International Journal of Aeronautical and Space Sciences

https://doi.org/10.1007/s42405-020-00327-x

ORIGINAL PAPER

Design and Stability Analysis of High-Speed Unmanned Aerial Vehicle

Electric Anti-Skid Braking System
Qiaozhi Yin1 · Hong Nie1 · Xiaohui Wei1

Received: 27 June 2019 / Revised: 27 June 2019 / Accepted: 18 September 2020

© The Korean Society for Aeronautical & Space Sciences 2021

Abstract
A new combined electric anti-skid braking system of a high-speed unmanned aerial vehicle is designed to improve the stability
and to reduce the system sensor noise. An electric anti-skid braking mechanism model considering the sensor noise effect is
built in MATLAB/Simulink. The stability of a slip ratio braking system and a deceleration braking system is analyzed using
the Routh criterion and Lyapunov stability method. Then the UAV ground taxiing dynamic model is built in LMS Virtual.
Lab Motion. The braking performance and dynamic responses are studied under the control of the designed braking system
using a co-simulation method. Conclusions show that the designed braking control system can solve the sensor noise problem
effectively and the stability and robustness are both ensured under this control law.

Keywords High-speed UAV · Electric brake · Stability analysis · Braking system design · Sensor noise

1 Introduction
The braking system malfunction, various runway surfaces
and landing gear failure all lead to aircraft accidents during
the take-off and landing process [1]. Comparing to manned
aircrafts, accidents are more likely to occur on unmanned
aerial vehicle (UAV) due to lack of detectability, unreliable
communication links and various landing environments [2].
As one of the core technologies of landing gear design [3],
braking system has great influence on the security, reliabil-
ity and stability of the UAV, which demands high control
precision and strong robustness of the braking system [4].
A nonlinear system stability can be defined as the ability
that whether the system can reach an equilibrium state after
a disturbance appears [5]. The stability problem of a UAV
anti-skid braking system results from the nonlinearity of the
braking wheel longitudinal forces on the ground. Based on
the nonlinear relationship between the wheel slip ratio and the
tire frictional coefficient, the parameter plane can be divided
B Qiaozhi Yin
yinqiaozhi@nuaa.edu.cn
1 system components tests were carried out firstly in 1980s
State Key Laboratory of Mechanics and Control of
Mechanical Structures, Key Laboratory of Fundamental
Science for National Defense-Advanced Design Technology
of Flight Vehicle, College of Aerospace Engineering, Nanjing
University of Aeronautics and Astronautics, Nanjing 210016,
China
into one stable region and one unstable region (see Fig. 1). If
the working point of the braking system located on the curve
negative slope part can be adjusted to the positive slope part
on the left side of the red dashed line in Fig. 1, the braking sys-
tem is regarded as stable [6]. If the braking system is unstable,
increasing braking torque would decrease the UAV accelera-
tion so that the braking wheel slippage would be more serious
[7], resulting in lower braking efficiency, landing gear vibra-
tion and also the UAV may veer off the runway due to the
asymmetry of the braking torques. Therefore, it is important
to study the UAV braking system and to analyze the system
instability mechanism in order to improve the UAV braking
and taxiing stability during the rollout process [8].
Hydraulic braking system is widely used in traditional
landing gears. However, the heavy weight, oil leakage, a
large amount of fuel consumption [9] and some vibration
problems including shimmy, gear walk, squeal and chat-
ter [10] resulting from hydraulic braking mechanisms all
bring difficulties in landing gear and braking system design.
While it is more economical, safe, easy to detect and repair
and is of fast response in an electric braking system [11,
12]. The electric braking system was developed and the
[13, 14]. In 1990s, a flight test using the electric brak-
ing system was accomplished on F-16 Block60 [15, 16].
In the modeling and designing of electric braking system,
Goodrich [17] and Honeywell [18] both designed electric

123

Fig. 1 Stability parameter plane of the braking wheel slip ratio curve
braking mechanisms. In 2005, Goodrich also carried out the
electric braking system research and provided with techni-
cal support for B787 [19]. Li [20] established the electric
braking system model, and also designed the motor and
braking actuator. Cai [21] put forward a self-tuning fuzzy-
Proportional-Integral–Differential (PID) braking controller.
Zhang [22] applied Back-Propagation (BP) neural network
to aircraft electric braking control law using switched reluc-
tance motor. Lin [23] designed a semi-physical braking
control unit on a dual-redundancy electric aircraft braking
system, and also a hardware-in-loop simulation test of a UAV
electric braking system was conducted. Chen [24] proposed
a new back-stepping sliding model control scheme with bar-
rier Lyapunov function, which was implemented on a braking
system using electromechanical actuator to improve servo
control ability of braking torque.
Researchers put forward the concept of the braking sys-
tem stability and then a robust vehicle braking controller
was designed in 1990s [7]. Piecewise linearization method
was adopted to analyze the relationship between the brak-
ing wheel rotational speed and frictional coefficient to design
vehicle piecewise anti-skid braking control law [25]. In addi-
tion, Poincare mapping method was used in a braking system
to ensure that the working point was in the stable region [26].
Pasillas-Lépine [27] designed an anti-skid braking system
with global asymptotic stability after adding a feed-forward
controller in the system. Tanelli [28] applied nonlinear feed-
back control to braking system, which can keep the system
stable even though the working point was in the unstable
region. Jing [29] proved the vehicle braking system stability
using Lyapunov method and studied the braking performance
within the velocity [40–120] km/h. Capra [30] measured
the tire frictional force at the braking wheel bearing when
designing anti-skid braking system so that the system sta-
bility and robustness could be ensured without monitoring
runway conditions. Wang [31] designed an aircraft electric
braking control law based on quasi-infinite horizon nonlin-
123
International Journal of Aeronautical and Space Sciences
ear model predictive control method and the system stability
can be guaranteed under real-time prediction, rolling opti-
mization and feedback regulation strategy. Li [32] designed
a slip ratio controller based on a dynamic surface control
approach and the braking performance was improved during
the medium and lower speed phase.
From the previous studies, researchers mainly analyzed
vehicle braking system stability through building a transfer
function or using nonlinear theory to find out the stable region
of a braking system, which has established great foundation
for future work. However, the features of electric braking
system of a UAV with a high taxiing velocity bring about
some new problems. The braking pads and electric actua-
tor structures of an aircraft braking system are different from
the braking mechanisms of a vehicle. In addition, the landing
velocity is much faster than that of a vehicle. Thus the tire
and landing gear models should be reconsidered, and also the
system stability under various speed regions need to be fur-
ther studied. Moreover, different from the traditional single
closed-loop hydraulic braking system, both braking pressure
sensors and speed sensors are applied in an electric braking
system, leading to a double closed-loop negative feedback
system. As a result, the braking pressure controller also need
to be designed in the electric braking system.
The purpose of this study is to design a new electric anti-
skid braking system of a high-speed UAV to improve the
system stability and to reduce the sensor noise. In Sect. 2,
an electric anti-skid braking mechanism model considering
the sensor noise effect is built. In Sect. 3, the braking wheel
dynamic system is established, and then the stability of a
slip ratio braking system and a deceleration braking system
is analyzed using the Routh criterion and Lyapunov stability
method. Then in Sect. 4, a new combined anti-skid braking
control system is designed to improve the performance of the
electric anti-skid braking system. In Sects. 5 and 6, the UAV
ground taxiing dynamic model is built and a co-simulation
method is applied to study the performance and stability of
the combined braking control system on different runway
surfaces. Conclusions are drawn in Sect. 7.
2 Electric Anti-skid Braking System
2.1 Braking Mechanism and Operating Principle
A braking mechanism includes direct current (DC) motors,
electric mechanical actuators consisting of reducers and
screws, braking stators and rotors, a velocity sensor and pres-
sure sensors. Figure 2a illustrates the structure diagram of an
electric braking mechanism and Fig. 2b is an electric braking
mechanism prototype we designed and processed.
The electric anti-skid braking control schematic diagram
is shown in Fig. 3. The braking system includes an anti-lock
International Journal of Aeronautical and Space Sciences

Fig. 2 Electric braking mechanism

Fig. 3 Electric braking control

schematic diagram

module, a cross protection module, a braking control unit

consisting of a velocity controller and a braking pressure
controller, electric braking mechanisms and braking wheels.

2.2 Braking Motor Model

DC motors are used as a power source to drive the brak-

ing mechanism. The braking pressure is controlled by the
wheel speed and the slip ratio during the braking process,
and the motion direction of the screws is controlled by the
motor commutator in order to change the braking pressure.
Fig. 4 Schematic circuit diagram of DC motor
The motor voltage is set as the input, while the rotor rota-
tional speed is the output when building the motor model.
The DC governor model [33] is a double closed-loop system
The transfer function of the motor current and voltage is
including a rotor rotational speed loop and a current loop,
given by:
which are both controlled by two individual PI controllers.
The schematic circuit diagram of a DC motor is shown in
1
Fig. 4. The motor includes the rotor, stator with coil wind- Id (s) Rd
ing, inverter, position transducer and motor controllers.  , (1)
Ud (s) − E d (s) Tl + 1

123
 International Journal of Aeronautical and Space Sciences

where U d is the armature voltage, I d is the armature cur-
rent, E d is the counter electromotive force (EMF), Rd is the
armature circuit resistance. T l is the electromagnetic time
constant, Tl  LRdd . L d is the winding inductance.
The transfer function of the EMF and current is expressed
as:
E d (s) Rd
 , (2)
Id (s) − IdL (s) Tm s
where I dL is the motor load current, T m is the electric traction
system time constant, Tm  CJme CRmd , J m is the rotational inertia
of the rotor, C e is the back EMF coefficient, C m is the motor
torque coefficient.
The input of the DC motor inverter is the control volt-
age of the DC governor system U k , and the output is the
motor voltage U d . The transfer function of the inverter can
be expressed by a first-order process with time delay:
Ud (s) Ks
W (s)   , (3)
Uk (s) Ts s + 1
where K s , T s are the amplification factor and time constant
of the silicon controlled rectifier.
The parameter values related to the braking motor are
listed in Table 1 in Appendix A.
2.3 Electro-braking Actuator Model
One end of the speed reducer is connected with the motor
rotor, while the other end is connected with the screw. The
whole load torque T L on the motor rotor includes screw actu-
ator torque T M , screw resisting torque T D , screw frictional
torque T bf and speed reducer frictional torque T rf , which can
be expresses as:
TM + TD + Tbf + Trf
TL  , (4)
n r ηm
where nr is the reduction ratio of the reducer, ηm is the gear-
ing efficiency. The screw turns the rotation into a rectilinear
motion to compress the braking pads to produce braking
torque. The relation between the axial pressure F b and the
actuator torque on the screw can be given by:
Fbl0
TM  , (5)
2π ηm
2.4 Braking Pads Model
The braking torque is generated by the braking pressure on
the braking pads when the wheel is rotating and a relative
motion exists between the stators and rotors. The lead screw
is regarded as a spring with high stiffness K t , thus the braking
pressure on a lead screw can be calculated as:
Fb  K t (lball − cb ), (7)
where cb is the interval between the stators and rotors before
the braking system starts to work. The braking torque M b
can be given by:
Rs + r r
Mb  μmc Nmc n t Fb × , (8)
2
where nt is the number of the electro-braking actuator on a
braking wheel, μmc is the frictional coefficient between the
rotors and stators, N mc is the number of the friction surface,
Rs is the external radius of a stator, r r is the inside radius of
a rotor.
The parameter values related to the braking actuators and
braking pads are listed in Table 2 in Appendix A.
2.5 Speed Sensor Model
Speed sensors in the electric braking system include a sensor
measuring the UAV velocity V x and a sensor measuring the
wheel rotational speed ωb . The noise interference that the
speed sensors bring to the braking system should be consid-
ered when building the sensor models. The UAV velocity is
difficult to measure directly so that the UAV taxiing accel-
eration is measured firstly and then the velocity is obtained
by the integral of the acceleration [34, 35], while the wheel
speed can be obtained directly by the rotational speed sensor.
Therefore, the noise effect on the UAV velocity measurement
is greater than that of the wheel speed. Previous studies [36,
37] indicate that white Gaussian noise can be used to simulate
the noise when measuring velocities of vehicles and aircrafts.
The measuring noises on the velocity V x and the wheel speed
ωb are shown in Fig. 5. They are simulated by digitized dis-
crete Gaussian white noises in the model respectively, which
are both generated by a MATLAB command wgn.

where l0 is the screw basic lead. The function of the screw

rotational speed ωh and its axial displacement l ball can be 3 Stability Analysis of Anti-Skid Braking
calculated as: System

ωh dt lball 3.1 Slip Ratio Braking System
 , (6)
2π l0
Slip ratio brake is one of the most typical braking systems

where ωh  nr . used in aircrafts. The wheel slip ratio indicating the skid

123
International Journal of Aeronautical and Space Sciences

Fig. 5 Noise interferences on speed sensors

level of a braking wheel [38] is taken as the input of a brak-

ing control system, which has great impact on the frictional
coefficient between the ground and the wheel. Thus the brak-
ing efficiency can be ensured by tuning the error of the actual
and expected values of the wheel slip ratio σ . The slip ratio
is calculated as:
Vx − ωb × Rg
σ  , (9)
Vx

where Rg is the wheel rolling radius. A Pacejka magic tire

model [39] is used to simulate the braking tire in this study
(see Fig. 6). F f is the friction force between the braking wheel
and the ground, F z is the tire vertical force. The Pacejka
magic tire model is expressed as: Fig. 6 Braking tire model

Y (x)  D sin(C tan−1 (Bx − E(Bx − tan −1 (Bx)))), (10)

where Y (x) can represent a lateral force, an aligning torque

or a longitudinal force. x can represent a sideslip angle or a
wheel slip ratio. Coefficients B, C, D are determined by the
tire vertical force and the camber angle.
Previous study [40] showed that the relationship between
the frictional coefficient μ(σ ) and the slip ratio of a braking
tire is nonlinear, whose specific function can be expressed in
the form of Eq. (10). Also, the frictional coefficient varies on
different runway surfaces, which is demonstrated in Fig. 7.
When analyzing the braking system stability, the braking
dynamic system including a braking wheel, electric braking
actuators and an equivalent mass of the UAV is taken as the
study object. The aerodynamic forces, rudder forces, landing Fig. 7 Nonlinear relationship between frictional coefficient and slip
gear system and UAV coupling motions between different ratio of a braking tire
attitudes during the rollout process are neglected here. Only
two degrees-of-freedom (DOFs) including the UAV velocity
and the wheel rotational speed are considered in the braking of both the frictional torque M f and the braking torque. The
dynamic system. A braking wheel rotates under the control positive direction is defined the same as the wheel positive

123
 International Journal of Aeronautical and Space Sciences

Substituting Eqs. (12), (13) into Eq. (11):

V̇x Fz μ(σ )Rg2 Mb Rg

σ̇  (1 − σ ) − +
Vx Jr Vx Jr Vx
(14)
Fz μ(σ )(1 − σ ) Fz μ(σ )Rg2 Mb Rg
Fig. 8 Transfer function diagram of slip ratio braking dynamic system − − + .
m b Vx Jr Vx Jr Vx

rotating direction. Thus the dynamic equation of the braking The stability of a linear system is only related to the inher-
wheel rotation is given by: ent characteristics of the system, which can be reflected by the
poles of the system transfer function if there is no feedback
μ(σ ) × Fz × Rg − Mb in the system. In order to study the stability of system (14),
ω̇b  , (11)
Jr the system equilibrium point should be found out and the
neighborhood of the equilibrium point should be linearized
where F z is the ground reaction force on a tire, ω̇b and J r at first. And then, the system stability can be determined by
are the angular acceleration and the rotational inertia of a the eigenvalue sign of the characteristic equation based on
braking wheel, respectively. Lyapunov first method. Here, the equilibrium point is defined
Also, the UAV forward direction is defined as the posi- as σ̇  0, where the wheel slip ratio σ σ . That is to say, the
tive direction of the dynamic system. Therefore, the dynamic braking wheel slip ratio could remain constant at the equi-
equation of the UAV taxiing motion is: librium point. Thus Eq. (14) could be written as:
−μ(σ ) × Fz  
V̇x  , (12) Jr (1 − σ )
mb M b  Fz × μ(σ ) × + Rg , (15)
m b Rg
where mb is the mass of a braking dynamic system. Equa-
tions (11), (12) form the equation set of this system and can where M b and μ(σ ) are the wheel braking torque and
describe the system kinestate and motion status. From Fig. 3, frictional coefficient at the system equilibrium point, respec-
it can be seen that the input of a braking control system is the tively.
wheel slip ratio, while the output is the braking torque on the According to the quasi steady state theory mentioned in
wheel. However, for a braking dynamic system, the input is the previous research [41], it could be assumed that the sys-
the braking torque and the output is the wheel slip ratio, as tem velocity is constant in a very short time. Therefore, the
shown in Fig. 8. The open-loop transfer function G σ (s) of the braking torque and the slip ratio of the wheel in the neigh-
slip ratio braking dynamic system can be obtained without borhood of the system equilibrium point can be expressed
the consideration of a braking control unit. as:
According to the definition of an anti-skid braking system  
σ̇ Vx Jr Jr (1 − σ )
stability in Introduction, analysis of the slip ratio braking Mb  + Fz μ(σ ) + Rg
Rg m b Rg
dynamic system stability is to study the influence of braking  
torque on braking wheel slip ratio. As a result, the braking Jr (1 − σ )
− Fz μ(σ ) + Rg ,
torque and the slip ratio should be expressed by Eqs. (11) and m b Rg (16)
(12). Equation (9) can be rewritten as below by a derivation ∂σ ∂(σ − σ )
σ̇    σ̇ . (17)
with respect to time t: ∂t ∂t

V̇x σ̇ · Vx If
ω̇b  (1 − σ ) − (13)
Rg Rg ∂μ(σ )
μ̇(σ )  |σ σ , (18)
∂σ
then
σ 1
     
Mb σ̇ ×Vx Jr
+ μ̇(σ )
× Fz μ(σ ) Jrm(1−σ )
+ R − F μ(σ ) Jr (1−σ )
+ R |σ σ
σ ×Rg ∂μ(σ ) b Rg
g z m b Rg g
Rg (19)
V x Jr
  .
σ̇ μ̇(σ )×Fz (1−σ ) Rg2
σ + mb + Jr
Vx

123
International Journal of Aeronautical and Space Sciences

The open-loop transfer function of the linearized braking According to the Routh stability criterion, the necessary
wheel dynamic system in the neighborhood of the system and sufficient conditions of the stable closed-loop braking
equilibrium point could be obtained by using Laplace Trans- system are that all the terms in the first column in the Routh
form in Eq. (19): table are larger than 0:
⎧
Rg
⎪ K d Rg
⎪
⎪ 1+ >0
G σ (s) 
V x Jr
 . (20) ⎪
⎪ V x Jr
⎪
⎪ 
s+ μ̇(σ )×Fz (1−σ )
+
Rg2 ⎪
⎨ μ̇(σ ) × F (1 − σ ) R 2
Vx mb Jr z g K p Rg
+ + > 0. (24)
⎪
⎪ Vx mb Jr V x Jr
⎪
⎪
As a result, the characteristics of the closed-loop braking ⎪
⎪
⎪
⎪ K i Rg
system could be studied by adding a classic PID control unit ⎩ >0
V x Jr
in the slip ratio braking wheel dynamic system. The effect of
the PID control parameters on the system stability is analyzed After simplifying Eq. (24), the value ranges of K p , K i , K d
below. The PID control law is given by: are obtained:

de(t) ⎧
u(t)  K p e(t) + K i e(t)dt + K d , (21) ⎪
⎪ V x Jr
dt ⎪
⎪ Kd > −
⎪
⎪ Rg
⎪
⎪  
where e(t) is the error of the actual and expected values of ⎨ (1 − σ )Jr
K p > −μ̇(σ ) × Fz + Rg . (25)
the system input, u(t) is the output of the control unit. K p , K i , ⎪
⎪ m b Rg
⎪
⎪
K d are the proportional, integral and differential coefficients. ⎪
⎪
⎪
⎪
The transfer function of the closed-loop slip ratio braking ⎩
system can be obtained: Ki > 0

G PID × G σ (s) In a PID control system, K p , K i , K d are always positive

G cσ (s) 
1 + G PID × G σ (s) values. From Eq. (25), it can be seen that when μ̇(σ ) > 0


Rg
K p + Ksi + K d s × × 1 2
 (the working point is located in the positive-slope segment
V x Jr μ̇(σ )×Fz (1−σ ) Rg
s+ m b + Jr
Vx of the curves in Fig. 7), if K p , K i , K d are positive, the stabil-


1 + Kp + Ki
+ Kds ×
Rg
× 1 2
 ity of the closed-loop braking control system always can be
s V x Jr μ̇(σ )×Fz (1−σ ) Rg
s+
Vx m b + Jr ensured. Otherwise, μ̇(σ ) < 0, if K p satisfies the second for-
(K p s + K i + K d s 2 ) · g
R mula in Eq. (25), the system is always stable no matter what
V x Jr
   . positive values K i , K d are. Therefore, if the sensor noise is
μ̇(σ )×Fz (1−σ ) Rg2 Rg
m b + Jr s + (K p s + K i + K d s ) ×
2
s +
Vx
2
V x Jr
neglected, the slip ratio braking control system is of not only
(22) high efficiency, but the system stability also can be ensured.
However, the noise and precision from the aircraft velocity
From Eq. (22), the characteristic equation of the closed- measurement seriously limit the development of this kind of
loop braking system is: braking control system.

μ̇(σ ) × Fz (1 − σ ) Rg
2

Dσ (s)  s + 2
+ s + Kps + Ki + Kds2 3.2 Deceleration Brake
Vx m b Jr

Rg Deceleration brake is similar to MARK II [42] braking sys-

×
V x Jr tem. Comparing with slip ratio brake, deceleration braking
    2

K d Rg 2 μ̇(σ ) × Fz (1 − σ ) Rg K p Rg system cannot always keep the wheel slip ratio at the expected
 1+ s + + + s
V x Jr Vx mb Jr V x Jr value so that the braking efficiency is lower. Moreover, the
K i Rg deceleration braking system vibration is violent when the
+ . (23)
V x Jr braking torque is tuned. However, only the wheel rotational
speed need to be measured in this system, which reduces the
sensor noise greatly without the aircraft velocity measure-
ment.

123
 International Journal of Aeronautical and Space Sciences

Substituting Eq. (16) into Eq. (18):

ω̇b
f ω̇b (t) 
Mb
− Fmz μ(σ
b Rg
)
(1 − σ ) − σ̇RVgx + Fmz μ(σ b Rg
)
(1 − σ )
    
Fig. 9 Transfer function diagram of deceleration braking dynamic sys- σ̇ Vx Jr
Rg + Fz μ(σ ) m b Rg + Rg − Fz μ(σ ) Jrm(1−σ
Jr (1−σ )
b Rg
)
+ Rg
tem 

− Fmz μ̇(σ
b Rg
)
(1 − σ ) σ̇ Vx
− σ Rg
 σ σ
  . (29)
Fz Jr μ̇(σ ) 
From Sect. 3.1, we can see that the wheel deceleration σ̇ Vx Jr
σ Rg + m b Rg (1 − σ ) + Fz Rg μ̇(σ )
σ σ
σ σ
is calculated as Eq. (13). Similar to the slip ratio braking
dynamic system, the equilibrium point of the deceleration The open-loop transfer function of the linearized decel-
braking system is also σ̇ 0|σ σ and μ(σ ) is a constant value. eration braking wheel dynamic system in the neighborhood
From Eqs. (12), (13), it can be seen that the braking wheel of the equilibrium point could be obtained by using Laplace
deceleration ω̇b is also a constant at the equilibrium point. Transform in Eq. (29):
Analysis of the deceleration braking dynamic system sta-
Fz μ̇(σ )
bility is to study the influence of braking torque on braking − J1r s − (1 − σ )
Jr m b V x
wheel deceleration, as shown in Fig. 9. G ω̇b (s) 
Fz μ̇(σ ) Fz Rg2 μ̇(σ )
The braking wheel deceleration in the neighborhood of s+ (1 − σ ) +
mb V x Jr V x
the system equilibrium point is expressed as:  
Fz μ̇(σ )
− J1r s+ (1 − σ )
mb V x
  . (30)
ω̇b  ω̇b − ω̇b , (26) Fz μ̇(σ ) (1−σ ) Rg2
s+ mb + Jr
Vx
where ω̇b is the wheel deceleration at the equilibrium point.
Substituting Eq. (12) into Eq. (13): In order to use a dimensionless variable to describe the
braking wheel deceleration, τ is applied in lieu of ω̇b here:
Fz μ(σ ) σ̇ × Vx τ  −ω̇b Rg /g. Thus Eq. (30) can be rewritten as:
ω̇b  − (1 − σ ) − . (27)
m b Rg Rg  
Rg Fz μ̇(σ )
Jr g s + (1 − σ )
mb V x
Then at the equilibrium point, the wheel deceleration is: G τ (s)   . (31)
Rg2
Fz μ(σ ) s + Fz μ̇(σ ) (1−σ
mb
)
+ Jr
Vx
ω̇b  − (1 − σ ). (28)
m b Rg
Similarly, the characteristics of the closed-loop braking
system is analyzed by adding a PID control unit in the
deceleration braking wheel dynamic system. The closed-loop
braking system transfer function is expressed as:
G PID × G τ (s)
G cτ (s) 
1 + G PID × G τ (s)
 

 Rg
Jr g
Fz μ̇(σ )
s+
mb V x
(1−σ )
Ki
Kp + s + Kds ×  2

F μ̇(σ ) (1−σ ) Rg
s+ z m + Jr
Vx b
  

 Rg
Jr g
Fz μ̇(σ )
s+
mb V x
(1−σ )
Ki
1 + Kp + s + Kds ×  2

F μ̇(σ ) (1−σ ) Rg
s+ z mb + Jr
Vx

  
+ K d s × Jr gg × s + Fz μ̇(σ ) (1 − σ )
Ki R
Kp + s mb V x
  
  . (32)
Fz μ̇(σ ) (1−σ ) Rg2 Ki Rg Fz μ̇(σ )
s+ mb + Jr + K p + s + K d s × Jr g × s + (1 − σ )
Vx mb V x

123
International Journal of Aeronautical and Space Sciences

From Eq. (33), the characteristic equation of the closed- tion braking system is unstable. That is to say, once working
loop braking system is given by: point is located in the negative-slope segment of the curves in
  Fig. 7, the braking wheel would get locked owing to the sys-
K d Rg 3 K p Rg K d Rg Fz μ̇(σ )
Dτ (s)  s + 1+ + × (1 − σ ) s 2 tem instability and a severe accident may occur. As a result,
Jr g Jr g Jr g mb V x
  2
the robustness and adaptability of the deceleration braking
Fz μ̇(σ ) (1 − σ ) R g system are poor especially the runway condition is varied.
+ +
Vx mb Jr

K p Rg Fz μ̇(σ ) K i Rg
+ × (1 − σ ) + s
Jr g mb V x Jr g 4 Anti-skid braking control system design
K i Rg Fz μ̇(σ )
+ × (1 − σ ). (33)
Jr g mb V x According to the features of the two brake types above, a com-
bined electric anti-skid braking control system is designed. A
The first column in the Routh table can be acquired based distribution coefficient χ ∈ [0, 1] is introduced to represent
on the Routh stability criterion. Therefore, the necessary and the proportion the slip ratio brake occupies in the combined
sufficient conditions of the stable closed-loop braking system braking control system, while 1 − χ is the proportion the
are: deceleration brake accounts for. Through the stability analy-
⎧ sis in this section and the simulation in Sect. 6, the designed
⎪ K d Rg
⎪
⎪ >0
⎪
⎪ Jr g combined braking control system is proved to possess sev-
⎪
⎪
⎪
⎪ K p Rg K d Rg Fz μ̇(σ ) eral advantages such as: this control system is as stable as the
⎪
⎪ × (1 − σ ) > 0
⎪
⎪
1+ +
⎪
⎪ Jr g J r g mb V x slip ratio system, and also the sensor measuring noise can be
⎪
⎪ 
⎪
⎨ Fz μ̇(σ ) (1 − σ ) Rg2 K p Rg (1 − σ ) K i Rg reduced at the same time.
+ + × + . The open-loop tSec transfer function G λ (s) of the com-
⎪
⎪ V x m b Jr Jr g m b Jr g
⎪
⎪ bined braking wheel dynamic system in the neighborhood of
⎪
⎪ K d K i Rg2 Fz μ̇(σ )(1 − σ )
⎪
⎪ the system equilibrium point is:
⎪
⎪ −   >0
⎪
⎪ Jr g m b V x + Fz μ̇(σ )(1 − σ ) + (K p + K d )Rg Jr gm b V x
2 2
⎪
⎪  
⎪
⎪ χ g + (1 − χ ) Jr gg s + Fz μ̇(σ ) (1 − σ )
R R
⎪
⎪ K R F μ̇(σ )
⎩ i g · z (1 − σ ) > 0 V x Jr mb V x
Jr g mb V x G λ (s)    . (35)
μ̇(σ )×Fz (1−σ ) Rg2
(34) s+
Vx m b + Jr

The fourth inequality in Eq. (34) shows that when μ̇(σ ) <
0, no matter what values of K p , K i , K d are, the decelera- Thus the closed-loop transfer function of the combined
PID braking control system is:

G PID × G λ (s)
G cλ (s) 
1 + G PID × G λ (s)

   
+ K d s × χ g + (1 − χ ) Jr gg s + Fz μ̇(σ ) (1 − σ )
Ki R R
Kp + s V x Jr mb V x
      . (36)
2
s + Fz μ̇(σ ) (1−σ Fz μ̇(σ )
) Rg Ki Rg Rg
mb + Jr + (K p + s + K d s) × χ + (1 − χ ) Jr g s + (1 − σ )
Vx V x Jr mb V x

123
 International Journal of Aeronautical and Space Sciences

And the characteristic equation of the closed-loop braking

system is expressed as:


2
F z μ̇(σ ) (1 − σ ) R g
Dλ (s)  s 2 + + s
Vx mb Jr
  
Rg Rg Fz μ̇(σ )
+(K p s + K i + K d s 2 ) · χ + (1 − χ ) s+ (1 − σ )
V x Jr Jr g m V
  b x 
(1 − χ )K d Rg 3 (1 − χ )K p Rg K d Rg (1 − χ )Fz μ̇(σ )
 s + 1+ + · (1 − σ ) + χ s 2 (37)
Jr g Jr g Jr V x mb g
    
2
μ̇(σ ) · Fz (1 − σ ) Rg K p Rg (1 − χ )Fz μ̇(σ ) (1 − χ )K i Rg
+ + + (1 − σ ) + χ + s
Vx mb Jr V x Jr mb g Jr g
 
K i Rg (1 − χ )Fz μ̇(σ )
+ (1 − σ ) + χ .
V x Jr mb g

Set (1−χm)Fb gz μ̇(σ ) (1 − σ ) + χ  A, so the necessary and

sufficient conditions of the stable closed-loop braking system  
K d Rg g
can be acquired based on the Routh stability criterion: Jr g + (1 − χ )K p Rg + A
⎧ (1−χ)K d Rg
Vx
 
⎪
⎪
⎪
>0 μ̇(σ ) × Fz (1 − σ )Jr
⎪
⎪
Jr g
(1−χ)K p Rg K R + μ̇(σ ) × Fz Rg2 + K p Rg A > 0.
⎪
⎪ 1+ + d g ×A>0 mb
⎪
⎪ ⎧
Jr g Jr V x   ⎫
⎪
⎪ (40)
⎪
⎪ ⎪
⎪
⎪ − χ)K μ̇(σ × (1−σ ) Rg2 ⎪
+ (1 − χ)K p2 Rg2 A ⎪
⎪
⎪
⎪ ⎪ +(1 R J ) F mb + ⎪
⎨⎪ ⎪
p g r z Jr
⎪ ⎪
⎪
⎪
⎨   ⎪
⎪
⎬
(1−χ)2 K i K p Rg2 V x K d Rg Jr g×A×μ̇(σ )×Fz (1−σ ) Rg2 .
From Eq. (40), we can see that the formula in the first
⎪
⎪ ⎪ + + m b + Jr ⎪
square bracket is always larger than 0. Thus μ̇(σ )×Fmz b(1−σ )Jr +
⎪ ⎪
⎪ g Vx ⎪⎪
⎪
⎪ ⎪
⎪
⎪
⎪
⎪
⎪
⎪
⎪ ⎪
⎪
⎩+
K d Rg2 g×K p 2 ⎪
⎪
⎭
⎪
⎪ A μ̇(σ )× Fz Rg2 +K p Rg A > 0 gives the condition for Eq. (40). If
⎪
⎪ Vx
>0
⎪
⎪ Jr2 gV x +(1−χ)K p Rg Jr V x +K d Rg Jr g×A
⎪
⎪
⎩ K i Rg μ̇(σ ) > 0, no matter what values the three PID control param-
A>0 eters are, the inequality holds. So only μ̇(σ ) < 0 need to be
V x Jr
(38) taken into consideration. Substituting (1 − χ )Fz μ̇(σ )(1 −
σ )/m b g + χ  A into the formula in the second square
Equation (38) indicates that so long as K p , Ki , K d are bracket in Eq. (40):
positive values, A > 0 gives the condition for the inequalities
 
(1) (2) (4) in Eq. (38). That means the distribution coefficient Fz μ̇(σ ) (1−σ )Jr
+ R +
(1−σ )K p
m b Rg g mb g
χ should satisfy the inequality below: χ>   . (41)
Fz μ̇(σ )(1−σ )
Fz μ̇(σ )
K p m g − 1
m b g (σ − 1)
b

χ> . (39)
z μ̇(σ ) Equations (39) and (41) indicate that if χ satisfies the
1 + Fm bg
(σ − 1)
inequality (42) below, the combined braking control system
The third inequality shows that if A > 0, the denominator is always stable:
is larger than 0 and also, the sum of the third and the sixth
terms in the numerator is larger than 0. Therefore, so long as
the sum of the other six terms in the numerator is larger than
0, the third inequality is always larger than 0. That is:

123
International Journal of Aeronautical and Space Sciences

⎧  ⎫
Fz μ̇(σ ) (1−σ )K p
⎨ Fz μ̇(σ ) (1−σ )Jr ⎬
m b g (σ − 1) m b Rg + Rg + mb g
max ,   < χ < 1.
⎩ 1 + Fz μ̇(σ ) (σ − 1) Kp Fz μ̇(σ )(1−σ )
−1 ⎭
mb g mb g
(42)

Equation (42) shows that if χ approaches 1, this designed

combined braking control system is more stable, which coin-
cides with the analysis in Sects. 3.1 and 3.2. When χ  1, the
braking control system becomes a slip ratio braking system
so that the system is stable. However, when χ decreases, the
greater proportion the deceleration brake occupies and the
less stable the braking system is. In addition, Eq. (42) indi-
cates that the proportional coefficient K p plays a leading role
in the system stability when designing the combined braking
Fig. 10 Force analysis diagram of the 3-DOF UAV taxiing and braking
system. Moreover, Eq. (42) proves that the combined brak- dynamic model
ing control system is stable at every working point on the
curves in Fig. 7 so long as the control parameters and the
distribution coefficient are designed reasonably. where the aerodynamic forces are calculated as:

1
L ρV 2 Sw C L ,
5 UAV ground taxiing dynamic model 2 x
1
D  ρVx2 Sw C D , (44)
Based on the braking wheel dynamic model in Sect. 3, the 2
1
UAV ground taxiing dynamic model is built in this section MR  ρVx2 Sw CMR ca ,
and the UAV braking performance and dynamic responses 2
will be studied under the control of the designed braking sys- and the drag parachute force F c and elevator rudder force
tem. Due to that the anti-skid braking control system has main L t are:
influence on longitudinal motion and performance during the
⎧1
UAV rollout process, in order to improve the computational ⎨ 2 ρVx2 Sc C Lc t1 0 ≤ t1 ≤ 1
efficiency and at meanwhile to ensure the modeling precision, Fc  21 ρVx2 Sc C Lc t1 > 1&Vx > vd , (45)
⎩
a three-DOF (including forward motion, vertical motion and 0 Vx ≤ vd
pitching motion) UAV taxiing dynamic model is established. 1
The UAV is assumed to be symmetric and the also the lat- L t  ρVt2 St C Lα,t ηe δe , (46)
2
eral motion is neglected. The origin of the body axis system
Ob xb z b is fixed at the UAV gravity center. Ob xb is the axis of where M is the UAV mass, G is the UAV gravity, L, D are
symmetry. Ob z b is located in the UAV symmetry plane and the lift and drag, f xn , f xm are the nose and main tire frictional
is also vertical to Ob yb . forces, Pn , Pm are the nose and main tire ground vertical
The force analysis diagram of the three-DOF UAV taxiing forces. I y is the UAV inertia moment about Ob yb . θ is the
and braking dynamic model is shown in Fig. 10. Sev- UAV pitch angle. an , am are the distances from the nose and
eral forces including the gravity, aerodynamic force, drag the main landing gear to the UAV gravity center along Ob xb
parachute force, rudder, tire forces and also the shock direction. hn , hm are the vertical distances from the UAV grav-
absorber force on the landing gear are applied on the UAV ity center to the touchdown points of the nose and main tires,
during the taxiing process. The UAV ground taxiing and brak- respectively. x a , za are the projector distances between the
ing dynamic equations can be obtained through Newton’s aerodynamic center and the UAV gravity center along Ob x b
second law: and Ob zb . cd is the distance between the drag parachute force
⎧ and the gravity center. ct is the projector distance between the
⎪
⎪ M ẍb  −D − Fc − f xn − 2 f xm elevator force and the gravity center along Ob x b . MR is the
⎪
⎪
⎨ M z̈  G − L − L − P − 2P aerodynamic pitching moment. ρ is the air density, S w is the
b t n m
, wing surface area. C L , C D , C MR are the lift, drag and pitching
⎪
⎪ I y θ̈  Pn an cos θ − 2Pm am cos θ − ( f xn h n + 2 f xm h m )
⎪
⎪
⎩ − L x + Dz + F c − L c + MR
coefficients respectively. ca is the mean aerodynamic chord.
a a c d t t
St , and Sc are the elevator rudder and drag parachute areas,
(43) C Lα.t and CLc are the lift and drag coefficients of the elevator
rudder and drag parachute respectively. t I is the rollout time

123

Fig. 11 Simulation results using the slip ratio braking system on dry runway
from the moment the aircraft touches the ground. ηe is the
efficiency of the elevator control surface, δe is the control
surface deflection. V t is the velocity at the horizontal tail.
6 Simulation and analysis
The three-DOF UAV taxiing and braking dynamic model
built in LMS Virtual. Lab Motion and the electric anti-skid
braking control system built in MATLAB/Simulink are co-
simulated to study the performance and stability of the slip
ratio and combined braking control systems on different run-
way surfaces. The UAV initial landing velocity is 110 m/s
and only the drag parachute is used to decelerate the UAV
at this phase. When the UAV velocity decreases to 100 m/s,
the braking control system starts to work. The distribution
123
International Journal of Aeronautical and Space Sciences
coefficient χ is set as 0.9 in the combined braking control
system.
The parameter values related to the UAV taxiing dynamic
model and anti-skid braking control laws are listed in Tables 3
and Tables 4 in Appendix A.
6.1 Dry Runway
The electric slip ratio and combined braking control systems
designed in Sect. 3 and 4 are both simulated to study the
braking performance during the UAV rollout process on a dry
runway. The simulation results using the slip ratio braking
system and the combined braking system are demonstrated
in Figs. 11 and 12.
From Figs. 11 and 12, it can be seen that under the control
of the slip ratio braking system, the UAV can stop in 14.3 s
and the braking distance is about 745 m. While under the
International Journal of Aeronautical and Space Sciences
Fig. 12 Simulation results using the combined braking system on dry runway
control of the designed combined braking system, the UAV
stops in a longer time of 15.2 s and the taxiing distance also
increases to 805 m. This is due to that the braking wheel
slip ratio is always around the expected value under the slip
ratio control, resulting in the maximum tire frictional coef-
ficient and a higher braking efficiency. However, the input
of the combined braking system is a sum of two weighted
values λχ σ +(1 − χ )τ . As a result, the actual slip ratio is
not necessarily located at the expected point so that the tire
frictional coefficient is lower than the maximum value, and
also the braking efficiency decrease a little.
Nevertheless, comparing Figs. 11 with 12, we can see
that the wheel slip ratio and the braking torque vibrate more
gently during the medium–high speed phase under the com-
bined braking control system. These results indicate that the
application of this designed combined braking control law
can reduce the influence of the sensor noise on the braking
system effectively in the case of little effect on the braking
efficiency. Figures 11c, d and 12c, d still show that during
the low speed phase, slipping phenomenon happens in both
these two control systems.
6.2 Wet Runway
The simulation results using the slip ratio braking system
and the combined braking on the wet runway are illustrated
in Figs. 13 and 14.
Figures 13 and 14 show that the tire frictional coefficients
decreases on the wet runway so that the UAV stops in 21.5 s
and the braking distance increases to about 1000 m. The brak-
ing duration are nearly the same on the wet runway under
these two braking systems, indicating that the effect of the
landing environment variation under the combined braking
system is less than that under the slip ratio braking system.
Therefore, the combined braking system is of good robust-
ness and adaptability. In addition, the wheel slip ratio and the
braking torque both vibrate severely in the slip ratio braking
control system. While under the combined brake control,
there still exists little influence of the sensor noise on the
whole braking system.
123

Fig. 13 Simulation results using the slip ratio braking system on wet runway
7 Conclusion
The electric braking system stability under the slip ratio con-
trol, deceleration control and designed combined control is
analyzed based on the Routh criterion and Lyapunov stability
method. The UAV electric braking mechanism and braking
control systems built in MATLAB/Simulink and the three-
DOF UAV taxiing and braking dynamic model built in LMS
Virtual. Lab Motion are simulated to study the performance
of different braking control laws on different runway surfaces
using co-simulation method. The conclusions are drawn as
below:
1. The slip ratio braking control system is of better stability.
Studies show that the system is always stable so long as
the PID control parameters are designed properly. This
123
International Journal of Aeronautical and Space Sciences
kind of control system possesses high efficiency since
the braking wheel slip ratio is located near the expected
value, leading to the maximum value of the tire frictional
coefficient. However, the noise and precision from the
aircraft velocity measurement seriously limit the devel-
opment of this kind of braking control system.
2. Under the deceleration braking control, no matter what
values of K p , K i , K d are, the deceleration braking system
is unstable once working point is located in the negative-
slope segment on the frictional coefficient and slip ratio
curves. Also, the robustness and adaptability of the decel-
eration braking system are poor especially the runway
condition is varied. However, this kind of control method
is affected little by the sensor noise due to that there is
no need to measure the UAV velocity.
International Journal of Aeronautical and Space Sciences

Fig. 14 Simulation results using the combined braking system on wet runway

3. Simulation results show that the designed combined Compliance with Ethical Standards
braking control system can solve the sensor noise prob-
lem effectively and the system vibrates more gently. In Conflict of interest The authors declare that they have no conflict of
interest.
addition, the effect of the landing environment variation
under the combined braking system is less than that under
the slip ratio braking system, indicating that the stability
and robustness are both ensured under this control law. Appendix A

See Tables 1, 2, 3 and 4.

Acknowledgements This study was supported by the National Nat-
ural Science Foundation of China (No. 51905264), the China Post-
doctoral Science Foundation Funded Project (Nos. 2019M650115 and
2020T130298), the National Defense Outstanding Youth Science Foun-
dation (No. 2018-JCJQ-ZQ-053), the Fundamental Research Funds for
the Central Universities (No. NF2018001) and the Priority Academic
Program Development of Jiangsu Higher Education Institutions.

123
 International Journal of Aeronautical and Space Sciences

Table 1 Parameters and their values used in the braking motor Table 4 Parameters and their values used in the anti-skid braking con-
trol laws
Parameter Value
Parameter Value
Amplification factor of silicon controlled rectifier, K s 10
Time constant of silicon controlled rectifier, T s 0.000125 s Proportional coefficient in slip ratio brake control unit, K pv 160
Armature circuit resistance, Rd 6.3  Integral coefficient in slip ratio brake control unit, K iv 80
Electromagnetic time constant, T l 0.00098 s Differential coefficient in slip ratio brake control unit, K dv 5.5
Electric traction system time constant, T m 0.004 s Proportional coefficient in braking pressure control unit, K pt 2
Back EMF coefficient, C e 0.18 Integral coefficient in braking pressure control unit, K it 0.03
Proportional coefficient of rotor rotational speed 12 Differential coefficient in braking pressure control unit, K dt 0.01
controller, K pmn Proportional coefficient in deceleration brake control unit, 48
Integral coefficient of rotor rotational speed controller, 2 K pvo
K imn Integral coefficient in deceleration brake control unit, K ivo 0.5
Proportional coefficient of current controller, K pmi 3 Differential coefficient in deceleration brake control unit, 0.1
Integral coefficient of current controller, K imi 37 K dvo

Table 2 Parameters and their values used in the braking actuators and
braking pads
References
Parameter Value 1. Reducing the Risk of Runway Excursions (2009). Flight Safety
Foundation, Alexandria, VA
Screw basic lead, l 0 0.005 m 2. Unmanned Aerial Vehicles Roadmap, 2005–2030 (2005). Depart-
Reduction ratio of speed reducer, nr 16 ment of Defense (DOD), Washington, DC
Transmission efficiency between motor, speed reducer 0.85 3. Jenkins M, Aaron RF (2012) Reducing Runway Landing Overruns.
and screw, ηm vol 3. Aero Quarterly 3
4. Aircraft Design Manual Editorial Board (2002) Aircraft Design
Frictional coefficient between rotors and stators, μmc 0.26 Manual-Take-off and Landing System Design. Aviation Industry
Number of the friction surface, N mc 8 Press, Beijing
External radius of a stator, Rs 0.103 m 5. Wang HL, Zhang CQ (2002) Nonlinear dynamics theory and appli-
cation. Tianjin Science & Technology Press, Tianjin
Inside radius of a rotor, r r 0.062 m
6. Miller JI, Cebon D (2013) An investigation of the effects of
pneumatic actuator design on slip control for heavy vehicles.
VehSystDyn 51(1):139–164. https://doi.org/10.1080/00423114.20
Table 3 Parameters and their values used in the UAV taxiing dynamic
12.717703
model
7. Tan HS, Tomizuka M A Discrete-Time Robust Vehicle Traction
Parameter Value Controller Design. In: American Control Conference, 1989. IEEE,
pp 1053–1060
UAV mass, M 3700 kg 8. Currey NS (1988) Aircraft landing gear design: principle and prac-
Inertia moment of the UAV to axle Ob yb , I y 18,710 kg·m2 tice. AIAA, Washington, DC
9. Zhang QH, Li YR (2003) Design and analysis on aircraft electric
Mean aerodynamic chord, ca 1.10 m brake system. Aeronaut Comput Tech 33(3):97–100
Air density,ρ 1.225 kg/m3 10. Pritchard J (2001) Overview of landing gear dynamics. J Aircr
Wing surface area, S w 5.45 m2 38(1):130–137. https://doi.org/10.2514/2.2744
11. Geiger M, Macy W, Skriblis I (1996) Demonstration of an electri-
Elevator rudder area, S t 0.65 m2 cally actuated brake with torque feedback. SAE. https://doi.org/1
Drag parachute area, S c 4.20 m2 0.4271/961299
Distance from nose landing gear to gravity center 3.92 m 12. Li HH, Xie LL, Liu H, Lin H (2003) Research on modeling
along Ob x b , an and simulation of aircraft electric braking system. J SystSimul
15(10):1458–1460
Distance from main landing gear to gravity center 0.40 m
13. Moseley DD, Carter TJ (1988) Performance testing of an electri-
along Ob x b , am
cally actuated aircraft braking system. SAE, Anaheim
Vertical distance between the ground and the 1.50 m 14. Tarter JF (1991) Electric brake system modeling and simulation.
gravity center, h SAE, Dayton
Projector distance between aerodynamic center and 0.22 m 15. Dornheim MA (1999) Electric brakes tested on F-16. Aviation
gravity center along Ob x b , x a Week Space Technol 150(3):51
16. Ding B, Huang WM, Yang XW, Zhou SM (2006) Electrome-
Projector distance between aerodynamic center and 0.30 m
chanical actuator of aircraft electric braking system. Aeronaut
gravity center along Ob zb , za
ManufTechnol 1:36–39

123
International Journal of Aeronautical and Space Sciences
17. Anderson S, Brundrett RL, Corio LF, Himes TM, Howard PJ (2010)
Electric brake for aircraft. US Patent US 7,717,240 B2
18. Hanlon C, Geck K, Quitmeyer JN (2011) Aircraft electric brake
actuator assembly with line replaceable actuator brake. US Patent
US 2011/0198163 A1
19. Danielson L (2005) Electric braking debuts in military and com-
mercial applications. SAE:42
20. Li HG, Wang K, Wu RX, Zhou SM, Huang WM (2004) Demonstra-
tion of a plane electrically actuated brake. J Beijing UnivAeronuat
Astronaut 30(4):339–343
21. Cai WJ, Lin H (2008) Aircraft electric braking system based on
parameter fuzzy automatic adjustive PID. Electron Opt Control
15(2):39–42
22. Zhang Z, Li Y (2014) Modeling and simulation of switched reluc-
tance machine based aircraft electric brake system by BP neural
network. In: Paper presented at the 2014 IEEE 9th conference on
industrial electronics and applications (ICIEA), Hangzhou, China,
23. Lin H, Wang YL, Zhang X, Wu X (2014) Design and implemen-
tation of dual-redundancy electric braking system for unmanned
aerial vehicle based on DSP and CPLD. ComputMeas Control
22(6):1929–1931
24. Chen XL, Lin H, Li BQ, Dai ZY (2015) Backstepping sliding
mode control for aircraft electric braking systems with slip ratio
constraint. J Shanghai Jiao Tong Univ 49(12):1855–1861
25. Wellstead PE, Pettit NBOL (1997) Analysis and redesign of an
antilock brake system controller. IEEE Proceedings-Control The-
ory and Applications 144(5):413–426
26. Pasillas-Lépine W (2006) Hybrid modeling and limit cycle analysis
for a class of five-phase anti-lock brake algorithms. VehSystDyn
44(2):173–188. https://doi.org/10.1080/00423110500385873
27. Pasillas-Lépine W, Loria A (2010) A new mixed wheel slip and
acceleration control based on a cascaded design. IFAC ProcVol
43(14):879–884. https://doi.org/10.3182/20100901-3-IT-2016.00
231
28. Tanelli M, Astolfi A, Savaresi SM (2008) Robust nonlinear output
feedback control for brake by wire control systems. Automat-
ica 44(4):1078–1087. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.automatica.2007.0
8.020
29. Jing HH, Liu ZY, Chen H (2011) A switched control strategy for
antilock braking system with On/Off Valves. IEEE Trans Veh Tech-
nol 60(4):1470–1484. https://doi.org/10.1109/TVT.2011.2125806
30. Capra D, Galvagno E, Ondrak V, van Leeuwen B, Vigliani A (2012)
An ABS control logic based on wheel force measurement. VehSyst-
Dyn 50(12):1779–1796. https://doi.org/10.1080/00423114.2012.6
90041
31. Wang P, Li YR, Liang B, Fu LF (2015) Aircraft electrically actuated
brake control based on nonlinear model predictive control method.
J Northwest PolytechUniv 33(6):989–993
32. Li BQ, Chen XL, Lin H, Dai ZY (2016) Enhanced stability dynamic
surface control for aircraft antiskid braking system using elec-
tromechanical actuator. SystEng Electron 38(5):1139–1145
33. Hong NG (2010) Modeling and simulation of power electronics
and motor control system. China Machine Press, Beijing
34. Savaresi SM, Silani E, Bittanti S (2005) Acceleration-driven-
damper (ADD): sns. J DynSystMeasContr 127(2):218–229. https://
doi.org/10.1115/1.1898241
35. Bittanti S, Savaresi SM (2000) On the parametrization and design
of an extended Kalman filter frequency tracker. IEEE Trans Autom
Control 45(9):1718–1724
36. Napolitano MR, Younghwan A, Seanor AB (2000) A fault tolerant
flight control system for sensor and actuator failures using neural
networks. Aircr Des 3:103–128
37. Tanelli M, Piroddi L, Savaresi SM (2009) Real-time identifica-
tion of tire-road friction conditions. IET Control Theory Appl
3(7):891–906. https://doi.org/10.1049/iet-cta.2008.0287
38. Tanner JA, Stubbs SM (1977) Behavior of aircraft antiskid braking
systems on dry and wet runway surfaces: a slip-ratio-controlled
system with ground speed reference from unbraked nose wheel.
NASA Langley Research Center, Hampton, p 23665
39. Pacejka HB, Bakker E (1992) The magic formula tyre model.
VehSystDyn 21(sup001):1–18. https://doi.org/10.1080/00423119
208969994
40. Wang JS (2001) Nonlinear control theory and its application to
aircraft antiskid brake systems. Northwestern Polytechnical Uni-
versity, Xi’an
41. Abe M (1986) A theoretical analysis on vehicle cornering behaviors
in acceleration and in braking. VehSystDyn 15(sup1):1–14. https://
doi.org/10.1080/00423118608969122
42. Hirzel EA (1972) Antiskid and modern aircraft. SocAutomotEng
Inc San Deigo California. https://doi.org/10.4271/720868
Publisher’s Note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to juris-
dictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations
123