Aerospace Science and Technology 94 (2019) 105379

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Aerospace Science and Technology

www.elsevier.com/locate/aescte

H ∞ -based model following method in autolanding systems

K. Tamkaya a,∗ , L. Ucun a , I. Ustoglu b
a
Department of Control and Automation Engineering, Yildiz Technical University, Istanbul, Turkey
b
Department of Control and Automation Engineering, Istanbul Technical University, Istanbul, Turkey

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: Probably the most important part during a flight is the landing phase because most of the accidents occur
Received 23 February 2019 in this phase. Automatic landing systems (ALS) take over the control during this phase to avoid potential
Received in revised form 24 June 2019 pilot-induced risks. However, some external disturbances such as windshear can jeopardize the safe
Accepted 2 September 2019
landing. In this paper, the flare part of ALS is handled in a different way. A combination of some useful
Available online 4 September 2019
design methods is brought together to improve the performance of the conventional ALS even under
Keywords: severe weather conditions. Model following method is combined with the H ∞ synthesis method to find
Aircraft landing out the optimal solution for a given cost function. Resultant H ∞ optimal control problem is solved using
H ∞ synthesis Linear Matrix Inequalities (LMIs) and then a dynamic controller is constructed. On the other hand, the
Model following overall system is formed into P-K configuration, thus the system can be reconfigured easily when there
Flare exists a change in the system such as addition or removal of disturbance, noise and so on. We achieved
Windshear significant performance on the system without any disturbance. In addition to that, the robustness takes
Linear Matrix Inequality (LMI)
an important role for the flight systems and needs to be handled correctly. Therefore, two kinds of
windshear are taken care of and their effects minimized in a way that the tracking performance remains
unaffected. Thus, highly considerable results are obtained using the proposed method even under severe
weather conditions.
 2019 Elsevier Masson SAS. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction
Most of the aircraft accidents occur during the landing maneu-
ver due to the pilotage errors, technical issues or severe weather
conditions. To increase safety and reliability of a flight, researchers
have developed Automatic Landing System (ALS) which was firstly
developed for commercial aircraft by BAE in 1965 [1]. It has be-
come popular since then and is used in most of the aircraft today.
ALS not only provides comfortable, smooth and safe landing but it
also avoids tire and landing gear wear. It is suitable for use in rainy
and foggy weather conditions but deactivated in the strong winds,
thus the pilot handles the landing procedure manually.
The aircraft must get through five different phases during the
landing maneuver [2]: alignment, glide-slope, flare, touchdown and
taxiing. In this paper, we focus mainly on the flare phase which is
the most challenging one and slightly on the glide-slope phase.
Automatic Landing System works in harmony with Instrumental
Landing Systems (ILS) which is located in the airport. The aircraft
is guided by ILS to prepare for landing. ILS consists of two beam
*Corresponding author.
E-mail addresses: f6715010@std.yildiz.edu.tr (K. Tamkaya), lucun@yildiz.edu.tr
(L. Ucun), ustoglui@itu.edu.tr (I. Ustoglu).
transmitters. One of them is for glide-slope and the other one is for
localizer. Airplane aligns and localizes itself to a suitable altitude
level and approach angle owing to these transmitters and starts
decreasing its altitude [3].
Classical control methods are generally preferred in Automatic
Landing Systems because of their simplicity and reliability. How-
ever, these methods mostly do not satisfy the desired robustness
and performance requirements. In recent years, difficulties in the
implementation of modern control systems have been reduced in-
versely to the significant developments in the hardware of digi-
tal flight computers [4]. Therefore, the studies related to modern
control systems in flight systems made this area mature. Many
methodologies from fuzzy-logic [5] to vision-based navigation con-
trol algorithms [6] have been applied by researchers to achieve
desired, smoother and safe landing. In [7], Stevens and Lewis
used the model following method to track the reference model
as described in equation (2) for the flare phase of the landing
system. LQR is used as a controller type. To increase the adap-
tation of the flight controller to different environments, a fuzzy
neural network structure was used as a controller in [8]. On the
other hand, Edward and Chang [5] worked on unsteady aerody-
namic effects in landing operation to show the capability of the
fuzzy-logic dynamic inversion technique and obtained satisfactory
results. Another approach to automatic landing systems is sliding

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ast.2019.105379
1270-9638/ 2019 Elsevier Masson SAS. All rights reserved.
2 K. Tamkaya et al. / Aerospace Science and Technology 94 (2019) 105379

mode control (SLC) technique. Venkateswara and Tiauw [9] derived

a control law using Lyapunov stability criteria by forcing the slid-
ing function to reach the solution. SLC was also used by Juang and
Yu [10], but SLC parameters were adjusted by different methods
such as genetic algorithm and particle swarm optimization. To in-
crease the adaptivity and robustness of the conventional automatic
landing systems, recurrent neural networks (RNN) with different
genetic algorithms used by researchers in [11]. Another interest-
ing approach to ALS is to use cameras as navigation sensors to
detect and track some certain points in an image. Researchers in
[2] developed a nonlinear image-based servo (IBSV) controller to Fig. 1. Flare Path.
guarantee the horizontal alignment and smooth touchdown in the
presence of wind disturbances. Singh and Padhi [12] handled the 2. Mathematical models of the system
landing of the nonlinear dynamic model of the unmanned aerial
vehicles (UAV). They used a dynamic inversion technique where 2.1. Reference model
the overall closed-loop system was linearized with the aid of the
feedback. Mixed H 2 / H ∞ control technique is another approach The flare phase approximately starts at the altitude of 50 ft.
used for landing control. Shue and Agarwal [13] adapted this tech- The descent rate of the aircraft is decreased to about 2 ft/s or
nique to control the landing maneuver of an aircraft. They used even less, the pitching angle is adjusted for landing and the ve-
H 2 method to obtain an optimal control gain for the trajectory op- locity is decreased. A trajectory is predefined for the flare phase
timization, and H ∞ to minimize the effect of disturbance inputs for smooth and comfortable touching of the tires to the runway
on the performance output. Mixed H 2 / H ∞ was also used together [10]. This landing trajectory is defined as a reference model which
with Dynamic Inversion technique by Lungu in [14]. Dynamic In- is usually an exponential decay function given as follows [7]:
version here was used to calculate the landing trajectory. Sensor 1
errors and vertical wind gust as external disturbance are handled ḣ = − h + r , h(0) = h0 (1)
in this paper. However, the general system is not formed into the
τ
general plant P-K, and windshear effect as a disturbance is not con- where, r is the reference model input and h is the altitude. If r = 0,
sidered as well. then the solution becomes,
During a flight, the aircraft must cope with many natural dis-
h(t ) = h0 e (−t /τ ) (2)
turbances and uncertainties such as wind gust, windshear, noise at
low altitude due to the density of air, sensor noise, parametric un- The initial condition h0 is the last altitude level of the glide-
certainties and so on. Most of the aforementioned papers do not slope phase. γ R is the reference trajectory that is provided by a
include analyses on the robustness and performance requirements transmitter to guide the aircraft for the glide-slope, τ is the time
in the presence of the disturbances and uncertainties. Even a few constant for the flare phase and can be found through D which is
of them take account of some of the disturbances and uncertain- shown in Fig. 1 [7].
ties in their analysis, it is hard and time-consuming to reconfigure
the system for new conditions and calculate the controller again. 2.2. The aircraft model
Our objective in this paper is to demonstrate an effective and
The fixed-wing aircraft have 6-DOF equation of motion model.
safe landing procedure even under adverse weather conditions
while proposing a method which can easily reconfigure the overall This model can be decoupled into “Longitudinal” and “Lateral” mo-
system for variable inputs such as disturbance, noise, and uncer- tion because they slightly affect each other. In this paper, only the
tainties. In this method, a reference model is defined for the flare longitudinal motion will be considered since the flare phase of a
phase and it is intended that the aircraft follows this model as flight is mostly related to the longitudinal part. Equations of the
closely as possible. Model following method is preferred for track- longitudinal motion are given as follows:
ing the state/s of the reference model. The entire system is con- 1 
verted into the generalized plant P matrix. Then the problem is V̇ = T cos(α + i ) − D − mg sin γa
m
transformed into a H ∞ optimal control problem by partitioning 1  
the P matrix appropriately. For optimal performance, a dynamic γ̇a = T sin(α + i ) + L − mg cos γa
mV (3)
controller K is constructed by solving Linear Matrix Inequalities
M
(LMIs) while minimizing the γ . q̇ =
P-K configuration is feasible for rearranging the system with- I yy
out too much effort. In this paper, two kinds of windshear effects θ̇ = q
representing the moderate and severe conditions are considered as
where V is the aircraft true airspeed; m is the aircraft mass; γa
disturbances. The entire system is reconfigured according to the
is the flight path angle; q is the pitch rate; θ is the pitch angle;
disturbances and the dynamic controllers for each case are calcu-
α is the angle of attack; i is the thrust inclination angle; M is the
lated easily. Simulation results demonstrate the effectiveness of the
pitching moment; I y y is the principal moment of inertia in pitch
proposed method.
axis; T , D and L are the thrust, drag and lift, respectively. Note that
This paper is organized as follows. Section 2 presents all the
mathematical models which are the reference path, aircraft, and the longitudinal motion dynamics in equation (3) is expressed in
windshear. Section 3 introduces the methodologies and controller polar format for convenience. The aerodynamic forces in equation
structure used when solving the problem. Section 4 discusses the (3) are described as follows:
cases where the possible configurations are taken into considera- 1 1
tion to conduct the simulations. Section 5 presents the simulation L= ρ V 2 SC L D= ρ V 2 SC D
2 2
results for all the cases discussed in Section 4 and finally the re- (4)
1
sults are summarized with the conclusions in Section 6. M= ρ V 2 S c̄C M T = ( A 0 + V A 1 )δt
2
 K. Tamkaya et al. / Aerospace Science and Technology 94 (2019) 105379 3

Table 1
Medium-Size Transport Aircraft Parameters.
Parameter Value Unit Description
W 162,000 lb Mass
S 2,170 ft2 Wing Reference Area
b 140 ft Wing Span
l 90 ft Length
c̄ 17.5 ft Mean Aerodynamic Chord
ρ 0.00232 slug/ft3 Air Density
I yy 41 × 106 slug ft2 Pitch Axis Inertia
g 32.17 ft/s2 Gravitational Acceleration
CDO 0.08
CLO 1
C Lα 4.87 1/rad Lift-Curve Slope
CMO −0.2 Fig. 2. Vortex-Ring Model.
C Mα −1.26 1/rad Pitch Stiffness Derivative
C M δe −0.916 1/rad Elevator Control Power
C Mq −16 1/rad Pitch Damping Derivative
to one. δe represents the elevator deflection angle changing be-
C M α̇ −6 1/rad Acceleration Derivative for Moment tween the limits of −25◦ to 25◦ . We will also need an acceleration
C L α̇ 0 1/rad Acceleration Derivative for Lift equation at z-axis to interpret the situation when the tire of the
A0 60 × 106 lb Static Thrust from Two Engines
aircraft touches the ground. Body acceleration of the aircraft cen-
A1 −38 lb/(ft/s) Thrust for each ft/s
K 0.042 Constant ter of gravity (cg) along the z-axis,

a z = V γ̇a = V (q − α̇ ) (7)
In (4), total aerodynamic coefficients can be described as fol-
lows:
2.3. Windshear model
C L = C L O + C Lα α
Windshear is a rapid variation in wind speed and/or direction
CD = CDO + K CL2 (5)
over a short period of time or distance. If the diameter of the
C M = C M O + C M α α + C M δe δe + C Mq q windshear is less than 4 km, it is called microburst, otherwise
macroburst. Microbursts may last a few minutes but their effects
In this paper, a medium-size transport aircraft and correspond-
such as extreme speed and variation can be very dangerous for the
ing parameters and coefficients [7] as given in Table 1 are used for aircraft.
the analysis and simulations. A piece of code is written to trim and Researchers have developed many different models to simulate
linearize the nonlinear equations in (3) according the described the microburst. One approach is the vortex-ring model which is
values in Table 1. These equations are trimmed for the conditions firstly presented by Woodfield and Wood [15]. The vortex-ring in-
of V T = 250 ft/s, h = 750 ft and γa = −2.5◦ , where V T is the trim duces the velocity wind and two symmetrical of them are used
velocity and h is the aircraft altitude. Then, they are linearized by to represent the microburst to satisfy boundary conditions. One is
using the trim values obtained. Linearized state equations can be above the ground and called the primary vortex-ring. The other
written as follows [7]: one is below the ground with the same strength and called imagi-
⎡ ⎤ ⎡ ⎤⎡ ⎤ ⎡ ⎤ nary vortex-ring. The center of the vortex-ring is called the vortex
V̇ V filament. Vortex-ring model is illustrated in Fig. 2. Multiple pairs
⎢ α̇ ⎥ ⎢ ⎥ ⎢ α ⎥ ⎢ ⎥ of vortex-rings are preferred for accuracy in practice. Simplified
⎢ ⎥ ⎢ ⎥⎢ ⎥ ⎢ ⎥
⎢ θ̇ ⎥ ⎢ ⎥ ⎢ θ ⎥ ⎢ ⎥ δt vortex-ring downburst model [16] is used for the simulations in
⎢ ⎥ = ⎢A⎥ ⎢ ⎥ + ⎢B⎥
⎢ q̇ ⎥ ⎢ ⎥ ⎢ q ⎥ ⎢ ⎥ δe (6)
⎢ ⎥ ⎣ ⎦⎣ ⎦ ⎣ ⎦ this paper. R , r C and Ŵ represent the radius of the vortex-ring,
ḣ
⎣ ⎦ h the radius of the finite core and vortex-ring model circulation,
ẋ x respectively. X , Y and H are the coordinates of the primary ring
⎡ ⎤ center.
−38.5 18984 −32139 0 .1325 0
We can take Y = 0 because the lateral movement is ignored
⎢ −1.02 −632.53 5.61 1000 .00376 0 ⎥
⎢ 0 0 0 1000 0 0 ⎥ in our study. If x and h horizontal and vertical point of interest
−3 ⎢
A = 10 ⎥ respectively, then the induced velocities are computed as follows
⎢ .0785 −759.05 .793 −518.3 −.00031 0 ⎥
⎣ ⎦ [17],
−43.6 −249760 249760 0 0 0
999 −10905 10905 0 0 0
⎡ ⎤ x1 = x − X − R x2 = x − X + R
10.1 0
⎢ 15.445 × 10−5 0 ⎥ hp = h − H hm = h + H
⎢ ⎥
⎢
B =⎢
0 0 ⎥
⎥ r1p = x21 + h2p r2p = x22 + h2p (8)
⎢ 0.024656 −0.01077 ⎥
⎢ ⎥ r1m = x21 2
+ hm r2m = x22 2
+ hm
⎣ 0 0⎦
−(r0 /rc2 )
0 0 r0 = min{r1p , r2p } ζ =1−e
In equation (3), there were four states, however, the states can r xp = (x − X )2 + h2p + R 2
be expanded to include α – AoA, h – altitude, x – horizontal dis-
tance as shown in (6). r xm = 2
(x − X )2 + hm + R2
3/4
α̇ = θ̇ − γ̇a ḣ = V sin γa ẋ = V cos γa
rhp = (x − X )2 /4 + h2p + R 2
We will handle two control inputs which are δt and δe . δt rep- 3/4
resents the throttle position changing between the limits of zero rhm = (x − X )2 /4 + hm
2
+ R2
4 K. Tamkaya et al. / Aerospace Science and Technology 94 (2019) 105379

Table 2
Downburst Parameters.
Parameter Moderate Severe Unit
Ŵ1 200,000 400,000 ft2 /s
R1 5,500 5,000 ft
H1 2,000 2000 ft
R c1 500 500 ft
Ŵ2 120,000 280,000 ft2 /s
R2 4,000 3,500 ft
H2 2,500 2000 ft
R c2 500 300 ft

If r0 < ε where ε is a small number representing a point close

to the ring filament, then
Fig. 3. Explicit Model Following Structure.
Wx = 0 Wh = 0
Model following method is widely used in aircraft control sys-
Otherwise,
tems. Ideal models having desired performance are obtained with
    the help of flying qualities specifications and then the aircraft is
1.182Ŵζ R hp hp R hm hm
Wx = − − − expected to act like this ideal model [7]. By adjusting the struc-
2π r xp r2p r1p r xm r2m r1m
ture of the control system and the gains properly, it is possible to
     (9)
1.576Ŵζ R x1 x2 R x1 x2 achieve the response as close as possible to the ideal model.
Wh = /
3 4
− /
3 4
− /
3 4
− /
3 4 Model following method is divided into two groups according
2π rhp r1p r2p rhm r1m r2m
to the application type. One of them is “Implicit” and the other
W x and W h are horizontal and vertical induced velocities, re- one is “Explicit” model following method. We focus our attention
spectively. Two set of downburst parameters shown in Table 2 [17] on the latter one, i.e., explicit model following, since this method
are used to calculate W x and W h for further simulations. The first allows for continuous error correction and is used if the distur-
set represents a moderate downburst and the other one represents bances are effective on the system [18]. General structure of the
a severe downburst. explicit model following method is shown in Fig. 3.
It is assumed that the aircraft encounters the downburst at Controller input u p ;
h = 800 ft. As we have all the parameters needed, the moderate
and the severe downburst can be illustrated as in Fig. 10a and u p = ( K p + K m )x p + K m e + K r u m (13)
Fig. 10b. Thus, the following statements can be remarked [18]:
The windshear effect shown in the mathematical representation
above has to be taken into consideration to approximate the flight • Closed-loop plant dynamics can be determined by K p + K m .
simulation to the real flight. Thus it has to be embedded into the • Plant state or states can follow the model state or states using
aircraft dynamics. The equations of motion can be written as only K p (K m = 0) or only K m (K p = 0) or any combination of
K p and K m (but sum of K p + K m must remain same).
ẋ = V cos γa + W x • Feedforward controller K r improves the tracking performance
ḣ = V sin γa + W h by providing rapid response to the changes in the input of the
ideal model.
1
T cos(α + i ) − D − mg sin γa − m Ẇ x cos γa
V̇ = m (10) 3.2. H ∞ dynamic output feedback controller design

−m Ẇ h sinγa
1  H ∞ method is used to design stabilizing controllers having de-
T sin(α + i ) + L − mg cos γa + m Ẇ x sin γa sired performance in control theory. A control problem is trans-
γ̇a = mV  formed into a mathematical optimization problem thanks to this
−m Ẇ h cos γa method. The most important advantage of H ∞ synthesis over clas-
sical methods is that it might be used on multi-variable system
3. Methodologies for the system configuration and controller problems. And, one should also keep in mind that the controller
design obtained is only optimal according to the cost function prede-
fined.
3.1. Model following method H ∞ problem was firstly described by G. Zames in 1981 [19].
Actually, we may accept Small Gain Theory which is also intro-
The purpose of the model following method is to force the state duced by G. Zames in the 1960s as the origin of H ∞ method
or states of a real system to behave like the state or states of a ref- [20,21]. In 1989, Doyle, Glover, Khargonekar and Francis showed
erence system by finding a control input for the real system [18]. that a controller as the solution of H ∞ problem exists if and only if
The reference system has a known mathematical model. More pre- unique stabilizing solutions to two Algebraic Riccati Equations are
cisely, the model following method is to force x p states of a linear positive definite and spectral radius of their product is less than
system given by γ 2 [22]. In 1994, P. Gahinet and P. Apkarian solved LMI based H ∞
problem by using Algebraic Riccati Inequalities instead of Algebraic
ẋ p = A p x p + B p u p , x p ∈ Rn ve u p ∈ Rm (11) Riccati Equations [23]. In 2006, new algorithms that minimize H ∞
norm by adding structural constraints to controller dynamics were
to behave like xm states of a reference model given by introduced by P. Apkarian and D. Noll [24].
The purpose here is to minimize H ∞ norm of the transfer func-
ẋm = A m xm + B m um , xm ∈ Rn ve um ∈ Rm (12) tion from w to z. More precisely, it is aimed to obtain K controller
 K. Tamkaya et al. / Aerospace Science and Technology 94 (2019) 105379 5

generating a control signal u that resists the effect of w on z ac-

cording to the information coming from y [25].
The system equation belongs to P is given as follows:

ẋ(t ) = Ax(t ) + B 1 w (t ) + B 2 u (t )
z(t ) = C 1 x(t ) + D 11 w (t ) + D 12 u (t ) (14)
Fig. 4. Generalized P-K Form.
y (t ) = C 2 x(t ) + D 21 w (t ) + D 22 u (t )

If we take D 22 = 0, then the system dynamics becomes, Now a controller can be constructed using,

D K = ( I + D K 2 D 22 )−1 D K 2
⎡ ⎤
A B1 B2
P (s) = ⎣ C 1 D 11 D 12 ⎦ (15) B K = B K 2 ( I − D 22 D K )
C 2 D 21 0 (25)
C K = ( I − D K D 22 )C K 2
The dynamic controller is represented as follows:
A K = A K 2 − B K ( I − D 22 D K )−1 D 22 C K
ẋk (t ) = A k xk (t ) + B k y (t ) where
(16)
u (t ) = C k xk (t ) + D k y (t )  −1   −1
AK2 BK2 X2 X1 B 2 An Bn X 1 AY 1 0 Y 2T 0
CK2 DK2
= 0 I Cn Dn
− 0 0 C2 Y1 I
Ak Bk
K = K (s) = (17) (26)
Ck Dk

If u (t ) in (16) is substituted into (14) and y (t ) in (14) is sub- and where X 2 and Y 2 are any matrices which satisfy
stituted into (16), then the closed loop system can be written as
follows: X2 Y 2 = I − X1 Y 1
⎡
ẋ(t )
⎤ ⎡
A + B 2 Dk C2 B 2 Ck B 1 + B 2 D k D 21
⎤⎡
x(t )
⎤ To construct a dynamic controller K as shown in (25), LMIs in
⎣ ẋk (t ) ⎦ = ⎣ Bk C2 Ak B k D 21 ⎦ ⎣ xk (t ) ⎦ (23) and (24) have to be solved. In this paper, LMIs are solved by
z(t ) C 1 + D 12 D k C 2 D12C k D 11 + D 12 D k D 21 w (t ) (18) using YALMIP and SEDUMI which is a semidefinite programming
   solver. γ is initialized to a value and LMIs are solved. γ is iterated
S(P,K)
downward until an optimal solution is found. Once this iteration
A cl B cl process is done, we have everything to construct the controller as
S(P , K ) = (19)
C cl D cl described in (25).

Performance criterion which is desired to be minimized can be 4. Obtaining the generalized plant P
taken as H ∞ norm of the closed loop transfer function. Thus the
cost function takes the following form [26,27], All the models and methods used in this paper have been de-
fined so far. Simulations are conducted for two different cases us-
J ∞ ( K ) =  S ( P , K )∞ (20) ing these models and methods. In the first case, a simple design
without any exogenous inputs other than a reference is handled.
Direct minimization of J ∞ ( K ) cost function is a very hard prob-
The simulation results are compared with the design having the
lem. Instead, it is easier to investigate if there is a stabilizing con-
same parameters but utilizing a different method, described in [7].
troller that provides the H ∞ norm constraints,
In the second case, the windshear effect is taken into consideration
as a disturbance in order to demonstrate the disturbance rejection
J ∞(K ) < γ , γ >0 (21)
property and the ease of adaptation of this design methodology for
These constraints can be used to check if the inequalities in new additional inputs and outputs.
(21) are assured for different γ values. Case 1:
The purpose here is to find the controller K that solves the H ∞ The basic configuration of the system is shown in Fig. 5a. In
optimal control problem for a minimum γ using Linear Matrix In- the system, “Ideal Model” and “Aircraft Model” are defined in sec-
tion 2.1 and 2.2, respectively. There is only reference input r as an
equalities (LMIs) without losing convexity. In other words, to solve
exogenous input. The main purpose here is to ensure that the alti-
H ∞ optimal control problem, we solve [28]
tude of the aircraft follows the ideal model closely. The exogenous
outputs, z1 and z2 , are used to achieve this constraint. In this case,
min γ (22)
γ , X 1 , Y 1 , A n , B n ,C n , D n z1 is the altitude error signal to be minimized between the air-
craft altitude and the desired altitude and z2 is used to decrease
such that the amplitude of the control signal to an achievable level in terms
X1 I of the elevator deflection angle. For instance, the elevator deflec-
≥0 (23) tion angle has to be kept within its limits which are ±25◦ in this
I Y1
⎡  ⎤ case and W u is the weighting function used for this purpose. The
AY 1 + Y 1 A T +
T T ∗T ∗T ∗T ⎥ best W u can be found after a couple of simulation experiments
B 2 CT n + C n B 2
⎢   and selected as a constant number ( W u = 6) for this simulation
⎢ ⎥
⎢ A + An + X1 A + A T X1 + ⎥
∗T ∗T ⎥ scenario. M (s) and L (s) are dynamic controllers. Elevator-Actuator
B n C 2 + C 2T B nT
⎢
⎢ [ B 2 D n C 2 ]T ⎥ is modeled as a first-order transfer function with a time constant
[ B 1 + B 2 D n D 21 ]T [ X B 1 + B n D 21 ]T ∗T
⎢ −γ I 
⎥
⎢  ⎥ of 0.1 s.
⎣ D 11 + ⎦
The generalized plant P is obtained from Fig. 5a. If M (s) and
C 1 Y 1 + D 12 C n C 1 + D 12 D n C 2
D 12 D n D 21
−γ I
L (s) are kept outside as in Fig. 4, the generalized plant P structure
<0 (24) becomes as in Fig. 5b.
6 K. Tamkaya et al. / Aerospace Science and Technology 94 (2019) 105379

Fig. 5. Case 1 – Block Diagrams.

Fig. 7. Case 2 – Block Diagrams.

Fig. 6. Generalized P-K Form for Case 1.

After the generalized P matrix is obtained using simulation

tools, the controller K is constructed by solving the LMIs as de-
scribed in section 3.2. The dynamic controller matrices obtained
are given as follows: Fig. 8. P-K Configuration with Windshear.

⎡ −0.02 0.00 0.00 0.00 −0.01 −0.10 ⎤

−21. 56 0. 22 0. 14 −0 . 92 −4 . 71 −86.74 ⎥ u M n (s) u L 1n (s)
8
⎢
⎢ 34.63 −0.35 −0.22 1.49 7.57 139.36 ⎥ M (s) = = L 1 (s) = =
A K = 10 × ⎢ 11.47 −0.12 −0.07 r D (s) z1 D (s)
⎣ 0.49 2.51 46.14 ⎥
⎦ (27)
0.05 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.21 u L 2n (s) u L 3n (s)
−0.12 0.00 0.00 −0.01 −0.03 −0.48 L 2 (s) = = L 3 (s) = =
θ D (s) q D (s)
⎡ ⎤
0.00 0.35 0.00 0.00 M n (s) = − s − 10.38s + 1.925 × 104 s4 + 2.493 × 105 s3
6 5
⎢ −0.06 307.91 −0.19 −0.03 ⎥
⎢
⎢ 0.10 −494.68 0.31
⎥
0.05 ⎥ + 6.61 × 105 s2 + 9.334 × 105 s + 1.736 × 105
B K = 106 × ⎢ ⎥
⎢ 0.03 −163.82 0.10 0.02 ⎥
⎣ 0.00 −0.75 0.00 0.00
⎦ L 1n (s) = − 4.624 × 10−5 s6 − 9.93 × 104 s5 − 1.166 × 106 s4
0.00 1.69 0.00 0.00 − 2.55 × 106 s3 − 8.744 × 106 s2 − 6.051 × 106 s
C K = [ 0.0003 −0.0002 −0.0001 0.0014 −0.0002 0.0645 ]
  − 1.088 × 106
D K = −1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
L 2n (s) = − 1.167 × 10−9 s6 + 63.22s5 + 821.8s4
The dynamic controller designed for this case is a sixth-order
+ 8.279 × 105 s3 + 1.013 × 107 s2 + 1.92 × 107 s
controller. If the state-space representation of the controller split
up as in Fig. 5a, M(s) and L(s) are obtained as + 4.872 × 106
 K. Tamkaya et al. / Aerospace Science and Technology 94 (2019) 105379 7

Fig. 9. Case 1 – No Wind Effect. Fig. 10. Windshear Effect.

L 3n (s) =1.791 × 10−9 s6 + 9.216s5 + 140.5s4

respective limits, the control inputs are defined as outputs (z2 and
− 3.464 × 104 s3 + 4.011 × 105 s2 + 7.761 × 106 s z4 ) with some weighting elements W e and W t which are con-
+ 2.291 × 106 stant numbers 1 and 0.5, respectively. z1 and z3 are the altitude
and airspeed error signals to be minimized. A new dynamic con-
D (s) =s6 + 30.53s5 + 8.032 × 104 s4 + 1.148 × 106 s3
troller is obtained by solving the LMIs in (23) and (24) for the new
+ 4.601 × 106 s2 + 1.293 × 107 s + 3.494 × 106 generalized plant P. The resulting controller is an eighth-order con-
troller. Thus the new P-K configuration including the windshear
Generalized P-K configuration of the overall system with the
controller in s-domain is shown in Fig. 6. is formed according to the new generalized plant P as shown in
Case 2: In this case, the windshear effect is taken into consider- Fig. 8.
ation as a disturbance (d). The block diagram of the overall system
is shown in Fig. 7a. It is assumed that the windshear effect starts A K = 108 ×
in the middle of the glide-slope phase and continues even in the ⎡ −0.02 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.17
⎤
flare phase. The windshear components which are more explicitly ⎢ 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 −0.04 ⎥
shown in Fig. 7b are added to the generalized plant P as distur- ⎢ −6.82 −0.02 −0.06 −0.06 0.83 −4.71 0.07 73.93 ⎥
⎢ ⎥
bances (d). The throttle control is also added to the system to ⎢ 10.40 0.04 0.09 0.10 −1.27 7.19 −0.11 −112.76 ⎥
⎢ 1.93 0.01 0.02 0.02 −0.24 1.33 −0.02 −20.91 ⎥
compensate for the windshear effect. Throttle-Actuator is modeled ⎢
⎢ 0.03
⎥
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.02 0.00 −0.28 ⎥
as a first-order transfer function with a time constant of 5 s. To ⎣
0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 −0.06
⎦
keep the elevator deflection and the throttle control within their −0.02 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 −0.01 0.00 0.20
8 K. Tamkaya et al. / Aerospace Science and Technology 94 (2019) 105379

Fig. 11. Case 2 – Moderate Downburst. Fig. 11. (continued)

⎡ ⎤
0.00 0.00 0.56 −0.02 −0.02 the same altitude. P-K configuration was shown in Fig. 6. K is the
⎢ 0.00 0.00 −0.13 0.01 0.01 ⎥ sixth-order controller obtained in Section 4 – Case 1. P is the block
⎢ ⎥
⎢ 0.30 −0.07 238.37 −10.33 −9.66 ⎥ diagram already shown in Fig. 5b. There is only one exogenous
⎢ ⎥
⎢ −0.45 0.10 −363.57 15.76 14.74 ⎥ input r which is a steady state altitude level. In this case, it has to
B K = 105 × ⎢ ⎥
⎢ −0.08 0.02 −67.40 2.92 2.73 ⎥ be zero since the landing phase is considered.
⎢ ⎥
⎢ 0.00 0.00 −0.90 0.04 0.04 ⎥ In Fig. 9a, “Actual Path” and “Reference Path” are compared.
⎣ 0.00 0.00 −0.20 0.01 0.01 ⎦ For this study, we also compare our results with the study in [7],
0.00 0.00 0.63 −0.03 −0.03 where LQR based controller design method is used. It is clearly
seen that when compared with the LQR method in [7], the actual
3.16 −3.62 −0.02 −0.02 0.18 2.92 −0.45 16.18
CK = path follows the reference path more closely and smoothly using
0.02 −0.01 −0.01 −0.01 0.06 0.01 −0.01 2.43
H ∞ method. Based on this result, it is also expected that the flight
−1.0002 0.00 0.0003 0.00 0.00 path angle and elevator deflection angle have to be smoother. The
DK =
−0.0001 −1.00 −0.0004 0.00 0.00 flight path angle γa and elevator deflection angle δe are shown in
Fig. 9b. γa starts with −2.5◦ initial condition which is the flight
5. Simulation results path angle of the glide slope phase and goes to zero as the aircraft
approaches the touchdown point. During landing, elevator deflec-
Case 1: tion angle stays within the limits. As seen from Fig. 9b, when com-
It is assumed that the glide-slope phase is just ended at the pared with [7], the transient behaviors of γa and δe are smoother
altitude level of 36.37 ft and the flare phase has just started at as expected.
 K. Tamkaya et al. / Aerospace Science and Technology 94 (2019) 105379
Fig. 11. (continued)
Case 2:
To examine the effect of the windshear, it is assumed that the
aircraft is still on the glide-slope phase and its altitude level is
800 ft. The flare phase starts at the altitude level of 36.37 ft. The
desired touch down point beyond the glide slope transmitter point
(D) is 2, 500 ft. In ideal conditions, the distance the aircraft should
take until the glide slope transmitter point is calculated as x =
800 ÷ tan 2.5◦ = 18, 323 ft. Total distance the aircraft should take
is x = 18, 323 + 2, 500 = 20, 823 ft.
A comparison of the altitude behaviors between the ideal
model and the actual aircraft in a moderate downburst environ-
ment is shown in Fig. 11a. The aircraft encounters an increasing
headwind through the first ten seconds as shown in Fig. 10a. This
causes an increase in the airspeed of the aircraft in consequence
of the horizontal component of the windshear, an increase in the
angle of attack in consequence of the vertical component of the
windshear and therefore an increase in the gamma. As a result,
the altitude of the aircraft starts increasing. On the other hand,
the controller starts compensating the altitude and velocity errors
9
Fig. 11. (continued)
by manipulating the elevator and throttle controls. Even if the al-
titude and angle of attack decrease as a first reaction due to the
intervention of the controller, the altitude gets back on the desired
level with a little increase in the airspeed and the angle of attack.
After ten seconds, the headwind loses its effect and the down-
draft starts being effective. The angle of attack decreases to keep
the altitude of the aircraft on the track as expected. The aircraft
starts encountering an increasing tailwind after about thirty-three
seconds. As the tailwind gets close to the maximum level, the an-
gle of attack start decreasing while the airspeed is increasing, but
the controller takes the control again. Then, the airspeed decreases
and the angle of attack gets increased by manipulating the elevator
and throttle controls. Thus, a small increase in the altitude occurs.
The flare phase starts when the tailwind starts losing its effect. As
seen in Fig. 11a, the aircraft continues to follow the ideal model
very closely during both the glide-slope and flare phases, and lands
very close to the calculated touchdown point smoothly as shown
in Fig. 11c. Fig. 11b visualizes the altitude error between actual
and reference model. The rest of the aircraft behaviors mentioned
10 K. Tamkaya et al. / Aerospace Science and Technology 94 (2019) 105379
Fig. 12. Case 2 – Severe Downburst.
above in the moderate downburst environment are illustrated in
Fig. 11d, 11e, 11f, 11g. Note that the velocity deviation from the
trim velocity of 250 ft/s is plotted in Fig. 11d. It is worth not-
ing that, during the glide-slope phase of the landing, contrary to
the conventional landing systems, it is not necessary to keep the
flight path angle (γa ) constant. A reference model was defined
for both the glide-slope and the flare phases, and it is expected
from the controller that it enables the aircraft to follow (in lon-
gitudinal direction) the reference model by utilizing throttle and
elevator control surfaces. Dynamic equations including the winds-
hear components for the aircraft were introduced in (10). As seen
from the equation, the altitude depends on V , γa and W h . W h
is a disturbance input as the windshear component, and cannot
be controlled. However, γa and V can be used by the controller
to compensate for the windshear effects and to guide the aircraft
on the desired flight path. Providing that the aircraft’s velocity is
constant, the AoA (α ) depends on the wind (i.e., turbulence level)
if the atmosphere is not still. As seen in equation (10), γa also
depends on the windshear components, V and θ (γa = θ − α ).
Thus, the controller dynamically makes fine adjustments to keep
Fig. 12. (continued)
the aircraft in the desired path by controlling variables V , θ and
hence γa by taking the windshear components into account. This
dependence can be seen in Fig. 11e. Fig. 11f and 11g depict, corre-
spondingly, the elevator and throttle actuator displacements, which
remain within the limits, as the aircraft follows the reference land-
ing trajectory. Body acceleration at the Aircraft’s C G (along z-axis)
is shown in 11h. As seen from the plot, the acceleration on z-axis
is very close to zero near the touchdown point. This means that
the aircraft’s tires smoothly touch the ground.
P-K configuration is also tested for a severe downburst envi-
ronment. Similar attitudes are obtained but the magnitudes are
greater as shown in Fig. 12a, 12b, 12c, 12d, 12e, 12f, 12g, 12h. The
altitude returns to the reference path after the maximum head-
wind but it goes little down and stays there through downdraft.
On the other hand, although the tailwind is being slightly effec-
tive during the flare phase, the aircraft follows the ideal model
very closely. The elevator deflection angle and the throttle position
don’t exceed the limits.
The proposed method is also compared with the study in [7]
for the windshear effect. For this comparison, the system in [7] is
 K. Tamkaya et al. / Aerospace Science and Technology 94 (2019) 105379
Fig. 12. (continued)
modified to have the windshear components. It is assumed that
the aircraft is under the severe downburst effect as shown in
Fig. 10b. It is also added a feedback loop for the throttle control to
make this system as similar as possible to ours. In Fig. 13a, “Actual
Path” and “Reference Path” are compared. At first glance, “Actual
Path” always fluctuates around the “Reference Path”. It seems that
the controller is having a hard time to keep the state around the
“Reference Path”. The divergence between “Actual Path” and “Ref-
erence Path” sometimes gets higher values when compared with
Fig. 12a. In the flare phase, “Actual Path” doesn’t follow the “Ref-
erence Path” and the aircraft has hard landing on the ground. This
landing may be called a crush. In Fig. 13b, it is seen that the air-
craft lands little before the calculated touchdown point. As a result,
it is obvious that the proposed method provides more stabilized,
more accurate and smoother landing.
6. Conclusion
This paper brought a different approach to the landing control
systems of a passenger aircraft. Differently from the existing con-
11
Fig. 12. (continued)
trol methods on the flight systems, this approach exploits the com-
bination of the model following method, the general P-K configura-
tion, H ∞ synthesis, LMI solution techniques and finally windshear
effects as the disturbance. A reference model for the flare phase
was predefined and the model following method was used to force
the altitude state of the aircraft to behave like the state of the ref-
erence model. P matrix was created for the overall system to form
general P-K control configuration. Therefore, this problem could be
transformed into H ∞ optimal control problem. Using the LMI in-
equalities and optimization to minimize γ , a dynamic controller
was constructed for the optimal solution. Finally, various scenarios
were simulated and studied. Thus, the simulation results demon-
strate the correctness and effectiveness of the proposed method
by comparing the results with the LQR technique. Then, the wind-
shear effect was taken into consideration as a disturbance to test
the limitations of the proposed technique. The simulations were
conducted to test the disturbance rejection property of the system
for moderate and severe downbursts. The simulation results also
demonstrate us the effectiveness of the proposed method even un-
der the severe downburst.
12 K. Tamkaya et al. / Aerospace Science and Technology 94 (2019) 105379
Fig. 13. Lqr Control Method under Severe Downburst.
In this research, it is assumed that the system under test is
known and its parameters do not change in time. But real systems
usually do not work that way. Thus, the future work will be con-
centrated on the robustness of the system by taking into account
some forms of uncertainties and turbulence.
Declaration of competing interest
There is no competing interest.
References
[1] D. Siegel, R.J. Hansman, Development of an Autoland System for General Avia-
tion Aircraft, Tech. Rep., 2011.
[2] P. Serra, R. Cunha, T. Hamel, C. Silvestre, F. Le Bras, Nonlinear image-based vi-
sual servo controller for the flare maneuver of fixed-wing aircraft using optical
flow, IEEE Trans. Control Syst. Technol. 23 (2) (2015) 570–583.
[3] W.T. Miller, P.J. Werbos, R.S. Sutton, Neural Networks for Control, MIT Press,
1995.
[4] Z. Zhen, S. Jiang, K. Ma, Automatic carrier landing control for unmanned aerial
vehicles based on preview control and particle filtering, Aerosp. Sci. Technol.
81 (2018) 99–107.
[5] C.E. Lan, R.C. Chang, Unsteady aerodynamic effects in landing operation
of transport aircraft and controllability with fuzzy-logic dynamic inversion,
Aerosp. Sci. Technol. 78 (2018) 354–363.
[6] Y. Meng, W. Wang, H. Han, J. Ban, A visual/inertial integrated landing guidance
method for UAV landing on the ship, Aerosp. Sci. Technol. 85 (2019) 474–480.
[7] B.L. Stevens, F.L. Lewis, E.N. Johnson, Aircraft Control and Simulation: Dynam-
ics, Controls Design, and Autonomous Systems, John Wiley & Sons, 2015.
[8] J.-G. Juang, J.-Z. Chio, Fuzzy modelling control for aircraft automatic landing
system, Int. J. Syst. Sci. 36 (2) (2005) 77–87.
[9] D.V. Rao, T.H. Go, Automatic landing system design using sliding mode control,
Aerosp. Sci. Technol. 32 (1) (2014) 180–187.
[10] J.-G. Juang, S.-T. Yu, Disturbance encountered landing system design based on
sliding mode control with evolutionary computation and cerebellar model ar-
ticulation controller, Appl. Math. Model. 39 (19) (2015) 5862–5881.
[11] J.-G. Juang, H.-K. Chiou, L.-H. Chien, Analysis and comparison of aircraft landing
control using recurrent neural networks and genetic algorithms approaches,
Neurocomputing 71 (16–18) (2008) 3224–3238.
[12] S. Singh, R. Padhi, Automatic path planning and control design for autonomous
landing of UAV using dynamic inversion, in: American Control Conference,
ACC’09, IEEE, 2009, pp. 2409–2414.
[13] S.-P. Shue, R.K. Agarwal, Design of automatic landing systems using mixed h/h
control, J. Guid. Control Dyn. 22 (1) (1999) 103–114.
[14] R. Lungu, M. Lungu, Application of H 2 / H ∞ and dynamic inversion techniques
to aircraft landing control, Aerosp. Sci. Technol. 46 (2015) 146–158.
[15] A. Woodfield, J. Woods, Worldwide Experience of Wind Shear During
1981-1982, Tech. Rep., Royal Aircraft Establishment Bedford, England, 1983.
[16] Y. Zhao, Optimal Control of an Aircraft Flying Through a Downburst, PhD thesis,
Stanford University, 1989.
[17] Y. Zhao, A. Bryson, Optimal paths through downbursts, J. Guid. Control Dyn.
13 (5) (1990) 813–818.
[18] G. Alag, R. Kempel, J. Pahle, J. Bresina, F. Bartoli, Model-following control for an
oblique-wing aircraft, in: Astrodynamics Conference, 1986, p. 2244.
[19] G. Zames, Feedback and optimal sensitivity: model reference transformations,
multiplicative seminorms, and approximate inverses, IEEE Trans. Autom. Con-
trol 26 (2) (1981) 301–320.
[20] G. Zames, On the input-output stability of time-varying nonlinear feedback sys-
tems part one: conditions derived using concepts of loop gain, conicity, and
positivity, IEEE Trans. Autom. Control 11 (2) (1966) 228–238.
[21] G. Zames, On the input-output stability of time-varying nonlinear feedback
systems–part ii: conditions involving circles in the frequency plane and sec-
tor nonlinearities, IEEE Trans. Autom. Control 11 (3) (1966) 465–476.
[22] J.C. Doyle, K. Glover, P.P. Khargonekar, B.A. Francis, State-space solutions to
standard H 2 and H ∞ control problems, IEEE Trans. Autom. Control 34 (8)
(1989) 831–847.
[23] P. Gahinet, P. Apkarian, A linear matrix inequality approach to H ∞ control, Int.
J. Robust Nonlinear Control 4 (4) (1994) 421–448.
[24] P. Apkarian, D. Noll, Nonsmooth H ∞ synthesis, IEEE Trans. Autom. Control
51 (1) (2006) 71–86.
[25] S. Skogestad, I. Postlethwaite, Multivariable Feedback Control: Analysis and De-
sign, vol. 2, Wiley, New York, 2007.
[26] K. Zhou, J.C. Doyle, K. Glover, et al., Robust and Optimal Control, vol. 40, Pren-
tice Hall, New Jersey, 1996.
[27] K. Zhou, J.C. Doyle, Essentials of Robust Control, vol. 104, Prentice Hall, Upper
Saddle River, NJ, 1998.
[28] C. Scherer, P. Gahinet, M. Chilali, Multiobjective output-feedback control via lmi
optimization, IEEE Trans. Autom. Control 42 (7) (1997) 896–911.