f6 @f6 7 6 @fa6 @f6 7
6 @tl @tr 7 6 @a 7
6 @f @r 7
B 3  6
60 0 0 7 7; B 4  6 7 @f7 7 (52)
40 6 @a 7
0 0 5 4 0
@r
0 5
with mij (i, j  1; 2; . . . ; 9) being nonzero terms. Thus, the structure
0 0 0 0 0
of A and B can obtained as
 LIU, TAO, AND JOSHI 1505

All of the derivatives in A and B are evaluated at the equilibrium point contributes to the coupling terms, and other components of the
x0 ; U0 , and they are also subject to uncertain changes due to the center-of-gravity shift do not appear in A 3 when the aircraft is in the
unknown changes in the presence of damage. neighborhood of a wings-level flight. The signs of these terms
depend on the location and nature of the damage and nominal flight
7. Damage-Related Linear Dynamics Derivatives conditions. It should be noted that although the center-of-gravity
We next perform a closer review the coupling terms in the shift components
x and
z do not appear in the coupling terms,
linearized wings-level aircraft model. These coupling terms in A 3 they contribute to uncertain variations in A 1 and A 4 , whose terms
can be expressed as also vary with the changes of the aerodynamic characteristics due to
damage.
 
@f6 @TL  @TR  @N The coupling terms in B 3 can be expressed as
 l

y  l 
y
(53)
@u @u x0 ;U0 @u x0 ;U0 u @f6 @TL 

 l

y (65)
  @tl @tl x0 ;U0
@f6 @TL  @TR  @N
 l

y  l 
y
(54)
@w @w x0 ;U0 @w x0 ;U0 w 
@f6 @TR 
 l 
y (66)
@tr @tr x0 ;U0

@f6 @N These terms are from the additional moments generated by thrusts
 mw0
y
(55)
Downloaded by MCGILL UNIVERSITY on January 27, 2015 | http://arc.aiaa.org | DOI: 10.2514/1.47996

@q q due to the center-of-gravity shift. It can be seen that only
y appears

in the above derivatives, which is similar to the coupling terms in A 3 .
This is because the engine thrusts are assumed to be parallel to the x
axis, and thus no additional thrust moments are generated about the x
@f6
 mg cos
0
y (56) and y axes. It is reasonable to assume that
y, the lateral center-of-
@
gravity shift, does not exceed l, the distance between the engine on
either side and the x-z plane in the body frame. The derivatives
@TL =@tl jx0 ;U0 and @TR =@tr jx0 ;U0 are positive constants. Thus,
@f7 @L @f6 =@tl is always positive, and @f6 =@tr is always negative. This
 (57) observation is consistent with the aircraft’s dynamics: the left engine
@u @u
generates a yaw moment with a positive direction about the z axis,
and the right engine generates a moment about the negative direction.
The generic model structure for linearized wings-level aircraft
@f7 @L model can be obtained as
 (58)
@w @w 2 3
a11 a12 a13 a14 a15 a16 a17 a18 0
6 a21 a22 a23 a24 a25 a26 a27 a28 0 7
6 7
@f7 @L 6 a31 a32 a33 a34 a35 a36 a37 a38 0 7
 mu0
y
(59) 6 7
6 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 07
@q @q 6 7
A6 6 a51 a52 a53 a54 a55 a56 a57 a58 0 77
6 a61 a62 a63 a64 a65 a66 a67 a68 0 7
6 7
6 a71 a72 a73 a74 a75 a76 a77 a78 0 7
@f7 6 7
 mg sin
0
y (60) 4 0 0 0 0 0 tan
0 1 0 05
@
0 0 0 0 0 1
0 0 0
cos
0
The existence of these coupling terms is due to the additional 2 3
b11 b12 b13 b14
moments contributed by engine thrusts and gravity about the new 6 b21 b22 b23 b24 7
center of gravity. When no asymmetric control surface failures are 6 7
6 b31 b32 b33 b34 7
present and engine thrust differentials are not required, it can be 6 7
6 0 0 0 0 7
assumed that two engine settings are identical. Thus, in Eqs. (53) and 6 7
(54), it is assumed that B6 6 b51 b52 b53 b54 7
7
(67)
6 b61 b62 b63 b64 7
   6 7
@TL  @TR  @T  6 b71 b72 b73 b74 7
 ≜ (61) 6 7
@u x0 ;U0 @u x0 ;U0 @u x0 ;U0 4 0 0 0 0 5
0 0 0 0
  
@TL  @TR  @T 
 ≜ (62)
@w x0 ;U0 @w x0 ;U0 @w x0 ;U0 C. Issues for Adaptive Control
 B,
Since certain elements in A,  and M  can undergo uncertain and
Thus, the derivatives in Eqs. (53) and (54) can be further expressed as
abrupt changes when damage occurs, it can be seen that system

@f6 @T  @N matrices A and B will have uncertain changes due to the variations of
 2 
y
(63) aircraft mass, mass distribution, and aerodynamic characteristics.
@u @u x0 ;U0 @u
Coupling terms are also present in the linearized aircraft model with
damage, which change from zero to nonzero when damage occurs.
 For multivariable MRAC design, the plant’s infinite zero structure
@f6 @T  @N and the signs of leading principal minors of the high-frequency gain
2
y
(64)
@w @w x0 ;U0 @u matrix are key design conditions. The infinite zero structure of a
multivariable aircraft system Gs  CsI  A1 B is characterized
By observing the coupling terms shown in Eqs. (63), (64), (55), (56), by a modified interactor matrix m s defined such that
(59), and (60), one can see that the lateral shift of the center of gravity lim m sGs  Kp (68)

y is the only component of the center-of-gravity shift that s!1
 1506 LIU, TAO, AND JOSHI

where m s is a triangular and stably invertible polynomial matrix, 3) If some rows of En1 are nonzero, the elements in m s in those
and Kp is finite and nonsingular. rows have relative degree 1, and the other rows have relative degree 2.
For multivariable MRAC design, it is important to answer the Kp consists of nonzero rows from En1 (in the same order) and the
following questions: Will the infinite zero structure of the aircraft other rows are the nonzero rows from En2 .
system change when system matrices A and B have uncertain
changes due to damage? Will the signs of principal minors of the B. Case I:
m
s and Kp for Input u  e ; r T and Output
high-frequency gain matrix change? To investigate these key plant y  ; T
properties, several case studies will be conducted in the next section. For this case study, the inputs are aileron e and rudder r , and the
outputs are pitch angle
and yaw angle .
III. Infinite Zero Structure and High-Frequency
Gain of Linearized Models 1. m s and Kp Under Nominal Conditions
In this section, the results of several case studies based on the For undamaged aircraft, the system matrices A0 and B0 as in [7],
linearized aircraft model will be presented. It will be shown that the En1 , and En2 can be obtained as
infinite zero structure of the aircraft systems remains the same in
the presence of damage, whereas the signs of the high-frequency gain En1  CB0  0 (72)
matrix could change for certain cases.
To determine the infinite zero structure for these systems, it is

b032 0
important to verify the relative degrees for the elements in the transfer En2  CA0 B0
n1 CB0  0 1
b (73)
cos
0 064
matrices. In this study, a practical algorithm [9] will be employed for
Downloaded by MCGILL UNIVERSITY on January 27, 2015 | http://arc.aiaa.org | DOI: 10.2514/1.47996

calculating the infinite zero structure and high-frequency gain matrix Thus, it can be determined that all rows of Gs have a relative degree
conveniently. 2. So m s and Kp can be obtained as
The cases for the modeling study include two two-input/two-


output and one three-input/three-output systems. The cases studied s
12 0
are based on the linearized models about the generic and wings-level m s  (74)
0 s
12
steady-state equilibria. The inputs and outputs are summarized as
follows:


1) Case I: The inputs are aileron e and rudder r, the outputs are b032 0
pitch angle
and yaw angle , and the matrix C is expressed as Kp  0 1
b064 (75)
cos
0


0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 The elements of Kp are as follows: b032 < 0 is the control gain from
C (69)
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 elevator to pitch acceleration and b064 < 0 is the control gain from
rudder to yaw acceleration.
2) Case II: The inputs are engine throttle t and rudder r, and the
outputs are pitch angle
and yaw angle with the same C in Eq. (69).
3) Case III: The inputs are engine throttle t , elevator e, and rudder 2. m s and Kp Under Damage Conditions
r , and the outputs are forward velocity u, pitch angle
, and yaw For this model, En1 and En2 can be obtained as
angle , with C in Eq. (69), and with C being
En1  CB  0 (76)
2 3
1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
C  40 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 05 (70) En2  CAB
n1 CB
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1

cos 0 b32  sin 0 b62 cos 0 b34  sin 0 b64
 sin 0 b
cos 0 b sin 0
b
cos 0
b (77)
cos
0 32 cos
0 62 cos
0 34 cos
0 64
A. Algorithm for Determining the Infinite Zero Structure and
High-Frequency Gain The rows of Gs have a relative degree 2. So m s and Kp can be
Given the system matrices A, B, and C, the transfer matrix can be obtained as
calculated as

s
12 0
m s  2 (78)
1 0 s
1
Gs  E sn1
En2 sn2




E1 s
E0  (71)
s n1


cos 0 b32  sin 0 b62 cos 0 b34  sin 0 b64
where Kp  sin 0 b
cos 0 b sin 0 (79)
cos
0 32 cos
0 62
b
cos
cos
0 34
0
b
cos
0 64
n n1
s  detsI  A  s
n1 s




1 s
0 ;
En1  CB; where b32 and b34 are the gains from elevator and rudder to the pitch
En2  CAB
n1 CB; acceleration, and b62 and b64 are the gains from elevator and rudder to
.. the yaw acceleration.
.
E1  CAn2 B
n1 CAn3 B




2 CB; 3. m s and Kp for Wings-Level Flight
E0  CAn1 B
n1 CAn2 B




1 CB For this flight condition, 0  0, and En1 and En2 can be
obtained as
For aircraft models without actuator dynamics, the relative degree of
a transfer function is typically 1 (from a control input to a linear or En1  CB  0 (80)
angular velocity) or 2 (from a control input to an angle). Thus, En1
and En2 in Eq. (71) can be evaluated for determining m s and Kp in

this study. The details of this algorithm are given below. b32 b34
En2  CAB
n1 CB  1
b 1
b (81)
1) If all of the rows of En1 are nonzero, the elements in m s all cos
0 62 cos
0 64
have relative degree 1, and Kp  En1 .
2) If En1 is zero and all of the rows of En2 are nonzero, then the The rows of Gs have a relative degree 2. So m s and Kp can be
degree of the elements in m s is 2, and Kp  En2 . obtained as
 LIU, TAO, AND JOSHI 1507


s
12 0 where b31 and b34 are the gains from engine throttle and rudder to
m s  (82) pitch acceleration, and b61 and b64 are the gains from engine throttle
0 s
12
and rudder to yaw acceleration.


b32 b34
Kp  1
b 1
b (83)
cos
0 62 cos
0 64 3. m s and Kp for Wings-Level Flight
For this special case, En1 and En2 can be calculated as

4. Discussion En1  CB  0 (90)

For case I (wherein the two linearized models are about two
different equilibria), the infinite zero structure m s is invariant
when damage occurs.

Based on the nominal Kp with the typical signs of its elements, it b31 b34
En2  CAB
n1 CB  CAB  1
b 1
b (91)
can be seen that the signs of its principal minors would change if there cos
0 61 cos
0 64
were a sign change in b32 , b34 , b62 , or b64. The physical meaning of
such a sign change is that a control surface generates a totally
opposite angular acceleration after damage. Such a situation is and m s and Kp can be obtained as
unlikely to occur unless
x,
y, and
z are very large.


Downloaded by MCGILL UNIVERSITY on January 27, 2015 | http://arc.aiaa.org | DOI: 10.2514/1.47996

s
12 0
T m s  (92)
C. Case II:
m
s and Kp for Input u  t ; r  and Output 0 s
12
y  ; T
For this case, the inputs are engine throttle t and rudder r, and the
outputs are pitch angle
and yaw angle .


1. m s and Kp Under Nominal Conditions b31 b34
Kp  1
b 1
b (93)
For this case, En1 and En2 can be calculated as cos
0 61 cos
0 64

En1  CB0  0

 where b31 and b34 are the gains from engine throttle and rudder to
b031 0 pitch acceleration, and b61 and b64 are the gains from engine throttle
En2  CA0 B0
n1 CB0  CA0 B0  0 1
b064
cos
0 and rudder to yaw acceleration.

Thus, all transfer functions have a relative degree 2, and m s and Kp
can be obtained as
4. Discussion


s
12 0 For this case, the infinite zero structure does not change with the
m s  2 (84) damage. By examining Kp in Eqs. (85) and (93), it can be seen that
0 s
1
there are two situations when the signs of the principal minors may

 change:
b031 0 1) If the gain from the engine throttle to the pitch acceleration
Kp  0 1
b (85)
cos
0 064 changes from positive (no damage) to negative (with damage), the
sign change will occur. The physical meaning is, for example, that the
The elements in Kp are as follows: b031 > 0 is the control gain from engine thrust causes a nose-down moment due to vertically down-
engine throttle to pitch acceleration, and b064 < 0 is the control gain shifted center of gravity under damage, instead of a nose-up moment
from rudder to yaw acceleration. The determinant of Kp under under the nominal condition.
nominal conditions is typically negative. 2) If b31 and b64 do not change signs after damage, and b34 (i.e.,
control gain from rudder to pitch acceleration) assumes a positive
2. m s and Kp Under Damage Conditions value, then det KP > 0 when
For the model based on the generic equilibrium, En1 and En2 can
be obtained as b31 b64
b61 < <0 (94)
En1  CB  0 (86) b34

En2  CAB
n1 CB  CAB The physical meaning of this situation is that two identical engine

 thrusts would generate a moment about the negative z axis with the
b31 cos 0  b61 sin 0 b34 cos 0  b64 sin 0 center of gravity shifting to the left (i.e., right wing damage). The
 1 b sin 
b cos   1
b34 sin 0
b64 cos 0  condition for b61 can be derived similarly with a negative b34 , which
cos
0 31 0 61 0 cos
0
corresponds to left wing damage.
(87)
Kp in Eq. (89) is more complicated than that in Eq. (93), because of
and m s and Kp can be obtained as the nonzero 0 . However, it is reasonable to assume that 0 is small.

 Thus, Kp in Eq. (89) would be close to Eq. (93), and the sign change
s
12 0 cases would also be similar.
m s  (88)
0 s
12

Kp D. Case III:
m
s and Kp for Input u  t ; e ; r T and Output

 y  u; ; T
b31 cos 0  b61 sin 0 b34 cos 0  b64 sin 0
 1
b31 sin 0
b61 cos 0  1
b34 sin 0
b64 cos 0  For this case, the inputs are engine throttle t , elevator e, and
cos
0 cos
0
rudder r , and the outputs are forward velocity u, pitch angle
, and
(89) yaw angle .
 1508 LIU, TAO, AND JOSHI

3. m s and Kp for Wings-Level Flight

The matrices En1 and En2 can be obtained as

2 3 2 P7 P7 P7 3
b11 b12 b14 i1 a1i bi1
n1 b11 i1 a1i bi2
n1 b12 i1 a1i bi4
n1 b14
En1  CB  4 0 0 0 5; En2  CAB
n1 CB  4 b31 b32 b34 5
1 1 1
0 0 0 b
cos
0 61
b
cos
0 62
b
cos
0 64

1. m s and Kp Under Nominal Conditions The transfer functions in the first row of Gs have a relative degree 1,
For this case, En1 and En2 can be obtained as and the transfer functions in the second and third rows have a relative
degree 2. So m s and Kp can be obtained as
2 3
b011 b012 0 2 3
En1  CB0  4 0 0 05 s
1 0 0
0 0 0 m s  4 0 s
12 0 5 (97)
2
0 0 s
1
En2  CA0 B0
n1 CB0
2 P3 P3 3
i1 a01i b0i1
n1 b011 i1 a01i b0i2
n1 b012 0
Downloaded by MCGILL UNIVERSITY on January 27, 2015 | http://arc.aiaa.org | DOI: 10.2514/1.47996

4 b031 b032 0 5 2 3
1 b11 b12 b14
0 0 b
cos
0 064 Kp  4 b31 b32 b34 5 (98)
1 1 1
b
cos
0 61
b
cos
0 62
b
cos
0 64
The transfer functions in the first row of Gs have a relative degree 1,
and the transfer functions in the second and third rows have a relative
degree 2. So m s and Kp can be obtained as

2 3
s
1 0 0 4. Discussion
m s  4 0 s
12 0 5 (95) The infinite zero structure m s is also invariant after damage. If
0 0 s
12 b31 < 0 and the following condition is satisfied,

b11 b32
b31 < <0 (99)
2 3 b12
b011 b012 0
Kp  4 b031 b032 0 5 (96)
0 0 1
b064
a sign change would occur. The physical meaning is, for example,
cos
0
that if the center of gravity shifts downward and crosses the path of
the engine thrust, the engine thrust causes a nose-down moment,
The elements in Kp are as follows: b011 > 0 is the control gain from instead of a nose-up moment under the nominal condition.
engine throttle to forward acceleration, b012 > 0 is the control gain The major difference between this case and the previous one is that
from elevator to forward acceleration, b031 > 0 is the control gain the sign change in case II only requires that b31 < 0, whereas in
from engine throttle to pitch acceleration, b032 < 0 is the control case III, b31 is not only required to be negative, but also has a
gain from elevator to pitch acceleration, and b064 < 0 is the control magnitude constraint characterized by Eq. (99). Although the
gain from rudder to yaw acceleration. situation may be physically meaningful, the downward shift of the
The signs of the principal minors can thus be determined as center of gravity would likely be small, thus resulting in no sign

1 > 0,
2 < 0, and
3 > 0. change.

2. m s and Kp Under Damage Conditions

The matrices En1 and En2 can be obtained as

2 3 2 P7 P7 P7 3
b11 b12 b14 i1 a1i bi1
n1 b11 i1 a1i bi2
n1 b12 i1 a1i bi4
n1 b14
En1 CB 4 0 0 0 5; En2 CAB
n1 CB 4 b31 cos0 b61 sin0 b32 cos0 b62 sin0 b34 cos0 b64 sin0 5
1 1 1
0 0 0 cos
0
b31 sin0
b61 cos0  cos
0
b 32 sin0
b 62 cos0  cos
0
b34 sin0
b64 cos0 

E. System Invariance Under Damage

The transfer functions in the first row of Gs have a relative degree 1, Based on the case studies, it can be seen that the infinite zero
and the transfer functions in the second and third rows have a relative structures do not change under damage conditions. This can be
degree 2. So m s and Kp can be obtained as summarized into the following proposition.

2 3 2 3
s
1 0 0 b11 b12 b14
m s  4 0 s
12 0 5 Kp  4 b31 cos0  b61 sin 0 b32 cos 0  b62 sin 0 b34 cos 0  b64 sin 0 5
1 1 1
0 0 s
12 cos
0
b31 sin 0
b61 cos0  cos
0
b32 sin 0
b62 cos0  cos
0
b34 sin 0
b64 cos0 
 LIU, TAO, AND JOSHI
Proposition 1: For all of the cases studied so far, the asymmetric
aircraft damage does not change the infinite zero structure of the
linearized aircraft model.
Explanation: A close examination of the case studies shows that
the relative degrees of the transfer functions in any row of Gs do not
change, and Kp for both undamaged and damaged aircraft systems
remain nonsingular. The condition for the relative degrees to change
is that a row in En1 or En2 suddenly changes from a nonzero row
vector to zero. Considering the structures of A and B under damage
conditions (with nonzero terms appearing), based on which En1 and
En2 are calculated, it is not likely to have a row changing from
nonzero to zero. More specifically, it is not likely that a row in the
matrix CB or CAB would change from nonzero to zero after damage
(based on both generic model structure and linearized models of the
NASA generic transport model (GTM). Thus, the key condition on
the infinite zero structure for multivariable MRAC would most likely
be satisfied under damage conditions.
However, system damage may pose other challenges for multi-
variable MRAC designs. First, the case studies show that for some
cases under certain damage conditions, the signs of the principal
Downloaded by MCGILL UNIVERSITY on January 27, 2015 | http://arc.aiaa.org | DOI: 10.2514/1.47996
minors of the high-frequency gain matrix may change. Therefore,
MRAC designs that do not depend on the signs of principal minors of
Kp are preferable and should be studied. Second, large parameter
variations can occur due to damage, and technical issues (including
stability and output tracking) under these large parameter uncer-
tainties need to be studied.
IV. Multivariable Model Reference Adaptive
Control Design
From the case studies, it can be seen that in some cases (especially
lateral dynamics in the models), sign changes in high-frequency gain
matrix may not occur when damage is present. In this section, a
multivariable model reference adaptive control design is presented
for aircraft with damage when there are no sign changes in the high-
frequency gain matrix.
A. Problem Formulation
Consider a linear system of the form
_  Axt
BUt; yt  Cxt
xt (100)
where A 2 Rn n , B 2 Rn m , and C 2 Rm n are unknown parameter
matrices, and xt 2 Rn , Ut 2 Rm , and yt 2 Rm are the state,
input, and output vectors. To represent an aircraft model, A and B can
be expressed as
A  A0

A (101)
B  B0

B (102)
where A0 and B0 are the nominal parameter matrices for aircraft
without damage, and
A and
B contain the unknown coupling
terms and parameter changes caused by damage (they are zero when
there is no damage).
The objective is to design a control vector Ut such that the plant
output yt tracks a given reference output
ym t  Wm srt 2 Rm (103)
for a stable m m transfer matrix Wm s and a bounded reference
signal rt 2 Rm , despite the unknown damage. The designed control
signal Ut is applied to the linearized aircraft system. The above
reference model is written in its operator form, where ym t≜
L1 Wm sRs, with L1 
 being the inverse Laplace transform
operator and Rs being the frequency-domain counterpart of rt.
The transfer function matrix Wm s in Eq. (103) can be seen as the
operator that maps from rt to ym t.
Such a notation is instrumental in representing an adaptive control
system, involves both linear time-invariant dynamics and nonlinear
time-varying dynamics, and will be frequent hereafter.
1509
For the adaptive control design, the following assumptions will be
considered:
Assumption 1: The parameter matrices A, B, and C are piecewise-
constant, with a finite number of unknown and constant jumps Ai , Bi ,
and Ci (i  1; 2; . . . ; N).
So there are up to N  1 occurrences of damage in the system. For
each value (Ai , Bi , and Ci ), the transfer matrix can be defined as
Gi s  Ci sI  Ai 1 Bi .
Assumption 2: All zeros of Gi s are stable.
Assumption 3: An upper bound  on the observability index of
Gi s is known.
Assumption 4: Gi s is strictly proper with full rank and has a
known modified interactor matrix m s such that lims!1 m s
Gi s  Kpi , the high-frequency gain matrix of Gi s, is finite and
nonsingular.
1
Assumption 5: Wm s  m s.
Assumption 6: All leading principal minors of the matrix Kpi are
nonzero and their signs are known and the same for each i.
The basic assumptions for multivariable MRAC are as follows:
The plants need to be minimum phase. A common m s is needed for
all Gi s, and signs of the leading principal minors of Kpi do not
change. These assumptions allow a standard multivariable MRAC
scheme to handle piecewise-constant parameter variations that can
occur due to damage. It should be noted that discontinuous system
parameter changes are allowed, and such jumps will not cause insta-
bility. From Proposition 1 in Sec. III.E, it can be seen that
Assumption 4 can be satisfied based on the case studies, and
Assumption 6 can be satisfied under certain damage conditions.
B. Plant-Model Matching Controllers
For model reference adaptive control design, a nominal model
reference controller is needed that achieves the desired control
objective when the system parameters A, B, and C are known.
Parameters of such a controller, which are unknown, are also used in
deriving an error model needed for adaptation of an adaptive
controller.
Since the system parameters A, B, and C may take any of the values
Ai , Bi , and Ci (i  1; 2; . . . ; N), there is a set of corresponding
nominal controllers, and each controller has the structure
U t  T T  
1 !1 t
2 !2 t
20 yt
3 trt (104)
where !1 t  FsU t, !2  Fsyt, Fs  AF s=s,

AF s  I; sI; . . . ; s2 IT , and s is a monic stable polynomial of
degree   1, with the upper bound  on the observability indices of
Gi s. The nominal parameters 1  11 ; . . . ; 11 T 
  , 2 
  T    m m
  , 20 , 3 , and ij 2 R
21 ; . . . ; 21 (i  1, 2 and
j  1; . . . ;   1) are for plant-model matching and are derived next.
The following notation,
Gi s  Ci sI  Ai 1 Bi  Zi sP1
i s (105)
is introduced for some m m right coprime polynomial matrices
Zi s and Pi s, with Pi s being the column proper (i
1; 2; . . . ; N).
With the specification of s, m s, Pi s, and Zi s, there exist
1 , 2 , 20 , and 3  Kpi
1
such that
T T 
1 AF sPi s
2 AF s
s20 Zi s  sPi s
 3 m sZi s
(106)
Since s and Zi s are stable, we can have the plant-model transfer
matrix matching equation:
I  T T   1
1 Fs  2 FsGi s  20 Gi s  3 Wm sGi s
(107)
from which the plant-model matching parameters 1 , 2 , and 20
can be determined with 3  Kpi 1
. For each Ai , Bi , and Ci
(i  1; 2; . . . ; N), a set of constant parameters j (j  1, 2, 20, 3)
 1510 LIU, TAO, AND JOSHI

can be determined. So for all of the possible values of A, B, and C,

Kp Ut  T T  
1 !1 t  2 !2 t  20 yt  3 rt
plant-model matching parameters are piecewise-constant, and the
plant-model matching equation is also a piecewise equation.  m sy  ym t (112)

C. Adaptive Control Scheme With the LDS decomposition in Eq. (108), Eq. (112) can be
To design the adaptive control scheme, a high-frequency gain expressed as
decomposition will be first introduced. As shown in [10,11], such a
decomposition-based design relies less on the a priori knowledge of
Ds SUt  T T  
1 !1 t  2 !2 t  20 yt  3 rt
the high-frequency gain matrix. Then a model reference adaptive
control design is proposed, and the desired stability and tracking  L1
s m sy  ym t (113)
properties are established.
From Eq. (113) and the adaptive controller (110), the following
1. LDS Decomposition of Kp equation can be obtained:
Let
i (i  1; 2; . . . ; m) denote the leading principal minors of the
high-frequency gain matrix Kp 2 Rm m and assume that
i ≠ 0 ~ T t!t
(i  1; 2; . . . ; m). The gain matrix Kp then has a nonunique m sy  ym t
0 m sy  ym t  Ds S (114)
decomposition [10,11]:
where Ds is in Eq. (109); S  ST > 0 in Eq. (108); t ~
Downloaded by MCGILL UNIVERSITY on January 27, 2015 | http://arc.aiaa.org | DOI: 10.2514/1.47996

Kp  Ls Ds S (108) t   , with t being the estimate of  

T T   T T T T T T
1 ; 2 ; 20 ; 3  ; !t  !1 t; !2 t; y t; r t ; and, with
where S 2 Rm m is a symmetric and positive definite matrix, Ls is an Ls in Eq. (108), 0  L1  I has a special form:
s
m m unit lower triangular matrix, and
2 3
0 0 0

0
Ds  diagfs1 ; s2 ; . . . ; sM g


  6 

21 0 0

07
6 7

2
m 6 

31 

32 0

07
 diag sign
1 1 ; sign  ; . . . ; sign  (109)  6 7

1 2
m1 m 0  6 .. .. .. .. .. 7 (115)
6 . . . . .7
6 7
4




m1m2 0 05
such that i > 0 (i  1; . . . ; m) may be arbitrary. All Kpi can have the m11
  
same Ds based to Assumption 6.
m1

mm2
mm1 0

Given this structure of 0 , the parameter vectors can be defined as

2. Adaptive Controller
When plant parameters are uncertain, the controller parameters
1 , 2 , 20 , and 3 are also unknown. As the adaptive version of
2 
21 
2R
Eq. (104), the following controller is used:
3  
31

;
32 T
 2 R2

4  
41
 
;
42  T
;
43  2 R3
Ut  T1 t!1 t
T2 t!2 t
20 tyt
3 trt .. (116)
.
(110) 

m1 
 
m11 
; . . . ;
m1m2 T 2 Rm2
  

m  
m1 ; . . . ;
mm1  2 Rm1
T
where !1 t  FsUt, !2  Fsyt, and 1 t, 2 t,
20 t, and 3 t are estimates of 1 , 2 , 20 , and 3 to be
adaptively updated. and let their estimates be
i t (i  2; 3; . . . ; m):
The structure of the model reference adaptive control scheme is
shown in Fig. 1.
2 t 
21 t 2 R

3 t  
31 t;
32 tT 2 R2
.. (117)
3. Error Dynamics .
T m2
From the plant-model transfer matrix matching Eq. (107), for any
m1 t  
m11 t; . . . ;
m1m2 t 2 R
Ut, we have
m t  
m1 t; . . . ;
mm1 tT 2 Rm1

Ut  T T   1
1 !1 t  2 !2 t  20 yt  3 Wm syt (111) Choose fs as a stable monic polynomial whose degree is equal to
the maximum degree of m s. Introduce the filter hs  1=fs;
which, together with the reference model (103) and Assumption 5, define the filtered tracking error,
yields
  m shset  e 1 t; . . . ; e m tT
et (118)

with et  yt  ym t; and denote

i t  e 1 t; . . . ; e i1 tT 2 Ri1 ; i  2; . . . ; m (119)

Multiplying both sides of Eq. (114) by hsIm leads to


0;
2T 2 t;
3T 3 t; . . . ;
m

et T ~ T !t
m tT  Ds Shs
(120)

Fig. 1 Block diagram of the model reference adaptive control system. Thus, we have
 LIU, TAO, AND JOSHI 1511

  0;
2T 2 t;
3T 3 t; . . . ;
m

et T
m tT where
~i t 
i t 
i , and t
~  t   .
~ T !t;   0;
T 2 t;
T 3 t; . . . ;
m

Ds Shs T
m tT
2 3
4. Adaptive Laws

Ds Shs   T !t; The adaptive laws are chosen as
 0;
2T 2 t;
3T 3 t; . . . ;
m
T
m tT

i
i ti t

 hsT !t   T hs!t;
_ i t   ; i  2; 3; . . . ; m (125)
m2 t
 0;
2T 2 t;
3T 3 t; . . . ;
m
T
m tT
T

 hsT !t   T t (121) _ T t   Ds
t t
 (126)
m2 t
where  ≜ Ds S and t ≜ hs!t. A key step in MRAC
designs is to find a measurement of the performance error that can be
linearly parameterized in terms of parameter errors and known 
t t T
measurable signals. To find such an error signal, we defined the _
t  (127)
following intermediate signal by replacing the true parameters in m2 t
Eq. (121) with their estimates:
where
t  
1 t;
2 t; . . . ;
m tT ,
e^  0;
2T 2 t;
3T 3 t;...;
m
T
m tT
hsT !t X
m
Downloaded by MCGILL UNIVERSITY on January 27, 2015 | http://arc.aiaa.org | DOI: 10.2514/1.47996

m2 t  1
T t t
T tt
Ti ti t (128)

 T t  0;
2T 2 t;
3T 3 t;...;
m
T
m tT  tt (122) i2

where t ≜ T t  hsT !t and t is the estimate of  . 
i  T
i > 0 (i  2; 3; . . . ; m), and   T > 0.
An estimation signal can then be defined as
5. Stability Analysis

t  et ^  et
  et 
0;
2T 2 t;
3T 3 t; . . . ;
m
T
m tT To demonstrate the stability of the closed-loop system, a
piecewise-continuous Lyapunov function can be used. Based on

tt (123)
Assumption 1, there are N  1 finite jumps due to the damage and
totally N choices of Ai , Bi , and Ci . Assuming that the asymmetric
which leads to damage occurs at time instant tj (j  1, 2; . . . ; N  1), the following
Lyapunov-like function can be chosen:

t  0;
~2 t2 t;
~3 t3 t; . . . ;
~m tm tT
T T T

X
m
T

 hsT !t   T t
tt V
~i 1 ~ ~ T 1 ~ ~ ~T

i
i
tr  
trS  (129)
T T T i2
 0;
~2 t2 t;
~3 t3 t; . . . ;
~m tm tT
 T t
 t   T t
tt for time intervals tj1 ; tj  (j  1; . . . ; N), with t0  0 and tN  1.
Because of the changes in the system parameters after the damage
T T T
 0;
~2 t2 t;
~3 t3 t; . . . ;
~m tm tT (which are finite) and the finite jumps of the nominal parameters,
there would be a finite jump in V for each jump in the system
~ T t
tt

Ds St ~ (124) parameters Ai , Bi , and Ci : i.e.,

1.5

1
Tracking error of pitch angle θ (deg)

0.5

−0.5

−1

−1.5

−2

−2.5

−3
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160
Time (s)
Fig. 2 Tracking error of pitch angle 
t.
 1512 LIU, TAO, AND JOSHI

10

Tracking error of roll angle φ (deg)

0
Downloaded by MCGILL UNIVERSITY on January 27, 2015 | http://arc.aiaa.org | DOI: 10.2514/1.47996

−5
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160
Time (s)
Fig. 3 Tracking error of roll angle 
t.

X
Vt

j   Vtj  < 1; j  1; 2; . . . ; N  1 (130) 2 m
T
V_  
~ t
i ti t
m2 t i2 i
From the adaptive laws, the time derivative of V in each tj1 ; tj  can 
be obtained as
tr ~
~ T
tT t
trtSD T
s
t t

X
m
V_  2
T

~i 1 _ ~ T 1 _ ~ _T 2
T t
t

i
i
2 tr  
2trS   0 (131)
i2 m2 t

From Eqs. (125–127), and with the expression of

t in Eq. (124), Recall that V is not continuous at instant tj (j  1, 2; . . . ; N  1) and
we have has only finite jumps at those instants. For each time interval tj1 ; tj 

15
x−axis velocity u (ft/s)

10

−5
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160
Time (s)
1
z−axis velocity w (ft/s)

−1

−2
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160
Time (s)
1
Pitch rate q (deg/s)

0
−1
−2
−3
−4
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160
Time (s)
Fig. 4 Longitudinal states: u, w, and q.
 LIU, TAO, AND JOSHI 1513

(j  1; . . . ; N), it follows that V_  0, which implies that V is The smallness of its loop gain is ensured by the L2 properties of
bounded. With the fact that V only has finite jumps at finite time the adaptive laws. The asymptotic tracking property follows from the
instants, it can be concluded that V is bounded for 0; 1. So it can be complete parameterization of the estimation error equation (123), the
concluded that
i t 2 L1 , t 2 L1 , and t 2 L1 . L2 properties, and the signal boundedness of the closed-loop system.
Integrating both sides of Eq. (131) for the time interval tj1 ; tj  The piecewise-continuous Lyapunov function technique provides a
yields powerful tool to the stability analysis of MRAC for aircraft with
Zt multiple damage occurrences. Thus far, a multivariable MRAC
T
j 2

 scheme has been developed that is applicable to the compensation of
d  Vt

j1   Vtj  (132)
tj1 m2  asymmetric damage in aircraft system.

For N intervals 0; t1  for t1 ; t2 ; . . . ; tN1 ; 1, the above equation V. Simulation Results
holds. Summing both sides of Eq. (132) for j  1; . . . ; N yields
In the simulation study, the MRAC scheme developed is applied to
Z1 T aircraft models from the NASA GTM model to verify the control
2


d  V0  Vt1 
Vt


1   Vt2 
Vt2  scheme performance. The NASA GTM testbed is a remotely piloted
0 m2 
5.5% dynamically scaled model for the investigation of aircraft



 Vtj 
Vt


j   Vtj
1 
Vtj
1  


 VtN1  control under adverse conditions. A nonlinear high-fidelity simu-
X
N1 lation platform based on Simulink is available for GTM, which uses

Vt
Vt
 experimentally validated aerodynamic models extracted from wind-
N1   V1  V0
j   Vtj   V1 (133)
j1 tunnel data and can simulate several failure and damage scenarios
Downloaded by MCGILL UNIVERSITY on January 27, 2015 | http://arc.aiaa.org | DOI: 10.2514/1.47996

[12,13]. The MRAC scheme is tested on aircraft models obtained by

j   Vtj  is finite, and from
From Eq. (130), the condition that Vt
 trimming and linearizing the NASA GTM under both nominal and
Eq. (133), one can obtain damage conditions.
Z1 T
2

 A. System Description
d < 1 (134)
0 m2  The controlled plants consist of two linearized aircraft models of
the NASA GTM trimmed and linearized under both nominal and
which yields
t=mt 2 L2 \ L1 . Similarly,
_i t 2 L2 \ L1 damage conditions. The linearized models are of the following form:
_
(i  2; 3; . . . ; m), t _
2 L2 \ L1 , and t 2 L2 \ L1 can be
obtained. Based on these properties, the following results can be x_  A0 x
B0 U (135)
established.
Theorem 1 The MRAC scheme consisting of Eqs. (110) and (125–
127) ensures closed-loop signal boundedness and asymptotic output x  u; w; q;
; v; r; p;  (136)
tracking limt!1 yt  ym t  0 for the system (100) satisfying
Assumptions 1–6.
The proof of this theorem can be obtained in a way similar to that in U  e ; a  (137)
[10], based on the fact that there is a well-defined feedback structure
for the closed-loop system that has a small loop gain, leading to
closed-loop stability. Such a structure is developed from the feedback
controller with bounded parameters and the plant with stable zeros. y  Cx (138)
y−axis velocity v (ft/s)

0.4
0.2
0
−0.2
−0.4
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160
Time (s)
3
Yaw rate r (deg/s)

2
1
0
−1
−2
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160
Time (s)
15
Roll rate p (deg/s)

10
5
0
−5
−10
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160
Time (s)
Fig. 5 Lateral states: v, r, and p.
 1514 LIU, TAO, AND JOSHI

The plant outputs are chosen as pitch angle
and roll angle . The so that
control inputs are the elevator position e and aileron position a .
The nominal model is trimmed and linearized about a wings-level

steady-state flight with a total airspeed of 75.89 kt, and its system Kp0  lim m sG0 s 
0:7486 0:0859
(142)
matrices A0 , B0 , and C are s!1 0:00001 0:7675

2 3 2 3
0:019 0:1364 9:7778 32:0829 0:0018 0:0004 0 0 0:0056 0:0423
6 0:2804 2:7567 120:1968 2:42 0:0001 0 0:0004 0:0061 7 6 0:6119 0:1579 7
6 7 6 7
6 0:0205 0:3106 3:5393 0 0:007 0:0328 0:0014 0 7 6 0:7486 0:0859 7
6 7 6 7
6 0 0 1 0 0 0:0002 0 0:0002 7 6 0 0 7
A0  6
6
7;
7 B0  6
6
7
6 0 0:0027 0 0:0005 0:5765 125:9974 10:4690 32:0829 7 6 0 0:0223 7
7
6 0 0 0:0255 0 0:2245 1:4053 0:2794 0 7 6 0 0:0232 7
6 7 6 7
4 0 0 0:0018 0 0:629 1:9689 5:4759 0 5 4 0 0:7657 5
0 0 0 0:0002 0 0:0754 1 0 0 0


0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0
C (139)
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1
Downloaded by MCGILL UNIVERSITY on January 27, 2015 | http://arc.aiaa.org | DOI: 10.2514/1.47996

The NASA GTM model contains several damage and failure
scenarios for simulation study under adverse conditions. In this
study, the damage case with the loss of outboard left wing tip is
considered. The damaged aircraft model can be trimmed about a
wings-level steady-state flight at a speed of 75.89 kt. The linearized
system matrices are as below:
which is finite and nonsingular. Its principal minors are
01 
0:7486 and
02  0:5745. It can be verified that the observability
index of G0 s is 0  4. So  0 can be chosen as 4.
It is also verified that the damaged aircraft model Gd s  CsI 
Ad 1 Bd has stable zeros, is strictly proper, and has a full rank. The
same m s in Eq. (141) yields a finite and nonsingular high-

2 3 2 3
0:0197 0:113 9:6802 29:902 0:0111 0:0005 0 0 0:0057 0:0276
6 0:2646 2:6051 120:6413 11:876 0:0629 0 0:0005 0:0086 7 6 0:6219 0:1737 7
6 7 6 7
6 0:0042 0:2005 3:4108 0 0:0026 0:0285 0:0697 0 7 6 0:7379 0:0437 7
6 7 6 7
6 0 0 1 0 0 0:0003 0 0:0002 7 6 0 0 7
Ad  6
6 0:0017
7; Bd  6 7 (140)
6 0:0262 0 0:0034 0:571 125:9696 10:4707 29:902 77
6
6 0 0:0035 7
7
6 0:001 0:0487 0:0119 0 0:229 1:4374 0:2793 0 7 6 0:0040 0:0229 7
6 7 6 7
4 0:0672 0:8106 0:7199 0 0:6811 2:4110 5:0337 0 5 4 0:0879 0:5194 5
0 0 0:0001 0:0003 0 0:3972 1 0:0001 0 0

and C is the same as that in Eq. (139). frequency gain matrix as

It should be noted that the wing-tip damage case in the NASA

GTM model also includes actuator failure due to the loss of the left 0:7379 0:0437
Kpd  lim m sGd s  (143)
aileron. However, the linearized model with wing damage and s!1 0:0894 0:5285
aileron failure can also be expressed by the plant model in Eq. (100),
since the reduced aileron effectiveness can be characterized by Its principal minors are
d1  0:7379 and
d2  0:3939. The
unknown changes to the corresponding column in B matrix. Thus, observability index of Gd s is also 4, and their principal minors do
the proposed MRAC scheme is applicable to this damage case. not have a sign change.
To simulate abrupt wing damage, the plant is switched from the As seen from Sec. IV.B and Fig. 1, the filter AF s=s needs to
nominal model to the damage model at a time instant unknown to the be constructed for generating the signals !1 t and !2 t. For the
controller. For this simulation study, the time instant of damage filter design, the following parameters are chosen:
occurrence is chosen as 80 s.
s  s
33 (144)

B. Adaptive Control Design AF s  I; sI; s2 I (145)

The adaptive control design for this damage compensation
problem will be demonstrated next, including verification of the
design conditions as well as choice of the design parameters.
For the nominal aircraft model (A0 , B0 , and C) in Eq. (139), it can
be verified that the zeros of G0 s  CsI  A0 1 B0 are all stable. It
can also be verified that G0 s is strictly proper and has a full rank,
and m s can be chosen as


s
22 0 are updated by the adaptive laws in Eqs. (125) and (127) for
m s  (141)
0 s
22
To define the filtered tracking error in Eq. (118), we choose
hs  1=s
22 . As seen in Sec. IV, the degree of the above filters
are determined based on the observability index of the nominal plant.
The poles of s and hs can be chosen for obtaining a satisfactory
transient performance.
Following the procedure in Sec. IV.B, the adaptive controller can
be constructed in the form of Eq. (110) whose parameter t is
updated by the adaptive law in Eq. (126). Parameters
2 t and t
generating the estimation error in Eq. (123) [which is used in the
 LIU, TAO, AND JOSHI 1515

0.3

0.25

0.2
Selected parameters of Θ(t)

0.15

0.1

0.05

0
Downloaded by MCGILL UNIVERSITY on January 27, 2015 | http://arc.aiaa.org | DOI: 10.2514/1.47996

−0.05

−0.1
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160
Time (s)
Fig. 6 Adaptation of selected parameters in

t.

adaptive law in Eq. (126)]. Based on Theorem 1, this adaptive control
scheme is able to ensure closed-loop stability and asymptotic output
tracking in the presence of unknown parametric changes due to
damage. The closed-loop structure of the model reference adaptive
control system can be seen in Fig. 1.
C. Simulation Results
For the numerical study, the reference input is selected as
rt  0:035; 0:07T , which generates the reference pitch and
roll angles of 0:5 and 1 deg, respectively. The adaptive control
scheme is expected to bring back the system outputs to the reference
signals after an uncertain damage occurrence.
The tracking error et  yt  ym t is shown in Fig. 2 (tracking
error of the pitch angle) and Fig. 3 (tracking error of the roll angle).
Asymptotic output tracking is eventually achieved for the
postdamage system with the adaptive control scheme.
The other states of the system are shown in Figs. 4 and 5, which
show the disturbance and recovery of these signals when the damage
occurs.
Selected elements of t and the parameters
2 t and t are
shown in Figs. 6–8. The parameters autonomously adapt after the
damage occurs and approach a new set of steady-state values for
asymptotic output tracking.
The control signals are shown in Fig. 9. The elevator and aileron
inputs adjust for the compensation of the damage as a result of the
control parameter adaptation.

1.5

1
θ2(t)

0.5

−0.5

−1
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160
Time (s)
Fig. 7 Adaptation of 2
t.
 1516 LIU, TAO, AND JOSHI

0.5

−0.5

−1
Ψ(t)

−1.5

−2
Downloaded by MCGILL UNIVERSITY on January 27, 2015 | http://arc.aiaa.org | DOI: 10.2514/1.47996

−2.5

−3
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160
Time (s)
Fig. 8 Adaptation of 
t.

2
Elevator angle δe (deg)

−1

−2
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160
Time (s)

4
Aileron angle δa (deg)

−1

−2
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160
Time (s)
Fig. 9 Elevator angle e and aileron angle a .

The results of the adaptive control scheme applied to linearized
nominal and damaged aircraft models for output tracking demonstrate
that the aircraft can maintain its flight in a neighborhood of the
equilibrium condition (e.g., wings-level steady-state flight), and the
specified outputs (pitch angle
and roll angle  in this case) closely
track the desired trajectories in spite of the uncertain wing damage.
VI. Conclusions
Adaptive control of aircraft in the presence of structural damage
has been studied in this paper. To investigate our multivariable output
tracking adaptive control approach, a linearized model of the aircraft
dynamics with damage was derived and its invariance properties,
such as infinite zero structure and signs of the high-frequency gain
matrix, were investigated. These properties are important for the
design of multivariable model reference adaptive control (MRAC)
schemes. A multivariable MRAC design is illustrated for the
compensation of aircraft damage. An effective analysis method for
MRAC of piecewise linear systems, using a piecewise Lyapunov
function, is employed to show that desired stability and tracking
properties are ensured despite jumps in the system parameters due to
damage. A simulation study of the application of the proposed
 LIU, TAO, AND JOSHI
adaptive control scheme to the NASA generic transport model has
been conducted. The simulation results show that the proposed
adaptive control scheme ensures closed-loop stability and desired
tracking performance in the presence of uncertain wing damage.
Further study is required in several aspects of this research, including
design and simulation of adaptive control schemes for systems with
sign changes in the high-frequency gain matrix.
Acknowledgments
This research was supported in part by NASA under grant
NNX08AB99A and the National Science Foundation under grant
ECS0601475.
References
[1] Nguyen, N., Krishnakumar, K., Kaneshige, J., and Nespeca, P., “Flight
Dynamics and Hybrid Adaptive Control of Damaged Aircraft,” Journal
of Guidance, Control, and Dynamics, Vol. 31, No. 3, 2008, pp. 751–
764.
doi:10.2514/1.28142
Downloaded by MCGILL UNIVERSITY on January 27, 2015 | http://arc.aiaa.org | DOI: 10.2514/1.47996
[2] Bacon, B. J., and Gregory, I. M., “General Equations of Motion for a
Damaged Asymmetric Aircraft,” Proceedings of 2007 AIAA Guidance,
Navigation, and Control Conference, AIAA Paper 2007-6306, Hilton
Head, SC, Aug. 2007.
[3] Liu, Y., and Tao, G., “Model-Based Direct Adaptive Actuator Failure
Compensation Techniques with Applications to Aircraft Flight Control
Systems,” 2006 AIAA Guidance, Navigation, and Control Conference,
AIAA Paper 2006-6554, Keystone, CO, Aug. 2006.
[4] Lombaerts, T. J. J., Chu, Q. P., Mulder, J. A., and Joosten, D. A., “Real
Time Damaged Aircraft Model Identification for Reconfiguring Flight
1517
Control,” AIAA Atmospheric Flight Mechanics Conference, AIAA
Paper 2007-6717, Hilton Head, SC, 2007.
[5] Liu, Y., and Tao, G., “Multivariable MRAC for Aircraft with Abrupt
Damages,” Proceedings of the 2008 American Control Conference,
Inst. of Electrical and Electronics Engineers, Piscataway, NJ, June 2008,
pp. 2981–2986.
[6] Liu, Y., and Tao, G., “Multivariable MRAC Using Nussbaum Gains for
Aircraft with Abrupt Damages,” Proceedings of the 47th IEEE
Conference on Decision and Control, Inst. of Electrical and Electronics
Engineers, Piscataway, NJ, 2008, pp. 1397–1342.
[7] Bryson, A. E., Jr, Control of Spacecraft and Aircraft, Princeton Univ.
Press, Princeton, NJ, 1994, pp. 144–148.
[8] Stengel, R. F., Flight Dynamics, Princeton Univ. Press, Princeton, NJ,
2004, p. 105.
[9] Zheng, D., Linear System Theory, Tshinghua Univ. Press, Beijing,
1999, pp. 29–31.
[10] Tao, G., Adaptive Control Design and Analysis, Wiley, Hoboken, NJ,
2003, pp. 445; 405–412.
[11] Imai, A. K., Costa, R. R., Hsu, L., Tao, G., and Kokotović, P. V.,
“Multivariable Adaptive Control Using High-Frequency Gain Matrix
Factorization,” IEEE Transactions on Automatic Control, Vol. 49,
No. 7, 2004, pp. 1152–1156.
doi:10.1109/TAC.2004.831134
[12] Jordan, T., Langford, W., Belcastro, C., Foster, J., Shah, G., Howland,
G., and Kidd, R., “Development of a Dynamically Scaled Generic
Transport Model Testbed for Flight Research Experiments,” AUVSI’s
Unmanned Systems North America Symposium and Exhibition,
Anaheim, CA, Aug. 2004.
[13] Jordan, T., Langford, W., and Hill, J., “Airborne Subscale Transport
Aircraft Research Testbed-Aircraft Model Development,” AIAA
Guidance, Navigation, and Control Conference, AIAA Paper 2005-
6432, San Francisco, Aug. 2005.