Evaluating the effects of lateral control surfaces failure on the generic transport model: a case study

Abstract

Extensive research in recent years has focused on improving the current loss-of-control prevention systems and developing new strategies for safe path planning of the impaired aircraft. Success in developing such systems requires a comprehensive perception of the influence of damage on the aircraft’s dynamic behaviour and performance, and the effect of various failure degrees on the flight envelope confinement and the remaining safe maneuvers. This paper comprehensively describes the effects of lateral control surface failure on the NASA Generic Transport Model (GTM) flight envelope, defined by a set of attainable steady-state maneuvers herein referred to as trim points. The study utilises a large database of high-fidelity maneuvering flight envelopes computed for the unimpaired case and wide ranges of the aileron and rudder failure cases at different flight conditions. Flight envelope boundary is rigorously investigated, and the key parameters confining the trim points at different boundary sections are identified. Trend analyses of the impaired flight envelopes and the corresponding limiting factors demonstrate the effect of various failure degrees on the remaining feasible trim points. Results can be employed in emergency path planning with potential uses in the development of aircraft resilient control and upset recovery systems.

Gliding Footprint Calculation Method for Aircraft with Thrust Failure Based on Six-Degree-of-Freedom Flight Envelope and Back-Propagation Artificial Neural Network

“…where h is the flight altitude; ψ is the yaw angle; and the asterisk superscript denotes the desired trimmed conditions. Among the parameters ) [27][28][29][30]. The reason is that the flight-path angle γ is used to trim the aircraft due to the loss of engine thrust control input and is no longer independent from h * , V * , and…”

“…So, the trim problem has a unique solution if the solution exists [37]. Moreover, the inequality constraints of the trim control parameters are (21) This study employs the Sequential Quadratic Programming (SQP) technique [27][28][29] to solve the nonlinear optimization problem. A condition is considered to be a feasible trim condition if the cost function J < 10 −7 .…”

“…The ranges of control surface deflections are given in [43], satisfying |δ e | ≤ 15 • , |δ a | ≤ 18 • , and |δ r | ≤ 30 • . The upper limit of α is defined as the maximum α in the linear segment of the lift coefficient to avoid aerodynamic stalls [25,28], being approximately 12 • , as shown in Figure 6. The lower limit of α is mainly used to trim the SBJ and set it at −12 • , which is much smaller than the trimmed solutions.…”

“…). to avoid aerodynamic stalls [25,28], being approximately 12°, as shown in Figure 6. The lower limit of α is mainly used to trim the SBJ and set it at −12°, which is much smaller than the trimmed solutions.…”

“…By setting proper ranges and step sizes for the characterization parameters, the flight envelope is computed and compiled into a three-dimensional matrix. Similar studies have also been conducted on powered aircraft [27][28][29][30]. Altitude, velocity, turn rate, and flight-path angle are the characterization parameters, and the flight envelope is compiled into a four-dimensional matrix.…”