Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-mkpzs Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-30T19:09:40.907Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Evaluating the effects of lateral control surfaces failure on the generic transport model: a case study

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  11 March 2020

R. Norouzi ,
A. Kosari Open the ORCID record for A. Kosari [Opens in a new window]  and
M. Hossein Sabour
R. Norouzi
Affiliation:
Faculty of New Sciences and Technologies, University of Tehran, Tehran1439957131, Iran
A. Kosari*
Affiliation:
Faculty of New Sciences and Technologies, University of Tehran, Tehran1439957131, Iran
M. Hossein Sabour
Affiliation:
Faculty of New Sciences and Technologies, University of Tehran, Tehran1439957131, Iran
*
kosari_a@ut.ac.ir
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Extensive research in recent years has focused on improving the current loss-of-control prevention systems and developing new strategies for safe path planning of the impaired aircraft. Success in developing such systems requires a comprehensive perception of the influence of damage on the aircraft’s dynamic behaviour and performance, and the effect of various failure degrees on the flight envelope confinement and the remaining safe maneuvers. This paper comprehensively describes the effects of lateral control surface failure on the NASA Generic Transport Model (GTM) flight envelope, defined by a set of attainable steady-state maneuvers herein referred to as trim points. The study utilises a large database of high-fidelity maneuvering flight envelopes computed for the unimpaired case and wide ranges of the aileron and rudder failure cases at different flight conditions. Flight envelope boundary is rigorously investigated, and the key parameters confining the trim points at different boundary sections are identified. Trend analyses of the impaired flight envelopes and the corresponding limiting factors demonstrate the effect of various failure degrees on the remaining feasible trim points. Results can be employed in emergency path planning with potential uses in the development of aircraft resilient control and upset recovery systems.

Keywords

flight envelopeimpaired aircraftsteady state maneuvertrim pointNASA GTM
Type
Research Article
Information
The Aeronautical Journal , Volume 124 , Issue 1277 , July 2020 , pp. 1016 - 1054
Copyright
© The Author(s) 2020. Published by Cambridge University Press on behalf of Royal Aeronautical Society

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

REFERENCES

Statistical Summary of Commercial Jet Airplane Accidents Worldwide Operations | 1959–2017, Aviation Safety, Boeing Commercial Airplanes, Seattle, WA, Oct. 2018.Google Scholar
Global Fatal Accident Review 2002–2011, TSO (The Stationery Office) on behalf of the UK Civil Aviation Authority, Norwich, UK, 2013 [Online]. Available: http://publicapps.caa.co.uk/cap1036. [Accessed: 02 May 2017].Google Scholar
Gill, S.J., Lowenberg, M.H., Neild, S.A., Krauskopf, B., Puyou, G. and Coetzee, E.Upset dynamics of an airliner model: a nonlinear bifurcation analysis, Journal of Aircraft, 2013, 50, (6), pp 1832–1842. doi: 10.2514/1.C032221.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Norouzi, R., Kosari, A. and Sabour, M.H.Investigating the generalization capability and performance of neural networks and neuro-fuzzy systems for nonlinear dynamics modeling of impaired aircraft, IEEE Access, 2019, 7, pp 21067–21093. doi: 10.1109/ACCESS.2019.2897487.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Norouzi, R., Kosari, A. and Sabour, M.H.Real time estimation of impaired aircraft flight envelope using feedforward neural networks, Aerospace Science and Technology, 2019, 90, pp 434–451. doi: 10.1016/j.ast.2019.04.048.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wilborn, J. and Foster, J. Defining commercial transport loss-of-control: a quantitative approach, AIAA, Atmospheric Flight Mechanics Conference and Exhibit, 2004 [Online]. doi:10.2514/6.2004-4811.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Yi, G. and Atkins, E. Trim state discovery for an adaptive flight planner, 48th AIAA Aerospace Sciences Meeting Including the New Horizons Forum and Aerospace Exposition, 2010 [Online]. doi:10.2514/6.2010-416.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Vannelli, A. and Vidyasagar, M.Maximal lyapunov functions and domains of attraction for autonomous nonlinear systems, Automatica, 1985, 21, (1), pp 69–80. doi: 10.1016/0005-1098(85)90099-8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pandita, R., Chakraborty, A., Seiler, P. and Balas, G. Reachability and region of attraction analysis applied to GTM dynamic flight envelope assessment, AIAA Guidance, Navigation, and Control Conference, 2009. doi: 10.2514/6.2009-6258.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zheng, W., Li, Y., Zhang, D., Zhou, C. and Wu, P.Envelope protection for aircraft encountering upset condition based on dynamic envelope enlargement, Chinese Journal of Aeronautics, 2018, 31, (7), pp 1461–1469. doi:10.1016/j.cja.2018.05.006.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Yuan, G. and Li, Y.Determination of the flight dynamic envelope via stable manifold, Measurement and Control, 2019, 52, (3–4), pp 244–251. doi:10.1177/0020294019830115.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lombaerts, T., Schuet, S., Wheeler, K., Acosta, D. and Kaneshige, J. Robust maneuvering envelope estimation based on reachability analysis in an optimal control formulation, Conference on Control and Fault-Tolerant Systems (SysTol), IEEE Publ., Piscataway, NJ, Oct. 2013, pp 318–323. doi:10.1109/SysTol.2013.6693856.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Harno, H.G. and Kim, Y. Safe flight envelope estimation for rotorcraft: a reachability approach, 18th International Conference on Control, Automation, Systems (ICCAS), IEEE Publ., Daegwallyeong, South Korea, Dec. 2018.Google Scholar
Tang, L., Roemer, M., Ge, J., Crassidis, A., Prasad, J. and Belcastro, C. Methodologies for adaptive flight envelope estimation and protection, AIAA Guidance, Navigation, and Control Conference, AIAA Paper 2009-6260, Aug. 2009.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Oort, E.V., Chu, P. and Mulder, J.A.Maneuvering envelope determination through reachability analysis. In edited by Holzapfel, F. and Theil, S. (eds.), Advances in Aerospace Guidance, Navigation and Control, pp 91–102. Springer–Verlag, Heidelberg, 2011. doi: 10.1007/978-3-642-19817-5_8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
De Marco, A., Duke, E. and Berndt, J. A general solution to the aircraft trim problem, AIAA Modeling and Simulation Technologies Conference and Exhibit, 2007 [Online]. Available: doi:10.2514/6.2007-6703.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kampen, E., Chu, Q.P., Mulder, J.A. and Emden, M.H. Nonlinear aircraft trim using internal analysis, AIAA Guidance, Navigation and Control Conference, 20–23 August 2007.Google Scholar
Goman, M.G., Khramtsovsky, A.V. and Kolesnikov, E.N.Evaluation of aircraft performance and maneuverability by computation of attainable equilibrium sets, Journal of Guidance, Control, and Dynamics, 2008, 31, (2), pp 329–339. doi:10.2514/1.29336.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Yinan, L., Lingyu, Y. and Gongzhang, S. Steady maneuver envelope evaluation for aircraft with control surface failures, in 2012 IEEE Aerospace Conference, 2012 [Online]. Available: doi:10.1109/AERO.2012.6187317.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Strube, M.J., Sanner, R. and Atkins, E. Dynamic Flight Guidance Recalibration After Actuator Failure, in AIAA 1st Intelligent Systems Technical Conference, 2004 [Online]. doi:10.2514/6.2004-6255.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Strube, M.J. Post-Failure Trajectory Planning from Feasible Trim State Sequences, MS thesis, Dept. Aerospace Eng. Univ. Maryland, College Park, MD, 2005.Google Scholar
Choi, H.J., Atkins, E. and Yi, G. Flight envelope discovery for damage resilience with application to an F-16, in AIAA Infotech@Aerospace 2010, 2010 [Online]. doi:10.2514/6.2010-3353.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Yi, G., Zhong, J., Atkins, E. and Wang, C.Trim state discovery with physical constraints, Journal of Aircraft, 52, (1), pp 90–106, 2015. doi:10.2514/1.C032619.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tang, Y., Atkins, E. and Sanner, R. Emergency flight planning for a generalized transport aircraft with left wing damage, in AIAA Guidance, Navigation and Control Conference and Exhibit, 2007 [Online]. doi:10.2514/6.2007-6873.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Asadi, D., Sabzehparvar, M. and Talebi, H.A., Damaged airplane flight envelope and stability evaluation, Aircraft Engineering and Aerospace Technology, 2013, 85, (3), pp 186–198. doi:10.1108/00022661311313623.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Asadi, D., Sabzehparvar, M., Atkins, E. and Talebi, H.A.Damaged airplane trajectory planning based on flight envelope and motion primitives, Journal of Aircraft, 2014, 51, (6), pp 1740–1757. doi:10.2514/1.C032422.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nabi, H.N., Lombaerts, T., Zhang, Y., van Kampen, E., Chu, Q.P. and de Visser, C.C.Effects of structural failure on the safe flight envelope of aircraft, Journal of Guidance, Control, and Dynamics, 2018, 41, (6), pp. 1257–1275. doi:10.2514/1.G003184.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zhang, Y., de Visser, C.C. and Chu, Q.P. Online safe flight envelope prediction for damaged aircraft: a database-driven approach, AIAA Modeling and Simulation Technologies Conference, AIAA SciTech, AIAA Paper 2016-1189, 2016. doi:10.2514/6.2016-1189.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zhang, Y., de Visser, C.C. and Chu, Q.P. Aircraft damage identification and classification for database-driven online safe flight envelope prediction, AIAA Atmospheric Flight Mechanics Conference, AIAA SciTech, AIAA Paper 2017-1863, 2017. doi:10.2514/6.2017-1863.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zhang, Y., de Visser, C.C. and Chu, Q.P. Database building and interpolation for a safe flight envelope prediction system, 2018 AIAA Information Systems-AIAA Infotech @ Aerospace, Jan. 2018. doi:10.2514/6.2018-1635.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Foster, J., Cunningham, K., Fremaux, C., Shah, G., Stewart, E., Rivers, R., et al. Dynamics modeling and simulation of large transport airplanes in upset conditions, AIAA Guidance, Navigation, and Control Conference and Exhibit, 2005 [Online]. doi:10.2514/6.2005-5933.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
“GTM_DesignSim,” v1308, [Online]. Available: https://github.com/nasa/GTM_DesignSim.Google Scholar
Gregory, I., Cao, C., Xargay, E., Hovakimyan, N. and Zou, X. L1 Adaptive control design for NASA AirSTAR flight test vehicle, AIAA Guidance, Navigation, and Control Conference, 2009 [Online]. doi:10.2514/6.2009-5738.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jordan, T., Foster, J., Bailey, R. and Belcastro, C. AirSTAR: a UAV platform for flight dynamics and control system testing, in 25th AIAA Aerodynamic Measurement Technology and Ground Testing Conference, 2006 [Online]. Available: doi:10.2514/6.2006-3307.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jordan, T., Langford, W. and Hill, J. Airborne subscale transport aircraft research testbed – aircraft model development, in AIAA Guidance, Navigation, and Control Conference and Exhibit, 2005 [Online]. Available: doi:10.2514/6.2005-6432.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Murch, A.M. Aerodynamic modeling of post – stall and spin dynamics of large transport airplanes, MS Thesis, School Aerospace Eng., Georgia Inst. Tech., Atlanta, GA, USA, 2007.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shah, G. Aerodynamic effects and modeling of damage to transport aircraft, in AIAA Atmospheric Flight Mechanics Conference and Exhibit, 2008 [Online]. Available: doi:10.2514/6.2008-6203.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stevens, B., Lewis, F. and Johnson, E.Aircraft Control and Simulation, 3rd ed. Wiley, 2016, Hoboken.Google Scholar
Khalil, H.Nonlinear Systems, 3rd ed. Prentice Hall, 2002, Upper Saddle River, NJ, US.Google Scholar
Stengel, R.F.Flight Dynamics, Chapter 4, Sec. 4.1. Princeton University Press, 2004, Princeton, NJ, US.Google Scholar
Lombaerts, T., Schuet, S., Acosta, D. and Kaneshige, J.On-line safe flight envelope determination for impaired aircraft. In Joël Bordeneuve-Guibé, Antoine Drouin and Clément Roos (eds.), Advances in Aerospace Guidance, Navigation and Control, pp 263–282. Cham, Switzerland: Springer International Publishing, 2015. doi:10.1007/978-3-319-17518-8_16.Google Scholar
Ouellette, J.A. Flight Dynamics and Maneuver Loads on a Commercial Aircraft with Discrete Source Damage, MS Thesis, Aerospace Eng., Virginia Polytech. Inst. State Univ., Blacksburg, VA, USA, 2010.Google Scholar
Norouzi, R., Kosari, A. and Sabour, M.H.Data for: maneuvering flight envelope evaluation and analysis of generic transport model with control surfaces failures, Mendeley Data, 2018, v1 [dataset]. doi:10.17632/k4ntmx43x5.1.Google Scholar
Edwards, C., Lombaerts, T. and Smaili, H.Fault Tolerant Flight Control, Chapter 14, Sec. 3.6. Springer, 2010, Berlin,CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Philips, W.Mechanics of Flight, p. 564. Wiley, 2004, Hoboken.Google Scholar
McClamroch, N.H.Steady Aircraft Flight and Performance, Princeton University Press, 2011, Princeton, NJ, US.Google Scholar
Ouellette, J.A., Raghavan, B., Patil, M. and Kapania, R. Flight dynamics and structural load distribution for a damaged aircraft, in AIAA Atmospheric Flight Mechanics Conference, 2009 [Online]. doi:10.2514/6.2009-6153.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
FAR, FAA, US, 25.335, 1997. [Online]. Available: http://rgl.faa.gov/Regulatory_and_Guidance_Library/rgFAR.nsf/0/E618FF1900E755CC85256672004EC1C5?OpenDocument.Google Scholar
Sadraey, M.Aircraft Performance: An Engineering Approach, Chapter 9, Sec. 9, pp 474–478, CRC Press, Taylor and Francis Group, 2017, Boca Raton, FL, US.CrossRefGoogle Scholar