Hostname: page-component-5b777bbd6c-f9nfp Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-06-18T17:23:29.757Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Modified line-of-sight path following for a NASA generic transport model (GTM) with complete autopilot architecture

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  13 June 2025

B. Ergöçmen Open the ORCID record for B. Ergöçmen [Opens in a new window]  and
U. Tilki Open the ORCID record for U. Tilki [Opens in a new window]
B. Ergöçmen*
Affiliation:
Electrical and Electronics Engineering Department, Süleyman Demirel University, Isparta, 32260, Turkey
U. Tilki
Affiliation:
Electrical and Electronics Engineering Department, Süleyman Demirel University, Isparta, 32260, Turkey
*
Corresponding author: Burak Ergöçmen; Email: ergocmen.burak@metu.edu.tr
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

In this paper, an intricate autopilot architecture is built for a highly nonlinear aircraft. The mode control of the autopilot is illustrated with state transition diagram. The fundamental concept of this architecture is a model-free design, which means that aerodynamic derivatives and model linearisation are not required. However, only the dynamic control allocation (CA) technique involves the use of derivatives for aerodynamic control. With the use of the Incremental Nonlinear Dynamic Inversion (INDI) in this framework, reduced dependency on models can be achieved. The algorithm addresses system nonlinearities. Our study simulates the approach, and the typical terminal arrival phase of the flight. For lateral navigation, a line-of-sight (LOS) based guidance approach is employed. The principle of the LOS is look ahead-based steering and, mainly the cross-track error is primarily used in the literature. The cross-track error is not the only error for establishing the predefined path. The error between the aircraft heading and the path course is required to describe how fast heading change occurs to re-establish the path again. This proposed modified LOS improves not only the path following ability, but also fault tolerance during aileron or rudder malfunctions. In addition, control surface lock-in-place failures, right/left engine flames-out, and turbulence/wind cases are studied. The objective is a safe approach without reconfiguration. The effectiveness of the proposed control architecture is demonstrated with numerical simulations for the NASA Generic Transport Model (GTM) T-2.

Keywords

fault-tolerant flight controltrajectory controlnonlinear flight controldynamic inversionmode control
Type
Research Article
Information
The Aeronautical Journal , First View , pp. 1 - 30
Check for updates
Copyright
© The Author(s), 2025. 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.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

Acquatella, P., Falkena, W., van Kampen, E.-J. and Chu, Q.P. Robust nonlinear spacecraft attitude control using incremental nonlinear dynamic inversion, in AIAA 2012 Guidance, Navigation, and Control Conference, AIAA, Minneapolis, MI, USA, pp 1–20.10.2514/6.2012-4623CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Singh, S., Steinberg, M. and Page, A. Nonlinear adaptive and sliding mode flight path control of f/a-18 model, IEEE Trans. Aerosp. Electron. Syst., 2003, 39, pp 1250–1262.10.1109/TAES.2003.1261125CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lombaerts, T., Chu, Q., Mulder, J. and Joosten, D. Modular flight control reconfiguration design and simulation, Control Eng. Pract., 2011, 19, pp 540–554. SAFEPROCESS 2009.10.1016/j.conengprac.2010.12.008CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sieberling, S., Chu, Q.P. and Mulder, J.A. Robust flight control using incremental nonlinear dynamic inversion and angular acceleration prediction, J. Guid. Control Dyn., 2010, 33, pp 1732–1742.10.2514/1.49978CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Smith, P. A simplified approach to nonlinear dynamic inversion based flight control, in: AIAA 1998-4461, 23rd Atmospheric Flight Mechanics Conference, AIAA, Boston, MA, USA, pp 762–770 .10.2514/6.1998-4461CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Balas, G. Flight control law design: an industry perspective, Eur. J. Control, 2003, 9, pp 207–226.10.3166/ejc.9.207-226CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Smith, P. and Berry, A. Flight test experience of a non-linear dynamic inversion control law on the VAAC harrier, in AIAA 2000 Atmospheric Flight Mechanics Conference, AIAA, Denver, CO, USA, pp 132–142.10.2514/6.2000-3914CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Harris, J. and Stanford, J.R. F-35 flight control law design, development, and verification, in 2018 Aviation Technology, Integration, and Operations Conference, AIAA, Atlanta, Georgia, USA, pp 1–18 .10.2514/6.2018-3516CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Miller, C. Nonlinear dynamic inversion baseline control law: flight-test results for the full-scale advanced systems testbed f/a-18 airplane, in 2011 AIAA Guidance, Navigation, and Control Conference, AIAA, Portland, Oregon, USA, pp 1–25.10.2514/6.2011-6468CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Enns, D., Bugajskı, D., Hendrick, R. and Stein, G. Dynamic inversion: an evolving methodology for flight control design, Int. J. Control, 1994, 59, pp 71–91.10.1080/00207179408923070CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lu, P., van Kampen, E.-J., de Visser, C. and Chu, Q. Aircraft fault-tolerant trajectory control using incremental nonlinear dynamic inversion, Control Eng. Pract., 2016, 57, pp 126–141.10.1016/j.conengprac.2016.09.010CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lombaerts, T., Kaneshige, J., Schuet, S., Aponso, B.L., Shish, K.H. and Hardy, G. Dynamic inversion based full envelope flight control for an evtol vehicle using a unified framework, in 2020 AIAA Scitech Forum, AIAA, Orlando, USA, pp 1–30.10.2514/6.2020-1619CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wang, X., van Kampen, E.-J., Chu, Q. and Lu, P. Stability analysis for incremental nonlinear dynamic inversion control, J. Guid. Control Dyn., 2019, 42, pp 1116–1129.10.2514/1.G003791CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Grondman, F., Looye, G., Kuchar, R.O., Chu, Q.P. and Kampen, E.-J.V. Design and flight testing of incremental nonlinear dynamic inversion-based control laws for a passenger aircraft, in 2018 AIAA Guidance, Navigation, and Control Conference, AIAA, Kissimmee, FL, USA, pp 1–25.10.2514/6.2018-0385CrossRefGoogle Scholar
NASA. Flight dynamics simulation of a generic transport model, 2008. https://software.nasa.gov/software/LAR-17625-1 accessed: 20 January 2022.Google 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, AIAA, San Francisco, CA, USA, 2005, pp 1–12.10.2514/6.2005-6432CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cunningham, K., Cox, D., Murri, D. and Riddick, S. A piloted evaluation of damage accommodating flight control using a remotely piloted vehicle, in AIAA Guidance, Navigation, and Control Conference, AIAA, Portland, OR, USA, 2011.10.2514/6.2011-6451CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fossen, T.I. Handbook of Marine Craft Hydrodynamics and Motion Control, John Wiley and Sons Ltd., United Kingdom, 2011.10.1002/9781119994138CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Breivik, M., Hovstein, V.E. and Fossen, T.I. Straight-line target tracking for unmanned surface vehicles, Model. Identif. Control, 2008, 29, pp 131–149.10.4173/mic.2008.4.2CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fossen, T.I. An adaptive line-of-sight (ALOS) guidance law for path following of aircraft and marine craft, IEEE Trans. Control Syst. Technol., 2023, 31, pp 2887–2894.10.1109/TCST.2023.3259819CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Härkegård, O. Efficient active set algorithms for solving constrained least squares problems in aircraft control allocation, in Proceedings of the 41st IEEE Conference on Decision and Control, vol. 2, IEEE, Las Vegas, NV, USA, 2002, pp 1295–1300.10.1109/CDC.2002.1184694CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lekkas, A.M. and Fossen, T.I. Minimization of cross-track and along-track errors for path tracking of marine underactuated vehicles, in 2014 European Control Conference (ECC), IEEE, Strasbourg, France, pp 3004–3010.10.1109/ECC.2014.6862594CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lekkas, A.M. and Fossen, T.I. A time-varying lookahead distance guidance law for path following, IFAC Proc., 2012, 45, pp 398–403. 9th IFAC Conference on Manoeuvring and Control of Marine Craft.10.3182/20120919-3-IT-2046.00068CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bacon, B., Ostroff, A. and Joshi, S. Reconfigurable NDI controller using inertial sensor failure detection and isolation, IEEE Trans. Aerosp. Electron. Syst., 2001, 37, pp 1373–1383.10.1109/7.976972CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Berge, S.P. and Fossen, T.I. Robust control allocation of overactuated ships; experiments with a model ship, IFAC Proc., 1997, 30, pp 193–198. 4th IFAC Conference on Manoeuvring and Control of Marine Craft (MCMC ’97), Briujuni, Croatia, 10–12 September.10.1016/S1474-6670(17)46513-XCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Härkegård, O. Dynamic control allocation using constrained quadratic programming, J. Guid. Control Dyn., 2004, 27, pp 1028–1034.10.2514/1.11607CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ergöçmen, B. Reconfigurable dynamic control allocation with SDRE as a FTFC for NASA GTM design, in American Control Conference (ACC), IEEE, New Orleans, LA, USA, 2021, pp 1378–1383.10.23919/ACC50511.2021.9482936CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rubí, B., Pérez, R. and Morcego, B. A survey of path following control strategies for UAVs focused on quadrotors, J. Intell. Robot Syst., 2020, 98, pp 241–265.10.1007/s10846-019-01085-zCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sujit, P., Saripalli, S. and Sousa, J. An evaluation of UAV path following algorithms, in 2013 European Control Conference (ECC), IEEE, 2013, pp 3332–3337.10.23919/ECC.2013.6669680CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Papoulias, F., Bifurcation analysis of line of sight vehicle guidance using sliding modes, Int. J. Bifurcat. Chaos, 1991, 1, (4), pp 849–865.10.1142/S0218127491000622CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Curry, R., Lizarraga, M., Mairs, B. and Elkaim, G.H. L+2, an improved line of sight guidance law for UAVs, in 2013 American Control Conference, IEEE, 2013, pp 1–6.10.1109/ACC.2013.6579804CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Breivik, M. and Fossen, T.I. Path following of straight lines and circles for marine surface vessel, Conf. Comput. Appl. Marine Syst., 2004, 37, pp 65–70.Google Scholar
Ergöçmen, B. and Tilki, U. Controller switching mechanism for glide under loss-of-thrust during waypoint-based path following, in 2023 European Control Conference (ECC), IEEE, Bucharest, Romania, 2023, pp 1–6.10.23919/ECC57647.2023.10178235CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Blakelock, J.H. Automatic Control of Aircraft and Missiles, John Wiley and Sons Ltd., New York, USA, 1991.Google Scholar
Ergöçmen, B. and Yavrucuk, I. Active hybrid fault tolerant flight control of an UAV under control surface damage, in 2020 American Control Conference, IEEE, Denver, CO, USA, 2020, pp 4169–4174.10.23919/ACC45564.2020.9147352CrossRefGoogle Scholar
ICAO. Procedures for Air Navigation Services Aircraft Operations (PANS-OPS), Document 8168, The International Civil Aviation Organization, 6th Edition, 2018.Google Scholar