Expert Systems With Applications 213 (2023) 118859

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Expert Systems With Applications

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/eswa

Enhancing performance and stability of gain-scheduling control system

using evolutionary algorithms: A case study on transport aircraft
Aisha Sir Elkhatem *, Seref Naci Engin
Control and Automation Engineering Department, Yildiz Technical University, Istanbul 34349, Turkey

A R T I C L E I N F O A B S T R A C T

Keywords: An enhanced gain-scheduling control strategy was presented to establish a smooth adaptation mechanism for the
Smooth adaptation mechanism longitudinal motion of B747 between different flight envelopes. The focal objective is to accomplish a smooth
Gain scheduling flight control and non-conservative gain-scheduling control system that has high performance and stability characteristics for
Evolutionary algorithms
different flight conditions and transitions between them. The proposed approach ensured a successful gain
Non-dominated optimal solutions
Longitudinal motion of B747
scheduling control system by allocating a specific error performance index that should be minimized for all flight
conditions. Then all required performance indices were cohered according to the flight envelope in the form of a
multi-objective optimization problem that could be solved using evolutionary algorithms. The performance and
stability of the transition points between different flight conditions were preserved through the sets of feasible
solutions obtained by an evolutionary algorithm which are known as a set of Pareto optimal solutions. The
proposed gain-scheduling system was built based on 2DoF-PID (Two-degree-of-freedom Proportional Integral
Derivative) controller. An auto-decision-maker was developed to adjust the parameters of the 2DoF-PID gain-
scheduling control system with the current flight condition. The effectiveness of the proposed gain-scheduling
control structure was studied for two different multiobjective evolutionary-based optimizers known as fast
sorting and elite multi-objective genetic algorithm.II (NSGA.II), and sub-population genetic algorithm.II (SPGA.
II). The proposed methodology was evaluated by simulation results according to the quality of the pareto-front
and transient response characteristics of the proposed gain-scheduling controller for the chosen flight conditions
in normal flight conditions and 50% loss of actuator effectiveness.

1. Introduction performance of jet aircraft for wide-ranging flight conditions, the

The nonlinear and complex behavior of aircraft dynamics poses a
challenge in choosing a viable flight control system that can track the
required motion precisely. Gain scheduling (GS) flight control systems
have been developed and implemented over many decades to cope with
the nonlinear dynamics of the aircraft by means of linear control tools.
The gain-scheduling technique is defined as “a nonlinear feedback of
special type; it has a linear regulator whose parameters are changed as a
function of the operating conditions in a pre-programmed way” (Hel­
mersson, 1995).
The history of gain scheduling techniques in flight control applica­
tions goes back to the 1960 s after World War II. The main reasons for
employing gain scheduling control were to achieve good stability and
appearance of guided rockets, and the necessity for good manoeuvring
of military aircraft (Ilka, 2015). Furthermore, most physical systems
exhibit complex and nonlinear dynamics. Gain scheduling techniques
have provided an elegant way for controlling nonlinear systems by
applying linear techniques to represent the real system behavior with a
relative guarantee of stability and performance (Huang, 2010). Since
then, gain-scheduling techniques have been considered one of the most
widespread approaches employed effectively to control nonlinear dy­
namics in different fields ((Yubai et al., 2008; Lagerberg & Breitholtz,
1997; Beaven et al., 1995)).
The design methodology for the early gain scheduling controllers
was established by the divide and conquer method. This method is
accomplished by choosing a set of equilibrium points of dynamics that

Peer review under responsibility of Submissions with the production note ‘Please add the Reproducibility Badge for this item’ the Badge and the following footnote
to be added:The code (and data) in this article has been certified as Reproducible by the CodeOcean: https://codeocean.com. More information on the Reproduc­
ibility Badge Initiative is available at https://www.elsevier.com/physicalsciencesandengineering/computerscience/journals.
* Corresponding author.
E-mail addresses: aisha.ahmed@std.yildiz.edu.tr (A.S. Elkhatem), nengin@yildiz.edu.tr (S.N. Engin).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eswa.2022.118859
Received 19 April 2022; Received in revised form 13 September 2022; Accepted 15 September 2022
Available online 21 September 2022
0957-4174/© 2022 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
A.S. Elkhatem and S.N. Engin
cover all the operating conditions of the plant, then designing a chain of
linear time-invariant (LTI) controllers for each point that has been
identified. Finally, changing the parameters of the controller according
to operating conditions, which is known as the interpolation or sched­
uling process (Leith & Leithead, 2000) completes the procedure. The
main pitfalls of this approach result from two assumptions: first,
scheduling variables should vary slowly, second, the stability of the
nonlinear closed-loop (by blending several linear controllers, the
resulting global controller is nonlinear) system is guaranteed only for
selected values of the scheduling parameter (Liu et al., 2020). This
means that the closed loop may not be stable during the transitions
between operating conditions. Furthermore, when the systems involve
modeling faults or working on too many trimmed points, the classical
gain-scheduling approach provides practically no guarantee for
acceptable performance, or stability (Rasmussen & Alleyne, 2005).
Therefore, the stability and performance of the classical gain-scheduling
method cannot be achieved if the scheduling variables vary-fast, or the
system contains non-parametric faults or uncertainties.
The linear-parameter-varying (LPV) or quasi-LPV modeling method
was introduced by Shamma, 2012. LPV approach is based on charac­
terizing nonlinear dynamics by the linear time-invariant system (LTI)
with time-varying parameters corresponding to exogenous or endoge­
nous signals, e.g., signals of states, inputs, or outputs. LPV was proposed
to represent the nonlinearities of dynamics and also to overcome the
problems of the classical gain-scheduling technique. In this point of
view, the gain-scheduling-based LPV modeling approach depends on
designing a single controller known simply as an LPV controller. The
gains of this controller vary according to the plant dynamics. In this case,
from the stability perspective, an LPV controller with reasonable
complexity and structure can solve the interpolation problem of the
classical gain-scheduling and can ensure the global stability of the
closed-loop system.
The LPV modeling method has become popular rapidly and found
quite a number of application fields. For instance, Bagher et al., (2017)
derived an LPV model for robotic manipulators using the linear matrix
inequalities (LMIs) approach to design a full state feedback tracking
controller. Yue et al., (2013) designed a gain self-scheduled robust
control system to regulate the wing shape transition process of folding-
wing morphing aircraft by applying the LPV modeling method. A modal
alignment algorithm was proposed by Al-Jiboory et al., (2017) to ach­
ieve smooth grid-based LPV control for the NASA GTM aeroelastic
aircraft model. Likewise, Sliding Mode Control was proposed to syn­
thesize a stable control system for an LPV-based longitudinal dynamic
model that was derived using the Kane method of Morphing Aircraft,
(Wen et al., 2017). A gain-scheduling approach via linear parameter-
varying (LPV) was proposed to control the position of the antenna and
camera at a certain position of a spacecraft (Kwon et al., 2011). More­
over, an LPV control scheme was proposed for chemical processes
(Golabi et al., 2017), autonomous vehicles (Alcala et al., 2018), irriga­
tion canal systems (Bolea & Puig, 2016), systems with time-varying
delays (de Souza et al., 2022) by applying the Lyapunov-krasovskii
stability theorem to preserve the stability of a closed-loop system, and
so on.
The main problem related to the LPV method is that it is too time-
consuming when determining which physical effects can capture the
nonlinearities of the plant and hence must be included in the LPV model.
Moreover, in the case of large operating domain dynamics, the global
stability of the closed-loop system cannot be guaranteed, (Zhang et al.,
2002). These features make the LPV method still not commonly in use in
real applications and restricted mainly to academic work.
Another an alternative method that has been proposed in the liter­
ature to overcome the drawbacks of the conventional gain scheduling
approach is the Takagi-Sugeno (TS) model proposed by (Takagi &
Sugeno, 1985). TS method describes a nonlinear system with fuzzy
clustering in a specific region of space by means of a set of linear models.
Blending various feedback controllers obtained as linear models make
2
Expert Systems With Applications 213 (2023) 118859
use of fuzzy rules, which constitute the Parallel Distributed Compensa­
tion (PDC) scheme (Rotondo et al., 2015). Therefore, the T-S fuzzy
model proves to be a powerful paradigm for controlling nonlinear sys­
tems (Hušek & Narenathreyas, 2016). The main success of the T-S fuzzy
model lies in its flexibility, it can work with well-defined models and ill-
defined systems with strong uncertainties (Y. Wang et al., 2021).
Massive applications in the literature clearly indicate that the T-S-based
modeling and control approach attracts the attention of researchers in
various fields. For instance, Hušek & Narenathreyas, (2016) designed a
fuzzy logic controller for the longitudinal dynamics of small transport
aircraft that was derived using a Takagi–Sugeno method. In Luan et al.,
(2011) work, T-S fuzzy control system was designed for nuclear reactor
nonlinear and parallel distributed compensation scheme to ensure a
globally asymptotically stable system. Kwon et al., (2011) proposed a
Takagi-Sugeno fuzzy-model-based controller to stabilize the attitude of
spacecraft. Likewise Jurado et al., (2008) stabilized six degrees of
Quadrotor Helicopters via the Takagi-Sugeno fuzzy model, whereas the
global stability of the closed-loop system of the sets of the linear
controller was ensured using an LMI optimization algorithm. Based on T-
S fuzzy model, an event-triggered control with ensuring less conserva­
tiveness problem for nonlinear singularly perturbed systems under
actuator faults was established (H. Wang et al., 2022b).
The common feature of the three mentioned approaches is the way
they handle the nonlinearity of dynamics. The procedure is accom­
plished by re-representing dynamics and then implementing different
control methods. Still, the problem of global closed-loop stability of the
classical method and conservative features of LPV and T-S fuzzy ap­
proaches make gain scheduling control schemes an open problem for
researchers in various fields.
Considering the problems that were previously listed, the main
objective of this article is to develop an adaptation mechanism for lon­
gitudinal motion of the B747 flight control system employing the con­
ventional gain-scheduling scheme to preserve simplicity and relevancy
and avoid the conservative features of the LPV and TS methods while
ensuring global stability of the closed-loop system.
The proposed idea for gain-scheduling control is established based
on selecting a set of aircraft flight conditions that can cover an aircraft’s
flight envelope. Then, the required closed-loop flight control system
performance for those flight conditions can be reflected by a specific
performance index as an objective function to be achieved. These per­
formance objectives can be reached by transforming the classical gain-
scheduling problem to a multi-objective optimization problem. The
primary aim of a multi-objective problem is to explore a set of optimal
solutions that can meet all the flight control system objectives according
to flight conditions. The solutions to the multi-objective problem are
called non-dominated optimal solutions.
The main distinctive feature of employing a pareto-front as an
adaptation mechanism for tuning the gain-scheduling controller is that
an accomplished set of feasible solutions which constitute the pareto-
front meet simultaneous prerequisites of a control problem. For
example, as in our case, the objectives are the type of performance
monitoring for the closed-loop system based on error identification be­
tween the actual and desired pitch angle for selected flight conditions of
aircraft dynamics. Thus, the obtained set of solutions fulfils all the
control problem objectives, which can extend the performance and
stability of the closed-loop system from just the specified operating
points to the transition points as well. Moreover, the proposed self-
scheduling controller can be designed based on classical or optimal
control theory.
Thus, the proposed gain-scheduling scheme is analogous to the
classical method in terms of dividing dynamics into several sub-sets. It is
also similar to the LPV gain methodology in terms of designing one
controller rather than a set of controllers and extending the applicability
of that controller to all flight conditions by means of changing its pa­
rameters according to the computed Pareto-optimal solutions. However,
the proposed method differs from the classical gain-scheduling method
A.S. Elkhatem and S.N. Engin
in ensuring stable transitions between flight conditions. Furthermore,
the proposed method has a less conservative approach compared to the
LPV method.
The paper is organized as follows. We first reviewed related studies
on various gain-scheduling techniques that were presented in the liter­
ature in section two. The objective and main contribution of the current
work was presented in section three. In section four, state-space repre­
sentation of the longitudinal dynamic motion for two different altitudes
and Mach numbers are presented. In section five, the proposed method is
validated with numerical results in nominal flight condition and 50 %
loss of actuator effectiveness cases. Finally, the main achievements and
concluding remarks are reported in section six.
2. Related studies
As a result, current studies tend to deal with the shortcomings of the
standard gain scheduling approach from the perspective of confirming
smooth switching thus ensuring stability between transient points.
Another group of researchers turned to enhance the LPV and T-S ap­
proaches by overcoming the conservative feature of a single controller.
The gain scheduling approach to control the longitudinal motion of a
business aircraft was based on adapting the parameter of the controller
designed for one flight condition (David et al., 2011). In that work, the
stability and performance were extended for various trim points using
the guardian maps method. The flight envelope of the fighter jet F-16
has been divided into sets of linearized models, and then the H-infinity
controller was used as a local controller for each model. Here, the
Matlab function “hinfstruct” was used to tune the controllers to obtain a
robust self-scheduled control method, (Lhachemi et al., 2014). In
another work presented by Sadeghzadeh et al., (2014), a gain-
scheduling PID controller was compared with the Model Reference
Adaptive method in terms of the effectiveness of both adaptive mecha­
nisms and being applicable to variable payload UAV Quadcopters. On
the other hand, Linear Parameter Varying (LPV) has been improved to
include variation rate into account by introducing a Jacobian
linearization-based LPV control strategy for aero-engines (Liu et al.,
2020). The stability of the gain scheduling method has been studied for
aircraft dynamics by Mendez-Vergara et al., (2014), where it was
concluded that adding linear integral action to output feedback can
guarantee higher asymptotical stability in the case of the existence of
nonlinearities and uncertainties. A classical gain-scheduling approach
employing an LQR controller using a set of linearized models of the
nonlinear six-degree of freedom (DOF) airship is another successful
work found in the literature (Fikar, 2011).
Likewise, the classical gain scheduling technique has been addressed
in applications like regulating the flutter suppression of wings, tails, and
control surfaces (Tekniska & Ho, 2002). For instance, Barker et al.,
(1999) developed LPV gain-scheduled controller for active flutter sup­
pression for the wings of air vehicles by NASA Langley Research Center’s
Benchmark Active Control Technology (BACT) wing section. The
developed method was compared with linear fractional transformation
(LFT) gain scheduled controller. The results demonstrated that the
closed-loop stability in the existence of a Dryden wind-gust disturbance
is guaranteed to a greater extent in the case of LPV-gain scheduling
compared to the LTF method. Furthermore, an adaptive controller based
on the gain scheduling concept has been developed for flutter suppres­
sion of airfoils whereby population decline swarm optimization is
employed to adapt the parameters of the controller corresponding to
airflow speed values as demonstrated by Vindigni & Orlando, (2020).
Further example implementations of the gain-scheduling techniques
can be found in other fields such as job-shop scheduling problems (JSSP)
in computer science. For example,Wang et al., (2022a) introduced
Hybrid Adaptive Differential Evolution Algorithm (HADE) to solve a a
well-described multi-objective Fuzzy JSSP Problem. On the other hand,
the classical differential evolution (DE) algorithm with a new selection
mechanism has been augmented by Gao et al., (2020) to solve the Fuzzy
3
Expert Systems With Applications 213 (2023) 118859
JSSP. More example implementations for solving JSSP can be found,
where various parameters such as makespan, production cost, electrical
energy consumption and so on are taken as objective functions to be
minimized or maximized (Li and Wang 2022).
3. Main contribution of the current work vs classical methods
Gain-scheduling (GS) flight control system is the most prevalent
technique that has been applied in the aerospace field. The importance
of classical gain-scheduling techniques in the field of aviation stems
from their simplicity in their design and robustness in dealing with the
non-linear nature of flight control problems. Furthermore, the possi­
bility of using linear control design tools to deal with complex non-linear
flight control systems caused by the aerodynamic properties of the
aircraft, which may fluctuate considerably during the aircraft’s wide
range of flight conditions contributes to the advantages of the gain-
scheduling techniques. However, the problem of ensuring the stability
of the closed-loop system, particularly in the transitions of different
flight conditions, and the limitations when dealing with the dynamics
comprising slowly changing variables require further development of
the classical gain scheduling approaches to increase their relevance.
Generally, a lookup table is created as an adaptation mechanism for
selecting the values of variables in classical gain scheduling control with
respect to associated flight conditions. This adaptation method is a type
of open-loop adaptive control system since it neither measures the
variations in the system performance resulting from the change of
controller parameters nor checks the efficiency of the parameter adap­
tation, as shown in Fig. 1.
The main objectives on which the proposed idea focuses are as
follows:
i. Keeping the simplicity and applicability of the traditional gain-
scheduling method while solving the problem of stability and other
limitations such as switching to a fast-scheduling variable by
developing performance and stability-preserving interpolation
technique. Therefore, rather than using a distinct set of gains for the
gain-scheduling controller with the flight conditions as explained in
Fig. 1., smooth transition changes from one operating condition to
another can be accomplished by employing a type of curve (Par­
eto curve) as an adaptation mechanism to ensure a smooth and stable
transition between operating points.
ii. Benefiting from the idea of the LPV method in terms of designing a
single controller for different flight conditions while solving the
problem of conservative LPV controllers.
These two goals can be achieved by developing a new adaptation
mechanism for a single control unit that can be designed after dividing
the flight conditions into a set of LTI dynamics. The main feature of the
proposed design approach is based on:
I. Select a set of operating points covering all operating conditions
of non-linear plant dynamics. Proposing a set of performance
indices that can ensure closed-loop stability of dynamic for each
specified point to be achieved. In this paper, three performance
indices are considered to evaluate the proposed method, known
as integral of the absolute magnitude of the error (IAE), integral
of time multiplied by squared error (ITSE), and integral of time
multiplied by absolute error (ITAE).
II. Expressing all performance indices as a multi-objective optimi­
zation problems form.
III. Solving the multi-objective problem using one of the meta­
heuristics algorithms such as NSGA.II, MPSO, SPGA.II and so on
to find a set of trade-offs for solutions that satisfy all performance
criteria (selected objectives) required in various flight conditions.
IV. The achieved trade-off solutions from the previous step are
known as a non-dominated optimal solution or Pareto-front
A.S. Elkhatem and S.N. Engin Expert Systems With Applications 213 (2023) 118859

Fig. 1. Classical gain scheduling (Rugh & Shamma, 2000).

which is applied as an adaptation mechanism in the proposed
gain-scheduling approach as shown in Fig. 2.
V. Adapting controller parameters along with the flight conditions
constitutes the new approach introduced by this study for
decision-making to the proposed control structure.
Three significant steps are taken to complete the aforementioned
procedures:
3.1. Step One: Multi-Objective problem - mathematical model
The first step is establishing a mathematical model for a multi-
objective search approach. In general, there are four search ap­
proaches to finding Pareto-Front approximation that differ according to
the method of formulating multi-objective optimization problems. The
four presented approaches are dominance-based, decomposition-based,
metric-driven, and hybrid approximation schemes (Batista et al., 2011),
(Rodriguez-Molina et al., 2021). However, the most classic applied
method of formulating multi-objective problems is the dominance-based

Fig. 2. Proposed gain-scheduling flight control system.

4
A.S. Elkhatem and S.N. Engin Expert Systems With Applications 213 (2023) 118859

Fig. 3. Some examples of intelligent optimization algorithms (Cui et al., 2017).

method which can be described as follows equation.

Minimize : F(x) = ( f1 (x) , ⋯.. fm (x))T , m = 1, 2, ⋯.M (1)

Subject to:
gj (x) ≥ 0, i = 1, 2, ⋯.J

hk (x) = 0, k = 1, 2, ⋯.K

x∊Ω
where M, J and K are the numbers of conflicting objective functions,
inequality, and equality constraints, respectively. Ω is the variable
space.
In this paper, the classical dominance-based method has been
applied to search Pareto-Front approximation as follows.

JDominance = [J1 , ⋯ J m ]T (2) Fig. 4. Ranking the obtained non-dominating feasible solutions.

Where J1 …Jm are a set of objective functions that should minimize

or maximize to obtain a set of non-dominated solutions. introducing additional weighting factors to the multi-objective problem
In addition, a novel preference-based hybrid method is proposed in that was formulated based on the classical dominance approach. The
this work to improve the performance of the Pareto-front hence proposed method is formulated as follows,
achieving an efficient control system. The proposed method is based on
JProposed hybrid method = [β1 × J1 β 2 × J 2 ]T (3)

5
A.S. Elkhatem and S.N. Engin Expert Systems With Applications 213 (2023) 118859

where β1 and β2 are random weights for a set of objectives (β1 and
β2 < 1). Three random values for β1 and β2 is considered and explained
later. The concept of adding those preferences to have a good Pareto-
front is relied on adding more penalizing to objective functions with
the current flight condition.
In this study, three different objective functions representing per­
formance criteria for closed-loop systems were investigated to estimate
the Pareto front and thus parameters of the proposed gain-scheduling
controller with respect to flight conditions. The three error perfor­
mance indices are associated with minimizing the error between the real
dynamics and the generalized dynamics. In addition, two flight condi­
tions have been selected to evaluate the proposed approach.
The first quantitative criteria describe the integral of the absolute
magnitude of the error (IAE) index, then equations (2)–(3) can be
written as:
JDominance = [IAE1 IAE2 ]T
JProposedhybridmethod = [β1 × IAE1 β2 × IAE2 ]T
The second performance criterion reflects the integral of time
multiplied squared error (ITSE) of a closed-loop system to calculate a
non-dominated optimal solution as follows.
JDominance = [ITSE1 ITSE2 ]T
JProposedhybridmethod = [β1 × ITSE1 β2 × ITSE2 ]T
Finally, Pareto-front approximation was found considering the in­
tegral of time multiplied by absolute error (ITAE) performance index:
Many-Objective Optimization problems that formulated based on the
decomposition-based structure.
3.2. Step Two: Optimization process
The second step in the proposed gain-scheduling control structure is
the optimization process which is associated with finding the optimal
solutions that satisfy all objectives for the problem formulated in the
first step. This step can be achieved using any type of multi-objective
optimization algorithm including Biology inspired algorithms, Swarm
based algorithms, Geography inspired algorithms, social culture-
inspired algorithms, and Physics inspired algorithms, as shown in Fig. 3.
In this paper, two evolutionary-based optimizers known as fast
sorting and elite multi-objective genetic algorithm.II (NSGA.II) and sub-
population genetic algorithm.II (SPGA.II) are employed to obtain a non-
(4) dominating optimal solution (Cui et al., 2017). NSGA.II algorithm has
proven its efficiency as one of the best multi-objective optimization al­
(5) gorithms on a number of benchmark problems. The advantages of
NSGA.II are presented as follows:
• It utilizes non-dominated sorting techniques to obtain the solution as
approximate to the Pareto-optimal solution as possible,
• It implements crowding distance techniques to ensure diversity in
(6)
solutions,
• The searching techniques it uses are superior to other algorithms, so
(7)
it preserves the best solution for a current population in the next
generation.

JDominance = [ITAE1 ITAE2 ]T (8) 3.3. Step Three: Auto-Decision maker

JProposedhybridmethod = [β1 × ITAE1 β2 × ITAE2 ]T (9) Auto-decision-maker is associated with detecting the current flight
condition of aircraft to adjusting the parameters of the controller to
Where, guarantee a smooth transition between equilibrium points of aircraft.
∫t Generally, this process can be achieved using different approaches
IAEi = |ei (t)| × Δt (10) (Nagy et al., 2020), such as the a priori preference approach, which is
based on selecting the interesting area of solutions prior to the optimi­
0

∫ t zation process corresponding to a set of unchangeable preferences that

ITSEi = t × ei (t)2 × Δt (11) can be previously established by designer. The weighted sum problem
0
formulation method is an example of the a priori method. The main
∫ t drawback of this approach is that any unknown uncertainties and dis­
ITAEi = t × |ei (t)| × Δt (12) turbances cannot accommodate. Decision-maker process can also be
0
achieved using the a posteriori way. In this case, the designer can select
ei (t) = ri (t) − yi (t) (13) the best solution after the optimization process. Moreover, the pro­
gressive method is based on altering the preferences during the opti­
Where ei (t) is the error signal between the required and actual out­
mization process or the search for the pareto-front.
puts, Δt=0.01 (sec), t = 10(sec).
Therefore, in our case, the proposed idea mainly depends on the
The quality of a Pareto-front can be measured by various features
such as convergence, capacity, and diversity of solutions. The quality of
Pareto-front means the presence of a large number of non-dominant
solutions, which is known as the capacity of solutions, more coverage
solutions, and more divergence between sets of solutions. In this matter,
the quality of the set of all Pareto efficient solutions in terms of previous
features differs according to the type of optimization algorithms as
demonstrated by Ma et al., (2022) who proposed a new algorithm to
improve the quality of solutions for Large-Scale Multi-objective and

Table 1
The upper and lower band for 2-DoF-PID controller parameters:
Parameters Minimum Value Maximum Value

Kp − 150 − 0.0001
Ki − 350 − 0.0001
Kd − 150 − 0.0001
τ 0.001 0.01
b 0.1 0.5
c 0.1 0.5
Fig. 5. Pareto-front approximations using NSGA-II/ITAE: Dominance method.

6
A.S. Elkhatem and S.N. Engin Expert Systems With Applications 213 (2023) 118859

Fig. 6. Pareto-front approximations using NSGA-II/IAE: Dominance method. Fig. 8. Transient responses using 2 DOF-PID controller for two flight condi­
tions: Dominance method.
posterior preferences method with a new selection algorithm. Thus,
from the sets of solutions that were accomplished in step two, one so­
lution should be elected and then implanted into a gain-scheduling

{
if EPI 1 < EPI 2 Set one (flight condition-1
Decision − maker ⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯. (14)
if EPI 2 < EPI 1 Set two (flight condition-2

controller according to flight conditions. As result, the proposed idea

behind the proposed Auto-decision-maker algorithm can be detailed as where EPI is the Error Performance Indices (IAE, ITAE, andITSE).
follows: Considering the IAE index as an example.
{
if IAE1 < IAE2 Setone(flightcondition-1
1. Re-arranging the sets of solutions that were obtained in step two Decision − maker (15)
if IAE2 < IAE1 Settwo(flightcondition-2
(non-dominated optimal solutions) into two groups according to the
value of the objective function (IAE,ITAE, andITSE), as in Eq.14. The
first group is related to a set of feasible solutions that can ensure the 2. Considering the above two sets, the best solution for the first flight
stability of closed-loop systems for flight condition one, which are condition can be selected by picking the most minimum value of the
represented by all the set of solutions at Pareto-front when the per­
formance indices one is less than the performance index two and vice
versa for flight condition two. Accordingly, Eqs. (14) and (15), and
Fig. 4. are established as the first step in finding the best solution for
the selected flight condition.

Fig. 9. Comparison between three obtained Pareto-front approximations:

Dominance method.

Table 2
Preferences values (β).
β1 β2

0.3 0.1
0.5 0.2
0.4 0.6
Fig. 7. Pareto-front approximations using NSGA-II/ITSE: Dominance method.

7
A.S. Elkhatem and S.N. Engin Expert Systems With Applications 213 (2023) 118859

Table 3
Transient response characteristics and Decision-maker results.
Parameters IAE ITAE ITSA

flight condition one flight condition two flight condition one flight condition two flight condition one flight condition two

Best Objective functions 0.0403 0.0129 0.0119 0.0039 0.0013 0.0004

Rise Time 0.1392 0.1481 0.3211 0.2875 0.1480 0.1396
Settling Time 0.8044 0.4493 0.4765 1.0532 0.7976 0.8088
Overshoot 4.6121 9.5146 0.7156 3.2365 5.8981 5.3962
Peak Time 0.6600 0.3100 0.9500 0.5100 0.3000 0.6400

4. Aircraft dynamic and 2-DOF-PID gain-scheduling controller

Fig. 10. Error signal according to flight conditions for three cases: Domi­ Fig. 12. Pareto-front approximations using NSGA-II/ITSE: Proposed hybrid
nance method. method β = 0.3, 0.1.

Fig. 11. Pareto-front approximations using NSGA-II/ITSE: Proposed hybrid Fig. 13. Pareto-front approximations using NSGA-II/ITSE: Proposed hybrid
method β = 0.3, 0.1. method β = 0.4, 0.6.

first categorized set, while the most minimum value of the second
group sets represent the best solution for the second flight condition.
3. Thus, when the aircraft is in flight condition one, the corresponding
gains to a minimum value for the set one obtained from the previous
step are implanted in the gain-scheduling controller.
The proposed gain-scheduling approach is aimed to apply to B747
aircraft considering two flight conditions altitudes of 4000 to 7000 m,
Mach number of 0.565 to 0.7, and true velocity of 150 to 250 m/s. Thus,
the state-space representation of the dynamic system can be presented
as:

The success of the proposed decision-maker method in achieving an ẋ(t) = Ai x(t) + Bi u(t)
optimal solution depends on reducing the objective space while main­
taining the advantages of the multi-objective optimization (MOO) y(t) = Ci x(t) + Di u(t) (16)
approach. where Ai ∊ Rn×n , Bi ∊ Rn×m , Ci ∊ Rp×n y(t) ∊ Rp×1 x(t) ∊ Rn×1 , u(t) ∊ Rm×1

8
A.S. Elkhatem and S.N. Engin Expert Systems With Applications 213 (2023) 118859

elseif EPI 2 > EPI 1

EPI 1 = 0.1*EPI 1 & EPI 2 == 0.3*EPI 2

Then;

JProposed hybrid method = [0.1*EPI 1 0.3*EPI 2 ]T

end
The parameters of the NSGA.II algorithm used in the simulation
process are as follows: population size is 80, number of generations is
100, mutation rate is 0.167 and, crossover probability is 0.9.

Fig. 14. Transient responses using 2 DOF-PID controller for two flight condi­
tions: Proposed hybrid method.

are the system, input and output matrices, output vector, state vector,
input or control vector respectively. Ai , Bi , Ci , and Di matrices change
with the flight conditions as explained in Appendix 1. The longitudinal
state vector, control vector, and output vector can be defined as x =
[α q VTAS θ he ]T , u = [δa δe]T , y = [γ a θ q V he ]T where, the states are
the angle of attack α (rad), pitch rate q (rad/s),the true velocity VTAS (m/
s), pitch angle θ (rad), and altitude he (m). There are two control inputs,
the stabilizer deflection δa (rad) and elevator deflection δe (rad). The
measurements available are flight path angle γ (rad), aircraft accelera­
tion V̇ (m/s2),pitch angle θ (rad), pitch rate q (rad/s), velocity V (m/s),
and altitude he (m).
In this paper, the proposed gain scheduling approach is designed by
employing the two degrees of freedom PID (2-DOF PID) controller. The Fig. 15. Pareto-front approximations using NSGA-II/ IAE: Proposed hybrid
control signal of the two-degree-of-freedom PID controllers is given by method β = 0.3, 0.1.
(Alfaro et al., 2009):
Ki 1
u(s)2DoF− PID = Kp b(r − y) + (r − y) + Kd1 s (cr − y) (17)
s (τ1 )s + 1
where Kp , Ki , Kd , τ, b, c are the proportional gain, integrator gain,
derivative gain, filter tunning parameter, integrator, setpoint weight on
the proportional term, and setpoint weight on a derivative term,
respectively. Subject to the parameter presented in Table 1.
In addition, three randomly values are considered for β as follows:
If β1 < β2 indicates more penalizing for flight condition one than
flight condition two and vice versa. Thus, the hybrid-proposed method is
established by adding the following constraints to ensure more quality
Preto-front. For instance, for β1 , β2 equal 0.3,0.1, respectively.
ifEPI 1 > EPI 2

EPI2 = 0.1*EP.I 2 & EPI 1 == 0.3*EPI 1 (18)

Then.

JProposed hybrid method = [0.3*EPI 1 0.1*EPI 2 ]T Fig. 16. Pareto-front approximations using NSGA-II/IAE: Proposed hybrid
method β = 0.5, 0.2.

Table 4
Transient response characteristic and Decision-maker results: Proposed hybrid method.
Parameters ITSA (β1 = 0.3, β2 = 0.1) ITSA (β1 = 0.5, β2 = 0.5) ITSA (β1 = 0.4, β2 = 0.6)

flight condition one flight condition flight condition one flight condition two flight condition one flight condition two
two

Best Objective functions (Decision-maker) 0.0119 0.0039 0.0183 0.0071 0.0162 0.0236
Rise Time 0.2785 0.3082 0.2937 0.3454 0.2740 0.2999
Settling Time 1.0922 0.4618 1.0804 0.4999 1.0613 0.4474
Overshoot 4.1525 0.9083 2.0679 1.7944 5.0389 1.0076
Peak Time 0.5000 0.9300 1.0500 0.6400 0.5000 0.9100

9
A.S. Elkhatem and S.N. Engin Expert Systems With Applications 213 (2023) 118859

5.1. Two-DOF-PID gain scheduling control system: Classical dominance-

based method

In this section, the results of the multi-objective problem that was

Fig. 17. Pareto-front approximations using NSGA-II/IAE: Proposed hybrid
method β = 0.4, 0.6.
expressed via the dominance approach as explained in Eq.2, Eq.4, Eq.6,
and Eq.8 are analyzed. The three Pareto-front approximations regarding
the three performance indices (IAE, ITAE, and ITSE) are detailed in
Fig. 5, Fig. 6, and Fig. 7, respectively. Accordingly, to these Pareto-
fronts, the transient response of the 2DOF-PID gain-scheduling
controller for the two particular flight conditions in accordance with
the proposed decision-maker is shown in Fig. 8. for the three perfor­
mance indices. The transition stability between two flight conditions is
measured by means of the quality of Pareto-front approximations in
terms of their convergence, capacity, and diversity properties. As result,
the 2 DOF-PID gain-scheduling control system showed the best results in
terms of divergence and convergence properties in the case of the ITSE
performance index, as compared in Fig. 9. While, in terms of the ca­
pacity of the solutions, the best results were achieved in regard to the
ITAE performance index. Thus, the proposed controller exhibited good
transient responses for the ITAE performance index by showing a less
overshoot for the two flight envelopes when compared to others,
whereas, the best results concerning the minimum error are addressed
by ITSE as given in Table.3. Finally, the deviation of the error signal and
the transient response characteristics are presented in Fig. 10., and
Table.3, respectively.

5.2. Two-DOF-PID Gain-Scheduling control system: Proposed hybrid

method

Fig. 18. Transient responses using 2 DOF-PID controllers for two flight con­
ditions: Proposed hybrid method.
5. Main results
The results are presented in two ways: the first, by evaluating the
quality of obtained non-dominated optimal solutions (Pareto-front
approximation) for two problems formulated earlier for the three
considered performance criteria. The capacity, diversity, and conver­
gence of the Pareto-front are used to evaluate the effectiveness of the
achieved Pareto-front approximation. The second way is by making a
fair comparison between the transient response of the 2DOF-PID gain-
scheduling control system for the solution selected by the proposed
decision-maker algorithm. The goodness of transient response is
measured by a maximum overshoot, rise time, and settling time. The
quality of the Pareto-front approximation is assessed by how good the
transition stability between different flights is and the speed of the
transition response.
The second part is concerned with analyzing the results of the multi-
objective problems that were formulated using the proposed hybrid
method as detailed in Eq. (3), Eq. (5), Eq. (7), and Eq.9, for the
considered preference values (β1 , β2 ) that is presented in Table 2.
First, the Pareto-front concerning the ITSE performance index for the
three preference values of β is demonstrated in Fig. 11, Fig. 12, and
Fig. 13. respectively. According to these Pareto-fronts, the transient
response of the 2-DOF-PID gain-scheduling controller for two flight
conditions is explained in Fig. 14 and Table.4.
Second, the obtained Pareto-fronts regarding the IAE indices are
depicted in Fig. 15, Fig. 16, and Fig. 17. Accordingly, the transient re­
sponses of the 2-DOF-PID gain-scheduling controller for the two flight
envelopes are presented in Fig. 18, and Table.5.
Third, in Fig. 19., Fig. 20, and Fig. 21, the computed non-dominated
optimal solutions of the IAE performance index for the different beta
values are shown in Fig. 22 and Table.6.
Finally, the comparison between the quality of computed Pareto-
front approximation and the smoothness of the error signal for all pre­
viously mentioned cases are displayed in Fig. 23 and Fig. 24,
respectively.
It is important to note that all achieved transient responses for all
previous cases are obtained with respect to the proposed decision-
maker. Furthermore, the results of the optimization process steps for
all cases and the outputs of the decision-maker are explained in

Table 5
Transient response characteristic and Decision-maker results: Proposed hybrid method.
Parameters IAE (β1 = 0.3, β2 = 0.1) IAE (β1 = 0.5, β2 = 0.5) IAE (β1 = 0.4, β2 = 0.6)

flight condition flight condition flight condition flight condition flight condition flight condition
one two one two one two

Best Objective functions (Decision- 0.0410 0.0129 0.0670 0.0258 0.0533 0.0771
maker)
Rise Time 0.1491 0.1405 0.1490 0.1404 0.1490 0.1407
Settling Time 0.4216 0.8101 0.4119 0.8117 0.7840 0.8114
Overshoot 6.9409 5.3405 6.5468 5.4121 5.8310 5.5585
Peak Time 0.3000 0.6400 0.3000 0.6400 0.3000 0.6400

10
A.S. Elkhatem and S.N. Engin
Fig. 19. Pareto-front approximations using NSGA-II/ITAE: Proposed hybrid
method β = 0.3, 0.1.
Fig. 20. Pareto-front approximations using NSGA-II/ITAE: Proposed hybrid
method β = 0.5, 0.2.
Appendix B to save space.
Taking all results presented in this section into consideration, we can
conclude the following remarks.
i. The results of the proposed hybrid multi-objective problem
formulation method showed good quality Pareto-front approxi­
mation in all aspects compared to the classical Dominance
method.
ii. Considering the different methods reflecting the performance of
the closed-loop response (ITAE, IAE, ITSE), the ITSE performance
index demonstrated better results especially for flight condition
two as clearly seen in Fig. 14.
iii. Taking the quality of the Pareto-front approximation into
consideration, which is reflected the transient stability between
transition points, the ITAE performance index for β equal to 0.3,
0.1 produced good results in terms of convergence and capacity
as seen clearly in Fig. 19. However, for the IAE index for β equal
to 0.5, 0.2, the computed Pareto-front approximation seemed
better regarding the diversity of solutions as in Fig. 16.
iv. In short, the quality of the Pareto-front approximation is varied
according to the values of β.
11
Expert Systems With Applications 213 (2023) 118859
Fig. 21. Pareto-front approximations using NSGA-II/ITAE: Proposed hybrid
method β = 0.4, 0.6
5.3. Comparisons of results for the two different algorithms: NSGA.II and
SPGA.II
In addition to the demonstrative results for the NSGA.II multi-
objective optimizer, a sub-population genetic algorithm.II (SPGAII) is
employed to solve the same multi-objective optimization problems that
were formulated earlier to evaluate whether the results differ with the
type of optimizers or not. For this purpose, the Pareto-front and the
transient response of the gain-scheduling controller in the cases of
normal flight conditions and 50 % loss of actuator effectiveness are
compared for both optimizers. The results of the proposed hybrid
method for all considered performance indices (ITAE,IAE,ITSE) and β1 ,
β2 values (as given in Table 2) in the case of normal flight conditions are
shown in Figs. 25–42.
In accordance with these results, it could be concluded that the
NSGA.II optimizer notably achieved more performance trade-offs in
terms of divergence of Pareto-front while SPGA.II optimizer attained
more converged Pareto-fronts for all beta values except for β1 , β2 that are
equal to 0.5, 0.2, respectively, as demonstrated in Figs. 32, 34, and 36.
In terms of transient response characteristics, NSGA.II achieve better
longitudinal maneuvers for the two flight conditions in all cases of β1
and β2 , however, the SPGA.II optimizer yielded good transient response
for flight condition-2 and satisfactory overshoot and settling time per­
formances for flight condition-1 in all cases of β1 ,and β2 . The smoothest
response for SPGA.II optimizer for the two flight conditions is achieved
when β1 , and β2 equal to 0.5 and 0.2, respectively, in terms of ITAE
index.
Fig. 22. Transient responses using 2DOF-PID controller for two flight condi­
tions: Proposed hybrid method.
A.S. Elkhatem and S.N. Engin Expert Systems With Applications 213 (2023) 118859

Table 6
Transient response characteristic and Decision-maker results: Proposed hybrid method.
Parameters ITSA (β1 = 0.3, β2 = 0.1) ITSA (β1 = 0.5, β2 = 0.5) ITSA (β1 = 0.4, β2 = 0.6)

flight condition flight condition flight condition flight condition flight condition flight condition
one two one two one two

Best Objective functions (Decision- 0.0013 0.0004 0.0022 0.0008 0.0017 0.0023
maker)
Rise Time 0.1485 0.1405 0.1478 0.1393 0.1482 0.1399
Settling Time 0.8221 0.8175 0.7947 0.8079 0.8130 0.8120
Overshoot 3.7741 5.7350 6.2839 5.2513 5.0379 5.5112
Peak Time 0.2900 0.6300 0.3000 0.6400 0.2900 0.6400

Fig. 23. Comparison between three obtained Pareto-front approximations:

Proposed hybrid method.
Fig. 25. Comparison between sub-population genetic algorithm II(SPGAII) and
NSGA.II algorithm: Proposed Gain Scheduling Transient Responses /IAE.

Fig. 24. Error signal according to flight condition for three cases: Proposed
hybrid method.

Fig. 26. Comparison between sub-population genetic algorithm II(SPGAII) and

NSGA.II algorithms: Pareto front /IAE.

12
A.S. Elkhatem and S.N. Engin Expert Systems With Applications 213 (2023) 118859

Fig. 27. Comparison between sub-population genetic algorithm II(SPGAII) and

NSGA.II algorithm: Proposed Gain Scheduling Transient Responses/ITAE.

Fig. 30. Comparison between sub-population genetic algorithm II(SPGAII) and

NSGA.II algorithm: Pareto front /ITSE.

Fig. 28. Comparison between sub-population genetic algorithm.II (SPGAII)

and NSGA.II algorithm: Pareto front/ITAE.

Fig. 31. Comparison between sub-population genetic algorithm II(SPGAII) and

NSGA.II algorithm: Proposed Gain Scheduling Transient Responses /IAE.

Fig. 29. Comparison between sub-population genetic algorithm II(SPGAII) and

NSGA.II algorithm: Proposed Gain Scheduling Transient Responses /ITSE.
Fig. 32. Comparison between sub-population genetic algorithm II(SPGAII) and
NSGA.II algorithm: Pareto front /IAE.

13
A.S. Elkhatem and S.N. Engin Expert Systems With Applications 213 (2023) 118859

Fig. 33. Comparison between sub-population genetic algorithm.II (SPGA.II) Fig. 36. Comparison between sub-population genetic algorithm II(SPGAII) and
and NSGA.II algorithm: Proposed Gain Scheduling Transient Responses/ITAE. NSGA.II algorithm: Pareto front /ITSE.

Fig. 34. Comparison between sub-population genetic algorithm.II (SPGAII) Fig. 37. Comparison between sub-population genetic algorithm.II (SPGAII)
and NSGA.II algorithm: Pareto front/ITAE. and NSGA.II algorithm: Proposed Gain Scheduling Transient Responses /IAE.

Fig. 38. Comparison between sub-population genetic algorithm.II (SPGAII)

and NSGA.II algorithm: Pareto front /IAE.

Fig. 35. Comparison between sub-population genetic algorithm II(SPGAII) and

NSGA.II algorithm: Proposed Gain Scheduling Transient Responses /ITSE.

14
A.S. Elkhatem and S.N. Engin Expert Systems With Applications 213 (2023) 118859

Fig. 39. Comparison between sub-population genetic algorithm II(SPGAII) and Fig. 42. Comparison between sub-population genetic algorithm II(SPGAII) and
NSGA.II algorithm: Proposed Gain Scheduling Transient Responses/ITAE. NSGA.II algorithm: Pareto front/ITAE.

Fig. 40. Comparison between sub-population genetic algorithm II(SPGAII) and

NSGA.II algorithm: Pareto front/ITAE. Fig. 43. Comparison between sub-population genetic algorithm II(SPGAII) and
NSGA.II algorithm: Proposed Gain Scheduling Transient Responses/ITAE with
actuator fault.

Fig. 41. Comparison between sub-population genetic algorithm II(SPGAII) and Fig. 44. Comparison between sub-population genetic algorithm II (SPGAII) and
NSGA.II algorithm: Proposed Gain Scheduling Transient Responses/ITSE. NSGA.II algorithm: Pareto front/ITAE with actuator fault.

15
A.S. Elkhatem and S.N. Engin
Fig. 45. Comparison between sub-population genetic algorithm II(SPGAII) and
NSGA.II algorithm: Proposed Gain Scheduling Transient Responses/ITAE with
actuator fault.
Fig. 46. Comparison between sub-population genetic algorithm II(SPGAII) and
NSGA.II algorithm: Pareto front/IAE.
Fig. 47. Comparison between sub-population genetic algorithm II(SPGAII) and
NSGA.II algorithm: Proposed Gain Scheduling Transient Responses/ITSE with
actuator fault.
16
Expert Systems With Applications 213 (2023) 118859
Fig. 48. Comparison between sub-population genetic algorithm II(SPGAII) and
NSGA.II algorithm: Pareto front/ITAE with 50% loss of actuator effective­
ness fault.
Figs. 43–48 reveal how successful the transient response of the
proposed gain-scheduling controller and Preto-fronts for both opti­
mizers, NSGA-II and PSGA.II are, for the cases where the effectiveness of
the actuator is reduced to 50 %. Here, it can be concluded that the
proposed approach can effectively deal with the loss of actuator effec­
tiveness whatever the type of multi-objective problem optimizer is.
However, NSGA.II optimizer demonstrates an outstanding performance
when compared with the PSGA.II.
6. Conclusions
In this work, an enhanced gain scheduling control system was pro­
posed for the aim of regulating the longitudinal motion of the Boeing
747 aircraft in different flight envelopes. The main contribution of this
work is to develop a new gain-scheduling methodology that can over­
come the limitations of traditional gain-scheduling and the complexity
of the LPV-gain-scheduling techniques. The proposed method was con­
structed by introducing an adaptation mechanism for the gain sched­
uling system by reformulating the problem as a multi-objective
optimization problem for different flight envelopes of an aircraft. Then,
solving the multi-objective problem by two different types of
evolutionary-based multi-objective optimization algorithms to calculate
the Pareto-front approximation, which was employed for adaptation
from one flight condition to the other. The last step of the proposed
approach is related to introducing an auto-decision maker to adjust the
parameters of the gain-scheduling controller corresponding to the actual
flight condition of the aircraft.
Regarding the step of multi-objective problem formulation, two
types of search approaches were evaluated: the first is known as the
conventional dominance-based search approach, and the second is
based on the new formulation of the problem as a whole to enhance the
quality of the Pareto-front approximation.
The achieved results reveal the effectiveness of the proposed
approach, which guarantees stable and transient responses with superior
performance criteria for the flight envelopes experienced and smooth
transitions between those conditions.
The proposed control structure was established based on multi-
objective techniques for the two different flight envelopes for longitu­
dinal motion of transport aircraft. Future work can be aimed to apply the
proposed strategy to different aircraft types such as fighters due to the
capability of the proposed approach in dealing with the fast-varying
scheduling variables. The main challenge for this type of design is
required to convert the problem to many-objective optimization
problem.
A.S. Elkhatem and S.N. Engin Expert Systems With Applications 213 (2023) 118859

Declaration of Competing Interest Data availability

The authors declare that they have no known competing financial Data will be made available on request.
interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence
the work reported in this paper.

Appendix. . A

The linear time-invariant system (LTI system) dynamic at flight condition-1: Mach number 0.567, altitude 4000 (m), and airspeed 184 m/s.
⎡ ⎤
− 5.7754.10− 1 − 2.7297.10− 4 − 1.815 0 − 2.7377.10− 6
⎢ − 1.4634.10− 1 − 7.0744.10− 3 4.7328 − 9.7942 5.3951.10− 5 ⎥
⎢ ⎥
A1 = ⎢
⎢ 9.8597.10
− 1
− 7.2473.10− 4 − 6.6013.10− 1 − 3.0087.10− 18 5.1464.10− 6 ⎥ ⎥
⎣ 1 0 0 0 0 ⎦
0 − 6.9389.10− 18 − 1.8400.102 − 1.8400.102 0
⎡ ⎤
− 1.5580 1.5328.10− 7
⎢ 3.7706.10− 15 1.3304.10− 5 ⎥
⎢ ⎥
B1 = ⎢ − 2
⎢ − 3.9056.10 − 5.7220.10 ⎥
− 9⎥

⎣ 0 0 ⎦
0 0
⎡ ⎤
0 0 − 1 − 1 0
⎢− 1.4922.10− 2
− 7.2139.10− 4
4.8261.10− 1
− 9.9873.10− 1
5.5014.10− 6 ⎥
⎢ ⎥
⎢ 0 0 0 0 0 ⎥
⎢ ⎥
C1 = ⎢
⎢ 1 0 0 0 0 ⎥
⎥
⎢ 0 1 1 0 0 ⎥
⎢ ⎥
⎣ 0 0 0 0 1 ⎦
0 0 0 0 0
⎡ ⎤
0 0
⎢ 3.8450.10 − 16 1.3567.10 − 6 ⎥
⎢ ⎥
⎢ 0 0 ⎥
D1 = ⎢
⎢
⎥
⎥
⎢ 0 0 ⎥
⎣ 0 0 ⎦
0 0

The linear time-invariant system (LTI system) dynamic at flight condition Two: Mach number 0.77, altitude 7000 (m), and airspeed 241 m/s.
⎡ ⎤
− 5.8168.10− 1 − 7.4752.10− 4 − 2.3955 0 − 5.7648.10− 6
⎢ − 8.3933.10− 2 − 6.1663.10− 3 4.7328 − 9.7850 − 5 ⎥
6.0633.10 ⎥
⎢
A2 = ⎢
⎢ 9.8921.10
− 1
− 4.5368.10− 4 − 6.6013.10− 1 − 1.5381.10− 16 4.1468.10− 6 ⎥ ⎥
⎣ 1 0 0 0 0 ⎦
− 19 2 2
0 − 8.6736.10 − 2.4100.10 2.4100.10 0
⎡ ⎤
− 1.8763 1.5328.10− 7
⎢ 8.7634.10 − 16
1.3300.10 ⎥
− 5
⎢ ⎥
B2 = ⎢ − 2
⎢ − 3.5541.10 − 2.7384.10 ⎥
− 9⎥

⎣ 0 0 ⎦
0 0
⎡ ⎤
0 0 − 1 1 0
⎢ − 8.5588.10− 2
− 6.2879.10− 4
5.3265.10− 1
− 9.9779.10− 1
6.1828.10− 6 ⎥
⎢ ⎥
⎢ 0 0 0 1 0 ⎥
C2 = ⎢
⎢
⎥
⎥
⎢ 1 0 0 0 0 ⎥
⎣ 0 1 1 0 0 ⎦
0 0 0 0 1

17
A.S. Elkhatem and S.N. Engin Expert Systems With Applications 213 (2023) 118859

⎡ ⎤
0 0
⎢ 8.9361.10− 17
1.3592.10− 6 ⎥
⎢ ⎥
⎢ 0 0 ⎥
D2 = ⎢
⎢
⎥
⎥
⎢ 0 0 ⎥
⎣ 0 0 ⎦
0 0

Appendix. B:

Pareto-front approximations: Dominance method

ITAE IAE ITSE

Flight condition.1 Flight condition.2 Flight condition.1 Flight condition.2 Flight condition.1 Flight condition.2

0.0157 0.0039 0.0427 0.0129 0.0013 0.0004

0.0140 0.0040 0.0403 0.0136 0.0013 0.0004
0.0150 0.0039 0.0425 0.0129 0.0013 0.0004
0.0123 0.0043 0.0426 0.0129 0.0013 0.0004
0.0135 0.0041 0.0411 0.0131 0.0013 0.0004
0.0148 0.0039 0.0410 0.0131 0.0014 0.0004
0.0154 0.0039 0.0405 0.0133 0.0014 0.0004
0.0153 0.0039 0.0413 0.0130 0.0014 0.0004
0.0143 0.0040 0.0406 0.0132 0.0013 0.0004
0.0139 0.0040 0.0416 0.0130 0.0013 0.0004
0.0127 0.0042 0.0409 0.0131 0.0014 0.0004
0.0131 0.0041 0.0412 0.0131 0.0014 0.0004
0.0126 0.0042 0.0403 0.0136 0.0013 0.0004
0.0146 0.0040 0.0418 0.0130 0.0013 0.0004
0.0119 0.0045 0.0408 0.0132 0.0014 0.0004
0.0129 0.0041 0.0428 0.0129 0.0014 0.0004
0.0144 0.0040 0.0405 0.0134 0.0013 0.0004
0.0141 0.0040 0.0420 0.0130 0.0013 0.0004
0.0120 0.0045 0.0414 0.0130 0.0014 0.0004
0.0151 0.0039 0.0415 0.0130 0.0014 0.0004
0.0149 0.0039 0.0403 0.0135 0.0013 0.0004
0.0134 0.0041 0.0424 0.0129 0.0014 0.0004
0.0136 0.0041 0.0407 0.0132 0.0014 0.0004
0.0145 0.0040 0.0406 0.0133 0.0014 0.0004
0.0121 0.0044 0.0408 0.0131 0.0013 0.0004
0.0147 0.0039 0.0413 0.0130 0.0013 0.0004
0.0138 0.0040 0.0422 0.0130 0.0013 0.0004
0.0156 0.0039 0.0013 0.0004
0.0129 0.0042
0.0132 0.0041
0.0157 0.0039

Pareto-front approximations (non-dominated optimal solutions): Proposed hybrid method

18
 A.S. Elkhatem and S.N. Engin
ITAE IAE ITSE ITAE IAE ITSE ITAE IAE ITSE
Beta = 0.3,0.1 Beta = 0.3,0.1 Beta = 0.3,0.1 Beta = 0.5,0.2 Beta = 0.5,0.2 Beta = 0.5,0.2 Beta = 0.4,0.6 Beta = 0.4,0.6 Beta = 0.4,0.6

Flight Flight Flight Flight Flight Flight Flight Flight Flight Flight Flight Flight Flight Flight Flight Flight Flight Flight
condition.1 condition.2 condition.1 condition.2 condition.1 condition.2 condition.1 condition.1 condition.1 condition.2 condition.1 condition.2 condition.1 condition.2 condition.1 condition.2 condition.1 condition.2

0.0157 0.0039 0.0427 0.0129 0.0013 0.0004 0.0348 0.0071 0.0724 0.0258 0.0023 0.0008 0.0162 0.0264 0.0568 0.0771 0.0017 0.0024

0.0157 0.0039 0.0403 0.0136 0.0013 0.0004 0.0231 0.0081 0.0716 0.0258 0.0023 0.0008 0.0187 0.0243 0.0564 0.0772 0.0018 0.0024

0.0140 0.0040 0.0425 0.0129 0.0013 0.0004 0.0327 0.0072 0.0712 0.0258 0.0022 0.0008 0.0202 0.0237 0.0533 0.0822 0.0017 0.0024

0.0150 0.0039 0.0426 0.0129 0.0013 0.0004 0.0187 0.0091 0.0719 0.0258 0.0022 0.0008 0.0208 0.0236 0.0573 0.0771 0.0017 0.0024

0.0150 0.0039 0.0411 0.0131 0.0013 0.0004 0.0239 0.0079 0.0694 0.0259 0.0023 0.0008 0.0169 0.0255 0.0561 0.0772 0.0017 0.0024

0.0123 0.0043 0.0410 0.0131 0.0014 0.0004 0.0256 0.0077 0.0681 0.0263 0.0023 0.0008 0.0184 0.0245 0.0535 0.0805 0.0018 0.0023

0.0135 0.0041 0.0405 0.0133 0.0014 0.0004 0.0251 0.0078 0.0672 0.0270 0.0023 0.0008 0.0195 0.0240 0.0534 0.0813 0.0018 0.0024

0.0148 0.0039 0.0413 0.0130 0.0014 0.0004 0.0261 0.0076 0.0703 0.0258 0.0022 0.0008 0.0165 0.0259 0.0561 0.0773 0.0018 0.0023
19

0.0154 0.0039 0.0406 0.0132 0.0013 0.0004 0.0337 0.0072 0.0709 0.0258 0.0022 0.0008 0.0174 0.0251 0.0548 0.0779 0.0018 0.0023

0.0153 0.0039 0.0416 0.0130 0.0013 0.0004 0.0178 0.0095 0.0670 0.0275 0.0023 0.0008 0.0189 0.0242 0.0549 0.0778 0.0017 0.0024

0.0143 0.0040 0.0409 0.0131 0.0014 0.0004 0.0175 0.0098 0.0678 0.0264 0.0023 0.0008 0.0180 0.0247 0.0537 0.0797 0.0018 0.0023

0.0139 0.0040 0.0412 0.0131 0.0014 0.0004 0.0208 0.0086 0.0721 0.0258 0.0023 0.0008 0.0188 0.0242 0.0536 0.0802 0.0018 0.0024

0.0127 0.0042 0.0403 0.0136 0.0013 0.0004 0.0197 0.0088 0.0686 0.0261 0.0023 0.0008 0.0189 0.0242 0.0567 0.0772 0.0018 0.0023

0.0131 0.0041 0.0418 0.0130 0.0013 0.0004 0.0270 0.0076 0.0699 0.0259 0.0023 0.0008 0.0201 0.0237 0.0545 0.0782 0.0017 0.0024

0.0126 0.0042 0.0408 0.0132 0.0014 0.0004 0.0290 0.0074 0.0682 0.0262 0.0022 0.0008 0.0173 0.0252 0.0533 0.0822 0.0018 0.0023

Expert Systems With Applications 213 (2023) 118859

0.0146 0.0040 0.0428 0.0129 0.0014 0.0004 0.0305 0.0073 0.0688 0.0261 0.0023 0.0008 0.0199 0.0238 0.0533 0.0816 0.0017 0.0024

0.0119 0.0045 0.0405 0.0134 0.0013 0.0004 0.0279 0.0075 0.0674 0.0267 0.0022 0.0008 0.0185 0.0244 0.0557 0.0774 0.0018 0.0024

0.0129 0.0041 0.0420 0.0130 0.0013 0.0004 0.0183 0.0093 0.0705 0.0258 0.0022 0.0008 0.0172 0.0252 0.0553 0.0775 0.0017 0.0024

0.0040 0.0130 0.0014 0.0219 0.0671 0.0008 0.0164 0.0819 0.0018

(continued on next page)
 A.S. Elkhatem and S.N. Engin
(continued )
ITAE IAE ITSE ITAE IAE ITSE ITAE IAE ITSE
Beta = 0.3,0.1 Beta = 0.3,0.1 Beta = 0.3,0.1 Beta = 0.5,0.2 Beta = 0.5,0.2 Beta = 0.5,0.2 Beta = 0.4,0.6 Beta = 0.4,0.6 Beta = 0.4,0.6

Flight Flight Flight Flight Flight Flight Flight Flight Flight Flight Flight Flight Flight Flight Flight Flight Flight Flight
condition.1 condition.2 condition.1 condition.2 condition.1 condition.2 condition.1 condition.1 condition.1 condition.2 condition.1 condition.2 condition.1 condition.2 condition.1 condition.2 condition.1 condition.2

0.0144 0.0421 0.0004 0.0083 0.0273 0.0023 0.0260 0.0533 0.0023

0.0141 0.0040 0.0414 0.0130 0.0014 0.0004 0.0313 0.0073 0.0680 0.0263 0.0023 0.0008 0.0182 0.0245 0.0547 0.0780 0.0017 0.0024

0.0120 0.0045 0.0415 0.0130 0.0013 0.0004 0.0229 0.0081 0.0675 0.0266 0.0023 0.0008 0.0191 0.0241 0.0535 0.0808 0.0018 0.0023

0.0151 0.0039 0.0424 0.0129 0.0014 0.0004 0.0342 0.0072 0.0714 0.0258 0.0022 0.0008 0.0187 0.0243 0.0534 0.0810 0.0018 0.0024

0.0149 0.0039 0.0407 0.0132 0.0014 0.0004 0.0244 0.0079 0.0691 0.0260 0.0022 0.0008 0.0167 0.0257 0.0555 0.0774 0.0017 0.0024

0.0134 0.0041 0.0406 0.0133 0.0014 0.0004 0.0206 0.0087 0.0684 0.0261 0.0022 0.0008 0.0167 0.0256 0.0533 0.0814 0.0018 0.0023

0.0136 0.0041 0.0408 0.0131 0.0013 0.0004 0.0333 0.0072 0.0698 0.0259 0.0022 0.0008 0.0175 0.0250 0.0536 0.0800 0.0018 0.0024
20

0.0145 0.0040 0.0413 0.0130 0.0013 0.0004 0.0306 0.0073 0.0718 0.0258 0.0022 0.0008 0.0193 0.0240 0.0540 0.0790 0.0017 0.0024

0.0121 0.0044 0.0422 0.0130 0.0013 0.0004 0.0221 0.0083 0.0677 0.0264 0.0023 0.0008 0.0162 0.0264 0.0577 0.0771 0.0018 0.0023

0.0147 0.0039 0.0013 0.0004 0.0190 0.0090 0.0673 0.0268 0.0204 0.0236 0.0533 0.0822 0.0017 0.0024

0.0138 0.0040

0.0156 0.0039

0.0129 0.0042

0.0132 0.0041

Expert Systems With Applications 213 (2023) 118859

0.0157 0.0039
A.S. Elkhatem and S.N. Engin Expert Systems With Applications 213 (2023) 118859

References Luan, X. C., Young, A. G., Han, W. S., & Zhai, Y. (2011). Load-following control of
nuclear reactors based on Takagi-Sugeno fuzzy model. IFAC Proceedings Volumes
(IFAC-PapersOnline), 44(1), 8253–8258. https://doi.org/10.3182/20110828-6-IT-
Al-Jiboory, A. K., Zhu, G., Swei, S.-S.-M., Su, W., & Nguyen, N. T. (2017). LPV modeling
1002.00936
of a flexible wing aircraft using modal alignment and adaptive gridding methods.
Ma, L., Huang, M., Yang, S., Member, S., Wang, R., & Wang, X. (2022). An Adaptive
Aerospace Science and Technology, 66, 92–102. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
Localized Decision Variable Analysis Approach to Large-Scale Multiobjective and.
ast.2017.03.009
IEEE Transactions on Cybernetics, 52(2), 6684–6696. https://doi.org/10.1109/
Alcala, E., Puig, V., Quevedo, J., & Escobet, T. (2018). Gain-scheduling LPV control for
TCYB.2020.3041212
autonomous vehicles including friction force estimation and compensation
Mendez-Vergara, F., Cervantes, I., & Mendoza-Torres, A. (2014). Stability of gain
mechanism. IET Control Theory & Applications, 12(12), 1683–1693. https://doi.org/
scheduling control for aircraft with highly nonlinear behavior. Mathematical
10.1049/iet-cta.2017.1154
Problems in Engineering. https://doi.org/10.1155/2014/906367
Alfaro, V. M., Vilanova, R., & Arrieta, O. (2009). Robust tuning of Two-Degree-of-
Nagy, M., Mansour, Y., & Abdelmohsen, S. (2020). Multi-Objective Optimization
Freedom (2-DoF) PI/PID based cascade control systems. Journal of Process Control, 19
Methods as a Decision Making Strategy. International Journal of Engineering Research
(10), 1658–1670. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jprocont.2009.08.006
And, 9(3). https://doi.org/10.17577/ijertv9is030480
M. Bagher A. Jabali M.H. Kazemi Uncertain Polytopic LPV Modelling of Robot
Rasmussen, B. P., & Alleyne, A. G. (2005). Stable gain-scheduling on endogenous signals.
Manipulators and Trajec- tory Tracking International Journal of Control, Automation
Proceedings of the American Control Conference-3, 1895–1900. doi.org/10.1109/
and Systems 15 2 2017 2017, pp. 883–891 doi.org/10.1007/s12555-015-1432-x.
acc.2005.1470245.
Barker, J. M., Balas, G. J., & Blue, P. A. (1999). Active flutter suppression via gain-
Rodriguez-Molina, A., Villarreal-Cervantes, M. G., Mezura-Montes, E., & Aldape-
scheduled linear fractional control. Proceedings of the American Control Conference, 6
Perez, M. (2021). Adaptive Controller Tuning Method Based on Online
(June), 4014–4018. https://doi.org/10.1109/acc.1999.786286
Multiobjective Optimization: A Case Study of the Four-Bar Mechanism. IEEE
Batista, L. S., Campelo, F., Guimaraes, F. G., & Ramirez, J. A. (2011). A comparison of
Transactions on Cybernetics, 51(3), 1272–1285. https://doi.org/10.1109/
dominance criteria in many-objective optimization problems. In 2011 IEEE Congress
TCYB.2019.2903491
of Evolutionary Computation (CEC). https://doi.org/10.1109/cec.2011.5949909
Rotondo, D., Puig, V., Nejjari, F., & Witczak, M. (2015). Automated generation and
Beaven, R. W., Wright, M. T., Garvey, S. D., Friswell, M. I., & Seaward, D. R. (1995). The
comparison of Takagi-Sugeno and polytopic quasi-LPV models. Fuzzy Sets and
application of setpoint gain scheduling to high-speed independent drives. Control
Systems, 277, 44–64. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fss.2015.02.002
Engineering Practice, 3(11), 1581–1585. https://doi.org/10.1016/0967-0661(95)
Rugh, W. J., & Shamma, J. S. (2000). Research on gain scheduling. Automatica, 36(10),
00168-t
1401–1425. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0005-1098(00)00058-3
Bolea, Y., & Puig, V. (2016). Gain-scheduling multivariable LPV control of an irrigation
David, S., Lahcen, S., Ouassima, A., & Caroline, B. (2011). Gain scheduling with guardian
canal system. ISA Transactions, 63, 274–280. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
maps for longitudinal flight control. Journal of Guidance, Control, and Dynamics, 34
isatra.2016.03.009
(4), 1045–1059. https://doi.org/10.2514/1.52178
Cui, Y., Geng, Z., Zhu, Q., & Han, Y. (2017). Review: Multi-objective optimization
Sadeghzadeh, I., Mehta, A., Zhang, Y., & Rabbath, C. A. (2014). Fault-tolerant trajectory
methods and application in energy saving. Energy, 125, 681–704. https://doi.org/
tracking control of a quadrotor helicopter using gain-scheduled PID and model
10.1016/j.energy.2017.02.174
reference adaptive control. Proceedings of the Annual Conference of the Prognostics and
de Souza, L. T. F., Peixoto, M. L. C., & Palhares, R. M. (2022). New gain-scheduling
Health Management Society 2011.
control conditions for time-varying delayed LPV systems. Journal of the Franklin
Shamma, J. S. (2012). An overview of LPV systems. Control of Linear Parameter Varying
Institute, 359(2), 719–742. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jfranklin.2021.04.029
Systems with Applications, 9781461418337, 3–26. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-
M. Fikar Gain-scheduled LQR-control for an autonomous airship 2011 14–17 Tatranská
4614-1833-7_1
Lomnica, Slovakia.
Takagi, T., & Sugeno, M. (1985). Fuzzy Identification of Systems and Its Applications to
Gao, D., Wang, G. G., & Pedrycz, W. (2020). Solving Fuzzy Job-Shop Scheduling Problem
Modeling and Control. IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man and Cybernetics, SMC-15
Using de Algorithm Improved by a Selection Mechanism. IEEE Transactions on Fuzzy
(1), 116–132. https://doi.org/10.1109/TSMC.1985.6313399
Systems, 28(12), 3265–3275. https://doi.org/10.1109/TFUZZ.2020.3003506
K. Tekniska K. Ho Active Wing Flutter Suppression Using A Trailing Edge Flap. 16 2002
Golabi, A., Meskin, N., Toth, R., & Mohammadpour, J. (2017). A Bayesian Approach for
271 294 doi.org/10.1006/j.
LPV Model Identification and Its Application to Complex Processes. IEEE Transactions
Vindigni, C. R., & Orlando, C. (2020). A Gain Scheduling Control of Incompressible
on Control Systems Technology, 25(6), 2160–2167. https://doi.org/10.1109/
Airfoil Flutter Tuned by the Population Decline Swarm Optimizer. Aerotecnica Missili
TCST.2016.2642159
& Spazio, 99(1), 3–16. https://doi.org/10.1007/s42496-019-00032-3
A. Helmersson Methods for Robust Gain Scheduling 1995 Linköping University [PhD
Wang, G. G., Gao, D., & Pedrycz, W. (2022a). Solving Multi-Objective Fuzzy Job-shop
thesis].
Scheduling Problem by a Hybrid Adaptive Differential Evolution Algorithm. IEEE
Huang. Gain Scheduling For a Passenger Aircraft Control System[Msc thesis] 2010
Transactions on Industrial Informatics. https://doi.org/10.1109/TII.2022.3165636
Cranfield university.
Wang, H., Cheng, J., Yan, H., Shi, K., & Qi, W. (2022b). Component-based dynamic
Hušek, P., & Narenathreyas, K. (2016). Aircraft longitudinal motion control based on
event-triggered control for nonlinear singularly perturbed systems: A gain-
Takagi-Sugeno fuzzy model. Applied Soft Computing, 49, 269–278. https://doi.org/
scheduling method. Information Sciences, 593, 415–431. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
10.1016/j.asoc.2016.07.038
ins.2022.01.069
Ilka, A. (2015). Gain-Scheduled Controller Design[PhD thesis]. Slovak University of
Wang, Y., Zou, L., Ma, L., Zhao, Z., & Guo, J. (2021). A survey on control for Takagi-
Technology in Bratislava.
Sugeno fuzzy systems subject to engineering-oriented complexities. Systems Science
Jurado, F., Castillo-Toledo, B., & Di Gennaro, S. (2008). Stabilization of a quadrotor via
and Control Engineering, 9(1), 334–349. https://doi.org/10.1080/
Takagi-Sugeno fuzzy control. WMSCI-2008 , ISAS 2008 - Proc., 3, 168–173.
21642583.2021.1907259
Kwon, S., Shimomura, T., & Okubo, H. (2011). Pointing control of spacecraft using two
Wen, N., Liu, Z., Sun, Y., & Zhu, L. (2017). Design of LPV-Based Sliding Mode Controller
SGCMGs via LPV control theory. Acta Astronautica, 68(7–8), 1168–1175. https://doi.
with Finite Time Convergence for a Morphing Aircraft. International Journal of
org/10.1016/j.actaastro.2010.10.001
Aerospace Engineering, 2017. https://doi.org/10.1155/2017/8426348
Lagerberg, A., & Breitholtz, C. (1997). A study of gain scheduling control applied to an
Yubai, K., Okuhara, K., & Hirai, J. (2008). Gain-scheduling control of a rotary inverted
exothermic CSTR. Chemical Engineering & Technology, 20(7), 435–444. https://doi.
pendulum by weight optimization and H∞ loop shaping procedure. Electrical
org/10.1002/ceat.270200702
Engineering in Japan (English Translation of Denki Gakkai Ronbunshi), 163(2), 30–40.
Leith, D. J., & Leithead, W. E. (2000). Survey of gain-scheduling analysis and design.
https://doi.org/10.1002/eej.20647
International Journal of Control, 73(11), 1001–1025. https://doi.org/10.1080/
Yue, T., Wang, L., & Ai, J. (2013). Gain self-scheduled H∞ control for morphing aircraft
002071700411304
in the wing transition process based on an LPV model. Chinese Journal of Aeronautics,
Lhachemi, H., Saussié, D., & Zhu, G. (2014). A robust and self-scheduled longitudinal
26(4), 909–917. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cja.2013.06.004
flight control system: A multi-model and structured H∞approach. AIAA Guidance,
Zhang, X., Tsiotras, P., & Knospe, C. (2002). Stability analysis of LPV time-delayed
Navigation, and Control Conference, January.. https://doi.org/10.2514/6.2014-0601
systems. International Journal of Control, 75(7), 538–558. https://doi.org/10.1080/
Li, M., & Wang, G. G. (2022). A review of green shop scheduling problem. Information
00207170210123833
Sciences, 589, 478–496. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ins.2021.12.122
Liu, J., Ma, Y., Zhu, L., Zhao, H., Liu, H., & Yu, D. (2020). Improved gain scheduling
control and its application to aero-engine lpv synthesis. Energies, 13(22), 1–18.
https://doi.org/10.3390/en13225967

21