A FUZZY LOGIC CONTROLLER

FOR
AIRCRAFT FLIGHT
CONTROL
TA9 - 9~45 Lawrence I. Larkin
Proceedings of 23rd Conference
on Decision and Control
Las Vegas, NV, December 1984

General
Electric
Company
Bridgeport,
CT 06601
(29EE)
ABSTRACT haveunder-orover-compensatedfor t h e error
andhence m u s t make a d d i t i o n a la d j u s t m e n t s --
Thi.s paperdes c r i b e s a model o af na u t o p i l o t e a c ho n eb e i n gp r o g r e s s i v e l yf i n e r -- t o p l a c e
c o n t r o l i be ar s e d founzazlyg o r i t h m s . The t h ea i r c r a f t back
on
course. The problem is
c o n t r o l l emr a n e u v e rasani r c r a f tr o m
level c o m p l i c a t e d by t h e f a c t t h a t t h e r e is a large
f l i g h ti n t o a f i n a l - a p p r o a c hf l i g h p t ath and d ec g
oorufepelbi entgwvteaheren
ious
m a i n t a i n s t h e a i r c r a fat l o n gt h eg l i d ep a t h aircraftcontrols.
u n t i l j u s t before touchdown. To e v a l u a t et h e
performance and e f f e c t i v e n e s s of t h e model, It nh si st u d y , a model an
of autopilot
t h ea i r c r a f tr e s p o n s et oc o n t r o l l e ra c t i o n s is c o n t r o l bl ears e d fo
un za zl gyo r i t h m s is
s i m u l a t e du s i n gf l i g h ts i m u l a t i o nt e c h n i q u e s . developed. The c o n t r om l laenr e u vt he er s
The e f f e c t o f v a r y i n g p a r a m e t e r s and d i f f e r e n t aircraft fillnfeirtvgoehm
lt a
d e f u z z i f i c a tsitor an t e g i e s on controller f i n a l - a p p r o a c hf l i g h pt a t h a n dm a i n t a i n tsh e
performance i s a n a l y z e d . a i r c r a f t on t h e ILS c o u r s eu n t i l j u s t before
touchdown, a t which time t h ep i l o tt a k e so v e r
INTRODUCTION control. To e v a l u atphteeer f o r m a n c e and
e f f e c t i v e n e s s of t hm e o d e la,i r c r a fftl i g h t
Iani r c r a f lt i g ht htfei n aa lp p r o a c h and under t h e fcutohznzeotyfr-ol lo g i c
l a n d i na gcr er i t i c a l and r e q u icr oe n s t a n t c o n t r o l l e r i s s i m u l a t e d by computermodel.
m o n i t o r i n ga n dc o n t r o l . To reachtherunway,
t h e p i l o t m u s t " a i m "t h ef l i g hpt a t ho tfh e TEE SYSTEH
a i r c r a f t towardthe runway and m u s t follow a
s t e a d yc o u r s ed i r e c t l yi n t ot h el a n d i n ga r e a . The system has two major components: the
A direction-findingInstrumentLandingSystem c o n t r o l l e r and t h e f l i g h t s i m u l a t o r ( a i r c r a f t )
( I L S )p r o v i d e s a n a v i g a t i o n a lr a d i os i g n a lt o t h ai nt t e r a cwt i teha coht h e r and
form a
g u i da ep p r o a c h i na gi r c r attfhote runway. c l o s e d - l o ocpo n t r os yl s t e m . To a c h i e vt eh e
A v a i l a b l ei n most a i r p o r t s ,t h e ILS t r a n s m i t s d e s i r e dg l i d e - s l o p et r a j e c t o r y ,t h ec o n t r o l l e r
two s e p a r aot er t h o g o nraald i o beams
whose issues f l i g h t commands ( e . gi .n c r e a ssep e e d ,
i n t e r s e c t i o nf o r m s a s i g n a lt h a tt h ea i r c r a f t d e c r e a s ep i t c ha n g l e )t ot h es i m u l a t o rw h i c h ,
f o l tl hoa ew
lls way to the airport, i nt u r n c, o m p u t e s new f l i g h tc o n d i t i o n s( e . g .
T y p i c a l layin,r c r ai fntt e r c e ptthse ILS a i r s p e e dr,a t e of d e s c e n t ) , The c o n t r o l l e r
s i g n aal b o uet i g h t miles from t h e runway. A uses t h i si n f o r m a t i o nt og e n e r a t e new f l i g h t
c o ci k
np s tirt u m e n t , known t h ea s ILS commands t h a t will maneuver t h ea i r c r a f ti n t o
G l i d e - P a t Ihn d i c a t o ri,n d i c a t e s t h e position thedesiredtrajectory.
o ft h ea i r c r a f tr e l a t i v et ot h e ILS s i g n a l and
is used by t h e p i l o t t o m a i n t a i n t h e a i r c r a f t The c o n t r o l l ehratsh r eien p uvta r i a b l e s :
a l o n gt h e ILS t r a j e c t o r y . T h i s straighp t ath r a t eo fa i r c r a f td e s c e n t( f p m ) ,d e v i a t i o n from
o fd e s c e n t o w a r dt h e runway i s known a s t h e d e s isrpe (edme dpadhne)dv, i a tfiroonm
" g lpiadteh . " Any d e v i a t ifort n
ho sem g l i d e - s l otpr ae j e c t o( rdye g r e e s ) . two
The
p r e s c r i b e dg l i d ep a t h will c a u s et h ea i r c r a f t o u t p u(tc o n t r o lv) a r i a b l easr ee:n g i nsep e e d
teoi t h e r miss t h e runway ol ar nadt an c h a(nreap
glnemdv)a ntcoghrlaen g e
e x c e s s i v es p e e d( w h i c h may c a u s et h ea i r c r a f t ( d e g r e e s ) . The c o n t r o l l edr e c i s i o lno g i c is
t oo v e r r u nt h er u n w a y ) .T h r o u g h o u tt h ee n t i r e basedon a c o m p l e t e s e t of 1 2 5 d e c i s i o nr u l e s
a p p r o a c ht h ep i l o t m u s t maintain a s t r a i g h t t h a tc o v e re v e r yp o s s i b l ec o m b i n a t i o no ft h e
c o u raste a r e l a t i v ecloyn s t arnaottfe v a r i a b l e s and s t i p u l a t e s t h e n a t u r e and e x t e n t
d e s c e n t and s p e eg Idne, n e r at lhc, eo u r s e o fc o n t r o lc h a n g e s .
c o r r e c t i o rnesq u i r easd rm e all. The p i l o t
d e t e r m i n e s t h e e x t e nottfh de e v i a t i o fnr o m The d e c i s ri o un
les were g e n e r aitne d
t h eg l i d ep a t h from i n s t r u m e nrte a d i n g s and l i n g u i s t i cr a t h e trh a nm a t h e m a t i c atle r m s by
makes ct ho er r e c t i o n s by adjusting the a s keiaxnnpge r i e n cpei d
lot what flight
a i r c r a f tc o n t r o l s( t h r o t t l e ,e l e v a t o r s ,f l a p s , c o n t raocl t i o n s would
he t a gk iev tehne
etc.). s t i p u l a t efdl i g hcto n d i t i o n s . All q u e s t i o n s
had t h e same f o r m a t :
The c o u r sceo r r e c t i o nasraec h i e v e d by a
p r o c esou
sfsc c e s s iavpep r o x i m a t i oAnf. t e r " I ft h ec u r r e n tr a t e ofdescent is
d e t e r m i n i n gf r o mi n s t r u m e n rt e a d i n g sw h a t h e around x fpm, t h ec u r r e n at i r s p e e d
d e v i a t i o nf r o mc o u r s e i s , t h ep i l o t makes a is around y mph above/below the
d e c i s i o n on which c o n t r o l ( s )t oa d j u s t , makes d e s i r e da i r s p e e da n dt h eg l i d es l o p e
a mental estimate of how much ofanadjustment is a b o u t z degrees above/below the
i s r e q u i r e da,ntdh e n makes t haed j u s t m e n t . d e s i r e gd l i d sel o p e , by a b o u t how
The p i l o tt h e nl o o k sa g a i n a t t h ei n s t r u m e n t s much would you c h a n gt heeen g i n e
t od e t e r m i n ei ft h ea d j u s t m e n ht a sc o r r e c t e d s p e e da n dt h ee l e v a t o ra n g l e ? "
t h ec o u r s ed e v i a t i o n( e r r o r ) . The p i l o t may
CH2093-3/84/0000-0894$ 1 . O O 0 1984 IEEE 894
 Choices were limited to: increase flight. The fluctuations produced by the COA
substantially, increase slightly, no change, controller, on the other hand, are
decrease slightly and decrease substantially. acceptable. The performance of both
Each rule was represented logically as controllers is quite good. The COA
follows: controller, however, yields superior results.
The COA controller is also desirable because
it yieldsthe smaller value of control
IF rate of descent=X, airspeed=Y, effort,
and glide slope=Z
THEN rpm change=A, elevator angle change=B Test Case 2 evaluates the performance of the
COA controller based on the quantity of
where A,B,X,Y and Z are fuzzy sets with a information. The behavior of the controller
Universe of Discourse quantized to 21 levels. is examined as the number of decision rules is
A proportional-control strategy is employed. decreased from 125 to 62, 31 and15. The
Decision-table outputs are computed using results for airspeed, rate of climb and
max-min composition,
Defuzzification is glide-slope angle are shown in Figs. 2a, b
accomplished by using either a Center-of-Area and c, respectively. It is interesting to
(COA) or Mean-of-Maxima (MOM) algorithm, The note that theperformance of the 62-rule
sampling interval is five seconds. controller is comparableto that of the
125-rule system. Although the steady-state
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION error of the 62-rule controller is larger, it
has a smoother response. The performance of
Three test cases were analyzed. All three the 31-rule controller is marginal yet
cases simulated controller operation of the stable. The 15-rule controller is unstable --
aircraft down to an altitude of about 250 ft., it lacks sufficient information.
at which altitude
the pilot takes over
control. The control
objectives were an Test Case 3 examines the performance of the
airspeed of 75 mph, a rate of climb of -350 COA controller based on the quality of
fpm and a glide-slope angle of 3.0 degrees. information. Three different degrees of
fuzziness were used for all fuzzy variables:
Test Case 1 examines controller performance high fuzziness ( l / - 4 + 1/-3 + 1/-2 + 1/-1 +
using COA and MOM defuzzification with 125 1/0 + 1/1 + 1/2 + 1/3 + 1/41 , medium fuzziness
decision rules. The airspeed response of both (.08/-4 + .32/-3 + .68/-2 + .92/-1 + 1/0 +
theCOA and MOM controllers (Fig. la) is .92/1 + .68/2 + .32/3 + .08/4) and low
overdamped. WiththeCOAcontroller,the fuzziness (.5/-1 + 1/0 t .5/1). Results are
airspeed converges to within six percent of shown in Figs. 3a, b and c.
the objective value. In actual flight, this
speed error is inconsequential (steady-state REFERENCES
errorssuch as this can be reduced by
incorporating an integral term in the control 1. Cauter, G. , INTERNATIONAL
AIRPORT.
algorithm). The rate-of-climb response of London: Octopus Books, 1980.
both controllers (Fig. lb) is also overdamped
but has a negligible steady-state error. The 2. Elgerd, O.I., CONTROL SYSTEMS THEORY.
underdamped glide-slope angle response of the New York: McGraw-Hill, 1967.
controllers (Fig, IC), with an overshoot of
approximately percent,
3 far exceeds the 3. Franklin, G.F. and Powell, J.D. DIGITAL
accuracy required under actual flight CONTROL OF DYNAMIC SYSTEMS. Reading:
conditions. A glide-slope angle error of 0.1 Addison-Wesley, 1980.
degree is insignificant. The settling times
are approximately half the duration of the 4. King, P.J. & Mandami, E.H., The
entire landing approach. Although seemingly Application of Fuzzy Control Systems to
long,
these settling times
are
quite Industrial Control. AUTOMATICA, Vol.
acceptable in actual conditions. The aircraft 13, 1977 I pp. 235-242.
pitch angle (Fig. ld) initially increases and
eventually stabilizes at about 7.6 degrees 5. Tong, R.M., A Control Engineering Review
(COA) and 6.8 degrees (MOM). The aircraft of Fuzzy Systems. AUTOMATICA, Vol. 13,
descent (Fig. le) is very uniform with the 1977, pp. 559-569.
COA ontroller and reasonably uniform with the
MOM C:mtroller, The runway approach (Fig. 6. Tong, R.M., Fuzzy Control Systems: A
If) in bothcases is extremely smooth. In Retrospective. Proceedings ACC-83, San
bot? zases, a slight oscillation occurs in the Francisco, July 1983.
lab: ' wenty secondsbeforethe controller
disenc?:,es. This perturbation appears to be 7. von Mises, R., THEORY
OF FLIGHT. New
due t z ::.,e fact that an equivalent change in York: Dover Publications, 1945.
altltude has an increasingly greater effect on
the glide-slope angle error as the distance to
the runway decreases (e.9. at a distance of 7
mi, a 30 ft drop in altitude changesthe
glide-slope angle by ,054 deg; at 1 mi, the
same decrease causes a change .
of .32 deg)
This situation will lead to overcompensation
and, hence, some oscillation. The output of
the COA controller is characterized by many
incremental adjustments while
the MOM
controller makes fewer adjustments of larger
magnitude. Thesefluctuations generated by
the MOM controller are too severe for actual
895
 116

IGH

160

152
I
I44

I36

- I28
\
P
Y

f 120
e
= 112

104

96
A
88

80

72
40 00 120 I60 200 240 280 320
i13E ,SI

a. Airspeed
d. Aircraft Pita' Angle

-450

-500

-550
I J
-600

-650
:: 2

40 00 120 I60 200 240 200 320

0
TIME Is1 4a 00 200
120 160 240 280 320
i l M E Is1

b. Rate of Climb
e. Altitude

10.4

9c

ue
80

12

64

5s

(8

(0

32 t

2.4

IE

8 t
i

40 80 120 160 200 240 280 320 40 00 120 160 200 240 200 320
1IME 1-1 I I U E Is1

c. Glide-Slope Angle f. Distance to Runway

Fig. 1. COA defuzzification (solid) v s . MOM defuzzification (dashed)

896
 105 1 \\
P
w
Y

TIME 1st

a .A l r s p e e d a . Airspeed
C IOC

-53 50

-100 0

-150 -50

-200 100

t
g -250 -150

p
- -300 ,200

-350 -25C

L
: -4co .30c

-4%- -350

-50:: -4OC

-550 -450

-500

-550
0

b. R a t e of C l i r S ,

x08

506

yl

281
40 8C 200
12C IC0 32240C 280
I!*€ 31
TIME :.I

c . G l i d e - S l o p eA n g l e c . G l l d e - S l o p e Anqle

F i g . 2 . 1 2 5 r u l e s (solid) v s . 6 2 r u l e s F i g . 3 . H i g hf u z z i n e s s( s o l i c ) vs.
( d a s h e d ) v s . 3: r u l e s( d o t t e d ) rne2ium fuzziness ( c a s h e d ) vs.
vs. 1 5 r u l e s( c h a i n e d ) l o w f u z z i n e s s( d o t t e d )

a97