Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-t5tsf Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-09T23:36:00.820Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Sensor fault detection and reconstruction system for commercial aircrafts

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  17 December 2021

U. Kilic Open the ORCID record for U. Kilic [Opens in a new window]  and
G. Unal Open the ORCID record for G. Unal [Opens in a new window]
U. Kilic*
Affiliation:
Department of Avionics, Erzincan Binali Yildirim University, Erzincan, 24002, Turkey
G. Unal
Affiliation:
Department of Avionics, Eskisehir Technical University, Eskisehir, 26470, Turkey
*
*Corresponding author. Email: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The aim morphing of this study is to detect and reconstruct a fault in angle-of-attack sensor and pitot probes that are components in commercial aircrafts, without false alarm and no need for additional measurements. Real flight data collected from a local airline was used to design the relevant system. Correlation analysis was performed to select the data related to the angle-of-attack and airspeed. Fault detection and reconstruction were carried out by using Adaptive Neural Fuzzy Inference System (ANFIS) and Artificial Neural Networks (ANN), which are machine-learning methods. No false alarm was detected when the fault test following the fault modeling was carried out at 0–1 s range by filtering the residual signal. When the fault was detected, fault reconstruction process was initiated so that system output could be achieved according to estimated sensor data. Instead of using the methods based on hardware redundancy, we designed a new system within the scope of this study.

Keywords

Aircraft sensorFault detectionReconstructionMachine learning
Type
Research Article
Information
The Aeronautical Journal , Volume 126 , Issue 1299 , May 2022 , pp. 889 - 905
Check for updates
Copyright
© The Author(s), 2021. Published by Cambridge University Press on behalf of Royal Aeronautical Society

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Alvarez, O.H., Zea, L.B.G., Bil, C., Napolitano, M. and Fravolini, M.L. Review of methodologies for aircraft sensors fault detection and correction, International Symposium on Space Flight Dynamics, Melbourne-Australia, 2019, pp 259–264.Google Scholar
Ossmann, D. and Joos, H.D. Enhanced detection and isolation of angle of attack sensor faults, AIAA Guidance, Navigation and Control Conference, San Diego, California-USA, 2016, pp 1–16.Google Scholar
Taimoor, M. and Aijun, L. Neural-sliding mode approach-based adaptive estimation, isolation and tolerance of aircraft sensor fault, Aircr. Eng. Aerosp. Technol., 2019, 92, (2), pp 237–255.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Yildirim Dalkiran, F. and Toraman, M. Predicting thrust of aircraft using artificial neural networks, Aircr. Eng. Aerosp. Technol., 2020, 92, (2), pp 237–255.Google Scholar
Verma, H.O. and Peyada, N.K. Parameter estimation of aircraft using extreme learning machine and Gauss-Newton algorithm, Aeronaut. J., 2020, 124, (1272), pp 271–295.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Can, E. Application of Adaptive Neuro-Fuzzy Logic Method of Noised Electrical Signals for Correction, Tecciencia, 2020, 15, (28), pp 1–13.10.18180/tecciencia.28.1CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hardalaç, F., Aydın, M., Kutbay, U., Ayturan, K., Akyel, A., Çağlar, A., Hai, B. and Mert, F. Classification of neonatal jaundice in mobile application with noninvasive image processing methods, Turk. J. Electr. Eng. Comput. Sci., 2021, 29, pp 2116–2126.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Verma, H.O. and Peyada, N.K. Estimation of aerodynamic parameters near stall using maximum likelihood and extreme learning machine-based methods, Aeronaut. J., 2021, 125, (1285), pp 489–509.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Atasoy, V.E., Suzer, A.E. and Ekici, S.A. Comparative Analysis of Exhaust Gas Temperature Based on Machine Learning Models for Aviation Applications, J. Energy Resour. Technol., 2021, 144, (8): 082101.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Popowski, S. and Dabrowski, W. Measurement and estimation of the angle of attack and the angle of sideslip, Vilnius Gedim. Tech. Univ. Press, 2015, 19, (1), pp 19–24.Google Scholar
Milward, T.O., Bromfield, M., Horri, N., Ali, R. and Scott, S. Multipoint Angle of Attack Sensing for Avoidance of Loss of Control in Flight, AIAA SCITECH, San Diego, California-USA, 2019, pp 1–16.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Joos, H.D. and Ossmann, D. Enhancing flight control in case of total angle of attack sensor loss, 3rd International Conference on Control and Fault Tolerant Systems, Barcelona, Spain, 2016, pp 783–789.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ossmann, D. and Joos, H.D. Combining sensor monitoring and fault tolerant control to maintain flight control system functionalities, 20th IFAC Symposium on Automatic Control in Aerospace, San Diego, California-USA, 2016, pp 46–51.Google Scholar
Mako, S., Pilat, M., Svab, P., Kozuba, J. and Cicvakova, M. Evaluation of MCAS system, Acta Avionica J., 2020, 40, (1), pp 21–28.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dia. Gas turbine engines, Aviat. Week, 2008, 168, (4), pp 128–143.Google Scholar
Orhan, I., Kapanoğlu, M. and Karakoç, T.H. Concurrent aircraft routing and maintenance scheduling using goal programming, J. Fac. Eng. Archit. Gazi Univ., 2012, 27, (1), pp 11–26.Google Scholar
Roberson, B. Fuel conservation strategies, Aero, 2007, 2, (10), pp 26–28.Google Scholar
Turgut, E.T., Usanmaz, O. and Cavcar, M. The effect of flight distance on fuel mileage and CO2 per passenger kilometer, Int. J. Sustain. Transp., 2019, 13, (3), pp 224–234.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Eykeren, L.V. and Chu, Q.P. Sensor fault detection and isolation for aircraft control systems by kinematic relations, Control Eng. Pract., 2014, 31, pp 200–210.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Purvis, A., Morris, B. and Mcwilliam, R. FlightGear as a tool for real time fault injection, detection and self repair, 4. International Conference on Through life Engineering Services, 2015, Cranfield-UK, pp 283–288.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Singh, S. and Murthy, T. Simulation of sensor failure accommodation in flight control system of transport aircraft : a modular approach, World J. Model. Simul., 2015, 11, (1), pp 55–68.Google Scholar
Zolghadri, A., Cieslak, J., Efimov, D., Henry, D., Philippe, G., Dayre, R., Gheorghe, A. and Berre, H.L. Signal and model-based fault detection for aircraft systems, 9. IFAC Symposium on Fault Detection, Supervision and Safety for Technical Processes, 2015, Paris-France, pp 1096–1101.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sercekman, O. and Kutay, A.T. A model based approach for sensor fault detection in civil aircraft control surface, IEEE/ION Position, Location and Navigation Symposium, Monterey, CA-USA, 2018, pp 715–729.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lijia, C., Yu, T. and Guo, Z. Adaptive observer-based fault detection and active tolerant control for unmanned aerial vehicles attitude system, 5. IFAC Symposium on Telematics Applications, Chengdu-China, 2019, pp 47–52.Google Scholar
He, Q., Zhang, W., Lu, P. and Liu, J. Performance comparison of representative model based fault reconstruction algorithms for aircraft sensor fault detection and diagnosis, Aerosp. Sci. Technol., 2020, 98, (105649).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sun, K. and Gebre, E.D. A fault detection and isolation design for a dual pitot tube air data system, IEEE/ION Position, Location and Navigation Symposium, Portland, OR-USA, 2020, pp 62–73.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Turkmen, I. An alternative neural airspeed computation method for aircrafts, Aircr. Eng. Aerosp. Technol., 2018, 90, (2), pp 368–378.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fravolini, M.L., Napolitano, M.R., Core, G. and Papa, U. Experimental interval models for the robust fault detection of aircraft air data sensors, Control Eng. Pract., 2018, 78, pp 196–212.Google Scholar
Lu, P., Kampen, E.J.V., Visser, C. and Chu, Q. Air data sensor fault detection and diagnosis in the presence of atmospheric turbulence: theory and experimental validation with real flight data, IEEE Trans. Control Syst. Technol., 2020, pp 1–9.Google Scholar
Fekih, A. Fault diagnosis and fault tolerant control design for aerospace systems: A bibliographical review, American Control Conference, Portland, OR-USA, 2014, pp 1286–1291.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Samy, I., Postlethwaite, I. and Gu, D. Survey and application of sensor fault detection and isolation schemes, Control Eng. Pract., 2011, 19, (7), pp 658–674.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Castaldi, P., Mimmo, N. and Simani, S. Avionic air data sensors fault detection and isolation by means of singular perturbation and geometric approach, Sensors, 2017, 17, (2202), pp 1–19.Google ScholarPubMed
Oliveira, L.R.M. The dramatic effects of pitot static system blockages and failures, 2013, available at: http://www.luizmonteiro.com/DocumentsPDF/The_Dramatic_Effects_of_Pitot_Static_Blockages.pdf (accessed 24 June 2021)Google Scholar
Freeman, P., Seiler, P. and Balas, G.J. Air data system fault modeling and detection, Control Eng. Pract., 2013, 21, (10), pp 1290–1301.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Duda, R.O., Hart, P.E. and Stork, D.G. Pattern classification, John Wiley & Sons, 2000, New York, USA.Google Scholar
Cashman, J.E., Kelly, B.D. and Nield, B.N. Operational use of angle of attack on modern commercial jet airplanes, Aero, 2000, 12, pp 12–21.Google Scholar
Singh, S. and Vasudeviah, R.M.T. Neural network based sensor fault detection for flight control systems, Int. J. Comput. Applications, 2012, 59, (13), pp 1–8.Google Scholar
Rencber, O.F. Multiple logistic regression in classification problems, comparison of ANN and ANFIS methods: Application on human development index, Gazi Press, 2018, Ankara, Turkey.Google Scholar