2019
DOI: 10.1016/j.conengprac.2018.12.002
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Comparison of fault detection and isolation methods for a small unmanned aircraft

Abstract: This paper compares three model-based methods for detecting and isolating control surface faults on a small unmanned aircraft. The first method is parity-space based and compares a sensor measurement against a model-based prediction of the same quantity. The second method is observer-based and involves robust estimation for linear parameter-varying systems. The third method is also observer-based and involves multiple model adaptive estimation. The performance of the three methods are compared using flight dat… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
4
1

Citation Types

0
11
0

Year Published

2019
2019
2024
2024

Publication Types

Select...
7
2

Relationship

0
9

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 30 publications
(11 citation statements)
references
References 45 publications
0
11
0
Order By: Relevance
“…The figures also show how the variance of the prediction error stabilizes after the model stabilization. While this work and [27] provide a dataset suitable for benchmarking different methods, to the best of our knowledge, there has been no benchmark dataset available prior to this work to enable direct comparison with the published results of similar works like Venkataraman et al [28] and Bauer et al [29]. The use of our dataset in the future will enable the comparison of methods to the state-of-the-art.…”
Section: Resultsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The figures also show how the variance of the prediction error stabilizes after the model stabilization. While this work and [27] provide a dataset suitable for benchmarking different methods, to the best of our knowledge, there has been no benchmark dataset available prior to this work to enable direct comparison with the published results of similar works like Venkataraman et al [28] and Bauer et al [29]. The use of our dataset in the future will enable the comparison of methods to the state-of-the-art.…”
Section: Resultsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The results reported by these methods may be very different from the real data, making a comparison between these methods with the other methods tested on real flight tests difficult. Even many of the methods tested on the real flight data only report a minimal number of tests (Bu et al, 2017; Lin et al, 2010; Sun et al, 2017) and only a few proposed methods have completed a reasonable number of tests on the real flight data (Keipour et al, 2019; Venkataraman et al, 2019). Providing a large dataset to the FDI and AD community working on unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs) will open the opportunity to test the proposed methods on real data and to compare the results with other methods.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Recent developments in signal processing, pattern recognition, controllers and their systematic integration have attractive potentials for resolving numerous issues related to FDD. Currently, most studies carried out in FDD field focuses on the failure mechanism [1,2], feature extraction [3][4][5] and fault identification and decision-making [6,7].…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%