Available online at www.sciencedirect.

com
Procedia
Engineering
Procedia Engineering 00 (2011)17000–000
Procedia Engineering (2011) 197 – 211
www.elsevier.com/locate/procedia

The 2nd International Symposium on Aircraft Airworthiness (ISAA 2011)

A Safety Strategy for High-speed UAV Landing Taxiing

Control
LU Yanhui, ZHANG Shuguang *, GONG Lei
School of Transportation Science and Engineering, Beihang University ,Beijing , P.R. China , 100191

Abstract

In terms of safety for landing taxiing control of high-speed unmanned air vechicles (UAVs), key safety-critical
factors were first. A generic taxiing control logic was put forward, incorporating the concerned factors. For further
verification, a nonlinear mathematic model was deduced with high accuracy for ground motion simulation,
incorporating the characteristics of undercarriages, brake, nose wheel steering and runway condition. Simulations
show that the control logic works well and provides sAttention:ufficient safety assurance in even extreme situations
experienced.

© 2011 Published by Elsevier Ltd. Selection and/or peer-review under responsibility of Airworthiness
Technologies Research Center NLAA, and Beijing Key Laboratory on Safety of Integrated Aircraft and
Propulsion Systems, China Open access under CC BY-NC-ND license.

Keywords:high-speed UAV, taxiing, safety, control strategy, verification;

1. Introduction

The recovery stage is a key phase for UAV during the whole flight, and effective control of landing
recovery phase is one of the key contents of flight control for UAV. Recovery methods generally include
wheeled slippery stop recovery, hindered nets recovery, air salvage recovery and parachute recycling.
Comparing with other recovery methods, wheeled landing is more challenging for flight control. The
parameter uncertainties of configuration, aerodynamics and runway condition require more considerations
for high-speed UAV[1].

* Corresponding author. Tel.: +86 10 82315237; fax: +86 10 82315237.

E-mail address: gnahz@buaa.edu.cn

1877-7058 © 2011 Published by Elsevier Ltd. Open access under CC BY-NC-ND license.
doi:10.1016/j.proeng.2011.10.022
2198 LU Yanhui
LU Yanhui et al. /etProcedia
al. / Procedia Engineering
Engineering 17 (2011)
00 (2011) 197 – 211
000–000

It’s difficult to model the landing gear system accurately, and generally need ground taxiing test
calibration.Ground taxiing test is only conducted for low-speed parts because of restriction of nose wheel shimmy
and draught device, while the high-speed parameters are assessed through parameter identification and fitting of low-
speed parts. Considering the phase transition for air control and taxiing control, all kinds of signal and actuator faults,
high speed taxiing security are required to design meticulously[1-5].
The flight control security involves system and hardware configuration and control scheme and
onboard software realization, etc. The control scheme is the core, because it is constructed on
consideration of the nominal model and modeling error range.The control scheme also needs to endure
that the hardware system must be frequency fault, and meet the actual use of the environment.
Taking control strategy for key, according to the study of high-speed unmanned spacecraft taxiing
control goal, comprehensive analysis of the influence factors of taxi safety, forming non-straight taxiing
control strategy, and through the simulation verified.

2. Objectives of taxiing control

The purpose of ground taxiing control is to maintain the taxiing path of UAV along the runway centre
line within allowable lateral deviation limits under possible adverse conditions, such as system failure,
wind interference, and adverse runway condition. Based on the taxiing requirements of UAV
airworthiness regulations, we propose the design objectives of taxiing control as following[1,8]:
• Lateral deviation of UAV from runway centre line should be less than specific limits, for example, 25
meters;
• Control operation should be moderate to prevent side tumbling;
• Control actuation should be harmonized to assure smooth transient dynamics in transformation.
The above objectives should be achieved under the following adverse situations of system failures,
environment effects, and uncertainty:
• Crosswind up to 10m/s;
• Wet or slippery runway;
• Failure conditions of relative airborne systems;
• Loss of brake on one wheel;
• Model uncertainty.
Among the above situations, system failures could be determined through failure frequency and hazard
severity analysis of system safety assessment. The following failures are considered in this paper:
• Failures of Weight on Wheel (WOW) sensors, including: failure of WOW signal of single main wheel,
failure of WOW signal of both main wheels, failure of WOW signal of all three wheels, unidentified
failure of WOW signal of all three wheels, and incorrect WOW signal in air flight;
• Failures of control actuations, including: failure of Nose Wheel Steering (NWS) control, failure of
rudder, and failure of brake control;
• Tire burst or lock.

3. Landing taxiing control

3.1. Strategy

High-speed UAVs always have nose wheel steering, differentiate brake and rudder for taxiing lateral
deviation control. To achieve the objectives of taxiing control, the controller should use all three effectors
above. Ailerons should be engaged to maintain wing level, i.e. preventing side tumbling. In addition, air
 LU Yanhui et al.
al.// Procedia
Procedia Engineering
Engineering 00
17 (2011)
(2011) 000–000
197 – 211 3199

speed brake, wheel brake and all possible aerodynamic surfaces should be utilized together to provide
decelerating abilities as much as possible for shorter landing taxiing distance.
Both nose wheel steering and differentiate brake could generate effective lateral deviation correction
control in low-speed phases. In high-speed taxiing, however, the large lift of UAV decreases wheel
pressure on ground, which reduce the static friction of tires significantly. The resulting decrease of nose
wheel swerving ability and differentiate brake efficiency might not satisfy the taxiing correction
requirements. Meanwhile, the aerodynamic efficiency of rudder deflection increases as taxiing speed gets
higher. Therefore, rudder should be used as the primary approach for taxiing lateral deviation correction
in high-speed phase of ground taxiing.
To fulfill the objectives proposed above, the following logics proposed based on the flying
characteristics of this high-speed UAV are shown at Figure 1:
• After touchdown of single main wheel, the pitch angle is maintained at +4 degrees. Wings level is
achieved by aileron deflection. Rudder is used for lateral deviation correction in directional channel.
This strategy assures that the UAV could maintain a large pitch angle to avoid the nose wheel touching
down before main wheels, even at situation when the WOW sensor provides incorrect signal in air
flight;
• After all three wheels touch down, airspeed brake is deflected. Wheel brake is then engaged when
ground speed is lower than critical brake speed. Differentiate brake is activated only in emergency
situation when blending signal of lateral deviation and ground speed directional angle is larger than
boundary limit. The advantage of this approach is using brake system primarily for deceleration, thus
eliminate the reduction of braking efficiency when differentiate wheel brake is used frequently for
directional control. Meanwhile, the nose wheel steering and rudder defection could provide sufficient
control power for lateral deviation control;
• When indicated airspeed is lower than VC4, fuselage flap is deflected downwards to provide
additional pitch-down moment for larger pressure of nose wheel to enhance efficiency of nose wheel
steering swerve. Meanwhile, elevator is settled at designated upward deflection angle for larger
negative lift to increase pressure of main wheels on ground;
• When ground speed is lower than Vt1, nose wheel steering correction logic is engaged, while rudder
deflection correction is still activated. Differentiate brake is used only in emergency, like the control
pattern in high speed;
• Control logic of actuator failure is shown in Figure 1 and 2. In high-speed taxiing, if rudder fails,
differentiate brake will be used as primary control for lateral deviation correction, while nose wheel
steering is utilized for emergency (similar to utilization of differentiate brake in normal mode). If
wheel brake fails, then, nose wheel steering is used for emergency . If both rudder and wheel brake fail,
nose wheel steering is used for lateral deviation correction. In low-speed taxiing, if nose wheel steering
fails, then, differentiate brake is activated for lateral deviation correction.
Among Figure 2 and Figure 3, Vtlim is the critical braking velocity. DrF is rudder failure flag, with 1
for failure and 0 for normal. NWSF is failure flag of nose wheel steering. BRKLF and BRKRF are failure
flags of left and right wheel brakes. VC is indicated airspeed, and Vt means ground speed. Yrw is offset
lateral deviation distance of UAV from runway centre line in runway coordinate. PSD is ground speed
directional angle of UAV in runway coordinate.

3.2. Logic of critical phases switch flags

Control strategy of the above section indicates that there are two critical transformation flags in
landing taxiing procedure: touchdown flag of single main wheel and touchdown flag of all three wheels.
Touchdown of single main wheel indicates the transformation of flight phase from flare to taxiing. While
4200 LU Yanhui
LU Yanhui et al. /etProcedia
al. / Procedia Engineering
Engineering 17 (2011)
00 (2011) 197 – 211
000–000

flag of all three wheels touching down is activating condition of decelerating devices, such as wheel brake
and airspeed brake. Therefore, the determination of single-main-wheel touchdown flag and three-wheel
touchdown flag are critical conditions effecting flight safety.
The judge logic for single main wheel touchdown is shown in Figure 4. It can be seen that the single
main wheel touchdown flag is judged through WOW signal of main wheel, height about runway and
indicated airspeed. This logic assures that the judge of single main wheel touchdown is activated when
landing gear is released down and the flight phase is approach, eliminating the possibility of transforming
into taxiing phase when UAV is flying in other phases. If WOW sensors of both main wheels fail, the
flight control law will use height above runway and indicated airspeed to determine if the aircraft has
touched down, thus assuring that the flight logic could still transform into landing taxiing phase. Among
the above logic, the indicated airspeed VC1 and VC2 should be determined by simulation with safety
constraints. If indicated airspeed fails, equivalent indicated airspeed calculated from ground speed will be
used for logic determination.
The judge logic for all three wheel touchdown is shown in Figure 5. This logic also uses indicated
airspeed, WOW sensor failure and WOW signal for determination, which is similar to logic of single
wheel touchdown determination. Failures of single WOW signal, two WOW signals, and all three WOW
signals are considered in this logic. When WOW signal of a wheel is annuciated failed, the flight control
law will set WOW signal of this wheel to 0 automatically. This criterion assures the internal consistency
of designed control logic. The indicated airspeed threshold values VC2, VC3 and VC4 will be determined
through simulation.
Among the above logic, LGH is landing gear release flag. A/L is approach/landing flight phase flag.
WLF is WOW signal failure flag of left main wheel. WRF is WOW signal failure flag of right main
wheel. WNF is WOW signal failure flag of nose wheel. WL is WOW flag of left main wheel. WR is
WOW flag of right main wheel. WN is WOW flag of nose wheel. H is height above runway.

3.3. Structure of controller

Figure 6 shows the structure of ground taxiing controller. In the controller, the Autopilot Command
Generator module calculates yaw rate command and roll rate command from lateral position data
provided by navigation system. The Inner Controller module tracks control command from Autopilot
Command Generator, meanwhile generating aerodynamic surface deflection command to stabilize UAV
for good flying qualities. The Control Allocation module transforms equivalent aerodynamic surface
commands into real actuator commands and accomplishes control reconfiguration for actuator failure.
Initialization of actuator command is utilized for transient suppression in mode transformation.
Controller structure for lateral deviation control is shown in Figure 7. The flight control law calculates
yaw rate command from current lateral lateral deviation distance and ground velocity directional angle.
The yaw rate command enters inner loop of directional control and further generates control command for
nose wheel steering, rudder deflection and differentiate wheel brake. The purpose of incorporating ground
velocity directional angle and yaw rate is to increase damp for a better dynamic response of lateral
deviation correction.
In the lateral deviation controller, the control allocation of brake is followed:
If BRK dif > 0 , then
BRKL = BRK sym ,=
BRKR BRK sym − BRK dif .

else
BRKL = BRK sym .
BRK sym + BRK dif , BRKR =
 LU Yanhui et al.
al.// Procedia
Procedia Engineering
Engineering 00
17 (2011)
(2011) 000–000
197 – 211 5201

where, BRK sym is the largest brake command allowable under current ground velocity. BRK dif is
differentiate brake command. NWScmd is nose wheel steering command. δ r ⋅cmd is rudder command.

4. Simulation

4.1. Motion modeling

Simulation model of UAV ground taxiing is schematized in Figure 8. The Gravity module is used to
calculate UAV gravity. Environment and Flight Control Parameters module calculates atmosphere data,
wind data, and aerodynamic data like angle of attack, angle of sideslip, indicated airspeed etc. The
Aerodynamic Module calculates aerodynamic forces and moments based on control surface deflection
and air data. The Ground Motion Model calculates reaction force of runway on UAV. The Mass
Propulsion module is used to calculate mass and inertial moment data. The Sensor Model is used to
simulate dynamics of flight control sensors. The Navigation Parameters Module calculates navigation and
control parameters like descent angle and ground velocity directional angle based on flight parameters.
This module also provides some system failure signals.
The simulation model of reaction force between runway and UAV is shown in Figure 9[1,2,6,7,8]. Input
of this model includes velocity of UAV center of mass, height, attitude angle, angle rate, brake command
and nose wheel steering command. Output of this model is reaction force and moment of ground on UAV
in body frame. The Runway module incorporates runway condition data like dry or wet runway surface.
The Tire module calculates reaction force and moment on UAV in body frame from longitudinal and
lateral friction coefficients based on strut compression , runway data and nose wheel steering command.

4.2. Simulation results

Flight simulation of demo UAV with the unpowered configuration is performed for validation of
proposed control strategy of ground taxiing. Tail protection angle of this UAV is 11 degrees. Only final
phrase of approach and landing and ground taxiing are simulated for validation. The unpowered UAV is
initially dropped at 60 meters above runway, with an lateral deviation of 30 meters from runway
centerline. The descent angle command is set -1.3 degrees for approaching. After touchdown, when
vehicle motion is stable, the controller transforms into ground taxiing mode.
Simulation results of nominal configuration are shown in Figure 10. It can be seen that, the transients
between modes are moderate. The lateral controller adjusts bank angle for lateral deviation correction in
flight phase, while rudder is used to eliminate angle of sideslip for coordinate turn. The longitudinal
controller maintains descent angle at approximate -1.3 degrees, which leads to a descent rate of 2m/s
when touching down. Angle of attack and pitch angle are both appropriate when touching down. After
single wheel touches down, the controller transforms into ground taxiing mode. Rudder is used for lateral
deviation correction in high speed condition. In low speed condition, nose wheel steering is adopted for
lateral deviation correction. This control strategy corrects the lateral lateral deviation well, with the lateral
deviation controlled around 0 meters.
In Figure 10, BRKL is the left wheel brake command. BRKR is the right wheel brake command.
WOW1M is the single main wheel touchdown flag. WOW2M is the three wheels touchdown flag.
SWNWS is nose wheel steering activation flag. BRKDIF is differentiate brake activation flag.
Simulation results of WOW sensor failure conditions are shown in Figure 11. Since there are too many
combinations of WOW sensor failure, this paper chooses the following failure conditions for typical
failure of WOW sensor failure:
6202 LU Yanhui
LU Yanhui et al. /etProcedia
al. / Procedia Engineering
Engineering 17 (2011)
00 (2011) 197 – 211
000–000

A. WOW sensor failure of single main wheel;

B. WOW sensor failures of both main wheels;
C. WOW sensor failures of all three wheels;
D. WOW sensor of a main wheel is set REAL in the air, and is not identified;
E. WOW sensors of all three wheels are set REAL in the air, and are not identified;
F. WOW sensors of all three wheels are set REAL in the air, and are not identified; left crosswind of
10 m/s.
It can be seen from the time history response that, the UAV lands safely under all six failure conditions
above. In cases B and C, time delay of touchdown judgment causes the vehicle still use in-flight
correction mode after touching down, which leads to increase of lateral deviation initially. Then, the
controller transforms into ground taxiing mode by indicated airspeed and WOW signal, and starts lateral
deviation correction. Cases D, E and F are most severe ones. In these three cases, the vehicle is judged
touchdown in air flight phase. The controller manipulates pitch angle for longitudinal control, adjusts
aileron to maintain wings level, and uses rudder for lateral deviation correction. The results indicate that,
when UAV touches down, the descent rate is 2 m/s, pitch angle is 4.5 degrees, and angle of attack is 6.3
degrees. All parameters concerned fulfills the proposed requirement.
Simulation results of aerodynamic surface actuator failure conditions are shown in Figure 12. This
paper chooses the following typical failure conditions for validation:
A. Rudder failure;
B. Nose wheel steering failure;
C. Left wheel brake failure, loss of hydraulic pressure;
D. Combination failures of rudder and nose wheel steering;
E. Combination failures of rudder and single wheel brake;
F. Left tire bursts;
G. Left wheel locks and tire bursts.
Left crosswind of 10m/s are all engaged in above cases. Rudder failure only occurs after touchdown,
and settles to neutral position automatically after failure. To simulate burst of left wheel tire, longitudinal
friction coefficient of left wheel is reduced 30 percent for normal magnitude, and left gear column is
shorted accordingly. To simulate lock of left wheel, the friction coefficient of left tire is increased to twice
of maximum nominal magnitude.
The simulation results indicate that, the UAV could accomplish landing safely in all seven failure
conditions above. In the most severe case G, the maximum lateral deviation reaches -10 meters,
meanwhile, there exists bank angle in taxiing due to tire burst.
Simulation results of adverse runway condition[8] and wind are shown in Figure 13. The following
three situations are examined:
A. Wet runway, with left crosswind of 10m/s;
B. Tailwind, wind speed 10m/s;
C. Headwind, wind speed 10m/s;
The time history of dynamic response indicates that, angle of attack, pitch angle and descent rate are
all insensitive to constant wind due to relatively high touching down speed. The UAV could accomplish
landing safely in all three adverse conditions above.

5. Conclusions

The key factors affecting security are identified for high-speed unmanned aerial vehicle landing
taxiing. The control method and logic for taxiing are proposed. The nonlinear mathematic model of UAV
taxiing is deduced, and a novel integrated taxiing control simulation model with high accuracy for ground
 LU
LUYanhui et et
Yanhui al.al./
/ Procedia
ProcediaEngineering
Engineering1700(2011)
(2011)197 – 211
000–000 203
7

motion model is presented. The control targets and key security factors are validated. The results indicate
that the control method and logic are valid, it’s safe even in extreme situation.

References

[1] WangYong, WangYingxun. Lateral Deviation Correction Control for UAV Taxiing[J]. ACTA AERONAUTICA ET
ASTRONAUTICA SINICA, 2008, 29 Sup : S143-S149.(in Chinese)
[2] Kapseong Ro. A DESCRIPTIVE MODELING AND SIMULATION OF AIRCRAFT-RUNWAY DYNAMICS[R]. AIAA
2003-1895, 2003.
[3] Keita Goto, Yoshikazu Miyazawa, Masakazu Sagisaka. DEVELOPMENT OF GROUND TAXIING CONTROL LAW
FOR AUTOMATIC LANDING FIGHT EXPERIMENT (ALFLEX)[R]. AIAA 2001-4242,2001.
[4] Ronald W. Davidson. Flight Control Design and Test of the Joint Unmanned Combat Air System (J-UCAS) X-45A[R].
AIAA 2004-6557, 2004.
[5] Chen Chen, Zhou Zhou. Process and mathematic model study of a UAV during taxiing and takeoff [J]. Science Technology
and Engineering, 2007, 7(13): 3198-3201. (in Chinese)
[6] Xiao Yelun. Model of aircraft [M]. Beijing: Aviation Industry Press, 1987. (in Chinese)
[7] He Chenglong, Chen Xin, Li Chuntao. Modeling and Control of UAV for Autonomic Take-off Through Ground Taxiing[J].
ACTA AERONAUTICA ET ASTRONAUTICA SINICA, 2008, 29 Sup : S215-S219
[8] Total editorial committee for the Handbook of Aircraft Design. Handbook of Aircraft Design 14: Take off and landing
system design [M].Beijing: Aviation Industry Press, 2002. (in Chinese)

Appendix A. Control logic and simulation result

Control flow Operation

Longitudinal mode:
Single main pitch angle hold (command 4°) Three wheel
wheel touch Lateral mode: touch down
down roll angle hold (command 0°） &&
Directional mode: Vt<Vtlim
rudder lateral deviation control
YES
Open up airbrake;
If (Vt<Vtlim) NWSF
Three wheel { Braking; DrF==1 && Yrw>0
touch down Differential brake assist Vt<Vt1 NO
lateral deviation control; }
YES
Fix positive flap for negative
pitch moment; 0.3Yrw 0.3Yrw+
VC<VC4
Fix negative elevator for YES +PSD>3 PSD<-3
negative lift
YES YES
Vt<Vt1 Open up nose wheel steering

stop Start Differential brake

Fig.1. Landing taxiing control logic Fig. 2. Differential brake start logic
8204 LU Yanhui
LU Yanhui et al. /etProcedia
al. / Procedia Engineering
Engineering 17 (2011)
00 (2011) 197 – 211
000–000

Three wheel
touch down
&&
Vt<Vtlim

YES

NWSF!=1

YES

(DrF==1)&& DrF==1||
(BRKLF==1|| BRKLF==1|| Vt<Vt1
BRKRF==1) BRKRF==1

YES YES YES

Yrw>0
NO
YES

0.3Yrw 0.3Yrw+
+PSD>3 PSD<-3

YES YES

Start NWS steering

Fig. 3. NWS steering start logic

LGH==1
&&
fmphase==A/L

YES

WLF==0
&& NO WLF==1
NO
WRF==0
YES

YES WRF==1
NO
YES

H<15m
H<15m H<15m
&&
&& && WR==1 WL==1
(WL==1||
VC<VC2 VC<VC1
WR==1)
YES YES YES YES YES

Single main wheel touch down

Fig. 4. Single main wheel touch down flag judgement

 LU LU Yanhui
Yanhui et al.
et al./ / Procedia
Procedia Engineering
Engineering 17 (2011)
00 (2011) 197 – 211
000–000 9 205

Single main wheel

touch down

YES

YES (WLF+WRF
+WNF)>2

NO

(WLF+WR
YES
F+WNF)>1

NO

(WLF+WR
F+WNF)>0 YES

NO

((WL+WR+WN>1) ((WL+WR+WN>0)
&& && (WL+WR+WN==1)
VC<VC4 (VC<VC2) VC<VC3) &&
|| || (VC<VC3)
(WL+WR+WN==3) (WL+WR+WN==2)
YES YES YES YES

Three wheel touch down

Fig. 5. Three wheel touch down flag judgement

Navigation Parameters Compute

Yrw , psd , p, q , r ,
θ ,φ α, Nz Failure T ypes

rcmd Equivalent
Actuator NWS cmd
Control
Autopilot pcmd Commands Yrw PSD
r Knws
Inner Commands Control _ _
command
generator N z ⋅cmd
controller allocation Yrw ⋅com _ rcmd δ r⋅cmd
Krw Kpsd Kdr
+
BRK dif
Flight Control Kdif

Fig. 6. Ground taxiing controller Fig. 7. Structure of lateral deviation combined control
206
10 LU Yanhui
LU Yanhui et al. /etProcedia
al. / Procedia Engineering
Engineering 17 (2011)
00 (2011) 197 – 211
000–000

Environment
and Flight
Parameters

Gravity

Aerodynamics
Six degrees of
Model Sensor
freedom
Navigation Flight Model
Equations of
Parameters Control Motion
Ground
Compute
Motion
Model

Mass
Propulsion

Fig. 8. Simulation structure of ground taxiing

Position,Euler,
Six-degrees
Angles Rate, Runway Height
-of-
Velocity,etc. Direction,etc
freedom Strut Runway
Equations
of Motion strut forces,
compressed length

Force and Moment

Runway Conditions
T ire

NWS angle comand

Flight Brake comand
control

Fig. 9. Structure of ground motion model

 LU Yanhui
LU Yanhui et al./etProcedia
al. / Procedia Engineering
Engineering 17 (2011)
00 (2011) 197 – 211
000–000 11 207

70 8
Yrw
α
60 6 β
H
50
θ
Hdot 4 φ
40 γ
(m or m/s)

2
psd

( o)
30
0
20
-2
10

0 -4

-10 -6
0 10 20 30 40 0 10 20 30 40
time(s) time(s)
（a） （b）

4 2
WOW1M
2
WOW3M
0 1.5 BRKDIF
δe SWNWS
-2
δa
-4 1
δr
-6 BRKL
BRKR
-8 0.5
Nwsangle
-10

-12 0
0 10 20 30 40 0 10 20 30 40
time(s) time(s)
(c) (d)

Fig. 10. Simulation result of normal taxiing

208
12 LU Yanhui
LU Yanhui et al. /etProcedia
al. / Procedia Engineering
Engineering 17 (2011)
00 (2011) 197 – 211
000–000

40 1.5
A
1
B
30
C 0.5
D
20 E 0
Yrw ( m)

psd ( o)
-0.5
10 A
-1
B
-1.5 C
0 D
-2 E
F
-10 -2.5
0 20 40 60 0 20 40 60
time(s) time(s)
（a） （b）

15 6
A A
B B
10 4
C C
D D
5 E 2 E
Hdot (m/s)

F F
θ( )
o

0 0

-5 -2

-10 -4
0 20 40 60 0 20 40 60
time(s) time(s)
（c） （d）
 LU Yanhui
LU Yanhui et al./etProcedia
al. / Procedia Engineering
Engineering 17 (2011)
00 (2011) 197 – 211
000–000 13 209

4 8
A
2 6 B
C
0 4 D
E
F

α( )
φ( )

-2 2

o
o

A
B
-4 0
C
D
-6 E -2
F
-8 -4
0 20 40 60 0 20 40 60
time(s) time(s)
（e） （f）

Fig. 11. Simulation result for wheel load failures

40 6
A
B 4
30
C
D 2

20 E
0
Yrw ( m)

F
φ( )
o

A
G
-2 B
10
C
-4 D
0 E
-6
F
G
-10 -8
0 20 40 60 0 20 40 60
time(s) time(s)

Fig. 12. Simulation result for actuator failures

210
14 LU Yanhui
LU Yanhui et al. /etProcedia
al. / Procedia Engineering
Engineering 17 (2011)
00 (2011) 197 – 211
000–000

40 2
A A
B B
30 1
C C

20 0
Yrw ( m)

psd ( o)
10 -1

0 -2

-10 -3
0 20 40 0 20 40
time(s) time(s)
（a） （b）

15 1
A
0
B
10
C -1

-2 A
5
Hdot (m/s)

B
φ( )

-3
o

C
0 -4

-5
-5
-6

-10 -7
0 20 40 0 20 40
time(s) time(s)
（c） （d）
 LU Yanhui
LU Yanhui et al./etProcedia
al. / Procedia Engineering
Engineering 17 (2011)
00 (2011) 197 – 211
000–000 15 211

6 8
A A
B 6 B
4
C C
4
2

α( )
θ( )

o
o

0
0

-2
-2

-4 -4
0 20 40 0 20 40
time(s) time(s)
（e） （f）

Fig. 13. Simulation result for runway conditions and constant winds