76

IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON CONTROL SYSTEMS TECHNOLOGY, VOL. 10, NO. 1, JANUARY 2002

Reliable Robust Flight Tracking Control: An LMI

Approach
Fang Liao, Jian Liang Wang, Senior Member, IEEE, and Guang-Hong Yang

AbstractThis paper studies the reliable robust tracking controller design problem against actuator faults and control surface
impairment for aircraft. First, models of actuator faults and
control surface impairment are presented. Then a reliable robust
tracking controller design method is developed. This method
tracking
is based on the mixed linear quadratic (LQ)/
performance indexes and multiobjective optimization in terms of
linear matrix inequalities. Flight control examples are given, and
both linear and nonlinear simulations are given.
Index TermsActuator faults, control surface impairment,
flight control, linear matrix inequality (LMI), reliable control,
tracking.

I. INTRODUCTION

N THE design of the advanced tactical fighter (ATF), reliability, maintainability, and survivability are three basic
design requirements. A fighter aircraft with reliability should
be able to maintain a satisfactory closed-loop system performance in the presence of sensor/actuator faults or control surface impairment in the battle environment. Aircraft has certain
inherent redundancy built in. For example, conventional aircraft
has mainly three sets of control surfaces: the elevator (horizontal
stabilator) for pitch control; the differential aileron for roll control; and the rudder for yaw (directional) control. For ATF, there
are usually also canard and flaps for pitch and yaw control. If the
movement of the left and right elevators and ailerons are made
independent of each other, the inherent redundancy of aircraft
control surfaces can be made use of to tolerate the loss of certain
control surfaces. To a certain extent, the left and right elevators
provide roll (roll and pitch) control if they deflect the same (different) amount toward different direction, and the left and right
ailerons also provide pitch (pitch and roll) control if they deflect
the same (different) amount toward the same direction.
Currently there are several fault-tolerant/reliable flight
control system design conceptions, such as self-repairing flight
control systems (SRFCS) [1], [17], reliable flight control systems [18], [26], and so on. SRFCS design conception involves
such procedures as real-time fault detection, isolation (FDI),

Manuscript received May 29, 2001. Manuscript received in final form October 29, 2001. Recommended by Associate Editor A. Ray. This work was supported in part by the Academic Research Fund of the Ministry of Education,
Singapore, under Grant MID-ARC 3/97 and DSO National Laboratories, Singapore, under Grand DSOCL01144.
F. Liao and J. L. Wang are with the School of Electrical and Electronic Engineering, Nanyang Technological University, Singapore 639798 (e-mail: ejlwang@ntu.edu.sg).
G.-H. Yang is with the Temasek Laboratories, National University of Singapore, Singapore 119260.
Publisher Item Identifier S 1063-6536(02)00339-1.

and flight control system reconfiguration. This approach is

considered as an active approach as reconfiguration is required
of the system in the event of faults. Due to the flexibility
offered by the flight control system reconfiguration procedures,
the controllers in such systems may not be in a fixed form.
However, time is needed for FDI to identify the fault and to
execute reconfiguration.
Another approach to reliable flight control system design is
to exploit the inherent redundancy of aircraft control surfaces
to design a fixed flight control system so as to achieve a tolerable system performance degradation in the event of component faults. The designed fixed controller guarantees satisfactory system performance not only during normal operations but
also under various component faults without the need for FDI
and system reconfiguration. This is very important in the case
that the available reaction time for the system is very little after
the occurrence of a severe fault. As no system reconfiguration
is needed, this approach is passive. This passive approach to
reliable control system design has attracted considerable attention recently, and several approaches have been developed, for
example, ARE-based approach [15], [16], [21], LMI-based approach [6], [20], [22], [23], Pole region assignment technique
[27], QFT method [18], etc.
In many flight control system designs, robust tracking performance is an important requirement. Currently there are several
approaches developed to solve tracking problems. The classical
approach for LTI systems has been to design a closed-loop
system that achieves the desired transfer function as close as
possible [4]. The inherent shortcoming is over-design. The
linear quadratic (LQ) control theory method [7], [14] requires
a priori knowledge of the dynamics of the reference signal.
optimal tracking solution [5], [19] is suitable for cases
The
where the tracking signal is measured on-line, and it can hardly
deal with the case where a priori knowledge on this signal is
available or when it can be previewed. The major disadvantage
of the solution is the fact that the reference signal is assumed
to be an arbitrary signal, hence taken as a disturbance signal
so as to minimize the performance for a worst-case reference
signal. Game theory [13] is another method for solving tracking
problem. This approach is most suitable to finite time control
of time-varying systems.
In this paper, we study the reliable robust flight tracking controller design problem for a fighter aircraft in the presence of
actuator faults and/or control surface impairment. The multiobjective optimization methodology is used to ensure that the designed flight tracking controller guarantee the stability of the
closed-loop system and optimal tracking performance during
normal system operation and maintaining an acceptable lower

10636536/02$17.00 2002 IEEE

LIAO et al.: RELIABLE ROBUST FLIGHT TRACKING CONTROL

77

level of tracking performance in the event of actuator faults

and/or control surface impairment.
This paper is organized as follows. Section II gives the fault
models of actuators and control surfaces impairment. Section III
discusses the problem formulation. Section IV presents the design method of the reliable robust tracking controller. In Section V, a flight control system example is presented, followed
by some concluding remarks in Section VI.
II. FAULT MODEL
Consider a LTI aircraft model described by
(1)
is the state,
where
is the output,
is the control input and
is
the bounded input disturbance.
To investigate the reliable flight control and tracking problem
in the event of actuator faults or control surface impairment, the
represent the
fault model must be established first. Let
control surface input vector after failures have occurred. Then
the following actuator fault model is adopted for this study:

with the uncertain constant parameter vector

satisfying

(5)
vertices, of which, one vertex corresponds
Here, there are
to the normal case (no fault), and the remaining vertices correspond to the fault cases. Uncertain system with polytopic uncertainty has been studied by many researchers [9], [11], [12]. In
this paper, we use it to model control surface impairment faults.
are known
The matrices , , , and
constant matrices of appropriate dimensions, which represent
the vertices of possible control surface impairment (including
the nominal case of no control surface impairment). Without
corresponds to the nomloss of generality, suppose that
,
,
,
.
inal case, i.e.,
Note that there is a certain degree of over-design in adopting
this polytopic uncertainty model. However, this ensures that the
designed performance can be achieved for intermediate control
surface impairment faults (as will be demonstrated by the nonlinear simulation results in Section V-B).
Hence, the aircraft dynamics with both actuator faults (2) and
control surface impairment (4) is described by

(2)
(6)

where the scaling factor

satisfy

or

(3)

for
, the fault model
Obviously when
(2) corresponds to the case of the th actuator outage. When
, it corresponds to the case of no fault in the th actuator.
, namely,
Without loss of generality, we assume that
corresponds to the normal control input vector
.
The usual control surface fault is the control surface impairment. Unlike actuator faults of the form (2), aircraft control surface impairment will change the aerodynamic characteristics of
the aircraft (i.e., , , , and matrices). Control surface impairment can be characterized by the percentage loss of the total
control surface area. Models of the aircraft can be obtained for
a number of percentage losses of certain control surfaces. By
using these models, aircraft models corresponding to intermediate percentage losses of such control surfaces can be obtained
approximately by linear interpolation. To ensure that the design
method can handle the inherent modeling errors in these interpolated models, we adopt the following polytopic uncertainties
in the matrices , , , and :

It is noted that, in the faulty system description (3)(6), when

, we have
,
,
and
, namely, without control surface im, the model (6) covers the
pairment fault. When
case with control surface impairment faults. The parameter
provides interpolation in-between the vertices (models) corresponding to the selected percentage losses of the control surfaces and the no-fault case. This provides approximate models
and
for the intermediate faults. Obviously, when
in (2), the aircraft model (6) represents the nominal aircraft
model (1) of having neither outage faults nor control surface
impairment faults.
III. PROBLEM FORMULATION
Consider the aircraft dynamics (6) with both actuator faults
(2) and control surface impairment faults (4). The design
problem considered in this paper is to find a controller such
that:
The closed-loop system is robustly stable for all
(
) and all
.
tracks the refer In the normal operation, the output
without steady-state error, that is
ence signal
(7)

(4)

and with optimal closed-loop performance. [See the peris a known

formance definition in (13).] Here

78

IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON CONTROL SYSTEMS TECHNOLOGY, VOL. 10, NO. 1, JANUARY 2002

Fig. 1. Block diagram of fight control system with independent control surfaces.

constant matrix used to form the output required to track

the reference signals.
In the event of actuator faults or control surface impairtracks the reference signal
ment, the output
without steady-state error and with an acceptable lower
level of tracking performance. [See the performance definition in (13).]
It is well known that the tracking error integral action of a controller can effectively eliminate the steady-state tracking error.
In order to obtain a robust tracking controller with state feedback plus tracking error integral, we introduce the following
augmented state-space description of the aircraft model (6)

It is easy to see from (4) and (10) that this augmented system
can be expressed in the polytopic form as follows:

(11)
where

(8)
(12)
Fig. 1 shows the block diagram of the flight control system. De,
fine the augmented state vector
and disturbance vector
,
. The augmented
system (8) can be rewritten as

If we obtain a controller robustly stabilizing the augmented

system (9), then the controller also stabilizes the original system
.
(6) and achieves the output regulation
In the following design, we choose the performance indexes
of normal and fault cases as

(9)
where

, and
(13)

(10)

and
are symmetric positive
where
is symmetric positive definite.
semidefinite and
of the
Our objective is to minimize the performance index
nominal system (1), while simultaneously guarantees that the
) meet certain upper
performance indexes
.
bounds for all probable actuator faults and for all

LIAO et al.: RELIABLE ROBUST FLIGHT TRACKING CONTROL

79

IV. RELIABLE ROBUST TRACKING CONTROLLER DESIGN

First, to ensure that the augmented system (9) corresponding
to the normal operation and each of the probable faults be all
stabilizable via state feedback, assume that
is stabilizable for all
and
[H1]
.
, i.e., full row rank, for all
[H2]
, and
.
Consider the augmented system (9) with the following statefeedback tracking controller:

Proof: According to [2, Lemma 3.1], under assumptions

[H1] and [H2], if (16) and (17) are satisfied, then
and

(21)
are satisfied. By Schur complement, (21) is equivalent to

(14)

where
system is given by, for

. The closed-loop augmented

(15)
Adopting the multiconvexity concept in [2], the following
Lemma 1 is easily derived.
Lemma 1: Assume that the hypotheses [H1] and [H2] hold.
(
;
For every given upper bound
), if there exist a matrix
and
with
, satissymmetric matrices
and
fying, for all

(22)
,
Since
(22) we have that

and

, from

(23)
affinely quadratically stabilizes
Hence controller
the augmented system (9). Furthermore, substituting
into (13) yields, for all

(16)

(17)
where

(18)
then the closed-loop system (15) achieves the upper bounds of
performance indexes

(19)
where

This completes the proof.

It is noted that the above Lemma 1 gives a sufficient condition
guaranteeing the closed-loop system (15) be robustly stable and
(
) be
the quadratic performance indexes
(
) correspond
bounded as in (19). Here
norm
of the transfer function from the input
to the
in (15) to the performance output

is as in (5) and

(20)

It is also noted that in Lemma 1, we adopt different Lyapunov

where
represent the actuator
function

80

IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON CONTROL SYSTEMS TECHNOLOGY, VOL. 10, NO. 1, JANUARY 2002

outage faults and

represent the vertices of control surface impairment faults. Hence the conservativeness of
Lemma 1 is smaller compared to using a common Lyapunov
function . The (17) is used to guarantee that the upper bounds
of performance indexes of the intermediate faults (i.e., faults
between the vertices of control surface impairment faults) lie
among those of the vertices of control surface impairment faults.
Now the reliable tracking controller design problem can be
redefined as
Minimize

(24)

(
;
subject to (16), (17), and
) as well as
(
;
;
) where
are performance bounds
in the fault cases.
However, the matrix inequalities (16) and (17) in Lemma 1
are not jointly convex. In order to get around this problem and
reduce the conservativeness, an iterative method is adopted here.
Theorem 1: Consider the closed-loop system (15). Assume
that the hypotheses [H1] and [H2] hold. For given upper
,
and a
bounds
given sufficiently small positive constant as well as a given
and given symmetric positive-definite
matrix
, suppose that there exist a
matrices
and symmetric matrices
feedback gain matrix
satisfying, for all
and
,

where ,
,
and
are as in (18). Then, the
controller (14) robustly stabilizes the closed-loop system of the
augmented system (9). Furthermore, the upper bounds of perare given by
formance indexes
(27)
, and
and
as in (20).
Proof: By the Schur complement formula, (25) and (26)
are equivalent to

with

(28)
and

(29)
(25)

(26)

respectively. Since is positive definite and is a sufficiently

small positive constant, it is obvious that (16) and (17) are satisfied if (28) and (29) are satisfied. The subsequent proof is similar
to that of Lemma 1 and is omitted here.
To reduce the conservativeness, Theorem 1 leads to the following iterative algorithm for designing reliable tracking controllers.
Algorithm 1:
(
;
),
1) Choose proper
, subject to
and
and minimize

with

(30)
(31)
Let

LIAO et al.: RELIABLE ROBUST FLIGHT TRACKING CONTROL

2) Minimize
and

81

axis roll rate

, and sideslip angle must be stabilized
and should be tracked perfectly. In this section, two examples
of tracking control for a linear F-16 aircraft model are given
to demonstrate the proposed methods. The nonlinear dynamic
model for this F-16 aircraft can be found in [10] and [25]. The
trimmed values of the F-16 aircraft equations are

) subject to

and

(32)

(33)
m/s

.
then we obtain
and performance
3) Choose a small error tolerance
(
;
bounds in the fault cases
;
). Let
(
;
) and
.
), minimize
4) At the th iteration (
subject to the LMI constraints
and
for
and
, and
for
and
,
. Here
and
are defined by (25) and (26), respectively.
, set
and stop.
5) If
and
for
Otherwise, let
and
, and go back to
Step 4.
,
,
It should be noted that the existence of solutions
and
in (25) and (26) is equivalent to the existence of
and
in (16) and (17). Therefore, Theorem 1
solutions
does not introduce any additional conservativeness other than
and
, (25) and
those in Lemma 1. However, for given
, which can be solved by using the
(26) are LMIs for and
LMI Toolbox in MATLAB environment. Hence, in this sense,
Theorem 1 converts a nonconvex problem into a convex problem
tends to
and its conservativeness can be minimized when
(
;
) and
tends to .
(
;
In Algorithm 1, the initial values of
) in (25) and (26) are obtained by using the
common LMI solution.
be defined in Step 4
Theorem 2: Let
is converof Algorithm 1. Then the sequence
gent.
,
is a feasible soProof: For a given integer
) in step 4, and
is
lution for the th optimization (
.
the optimal solution. So
must be convergent.
Hence, the sequence
Theorem 2 shows that Algorithm 1 is convergent. It should
also be noted that Algorithm 1 is guaranteed to achieve a local
optimum only. There is no guarantee for achieving the global
optimum.
V. APPLICATION EXAMPLES
In modern tactical fighter aircraft design, the control system
must be able to perform challenging maneuvers such as high
flight under a high
angle of attack flight and high roll rate
low speed condition. Under these conditions, there are significant kinematics and inertial couplings, so the variables stability

is the total
where is the engine throttle, is the altitude,
is the reference genter of gravity location, and
airspeed,
and
are, respectively, the horizontal stabilizer, the
,
and
aileron, and the rudder. Let

where the matrix determines the outputs required to track, i.e.,

, and . The tracking commands of
, , and are unit
steps.
A. Example 1 (Actuator Outage)
First, we consider actuator outage faults only. After the left
and right elevator and aileron are made independent [24], the
aircraft equation with the actuator outage fault becomes
(34)
,
,
,
represents the
vertical gust disturbance and , , and are given in the
Appendix.
In this example, the following possible actuator faults are considered:
Left elevator actuator
1)
outage;
Right elevator actuator
2)
outage;
Right aileron actuator
3)
outage;
Left aileron actuator outage;
4)
Left elevator actuator and
5)
right aileron actuator outage;
Right elevator actuator and
6)
right aileron actuator outage;
Right elevator actuator and
7)
left aileron actuator outage;
Left elevator actuator and
8)
left aileron actuator outage.

where

82

IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON CONTROL SYSTEMS TECHNOLOGY, VOL. 10, NO. 1, JANUARY 2002

TABLE I
PERFORMANCE INDICES COMPARISON FOR FAULTS 18 (! ! ) WITH

Since we do not consider the control surface impairment in

,
and
. In
the example, then
order to maintain the conventional control surface movements
(i.e., symmetric motion for left and right elevators, and antisymmetric motion for left and right ailerons) under normal operwith
,
ation, we force
,
. Consider simultaneously all outage faults
( to ) to guarantee the performance requirement when any
of these eight outage faults occurs. By solving the convex multiobjective optimization problem using the proposed iterative
and
) are obAlgorithm 1, the reliable trackers (
tained under different design requirement of the fault performance indexes. The design results are tallied in Table I. The
and
are 1)
(
design bounds used for
); 2)
(
) as indicated in Table I.
For comparison purpose, the standard tracker design (without
using
considering the actuator fault) and a reliable tracker
the common LMI solution (i.e., Steps 1 and 2 in Algorithm 1 before the iterations in Steps 35) are also included in Table I. The
corresponding controller parameters are given in the Appendix.
From Table I, we can see that, in this particular example,
the standard controller (which considers no fault and achieves
an optimal nominal performance of 16.7024) can still stabilize
the system when any one of the eight actuator outage faults
occurs. But the performance becomes very bad, especially for
and . For the reliable controller
,
the fault cases of
by imposing the performance index of 99 on all fault cases,
our method gives an optimal guaranteed nominal performance
of 16.9275 and an actually achieved nominal performance of
16.9251. The guaranteed and the actually achieved nominal performance values are very close, and both are just slightly (1%)
larger than that achieved by the standard controller. This indicates that the conservativeness of our method is very small. In
, by sacrificing the nominal
the other reliable controller
performance slightly (6.4% from optimal value of 16.7024 to
17.7757), the performance indexes for the eight fault cases can

1 = 0:01

all be improved significantly (ranging from 29.1% to 55.8%),

except for cases of
and
where about the same level of
performance as that of the standard controller is achieved. Also,
where the same Lyapunov
compared to the controller
function is used for both the nominal and the fault cases, the
is improved by
nominal closed-loop performance using
30% (from 25.4500 to 17.7757) while maintaining about the
same level of performance when any of the eight outage faults
occurs.
In the flight control system shown in Fig. 1, the following
actuator dynamics are assumed [10]. 1) The left and right elevator actuators are modeled as 0.0495-s first-order lags with
rate limits of 60 /s and the surface deflection limits of 25 .
2) The left and right aileron actuators are modeled as 0.0495-s
first-order lags with rate limits of 80 /s and the surface deflection limits of 21.5 . 3) The rudder actuator is modeled as a
first-order lag of 0.0495 s with a rate limit of 120 /s and the
rudder deflection limit of 30 . Simulation results using the
standard controller are given in Fig. 2, and the results using the
are given in Fig. 3. Results for both
reliable controller
without and with fault are given. Each curve corresponds to one
of the eight outage faults. It can be seen from the simulation
results that, while the standard and the reliable controllers give
about the same response in the normal case, the reliable controllers perform much better when any of the eight outage faults
occurs. In the above simulation studies, a vertical gust disturbance of 5 m/s is considered.
B. Example 2 (Control Surface Impairment)
In this example, we consider control surface impairment
faults. Due to the limitation of the aerodynamic data of the
aircraft model, we consider the case where the horizontal stabilators are symmetrically impaired up to 75%. Since the aircraft
model may not change linearly between normal operation
and the operation with 75% loss of the horizontal stabilators,

LIAO et al.: RELIABLE ROBUST FLIGHT TRACKING CONTROL

83

Fig. 2. Response curves of the nominal and fault 18 cases with Standard tracker

we consider two additional design points of 25% and 50%

symmetric losses of the horizontal stabilators. The trimmed
values of the F-16 aircraft equations in normal operation are
same as (33). The retrimmed values and the system matrices of
the corresponding linear equation with the horizontal stabilator
impairment are given in the Appendix.
The system model with control surface impairment can be
written as
(35)
where
,
disturbance and

,
represents the vertical gust

(36)
, and , , , and
(
) being as
with
given in the Appendix.
By using the iterative algorithm, a reliable tracking controller
is designed to tolerate the above surface impairment faults in the

K.

horizontal stabilator. The design bounds adopted are: 1)

,
and 2)
,
. The design results
are given in Table II. The corresponding controller parameters
are given in the Appendix.
For comparison purpose, two other designs are also carried
out. The first one is a standard controller with the design bound
(without considering any fault), and the second one is a
reliable controller using common LMI solutions (i.e., based on
steps 1 and 2 in Algorithm 1 before the iterations in Steps 35).
The design results are also listed in Table II.
It can be seen from Table II that, in the nominal case, an
optimal performance of 14.1553 is achieved by the standard
. However, the performance deteriorates greatly to
tracker
264.5050 when there is a 75% loss of the horizontal stabilator,
even though stability can still be maintained by the standard
.
tracker
improved
On the other hand, our reliable controller
significantly the performance for the 75% loss fault. Similar
to the outage fault case in Example 5.1, this improvement is
achieved by sacrificing slightly the nominal case performance.
Also, compared to the common LMI solution results, both the
designed bound and the achieved performance can be improved
by using the iteration procedure in Algorithm 1.
Simulation studies are also carried out to verify the effectiveness of the designed controller. First, simulations results using
linear aircraft model are given in Figs. 4 and 5. The tracking

84

IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON CONTROL SYSTEMS TECHNOLOGY, VOL. 10, NO. 1, JANUARY 2002

Fig. 3.

Response curves of the nominal and fault 18 cases with Reliable tracker

TABLE II
PERFORMANCE COMPARISON THE HORIZONTAL STABILATOR IMPAIRMENT
WITH
:

1 = 0 01

loss at 20 s. It can be seen that the standard controller can not

stabilize the closed-loop system when the horizontal stabilator
loss is 75%, while our reliable controller can. The control surface deflections are also given in Figs. 6 and 7.
Summarizing the two examples, it is noted that the reliable
tracker design method can significantly improve the system performance in the event of fault cases compared to the standard design method, under minimal sacrifice of nominal performance.
It is easy to see that we can obtain various reliable trackers depending on the upper bound requirements
of fault case performance indexes in the design of the reliable robust tracker.
This provides the designer with the flexibility of trading off
between the nominal performance and the performance when
faults occur.
VI. CONCLUSION

command for , , and are all set as one. It can be seen that
the response in Fig. 4 using the standard controller becomes
very oscillatory and is almost unstable when a 75% loss of the
horizontal stabilator occurs. But for our reliable controller, response remains well damped.
To verify the robustness of our reliable tracking controller,
simulation results using the original nonlinear aircraft model
and data are carried out, and the results are given in Figs. 6 and
7. In these simulations, a 25% loss of the horizontal stabilator
is introduced at 12 s, followed by a 50% loss at 16 s and a 75%

In this paper, we have investigated a reliable robust tracking

controller design method for an airplane in the presence of actuator faults and control surface impairment. Based on the multiobjective robust performance analysis of the system in the nominal case and the faulty cases using an LMI method, a reliable robust tracking controller with state feedback plus tracking errors
integral has been developed. This method is applied to an F-16
aircraft model. Both linear and nonlinear six degree-of-freedom
simulations are performed, and the effectiveness of the proposed
method is demonstrated.

LIAO et al.: RELIABLE ROBUST FLIGHT TRACKING CONTROL

Fig. 4. Response curves of the nominal and horizontal stabilator impairment cases with the standard tracker.

Fig. 5. Response curves of the nominal and horizontal stabilator impairment cases with the reliable tracker.

Fig. 6. Simulation result for the standard tracker using nonlinear aircraft model.

85

86

IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON CONTROL SYSTEMS TECHNOLOGY, VOL. 10, NO. 1, JANUARY 2002

Fig. 7. Simulation result for the reliable tracker using nonlinear aircraft model.

APPENDIX
System Matrices in Example 1

System Matrices in Example 2

1) The system matrices of the aircraft without the horizontal
stabilator impairment fault

2) The trimmed values of the aircraft with 25% loss of the

horizontal stabilator are

m
m/s

LIAO et al.: RELIABLE ROBUST FLIGHT TRACKING CONTROL

87

4) The trimmed values of the aircraft with 75% loss of the

horizontal stabilator are

m
m/s

3) The trimmed values of the aircraft with 50% loss of the

horizontal stabilator are:
m
m/s

Controller Parameters in Example 1

88

IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON CONTROL SYSTEMS TECHNOLOGY, VOL. 10, NO. 1, JANUARY 2002

Controller Parameters in Example 2

REFERENCES
[1] A. K. Caglayan, S. M. Allen, and K. Wehmuller, Evaluation of a second
generation reconfiguration strategy for aircraft flight control systems
subjected to actuator failure/surface damage, in Proc. IEEE 1988 Nat.
Aerospace Electron. Conf. (NAECON 1988), vol. 2, 1988, pp. 520529.
[2] P. Gahinet, P. Apkarian, and M. Chilali, Affine parameter-dependent
Lyapunov functions and real parametric uncertainty, IEEE Trans. Automat. Contr., vol. 41, pp. 436442, Mar. 1996.
[3] P. Gahinet, A. Nemirovskii, A. J. Laub, and M. Chilali, LMI Control
Toolbox. Natick, MA: The MathWorks, Inc., 1994.
[4] I. M. Horowitz, Synthesis Feedback Systems. New York: Academic,
1963.
[5] H. Kwakernaak, A polynomial approach to H optimization of control
systems, in NATO Workshop on Modeling, Robustness and Sensitivity
Reduction in Control Systems, Groningen, Dec. 1986.
[6] J. Lam and Y. Y. Cao, Simultaneous linear-quadratic optimal control
design via static output feedback, Int. J. Robust Nonlinear Contr., vol.
9, pp. 551558, 1999.
[7] J. W. Lee, J. H. Lee, and W. H. Kwon, Robust tracking control for uncertain linear systems without matching conditions, in Proc. 33rd IEEE
Conf. Decision Contr., Lake Buena Vista, FL, 1994, pp. 41814186.
[8] F. Liao, J. L. Wang, and G.H. Yang, LMI-based reliable robust preview
tracking control against actuator faults, in Proc. Amer. Contr. Conf.,
Arlington, VA, 2001, pp. 10471052.
[9] T. Mori and H. Kokame, A parameter-dependent Lyapunov function
for a polytope of matrices, IEEE Trans. Automat. Contr., vol. 45, pp.
15161519, Aug. 2000.
[10] L. T. Nguyen and M. E. Ogburn et al., Simulator study of stall/poststall characteristics of a fighter airplane with relaxed longitudinal static
stability, NASA Tech. Paper 1538, 1979.
[11] T. Pancake, M. Corless, and M. Brockman, Analysis and control of
polytopic uncertain/nonlinear systems in the presence of bounded disturbance inputs, in Proc. Amer. Contr. Conf., Chicago, IL, June 2000,
pp. 159163.
[12] U. Shaked, Improved LMI representations for the analysis and the design of continuous-time systems with polytopic type uncertainty, IEEE
Trans. Automat. Contr., vol. 46, pp. 652656, Apr. 2001.

[13] U. Shaked and C. E. de Souza, Continuous-time tracking problems in

an H setting: A game theory approach, IEEE Trans. Automat. Contr.,
vol. 40, pp. 841852, May 1995.
[14] K. Takaba, Robust preview tracking control for polytopic uncertain systems, in Proc. 37th IEEE Conf. Decision Contr., Tampa, FL, 1998, pp.
17651770.
[15] R. J. Veillette, Reliable linear-quadratic state-feedback control, Automatica, vol. 31, no. 1, pp. 137143, 1995.
[16] R. J. Veillette, J. V. Medanic, and W. R. Perkins, Design of reliable
control systems, IEEE Trans. Automat. Contr., vol. 37, pp. 290304,
Mar. 1992.
[17] Y. Wang, S. S. Hu, and Y. Xiong, Some basic problems about self-repairing flight control, in Proc. 3rd World Congr. Intell. Contr. Automat.,
Hefei, P.R. China, June 28July 2 2000.
[18] S. F. Wu, M. J. Grimble, and W. Wei, QFT based robust/fault tolerant
flight control design for a remote pilotless vehicle, in Proc. 1999 IEEE
Int. Conf. Contr. Applicat., Kohala Coast Island, HI, Aug. 2227, 1999.
[19] I. Yaesh and U. Shaked, Two degree of freedom H optimization of
multivariable feedback systems, IEEE Trans. Automat. Contr., vol. 36,
pp. 12721276, 1991.
[20] G. H. Yang, J. L. Wang, and K.-Y. Lou, Reliable state feedback control
synthesis for uncertain linear systems, in Proc. 6th Int. Conf. Contr.,
Automat., Robot. Vision (ICARCV2000), Singapore, Dec. 68, 2000.
Session WA2.3.
[21] G. H. Yang, J. L. Wang, and Y. C. Soh, Reliable H controller design
for linear systems, Automatica, vol. 37, no. 5, pp. 717725, 2001.
[22] G. H. Yang, J. S. Yee, and J. L. Wang, Reliable mixed H =H statefeedback controller design for discrete-time linear systems, in Proc.
IASTED Conf. Contr. Applicat., Cancun, Mexico, 2000, pp. 177181.
[23] J. S. Yee, G. H. Yang, and J. L. Wang, Reliable output-feedback
controller design for discrete-time linear systems: An iterative LMI
approach, in Proc. Amer. Contr. Conf., Arlington, VA, 2001, pp.
10351040.
[24] P. Zhang et al., On modeling of aircraft with independent control surface movements, Research Report, Beijing University of Aeronautics
and Astronautics, 1998.
[25] W. Q. Zhang, Control of a high-performance fighter aircraft by using
H theory and neural-fuzzy concepts, Masters thesis, Nanyang
Technol. Univ., Singapore, 1997.
[26] Q. Zhao and J. Jiang, Reliable control system design against feedback
failures with applications to aircraft control, in Proc. 1996 IEEE Int.
Conf. on Control Applications, Dearborn, MI, Sept. 1996, pp. 994999.
[27]
, Reliable tracking control system design against actuator failures, in Proc. 1997 SICE, Tokushima, July 1997, pp. 10191024.

Fang Liao received the B.E. degree in automatic control and navigation in 1992
and the M.E. degree in flight control, guidance, and simulation in 1995, both
from Beijing University of Aeronautics and Astronautics (BUAA). Currently,
she is pursuing the Ph.D. degree in the School of Electrical and Electronic Engineering at Nanyang Technological University.
From 1995 to 1999, she was an Engineer with the Research Institute of Unmanned Air Vehicles at BUAA. Her research interest includes robust and reliable control and tracking as well as genetic algorithms and their applications to
aircraft flight control system design.

Jian Liang Wang (M91SM98) received the B.E. degree in electrical engineering from Beijing Institute of Technology, China, in 1982. He received the
M.S.E. and Ph.D. degrees in electrical engineering from The Johns Hopkins
University, Baltimore, MD, in 1985 and 1988, respectively.
From 1988 to 1990, he was a Lecturer with the Department of Automatic
Control at Beijing University of Aeronautics and Astronautics, China. Since
1990, he has been with the School of Electrical and Electronic Engineering at
Nanyang Technological University, Singapore, where he is currently an Associate Professor. His current research interest includes robust and reliable control
and filtering, nonlinear control, two-time-scale systems, and their application to
flight control system design.
Dr. Wang was the Technical Program Chairman for International Conference
on Control, Automation, Robotics and Vision, Singapore, December 2000.

LIAO et al.: RELIABLE ROBUST FLIGHT TRACKING CONTROL

Guang-Hong Yang was born in Jilin, China, on September 2, 1963. He received the B.S. and M.S. degrees in mathematics from Northeast University of
Technology, China in 1983 and 1986, respectively, and the Ph.D. degree in control engineering from Northeastern University (formerly Northeast University
of Technology) in 1994.
From 1986 to 1995, he was with the Northeastern University. From 1996
to July 2001, he was a Postdoctoral/Research Fellow with the School of Electric and Electronic Engineering, Nanyang Technological University, Singapore.
From August 2001, he joint the Tamasek Laboratories at National University of
Singapore as a Research Scientist. His research interests include decentralized
control, symmetric systems, fault-tolerant control, nonlinear control, and nonfragile controller design with applications to aircraft flight control.

89