Proceedings of the IEEE 1988 National Aerospace and Electronics Conference
DOI: 10.1109/naecon.1988.195057
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Evaluation of a second generation reconfiguration strategy for aircraft flight control systems subjected to actuator failure/surface damage

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
3
1
1

Citation Types

0
30
0
3

Publication Types

Select...
8
1
1

Relationship

0
10

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 51 publications
(33 citation statements)
references
References 4 publications
0
30
0
3
Order By: Relevance
“…A FaultTolerant Control System (FTCS) is a control system that Brought to you by | MIT Libraries Authenticated Download Date | 5/12/18 2:18 AM possesses the ability to accommodate system component failures automatically. The existing methods for reconfigurable controller design include a linear quadratic regulator (Looze et al, 1985), eigenstructure assignment (Jiang, 1994), a multiple model (Maybeck and Stevens, 1991), set-membership approaches (Puig, 2010), adaptive control (Bodson and Groszkiewicz, 1997), a pseudo-inverse (Caglayan, 1988) and model following (Huang and Stengel, 1990).…”
Section: Reconfigurable Fault-tolerant Control Systemmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…A FaultTolerant Control System (FTCS) is a control system that Brought to you by | MIT Libraries Authenticated Download Date | 5/12/18 2:18 AM possesses the ability to accommodate system component failures automatically. The existing methods for reconfigurable controller design include a linear quadratic regulator (Looze et al, 1985), eigenstructure assignment (Jiang, 1994), a multiple model (Maybeck and Stevens, 1991), set-membership approaches (Puig, 2010), adaptive control (Bodson and Groszkiewicz, 1997), a pseudo-inverse (Caglayan, 1988) and model following (Huang and Stengel, 1990).…”
Section: Reconfigurable Fault-tolerant Control Systemmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…GE chose an approach developed by Alphatech for the SIDC, which generated and filtered actuator and aircraft acceleration sensor residuals and then used a log-likelihood test to detect surface failures and SPRT to verify and classify a stuck or floating surface. The surface-damage detection approach by CRA included a no-fail filter to generate residuals, a bank of filters to compensate the residuals based on partial surface loss estimates and expected modelling errors, a bank of likelihood ratios to compute the likelihood of each surface-damage hypothesis, and a modified multiple hypothesis test to make detection and isolation decisions [23,24].…”
Section: Early Approaches Based On Failure Detection Isolation and mentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Among them, they can be cited: control law re-scheduling (Shamman and Athans, 1992;Kaminer et al, 1995); feedback linearization (Meyer and Hunt, 1984;Ochi and Kanai, 1991); model following (Caglayan et al, 1988;Ostroff, 1985); eigenvalues assignment (Patton and Liu, 1994;Sobel et al, 1994); and the pseudoinverse method (Gao and Antsaklis, 1991;Staroswiecki, 2005).…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%