Aircraft trajectory control with feedback linearization for general nonlinear system
Sheng Zhang1, 2, Fei Liao1, Yanqing Chen1, 2, Kaifeng He1, 2
1.

China Aerodynamics Research and Development Center, Mianyang, 621000
2. China State Key Laboratory of Aerodynamics, Mianyang, 621000
E-mail: zszhangshengzs@hotmail.com

Abstract: The feedback linearization method is further developed for the controller design on general nonlinear
systems. Through the Lyapunov stability theory, the intractable nonlinear implicit algebraic control equations are
effectively solved, and the asymptotically tracking performance is guaranteed. Moreover, it is proved that the
controller may be used in an inverse-free version to the set-point control. With this method, a nonlinear aircraft
outer-loop trajectory controller is developed. For the concern regarding the controller’s robustness, the integral control
technique is combined to counteract the adverse effect from modeling errors. Simulation results verify the well
performance of the proposed controller.

1

Introduction

Feedback linearization is an important nonlinear control method [1]. This approach uses nonlinear state feedback to
cancel the plant’s nonlinear terms, and then linear control techniques to achieve the expected closed-loop performance.
According to the research thread, generally the feedback linearization method may be divided to the differential
geometry method and the dynamic inverse method [2]. The differential geometry method uses the tools including the
Lie algebra, Lie bracket and differential manifold theory to realize the exact linearization, and fruitful theoretical and
practical results are achieved after years of development [3-6]. The dynamic inverse method constructs the α -order
integral inverse system for the controlled plant to obtain the decoupled linear system, and it is more physically
institutive for application [2][7]. Due to its effectiveness in handling nonlinear problems, the feedback linearization
control method has been widely studied in aerospace engineering [8][9], electrical engineering [10][11] and
mechanical engineering [12][13], etc.
One main drawback of feedback linearization control is that this method is sensitive to modeling errors and
disturbances, whereas developing the exact model is usually hard in practice. Thus, the robustness issue must be
considered. Various solutions are proposed such as the slide mode control [11], the adaptive control [14], the fuzzy
control [15], and the observer technique [8]. Moreover, another important issue that restricts the utilization of the
feedback linearization control is that it often requires the plant to be affine to obtain the analytic control law. The
application to general systems is hindered for the intractable nonlinear implicit algebraic equations. This motivates us
to further develop such method against the restriction. With the Lyapunov stability principle [16], the nonlinear
implicit algebraic equations encountered during the controller design are addressed in a dynamics way.
Usually the aircraft guidance, i.e., the outer-loop trajectory control, and the inner-loop attitude control are designed
separately based on the singular perturbation principle [17]. The guidance system realizes the commanded trajectory
and sends the attitude control commands to the inner-loop attitude control system. Although commonly the aircraft
trajectory control is achieved using the linear control method upon Taylor linearization [18], it is a typical nonlinear
control problem in essence. To relieve the workload on the trim points selection and gain scheduling, various nonlinear
control techniques are studied to enhance the performance [19][20]. In this paper, we provide another means based on
the feedback linearization control. In the following, first the feedback linearization controller design for general
systems is demonstrated and the tracking performance of the closed-loop control system is investigated. Then we
develop the outer-loop trajectory controller for the aircraft with the proposed method. The integral control technique is
also employed to increase the robustness of the feedback linearization controller. Finally simulations are carried out to
examine the performance.

2

Feedback linearization control for general systems

2.1 Controller design
Consider the following nonlinear Multiple Input Multiple Output (MIMO) system
x = f ( x , u)

(1)

y = g( x)

(2)

where x ∈ \ n are the states, u ∈ \ m are the control inputs and f is n -dimensional vector function. y ∈ \ m are
the outputs and g is the output function. The control objective is to track the reference signal yr .
Follow the procedure in the feedback linearization controller design [1][16]. We differentiate the output equation (2)
several times until the derivative expressions involve the control. Presuming that

∂yi
≠ 0 (i = 1, 2,..., m) is obtained
∂u

for the first time after α i (i = 1, 2,..., m) times of differentiation on the output vector yi (i = 1, 2,..., m) , then we have
⎡ dα1 y1 ⎤ ⎡ dα1 g1 ⎤
⎢ α1 ⎥ ⎢ α1 ⎥
⎢ dt ⎥ ⎢ dt ⎥ ⎡ v1 ( x, u) ⎤
⎢ dα 2 y 2 ⎥ ⎢ dα 2 g 2 ⎥ Δ ⎢
⎥
⎢ α2 ⎥ = ⎢ α 2 ⎥ = ⎢ v2 ( x, u) ⎥
d
t
d
t
⎢
⎥ ⎢
⎥ ⎢ ... ⎥
⎢ ... ⎥ ⎢ ... ⎥ ⎢
⎥
⎢ α m ⎥ ⎢ α m ⎥ ⎣vm ( x, u) ⎦
⎢ d ym ⎥ ⎢ d g m ⎥
⎢⎣ dt αm ⎥⎦ ⎢⎣ dt α m ⎥⎦

(3)

To achieve the desired dynamic characteristics in tracking yr , we set
⎡ v1 ⎤
⎢v ⎥
v=⎢ 2⎥= z
⎢ ... ⎥
⎢ ⎥
⎣vm ⎦

(4)

where z prescribes the transition performance and it may be expressed as
⎡
⎤
dy1
dα1 −1 y1
, ...,
, y1r ) ⎥
⎢ z1 ( y1 ,
α1
d
t
dt
⎢
⎥
⎢
⎥
dy2
dα 2 −1 y2
z (y ,
,...,
, y2 r ) ⎥
α2
z = ⎢ 2 2 dt
dt
⎢
⎥
...
⎢
⎥
⎢
⎥
α m −1
ym
⎢ z ( y , dym ,..., d
, ymr ) ⎥
⎢⎣ m m dt
⎥⎦
dt αm

Presuming that the Jacobi matrix

(5)

∂v
is full rank and the states x are available by the sensors or the state observer,
∂u

we then solve the following control algebraic equation to get the control law
v ( x , u) − z = 0

(6)

However, it is often hard to get the explicit form of u for systems without affine form, and the root-finding of the
implicit algebraic equation is involved to obtain the control [21][22].
Instead of employing a root-finding numerical method, here we address this issue with the Lyapunov theory, by
constructing a Lyapunov function as
1
Vs = hT h
(7)
2

where h = v − z and the superscript “ T ” denotes the transpose operator. Differentiating Vs gives
∂h
∂h ⎞
⎛ ∂h
Vs = hT ⎜ u +
x + z ⎟
∂x
∂z ⎠
⎝ ∂u

Under the assumption that

(8)

∂v
is full rank, if we set
∂u
−1

T

⎛ ∂h ⎞
⎛ ∂h ⎞ ⎛ ∂h  ∂h ⎞
u = − K s ⎜ ⎟ h − ⎜ ⎟ ⎜
x+
z ⎟
∂z ⎠
⎝ ∂u ⎠
⎝ ∂u ⎠ ⎝ ∂x
⎛ ∂v ⎞
= −Ks ⎜ ⎟
⎝ ∂u ⎠

T

(9)

−1

∂v
∂v
( v − z ) − ⎛⎜ ⎞⎟ ⎛⎜ x − z ⎞⎟
⎝ ∂u ⎠ ⎝ ∂x
⎠

where K c is a positive-definite matrix. Then we have
T

∂v
⎛ ∂v ⎞
Ks ⎜ ⎟ h ≤ 0
Vs = −hT
∂u ⎝ ∂u ⎠

(10)

with the invariance principle [16], we may further proves that
lim Vs = 0

(11)

t →∞

This means that lim h = 0 and accordingly Eq. (6) will be satisfied. Thus, we may derive the explicit control law as
t →∞

T
−1
t ⎧
⎪
⎛ ∂v ⎞
⎛ ∂v ⎞ ⎛ ∂v 
⎞ ⎫⎪
u = ∫ ⎨− K s ⎜ ⎟ ( v − z ) − ⎜ ⎟ ⎜
x − z ⎟ ⎬dt , u(t0 ) = u0
t0
⎝ ∂u ⎠
⎝ ∂u ⎠ ⎝ ∂x
⎠ ⎭⎪
⎩⎪

(12)

where u0 is the initial value of control at the initial time t0 .
For the case where no solution exists for the implicit control equation defined in Eq. (6), the pseudo-inverse [23],
−1

⎛ ∂v ⎞
instead of ⎜ ⎟ , may be employed to adapt Eq. (12). It could be found that this treatment minimizes Vs and
⎝ ∂u ⎠

eliminates the effect from the change of states and reference signals to the largest extent.
2.2 Tracking performance analysis
We will discuss the tracking performance of the proposed controller. Assuming that we know yr and its derivatives
with arbitrary order, then we may obtain the error dynamics from Eq. (3) in the state-space description as
e = Ae + B (v − r )
T

r = ⎡⎣ yr1(α1 )

T

e = ⎡⎣y1 ... y1(α1) y2 ... y2(α2 ) ... ym ... ym(αm) ⎤⎦ −⎡⎣yr1 ... yr1(α1) yr2 ... yr2(α2 ) ... yrm ... yrm(αm) ⎤⎦

where
y r 2 (α 2 )

(13)
,

T

... yrm (α m ) ⎤⎦ , A = diag( A1 , A2 ,... Am ) , B = diag(b1 , b2 ,...bm ) , and Ai , bi take the form below

respectively
⎡0
⎢0
⎢
Ai = ⎢ .
⎢
⎢0
⎢⎣ 0

1 0 ... 0 ⎤
0 1 ... 0 ⎥⎥
,
. . ... . ⎥
⎥
0 0 ... 1 ⎥
0 0 ... 0 ⎥⎦α ×α
i
i

⎡0⎤
⎢0⎥
⎢ ⎥
bi = ⎢...⎥
⎢ ⎥
⎢0⎥
⎢⎣ 1 ⎥⎦
α i ×1

(14)

By specifying z in Eq. (5) as
z = Ke + r

where K = diag(k1 , k2 ,...km ) is the gain matrix and

(15)

ki = ⎡⎣ k1i

... kαi i ⎤⎦
α i ×1

k2i

(16)

we may assign poles of the error dynamics system (13) to the desired position in the open left-half complex plane.
Then e = 0 is an asymptotically stable equilibrium of the closed-loop system
e = Ac e
(17)
where Ac = A + BK . Denote the exact solution of u for Eq. (6) by us . Then us achieves the asymptotically
tracking to yr . Now we will show that under certain conditions, the controller (12) realizes the asymptotically
tracking as well.
Assumption 1: The exact solution of control for the implicit algebraic equation (6), i.e., us , exists, and the Jacobi
matrix

∂v
∂v
at the us satisfies det( ) ≠ 0 .
∂u
∂us

Assumption 2: The initial value u0 in Eq. (12) is close to us

t =0

such that det(

∂v
) ≠ 0.
∂u

Lemma 1 [24]: For the linear time-invariant system (17), if system is asymptotically stable at the origin, then there
exists a Lyapunov function
Ve =

1 T
e Pe
2

(18)

which satisfies Ve (e) ≤ 0 , where P is a positive-definite matrix.
Lemma 2 [24]: For the system (17) with the Hurwitz coefficient matrix Ac , the positive-definite matrix P may be
∞

P = 2∫ e( Ac + Ac )t dt
T

(19)

0

and we may derive that Ve ≤ −e T e .
Theorem 1: For the system (1) and (2), if the ideal control us achieves asymptotically tracking to the reference
signal yr , then under Assumptions 1 and 2, the controller (12) also asymptotically tracks yr .
Proof: With the controller (12), the closed-loop error dynamics is
e = Ac e + Bh

(20)

where h = v ( x , u) − z . Consider the Lyapunov function as
Vc = Ve + aVs
where Vs and Ve are defined by Eqs. (7) and (18), respectively, a =

(21)
max ( eig( B T P T PB) )
T
⎛
∂v
⎛ ∂v ⎞ ⎞
2 min ⎜ eig( K s ⎜ ⎟ ) ⎟
⎜
∂u ⎝ ∂u ⎠ ⎟⎠
⎝

and eig() is the

function of eigenvalue. Differentiating Eq. (21) gives
T

∂v
⎛ ∂v ⎞
Vc = −e T e + e T PBh − ahT
Ks ⎜ ⎟ h
∂u ⎝ ∂u ⎠

(22)

According to the Young’s inequality
e T PBh ≤

1 T
1
e e + hT B T P T PBh
2
2

(23)

Then we have
T
⎡1
1
∂v
⎛ ∂v ⎞ ⎤
Vc ≤ − e T e + hT ⎢ B T P T PB − a
Ks ⎜ ⎟ ⎥ h ≤ 0
2
∂u ⎝ ∂u ⎠ ⎦⎥
⎣⎢ 2

(24)

Thus, the error e will converges to zero and this means the controller (12) asymptotically tracks the reference signal
yr .
□

2.3 Further discussion
One may argue that by using a tip of taking the derivative of the original control, i.e., u , as the new control inputs,
the original system (1) is transformed to the one with affine form, and then the existing feedback linearization control
method may be applied to derive the control law. This is true. In that way, the controller obtained is also of the integral
form as
⎧ ⎛ ∂v ⎞−1 ⎛ ∂v
t ⎪
⎞ ⎪⎫
u = ∫ ⎨− ⎜ ⎟ ⎜
x − z ⎟ ⎬dt , u(t0 ) = u0
t0
⎠ ⎪⎭
⎪⎩ ⎝ ∂u ⎠ ⎝ ∂x

(25)

where z is the correspondingly prescribed dynamics. However, this paper not only provides a different idea to
achieve the feedback linearization controller design for general systems, but more importantly, the different controller
form may bring extra convenience, as under some conditions we may apply an inverse-free version of Eq. (12) as
T
⎧
t ⎪
⎪⎫
⎛ ∂v ⎞
u = ∫ ⎨− K s ⎜ ⎟ ( v − z ) ⎬dt , u(t0 ) = u0
t0
⎝ ∂u ⎠
⎪⎩
⎪⎭

(26)

Consider the situation that the reference signal yr is a constant vector. Then the problem is simplified to be a
set-point tracking. Since the set-point control problem can be reformulated as a regulation problem with simple
coordinate translation, we consider the case of y r = 0 . Now the variables e defined in Eq. (13) are part of the new
coordinates. Moreover, with the Frobenius Theorem [1], we may find other coordinates η , which represent the zero
dynamics, to form the diffeomorphism valid in a domain D containing the origin as
⎡e ⎤
⎢ η⎥ = T ( x )
⎣ ⎦

(27)

where T (⋅) represents the coordinate transformation and T (0 ) = 0 . Then the dynamics for the new coordinates are
e = Ae + Bv
(28)
η = f 0 (η, e )

(29)

where f0 determines the zero dynamics. Under the assumption that the zero dynamics η is asymptotically stable, it
will be shown that we may use controller (26) to stabilize the system.
Assumption 3: For the system η = f 0 (η, 0 ) , the origin η = 0 is asymptotically stable in D .
Lemma 3 [16]: With the ideal feedback control us = us ( x ) , the system (1) and (2) is asymptotically stable under
Assumption 3, and there is a continuously differentiable Lyapunov function VI such that in the domain D
VI ≤ −Γ ( η 2 ) − d1 e

where Γ(⋅)
2

is a class

f ( x, us ) 2 ≤ L1 x

2
2

(or

K

function, and
2

2

2

2

di (i = 1, 2,3)

≤ − d 2 η 2 − d3 e

2
2

(30)

are some constants. Thus, lim f ( x , us ) = 0
t →∞

and

2

f ( x , us ) 2 ≤ L2 e 2 + L2 η 2 ) holds in D for some constant L1 (or L2 ).

Theorem 2: For the system (1) and (2), if the ideal control us achieves asymptotically stabilization to the constant
reference signal yr in D , then under Assumptions 1-3, the closed-loop system under controller (26) is also
asymptotically stable with gain K s satisfying the matrix inequality
T

∂v
⎛ ∂v ⎞ 1
Ks ⎜ ⎟ − (M + M T ) ≥ 0
∂u ⎝ ∂u ⎠ 2
−1

⎛ ∂v ∂z ⎞ ∂f
⎛ ∂v ⎞
where M = ⎜ − ⎟
, and ϑ1 , ϑ2 are any constants within [0, 1] .
⎜ ⎟
⎝ ∂x ∂x ⎠ ∂u us +ϑ1 ( u − us ) ⎝ ∂u ⎠ us +ϑ2 ( u − us )

(31)

Proof: Consider the Lyapunov function candidate as
where a

Vc = Ve + aVs + bVI
(32)
and b are some positive constants, and Vs , Ve and VI are defined by Eqs. (7), (18) and (30),

respectively. Differentiating Eq. (32) gives
⎛
Vc = −e T e + e T PBh − a ⎜ hT
⎜
⎝
⎛
= −e T e + e T PBh − a ⎜ hT
⎜
⎝

T
⎞
∂v
⎛ ∂v ⎞
⎛ ∂v ∂z ⎞
K c ⎜ ⎟ h + hT ⎜ − ⎟ f ( x, u) ⎟ + bVI
⎟
∂u ⎝ ∂u ⎠
⎝ ∂x ∂x ⎠
⎠

(33)

T
⎞
∂v
⎛ ∂v ⎞
⎛ ∂v ∂z ⎞
⎛ ∂v ∂z ⎞
K c ⎜ ⎟ h + hT ⎜ − ⎟ ( f ( x, u) − f ( x, us ) ) + hT ⎜ − ⎟ f ( x, us ) ⎟ + bVI
⎟
∂u ⎝ ∂u ⎠
⎝ ∂x ∂x ⎠
⎝ ∂x ∂x ⎠
⎠

Using the mean value theorem we can obtain
T
⎛ ∂v
⎞
1
⎛ ∂v ⎞
⎛ ∂v ∂z ⎞
Vc = −e T e + e T PBh − a ⎜ hT
K c ⎜ ⎟ h + hT ( M + M T )h + hT ⎜ − ⎟ f ( x, us ) ⎟ + bVI
⎜ ∂u ⎝ ∂u ⎠
⎟
2
⎝ ∂x ∂x ⎠
⎝
⎠

(34)

here ϑ1 and ϑ2 are some constants within [0, 1] . According to the Young’s inequality
1
e T PBh ≤ e T e + hT B T P T PBh
4

(35)
T

1 T ⎛ ∂v ∂z ⎞⎛ ∂v ∂z ⎞
⎛ ∂v ∂z ⎞
hT ⎜ − ⎟ f ≤
h ⎜ − ⎟⎜ − ⎟ h + af T f
4a ⎝ ∂x ∂x ⎠⎝ ∂x ∂x ⎠
⎝ ∂x ∂x ⎠

(36)

We have
T
⎡ ∂v ⎛ ∂v ⎞T a
⎤
1 ⎛ ∂v ∂z ⎞⎛ ∂v ∂z ⎞ 1
2
Vc ≤ −hT ⎢a K s ⎜ ⎟ − ( M + M T ) − ⎜ − ⎟⎜ − ⎟ − BT P T PB⎥ h + a2 f ( x, us ) 2 + bVI
4 ⎝ ∂x ∂x ⎠⎝ ∂x ∂x ⎠ 4
⎢⎣ ∂u ⎝ ∂u ⎠ 2
⎥⎦

Use the results in Lemma 3 and set b =

(37)

2a 2 L2
, we have
min(d 2 , d3 )

T
T
⎡ ∂v
⎤
1 ⎛ ∂v ∂z ⎞ ⎛ ∂v ∂z ⎞ 1
⎛ ∂v ⎞ a
Vc ≤ −hT ⎢ a
K s ⎜ ⎟ − ( M + M T ) − ⎜ − ⎟ ⎜ − ⎟ − B T P T PB ⎥ h − a 2 L2 e T e − a 2 L2 ηT η
∂
∂
2
4
∂
∂
∂
∂
4
u
u
x
x
x
x
⎝ ⎠
⎝
⎠⎝
⎠
⎣⎢
⎦⎥

(38)

To guarantee Vc ≤ 0 , we may set
T

T

∂v
1 ⎛ ∂v ∂z ⎞⎛ ∂v ∂z ⎞
1 T T
⎛ ∂v ⎞ 1
K s ⎜ ⎟ − ( M + M T ) − ⎜ − ⎟⎜ − ⎟ −
B P PB ≥ 0
4a ⎝ ∂x ∂x ⎠⎝ ∂x ∂x ⎠ 4a
∂u ⎝ ∂u ⎠ 2

(39)

which is hold for any ϑ1 and ϑ2 within [0, 1] . Since a may be set arbitrarily large, thus from a limit viewpoint, we
□
may cancel the last two terms to get the matrix inequality (31).
For the matrix K s in Eq. (31), a feasible way to determine it may be setting K s = ks 1 , where ks is a positive constant
and 1 is a right dimensional identity matrix, and
ks >

3

max ( eig( M + M T ) )
∂v ∂v ⎞
⎛
2 min ⎜ eig( ( )T ) ⎟
∂u ∂u ⎠
⎝

(40)

Aircraft outer-loop trajectory controller design

3.1 Mathematic model
The aircraft flight control includes the outer-loop guidance system and the inner-loop attitude control system. Here
we focus on the design of the guidance system, i.e., the outer-loop trajectory controller, and the inner-loop controller
same to the one in Ref. [7] is combined to realize the flight control. The aircraft trajectory motion may be described as
[25]
dx
= V cos γ cos χ
dt

(41)

dy
= V cos γ sin χ
dt

(42)

dh
= V sin γ
dt

(43)

dV 1
= [− D − mg sin γ + Tx cos α cos β + Ty sin β + Tz sin α cos β ]
dt m

dχ
1
=
dt mV cos γ

⎡ L sin μ + Y cos μ + Tx (sin μ sin α − cos μ cos α sin β ) ⎤
⎢ +T cos μ cos β − T (cos μ sin β sin α + sin μ cos α ) ⎥
z
⎣ y
⎦

dγ
1 ⎡ L cos μ − Y sin μ − mg cos γ + Tx (sin μ sin α − cos μ cos α sin β ) ⎤
=
⎢
⎥
dt mV ⎣ −Ty sin μ cos β + Tz (sin μ sin β sin α − cos μ cos α )
⎦

(44)
(45)

(46)

where m is the mass of the aircraft, x , y and h represent the horizontal coordinate, the longitudinal coordinate
and the height in the ground reference frame, respectively. V is the velocity magnitude, γ is the flight-path angle,
and χ is the heading angle. α is the Angle-of-Attack (AoA). μ is the velocity back angle. L = QSCL ,
D = QSCD and Y = QSCY are the aerodynamic lift, drag, and side force, respectively. C L , CD and CY are the lift
coefficient, drag coefficient, and side force coefficient, respectively. S is the reference area. Q is the dynamic
pressure. Tx , Ty and Tz are the components of thrust T along the aircraft body axis, and g is the gravity
acceleration. During the flight, the sideslip angle β is regulated to be zero through the inner-loop attitude control
system. Moreover, for Ty and Tz are small quantities, they are treated as disturbance to fascinate the controller
design. Thus, Eqs. (44)-(46) are simplified as
dV 1
= [− D − mg sin γ + ηTmax cos α ]
dt m

(47)

dχ
1
=
[ L sin μ + ηTmax sin μ sin α ]
dt mV cos γ

(48)

dγ
1
[ L cos μ − mg cos γ + ηTmax cos μ sin α ]
=
dt mV

where η =

T
Tmax

(49)

is the throttle and Tmax is the maximum thrust.

3.2 Baseline controller
In the outer-loop trajectory control, the states are x = [ x
u = [α

y h V

μ η ] . The outputs are the aircraft position coordinates y = [ x
T

tracked is the position commands yr = [ xr

yr

χ γ ] , and the control inputs are
T

y h]

T

and the reference signal to be

hr ] . According to the controller design procedure in last section, first
T

we differentiate the outputs to give

x=

cos χ cos γ
⎛ cos μ sin γ cos χ sin μ sin χ ⎞
+
[− D + ηTmax cos α ] − ⎜
⎟ [ L + ηTmax sin α ]
m
m
m
⎝
⎠

(50)


y=

cos γ sin χ
⎛ cos μ sin γ sin χ sin μ cos χ ⎞
−
[− D + ηTmax cos α ] − ⎜
⎟ [ L + ηTmax sin α ]
m
m
m
⎝
⎠

(51)

sin γ
cos μ cos γ
h =
[− D + ηTmax cos α ] +
[ L + ηTmax sin α ] − g
m
m

(52)

To achieve the desired tracking performance for

[ xr

hr ] , we set
T

yr

xr ⎤
⎡ − k x1 ( x − xr ) − k x 2 ( x − xr ) + 
⎢
yr ⎥⎥
z = ⎢ − k y1 ( y − yr ) − k y 2 ( y − y r ) + 
⎢⎣ − kh1 ( h − hr ) − kh 2 ( h − hr ) + hr ⎥⎦

(53)

where ki1 , ki 2 (i = x, y, h) are gain parameters. Thus, we obtain the control algebraic equation as
v ( x , u) − z = 0

(54)

where
⎡ cos χ cos γ
⎤
⎛ cos μ sin γ cos χ sin μ sin χ ⎞
+
[− D + ηTmax cos α ] − ⎜
⎟ [ L + ηTmax sin α ] ⎥
⎢
m
m
m
⎝
⎠
⎢
⎥
⎢ cos γ sin χ
⎥
⎛ cos μ sin γ sin χ sin μ cos χ ⎞
v=⎢
−
[− D + ηTmax cos α ] − ⎜
⎟ [ L + ηTmax sin α ] ⎥
m
m
m
⎝
⎠
⎢
⎥
⎢
⎥
sin γ
cos μ cos γ
[− D + ηTmax cos α ] +
[ L + ηTmax sin α ] − g
⎢
⎥
m
m
⎣
⎦

(55)

According to Eq. (12), we derive the outer-loop control law as
⎡α c ⎤
T
−1
⎢ μ ⎥ = t ⎧⎪− K ⎛ ∂v ⎞ v − z − ⎛ ∂v ⎞ ⎛ ∂v x − z ⎞ ⎫⎪dt ,
(
)
⎜ ⎟
⎜ ⎟ ⎜
⎟⎬
⎢ c ⎥ ∫t0 ⎨
⎝ ∂u ⎠
⎝ ∂u ⎠ ⎝ ∂x
⎠ ⎭⎪
⎩⎪
⎢⎣ηc ⎥⎦

⎡α c ⎤
⎡α 0 ⎤
⎢μ ⎥ = ⎢μ ⎥
⎢ c⎥
⎢ 0⎥
⎢⎣ηc ⎥⎦
⎢⎣η0 ⎥⎦
t = t0

(56)

Here the subscript “ c ” indicates the command. α 0 , μ0 and η0 are the initial values of the control commands.
3.3 Robustness issue
In principle, the system dynamics must be perfectly known in the feedback linearization controller design. By far,
we ignored the disturbance effect brought by the possible sideslip angle, the thrust components Ty and Tz , and the
aerodynamics model error. To increase the robustness of the controller, the integral control technique is employed to
counteract those errors in maintaining the equilibrium flight [16], by adapting Eq. (53) as
⎡ −k x 0 ( x − xr )dt − k x1 ( x − xr ) − k x 2 ( x − xr ) + 
xr ⎤
∫
⎢
⎥
z = ⎢ −k y 0 ∫ ( y − yr )dt − k y1 ( y − yr ) − k y 2 ( y − y r ) + 
yr ⎥
⎢
⎥
⎢ −k (h − h )dt − k (h − h ) − k (h − h ) + h ⎥
r
h1
r
h2
r
r ⎦
⎣ h0 ∫

(57)

where ki 0 (i = x, y, h) are integral control gains.

4

Simulation Results

Based on a 6 degree-of-freedom nonlinear aircraft model, the aircraft level flight route maneuver example is
simulated to examine the controller’s performance. The initial position of the aircraft is

[ x (t 0 )

y (t0 ) h(t0 ) ] = [ 0 0 1000] m in the ground reference frame. The initial velocity is 50 m/s. The initial
T

flight-path

[ xr ( t )

angle

T

and

heading

angle

are

yr (t ) hr (t ) ] = [50(t − t0 ) 50 1050]
T

T

values of control commands were set as ⎡⎣α 0

both

0

deg.

The

feedforward

trajectory

commands

are

and the flight time span is 25 s. In the control law (56), the initial
μ 0 η 0 ⎤⎦ = [10 deg 0 deg 0.17 ] . During the simulation, the thrust
T

T

error and the aerodynamics error were considered, and the surface actuator and engine were modeled by first-order
filters.
The aircraft position commands and the flight trajectory in 3-dimensional space are plotted in Fig. 1. It is shown that

although the initial position is far from the set commands, the aircraft quickly changes its flight trajectory towards the
expected route. Fig. 2 details the position tracking error profiles against time, it is found that the reference trajectory is
well tracked and the position error is fairly small after 20 s. For comparison, the tracking error without integral control
compensation is also presented, showing that the integral control effectively eliminate the steady-state error arising
from the modeling errors.

1060
Reference trajectory
Aircraft flight trajectory
Aircraft initial position

h(m)

1040
1020
1000
60

1500

40

1000

20

y(m)

500

0 0

x(m)

Fig 1. The 3-dimensional flight trajectory of the aircraft.

error (m/s)

60

Tracking error of x
Tracking error of y
Tracking error of h

40
20

0
-2
-4
15

20

25

0
-20
0

With integral control compensation
5
10
15

20

t (s)

25

error (m/s)

60
0
-2
-4
-6

40
20

15

20

25

0
-20
0

Without integral control compensation
5

10

t (s)

15

20

25

Fig 2. The position tracking error profiles with and without integral control

Fig. 3 gives the velocity magnitude profile, and Fig. 4 shows the heading angle and flight angle profiles of the
aircraft. It is shown that after a sharp transition of 10s, the aircraft gradually realizes the level flight with the desired
velocity of 50m/s.
52.5
52

V (m/s)

51.5
51
50.5
50
49.5
49
48.5
0

5

10

t (s)

15

20

25

Fig 3. The velocity magnitude profile of the aircraft

14
Heading angle χ
Flight-path angle γ

12

χ,γ (deg)

10
8
6
4
2
0
-2
0

5

10

t (s)

15

20

25

Fig 4. The heading angle and the flight-path angle profiles of the aircraft

Fig. 5 gives the AoA control commands and the velocity bank angle commands from the outer-loop trajectory
controller. For the AoA control command, it sharply increases at first, and stays around the level flight angle after 10s.
The velocity bank angle command also changes rapidly at the initial stage. Then it returns to vicinity of zero degree
after 10s. The throttle command is presented in Fig. 6. It is shown that large thrust is demanded to change the
trajectory initially, and then it gradually decreases to the trim value.

αc (deg)

15

15
10

10

0

0.2 0.4

5

0

0

5

10

15

20

25

μc (deg)

t (s)
60
40
20
0
-20
0

40
20
0

5

10

t (s)

15

0

1

2

20

25

Fig 5. The AoA and the velocity bank angle commands from the trajectory controller
0.4
0.35
0.3

ηc

0.25
0.2
0.15
0.1
0.05
0

5

10

t (s)

15

20

25

Fig. 6. The throttle command from the trajectory controller

In Fig. 7, the Lyapunov function defined in Eq. (7), which measures the error in solving the implicit control
algebraic equation, is plotted. The error decreases to zero rapidly after 3s, which means the control commands is
precise afterwards.

200
150
100

150

V

s

50
0

100

0

0.5

1

50

0
0

5

10

t (s)

15

20

25

Fig 7. The error in solving the implicit control algebraic equations

Fig. 8 gives the aerodynamic control surface deflection curves including the aileron δ a , elevator δ e and rudder

δ r . They vary heavily in the first 5 seconds. Then all converge to deflection corresponding to the prescribed level

δa (deg)

flight.
6
4
2
0
-2
0

2
0
-2
0
5

10

1

2

t (s)

3
15

20

25

20

25

20

25

δe (deg)

10
10
0
-10

0

δr (deg)

-10
0
2
0
-2
-4
-6
0

5

10

0 1 2 3
15

t (s)

0
-2
-4
5

10

0

1

t (s)

2 3
15

Fig 8. The aerodynamic control surfaces deflection in the flight

5

Conclusion

The feedback linearization control method is further developed for general systems to effectively address the
implicit control algebraic equations encountered. The resulting control law is of appealing integral form upon
augmented dynamics, and it is proved that the proposed controller may achieve asymptotically tracking. Moreover,
theoretical analysis shows that the control law may be applied in an inverse-free form to the set-point control problem.
This nonlinear control method is applied to the aircraft trajectory control, and the integral control technique is
combined to address the robust concern. An aircraft level flight route maneuver (not limited to) example is simulated
to verify the performance, and it is shown the developed controller works well to achieve the commanded trajectory.

Reference
[1] Isidori A., Nonlinear control system, 3rd ed., Springer, Verlag, London, 1995.
[2] Li C. Y., Feng Y. K., Inverse system method for multivariable nonlinear control, Beijing: Tsinghua university press, 1991.
[3] Hermann R., Krener A. J., “Nonlinear controllability and observability”, IEEE Transactions on Automatic Control, 1977, 22: 728-840.

[4] Fliess M., Lévine J., Martin, P., and Rouchon, P., “A Lie–B¨acklund approach to equivalence and flatness of nonlinear systems”,
IEEE Transactions on Automatic Control, 1999, 44 (5), 922-937.
[5] Oguchi T., Watanabe A., and Nakamizo T., “Input-output linearization of retarded non-linear systems by using an extension of Lie
derivative,” International Journal of Control, 2002, 75(8): 582-590.
[6] Lei J., and Khalil H. K., “Feedback linearization for nonlinear systems with time-varying input and output delays by using high-gain
predictors”, IEEE Transactions on Automatic Control, 2016, 61(8): 2262-2268.
[7] Snell S. A., Enns D. F., and Garrard W. L., “Nonlinear inversion flight control for a supermaneuverable aircraft”, Journal of Guidance,
Control, and Dynamics, 1992, 15(4): 976-984.
[8] Liu C., Liu G., and Fang J. C., “Feedback linearization and extended state observer-based control for rotor-AMBs system with
mismatched uncertainties”, IEEE Transactions on Industrial Electronics, 2017, 64(2): 1313-1322.
[9] Zhao W. H., Hiong Go T., “Quadcopter formation flight control combining MPC and robust feedback linearization”, Journal of the
Franklin Institute, 2014, 351: 1335–1355.
[10] Bidram A., Lewis F. L., Davoudi A., “Synchronization of nonlinear heterogeneous cooperative systems using input-output feedback
linearization”, Automatica, 2014, 50: 2578–2585.
[11] Lascu C., Jafarzadeh S., Fadali M. S., and Blaabjerg F., “Direct torque control with feedback linearization for induction motor drives”,
IEEE Transactions on Power Electronics, 2017, 32(3): 2072-2080.
[12] Tuan L. A., Lee S. G., Dang V. H., Moon S., and Kim B., “Partial feedback linearization control of a three-dimensional overhead
crane”, International Journal of Control, Automation, and Systems, 2013, 11(4):718-727.
[13] Palli G., Pan L., Hosseini M., Moriello L. and Melchiorri C., “Feedback linearization of variable stiffness joints based on twisted
string actuators”, 2015 IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation (ICRA), Washington State Convention Center,
Seattle, Washington, May 26-30, 2015.
[14] Cho H. C., and Lee K. S., “Adaptive control and stability analysis of nonlinear crane systems with perturbation,” Journal of
Mechanical Science and Technology, 2008, 22: 1091-1098.
[15] Piltan F., Yarmahmoudi M., Mirzaie M., Emamzadeh S., and Hivand Z., “Design novel fuzzy robust feedback linearization control
with application to robot manipulator”, International Journal of Intelligent Systems and Applications, 2013, 05: 1-10.
[16] H. K. Khalil, Nonlinear Systems, Prentice Hall, 3rd edn, 2002.
[17] Naidu D. S., Calise A. J., “Singular perturbations and time scales in guidance and control of aerospace systems: a survey”, Journal of
Guidance, Control, and Dynamics, 2001, 24(6): 1057-1078.
[18] Wu S. T., Fei Y. H., Flight control system. Beijin: Beijing University of Aeronautics and Astronautics Press, 2005.
[19] Farrell J., Sharma M., and Polycarpou M., “Backstepping based flight control with adaptive function approximation”, Journal of
Guidance, Control, and Dynamics, 2005, 28, (6): 1089-1102.
[20] Kawaguchi J., Ninomiya T., and Miyazawa Y., “Stochastic approach to robust flight control design using hierarchy-structured
dynamic inversion”, Journal of Guidance, Control, and Dynamics, 2011, 34(5): 1573-1577.
[21] Jin L., Nikiforuk P. N., and Gupta M. M., “Adaptive control of discrete-time nonlinear systems using recurrent neural networks”, IEE
Proceedings-Control Theory and Applications, 1994, 141(3): 169-176.
[22] Benosman M., and Lum K. Y., “Application of absolute stability theory to robust control against loss of actuator effectiveness”, IET
Control Theory & Applications, 2009, 3(6): 772-788.
[23] Ben-Israel A., Greville T. N. E., Generalized inverses: theory and application, Springer Verlag, 2nd edn, 2003.
[24] Chen C. T., Linear system theory and design, 3rd ed., Oxford university press, 1999.
[25] Chen Y. L., Nonlinear dynamic characteristics analysis and control of aircraft at high-angle-of-attack, PhD thesis, Nanjing University
of Aeronautics and Astronautics, 2007.

