Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-gbm5v Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-22T11:10:49.993Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Fly-by-wire robustness to flight dynamics change under horizontal stabiliser damage

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  10 May 2016

Z. Dlamini*
Affiliation:
Department of Electrical and Electronic Engineering, Stellenbosch University, Stellenbosch, South Africa
T. Jones
Affiliation:
Department of Electrical and Electronic Engineering, Stellenbosch University, Stellenbosch, South Africa

Abstract

Aircraft damage modelling was conducted on a Boeing 747 to examine the effects of asymmetric horizontal stabiliser loss on the flight dynamics of a commercial Fly-by-Wire (FBW) aircraft. Robustness of the control system is investigated by analysing how characteristic eigenvalues move as a result of damage and comparison to the non-FBW aircraft is made. Furthermore, the extent of stabiliser loss that the system can successfully handle without loss of stability and acceptable performance is identified. The presented analysis of the results gives insightful knowledge to aid in the design of an improved FBW system with increased damage tolerance. A handling qualities evaluation is presented to provide an understanding of how the pilot perceives the damaged aircraft. The results of the study show that a generic FBW system improves robustness such that the aircraft is stable with 50% horizontal stabiliser loss. With 50% damage, the aircraft is controllable but unsafe to fly and may be unable to effectively complete its mission task.

Type
Research Article
Copyright
Copyright © Royal Aeronautical Society 2016 

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

1.Niedermeier, D. and Lambregts, A.A. Fly-by-wire augmented manual control: basic design considerations, 28th International Congress of the Aeronautical Sciences, 2012, Brisbane, Australia, 2012.Google Scholar
2.Shah, G.H. Aerodynamic effects and modelling of damage to transport aircraft, AIAA Atmospheric Flight Mechanics Conference and Exhibition, 2008, Honolulu, Hawaii, US.Google Scholar
3.JAL crash inquiry team examining damage in aft pressure bulkhead, Aviation Week and Space Technology, 1985, 123, (8), pp 2830.Google Scholar
4.National Transportation Safety Board, In-flight separation of vertical stabiliser, American Airlines Flight 587 Airbus Industrie A300-605R N14053, 12 November 2001, Belle Harbor, New York, US, NTSB/AAR-04/04, 2004.Google Scholar
5.Aeronautical Accident Investigation and Prevention Center, Final Report A-00X/CENIPA/2008, 2008.Google Scholar
6.Nguyen, N., Krishnakumar, K. and Kaneshige, J.Flight dynamics and hybrid adaptive control of damaged aircraft, J Guidance, Control and Dynamics, 2008, 31, (1), pp 293302.Google Scholar
7.Zhao, J., Jiang, B., Shi, P. and He, Z.Fault tolerant control for damaged aircraft based on sliding mode control scheme, Int J Innovative Computing, Information and Control, 2014, 10, (3), pp 751764.Google Scholar
8.Tang, Y. and Patton, R.J. Fault-tolerant flight control for nonlinear-UAV, 20th Mediterranean Conference on Control & Automation (MED), 2012, Barcelona, Spain.Google Scholar
9.Li, X. and Liu, H.T.A passive fault-tolerant flight control for maximum allowable vertical tail damaged aircraft, J Dynamic Systems, Measurement and Control, 2012, 134, (3). doi:10.1115/1.4005512Google Scholar
10.Bramesfeld, G., Maughmer, M.D. and Willits, S.M.Piloting strategies for controlling a transport aircraft after vertical-tail loss, J Aircr, 2006, 43, (1), pp 216225.Google Scholar
11.Crider, L.D. Control of commercial aircraft with vertical tail loss, AIAA 4th Aviation Technology, Integration, and Operation (ATIO) Forum, 2004, AIAA Paper No. 2004-6293.Google Scholar
12.Hitachi, Y. and Liu, H.T.Robust thrust-only control of a civil transport aircraft with vertical tail damage, Canadian Aeronautics and Space J, 2012, 56, (2), pp 5365.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
13.U. S. Department of Defense, MIL-STD-1797A, Flying qualities for piloted airplanes, 1990.Google Scholar
14.Bacon, B.J. and Gregory, I.M. General equations of motion for a damaged asymmetric aircraft, AIAA Atmospheric Flight Mechanics Conference and Exhibition, 2007.Google Scholar
15.Blaauw, D. Flight Control System for a Variable Stability Blended-Wing-Body Unmanned Aerial Vehicle, March 2009, MSc Thesis, Stellenbosch University, Stellenbosch, South Africa.Google Scholar
16.Beeton, W. Fault Tolerant Flight Control of a UAV with Asymmetric Damage to its Primary Lifting Surface, December 2013, MSc Thesis, Stellenbosch University, Stellenbosch, South Africa.Google Scholar
17.Shah, G.H. and Hill, M.A. Flight dynamics modeling and simulation of a damaged transport aircraft, AIAA Modelling and Simulation Technologies Conference, 2012.Google Scholar
18.Etkin, B. and Reid, D.Dynamics of Flight Stability and Control, 2007, Butterworth-Heinemann, Oxford, UK.Google Scholar
19.Cook, M.V.Flight Dynamics Principles, 2007, John Wiley and Sons, Inc., New York, US.Google Scholar
20.Blakelock, J.H.Automatic Control of Aircraft and Missile, 2nd ed, 1991, John Wiley and Sons, Inc., New York, US.Google Scholar
21.Hanke, R. and Nordwall, D.R.The Simulation of a Jumbo Jet Transport Aircraft, Volume II: Modelling Data, September 1970, The Boeing Company, Wichita, Kansas, US.Google Scholar
22.Perez, R.E., Liu, H.T. and Behdinan, K. Relaxed static stability aircraft design via longitudinal control-configured MDO methodology, Conference on Aerospace Technology and Innovation, Aircraft Design & Development Symposium, 2005, Toronto, Canada.Google Scholar
23.Field, E. The Application of a C*Flight Control Law to Large Civil Transport Aircraft, CoA Report 9303, March 1993, Cranfield University, Cranfield, England, UK.Google Scholar
24.Favre, C.Fly-by-wire for commercial aircraft: the Airbus experience, Int J Control, 1994, 59, (1), pp 139157.Google Scholar