Marco La Civita
c
2002 by Marco La Civita. All rights reserved.
ii
Abstract
Robotic helicopters have attracted a great deal of interest from the university, the in
dustry, and the military world. They are versatile machines and there is a large number
of important missions that they could accomplish. Nonetheless, there are only a hand
ful of documented examples of robotichelicopter applications in realworld scenarios.
This situation is mainly due to the poor flight performance that can be achieved and
— more important — guaranteed under automatic control. Given the maturity of con
trol theory, and given the large body of knowledge in helicopter dynamics, it seems
that the lack of success in flying highperformance controllers for robotic helicopters,
especially by academic groups and by small industries, has nothing to do with heli
copters or control theory as such. The problem lies instead in the large amount of time
and resources needed to synthesize, test, and implement new control systems with the
approach normally followed in the aeronautical industry.
This thesis attempts to provide a solution by presenting a modeling and control
framework that minimizes the time, cost, and both human and physical resources nec
essary to design highperformance flight controllers. The work is divided in two main
parts. The first consists of the development of a modeling technique that allows the
designer to obtain a highfidelity model adequate for both realtime simulation and
controller design, with few flight, ground, and windtunnel tests and a modest level
of complexity in the dynamic equations. The second consists of the exploitation of
the predictive capabilities of the model and of the robust stability and performance
guarantees of the H∞ loopshaping control theory to reduce the number of iterations of
the design/simulatedevaluation/flighttest–evaluation procedure. The effectiveness
of this strategy is demonstrated by designing and flight testing a wideenvelope high
performance controller for the Carnegie Mellon University robotic helicopter.
iii
Acknowledgments
I would like to thank my advisors Bill Messner and Takeo Kanade for their constant
support and advice during my research years at Carnegie Mellon University.
I am equally in debt with several other people besides my advisors.
Mark Tishler at NASA Ames NASA/Army Rotorcraft Division for sharing with me
some of his legendary knowledge of helicopter dynamics and control, and for funding
part of my research (NASA Grant NAG21441).
George Papageorgiou for his invaluable technical advice and guidance on robust
control, and for being a member of my Ph.D. committee.
Adnan Akay for making sure that my stay at the Department of Mechanical En
gineering was the most comfortable possible, and for being a member of my Ph.D.
committee.
Omead Amidi for having started the Autonomous Helicopter Project and for lead
ing it in the best way possible, for his availability, and for his generosity.
Bernard Mettler for bringing me into this fascinating research area not only men
tally, but also physically, literally driving me with his car across the United States from
Pittsburgh to NASA Ames.
Ryan Miller and Todd Dudek for their assistance and for working extra hours to
allow me to do the flight tests presented in this thesis.
Noah Falk for designing the graphical interface to my flight simulator.
Mark Bedillion for proofreading this thesis.
I would also like to acknowledge some of the many people which have made en
joyable my life in Pittsburgh: my Italian friend Andrea Gambotto, the Pittsburgh De
partment of Leisure, Fun, and other Pachangas, and my family — in Italy and Spain —
that I always felt unconditionally present and supportive no matter the distance that
physically separates us.
Last, but not least, Rocı́o: I would not have accomplished any of this without her
presence. Gracias, compañera.
Contents
1 Introduction 1
1.1 Motivations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
1.2 Modeling background . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
1.3 Control background . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
1.4 Outline of contents . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
2 Integrated modeling 11
2.1 Firstprinciples nonlinear model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
2.1.1 Fuselage . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
2.1.2 Gravity forces and Euler angles . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
2.1.3 Main rotor . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
2.1.4 Actuators and stabilizer bar . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
2.1.5 Tail rotor . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
2.1.6 Aerodynamic forces . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
2.1.7 System of equations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
2.2 Linear models . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
2.2.1 Trimming . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
2.2.2 Linearization . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28
iv
Contents v
5 Conclusions 116
5.1 Contributions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 116
5.2 Suggestions for future work . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 117
Bibliography 118
Chapter 1
Introduction
1.1 Motivations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
1.1 Motivations
Robotic helicopters have attracted a great deal of interest from the university, the indus
try, and the military world. The number of situations in which they could be deployed
and used successfully is limited only by men’s imagination. The following list cites a
few of the possible scenarios.
Search and rescue: “More than 3 million people owe their lives to the special charac
teristics of these aircrafts.”1 Robotic helicopters have the possibility to increase
dramatically the number of situations where people’s lives are currently saved
with the use of manned fullscale helicopters. These platforms will be able to
1 M.E. Rhett Flater, A Letter to the President George W. Bush, Washington Post, 27 March 2001.
1
1.1. Motivations 2
search quickly and systematically a very large area and could be more readily de
ployed in weather conditions that would normally prevent human piloted search
and rescue and could be sacrificed in very dangerous conditions (fire, radioactive,
and chemical accident areas) to save human lives.
Law Enforcement: Robotic helicopters could fly overhead to aid police forces in dan
gerous highspeed chases or criminal search operations.
Inspection: Robotic helicopters could inspect high voltage electrical lines, bridges, and
dams in remote locations and monitor traffic costeffectively.
Aerial Mapping: Robotic helicopters could build more accurate topological maps than
conventional aircraft with substantial cost savings by flying in smaller and more
constrained areas.
Wildlife Observation: “In just two acres of Amazonian rainforest there are about four
times more species of trees than can be found on the whole of the North Amer
ican continent.”2 Robotic helicopters could be a breakthrough in the human
based identification and mapping of tropical trees species and the monitoring of
wildlife.
In spite of the importance of these applications, there are only a handful of doc
umented examples of robotichelicopter applications. This situation is mainly due to
2 Miroslav Honzák, http://www.passporttoknowledge.com/rainforest/Interact/Remote/Remote.html
1.1. Motivations 3
the poor flight performance that can be achieved and — more important — guaran
teed under automatic control. Autonomous flight is typically implemented through
Guidance, Navigation, and Control (GNC) systems. The success of guidance and nav
igation components relies strongly upon what level of performance is deliverable by
the control component. This is because the openloop dynamics of helicopters are un
stable, multivariable, highly coupled, nonminimum phase, and vary widely across the
flight envelope. Thus, the limits in the flightcontrol component of GNC systems jeop
ardize the overall performance, and have prevented robotichelicopter applications in
realworld missions.
This situation is quite surprising given the maturity reached by control theory and
given the large body of knowledge and experience in helicopter dynamics. It seems
that the lack of success in effective flight of robotic helicopters, especially by academic
groups and by small industries, has nothing to do with helicopters or control theory
as such, but it is mainly due to the limited resources in terms of costs and man hours
needed to design, test, and implement new control systems. In the aeronautical in
dustry (assuming that an instrumented vehicle is available), the flightcontroller design
process for an aerial vehicle is composed of the following activities:
• The development of an accurate mathematical model for the vehicle. This activity
may require (for the actual model generation and/or its validation) the combi
nation of extensive knowledge of flight dynamics, numerous piloted flight tests,
wind tunnel tests, and static and dynamic ground tests.
• The use of the model for controller synthesis with modelbased controller design
techniques.
• The use of the model in simulated flight tests for performance evaluation of the
synthesized model or nonmodel–based controller.
• The flight testing of the control laws on the real vehicle and the performance eval
uation.
1.2. Modeling background 4
• The iteration of controller design, simulated and real flight, and evaluation until
the performance is satisfactory. The length of the iteration process is inversely
proportional to the level of stability and performance robustness guaranteed by
the controller and/or to the predictive capabilities of the model.
• the exploitation of the predictive capabilities of the model and the robust stabil
ity and performance guarantees of H∞ loopshaping control theory to reduce the
number of iterations of the design/simulatedevaluation/flighttest–evaluation
procedure.
The effectiveness of this strategy will be demonstrated by designing and flight testing a
wideenvelope highperformance controller for the Carnegie Mellon University robotic
helicopter.
Traditionally, the fullscale helicopter community has addressed controller design and
simulation separately, with two different but complementary modeling techniques: sys
1.2. Modeling background 5
At Carnegie Mellon University (CMU), Mettler et al. [2002] have already investi
gated the application of well known systemidentification techniques used in the full
scale helicopter community (Comprehensive Identification from FrEquency Responses,
CIFER [Tischler and Cauffman, 1992]) to the CMU Yamaha R50 smallscale helicopter
1.2. Modeling background 6
shown in Figure 1.1. The research produced and validated two linear models for hover
and cruise flight of the Yamaha R50. Kim and Tilbury [1998], Morris et al. [1994], Bruce
et al. [1998], and Shim et al. [2000] gave other examples of system identification for
smallscale helicopters, and Tischler and Cauffman [1992] and Tischler and Tomashof
ski [2002] for fullscale helicopters. The accuracy of these linear model ranges from fair
to very good. Linear models enable the design of controllers, but then simulation with
a nonlinear model is required before actual flight tests.
It is evident that a highfidelity realtime full–flightenvelope simulation model that
integrates the characteristics of the linear models obtained from system identification,
and of the nonlinear model from firstprinciples modeling, would be of great value in
helicopter modeling. This model would allow a user
• to simulate the helicopter in realtime and with high fidelity in its full flight enve
lope;
Furthermore, if the model were a physical parametric model, it would make it possible
• to examine what are the inherent dynamic limitations of the vehicle and if and
how they can be removed by a properly designed controller;
The design of controllers for robotic helicopters has been documented by Weilenmann
et al. [1994], Amidi et al. [1998], Mettler et al. [2000], Koo et al. [1998], Hoffmann et al.
[1998], Prasad et al. [1999], Hovakimyan et al. [2001], Shim et al. [2000], and Sprague
et al. [2001]. A large set of design techniques, from classical control to neuralbased
adaptive control, has been reported. Many of these controllerdesign studies have used
oversimplified models of the helicopters for design and simulation and have achieved
quite modest performance: the flight modes are limited to hover and lowspeed straight
flight, or tracking accuracy decreases considerably as the speed increases and maneu
vering flight is attempted. The absence of accurate models has also hindered the un
derstanding of specific control problems in robotic helicopters (e.g., large system delays
1.3. Control background 8
and rotor/fuselage coupling) leading to the design of poor controllers or the incorrect
assessment of certain approaches to control design.
Weilenmann et al. [1994] compared, on an indoor bench, several multivariable tech
niques including H∞ . H∞ control can systematically handle uncertain and multiinput
/multioutput plants, and it promises fast and lowcost design of goodperformance
flight control laws. The use of H∞ control for the design of stability augmentation and
guidance systems for fixed and rotarywing aircrafts has been the subject of much re
search.
One of the effective H∞ based design procedures is called H∞ loop shaping, which
was proposed by McFarlane and Glover [1992]. It combines the traditional notions
of bandwidth and loop gain together with modern ideas of robustness into a single
framework. Particular advantages of the method are (1) the ease with which the con
troller weighting functions can be tuned to give an appropriate system bandwidth, and
(2) the use of a generalized stability margin that supersedes gain and phase margins.
Furthermore, controller gain scheduling and antiwindup are easily addressed in the
H∞ loopshaping framework by expressing the H∞ loop shaping controller as an exact
plant observer plus state feedback [Sefton and Glover, 1990].
The H∞ loopshaping approach has now been used quite widely, and a consider
able body of experience has been accumulated. A careful examination of the liter
ature showed that controllers designed using H∞ loop shaping are the only type of
H∞ controllers that have been flown on a piloted aircraft to date. A gainscheduled
H∞ loopshaping longitudinal controller flew on DERA’s3 experimental Harrier air
craft in 1993 [Hyde, 1995]. A fixedgain twodegreeoffreedom H∞ loopshaping con
troller flew on the National Research Council of Canada’s Bell 205 airborne simulator in
1997 [Smerlas et al., 1998]. A selfscheduled linear parametervarying H∞ loopshaping
longitudinal controller flew on DERA’s experimental Harrier aircraft in 1999 [Papageor
giou and Glover, 2000]. In addition to the above flight tests, a fixedgain twodegree
3 DERA, now QinetiQ, was the UK’s Defence Evaluation and Research Agency.
1.4. Outline of contents 9
offreedom H∞ loopshaping controller designed for the Westland Lynx multirole com
bat helicopter [Walker and Postlethwaite, 1996], and a fixedgain integrated flight and
propulsion H∞ loopshaping controller designed for DERA’s experimental Harrier air
craft [Bates et al., 2000] have been evaluated in piloted simulation. All five control laws
were designed in a short amount of time according to AGARD, Gibson, MIL, and ADS
33 specifications, and performed satisfactorily, reinforcing the argument that H∞ loop
shaping could indeed benefit the aeronautical industry. Nonetheless, H∞ loop shaping
has not been applied to robotic helicopters, and there have been no documented exam
ples of flighttested gainscheduled H∞ loopshaping controllers for either manned or
unmanned helicopters.
Chapter 3: Robust hover control. Chapter 3 introduces the H∞ loop shaping design
method and shows how H∞ loop shaping can be used to design a hover controller
for a robotic helicopter. The controller stability and performance robustness is
evaluated with some standard aeronauticalindustry requirements and by flying
several complex maneuvers off of the hover design point. Finally, robustness un
der varying loading conditions is evaluated using the parametric model.
1.4. Outline of contents 10
Chapter 4: Robust fullenvelope flight control. This chapter presents a scheduling pro
cedure for a H∞ loop shaping controller. The procedure makes use of current en
gineering practice in implementing scheduled controllers, but it is formalized to
a level that makes it easy to automate the whole process from establishing the
variables that need to be scheduled to cover the target flight envelope, to eval
uating the minimum number of fixed operatingpoint controllers needed to sat
isfy the stability margin specification throughout the flight envelope. Compliance
with some standard aeronautical requirements is then checked, and it is shown
that satisfying robust stability using the H∞ loopshaping stability margin metric
also delivers excellent closedloop performance. An analysis of the observer plus
statefeedback structure of the H∞ loop shaping controller is used to justify and
gain physical insight into the excellent performance. The scheduled controller is
then evaluated in real flight with several steps and maneuvers at different speeds.
Chapter 5: Conclusions. This chapter summarizes the main contributions and provides
some suggestions for future work.
Chapter 2
Integrated modeling
This chapter presents a novel modeling technique called MOdeling for Flight Simu
lation and Control Analysis (MOSCA). MOSCA combines the benefits of firstprinciples
and systemidentification techniques. The technique consists of (1) generating an ade
quate firstprinciples nonlinear model, and (2) using global optimization methods and
extracted linear models to tune automatically selected uncertain physical parameters
of the nonlinear model to match frequency responses from flight tests. MOSCA yields
nonlinear models that are adequate for simulation over a large portion of the heli
copter’s flight envelope, and highfidelity linear models needed for highbandwidth
controller design.
11
2.1. Firstprinciples nonlinear model 12
As shown in Figure 2.1, the first step of the MOSCA approach is to obtain a first
principles nonlinear model of the robotic helicopter of interest. The CMU Yamaha
R50 (see Figure 1.1) has been used in this thesis as the test vehicle.
Control Inputs
First−Principles Non−Linear Responses
Parametric Model
Linearization
of the subsystems is based on work by others [Johnson, 1994, Zhao and Curtiss, 1988,
Schrage et al., 1988, Talbot et al., 1982, Eshow et al., 1988, Ballin and DalangSecrétan,
1991, Kim et al., 1993, Pitt and Peters, 1981, Keller, 1996] with the relevant difference
given by the nonAmerican leftblade–advancing rotation of the main rotor, which ne
cessitated the derivation from scratch of all the equations of motion. What follows
shows the modeling of the mentioned subsystems.
2.1.1 Fuselage
The dynamic model of the fuselage uses rigidbody equations. The translational and
rotational velocities of the fuselage in the body frame are (see Figure 2.2)
u p
vb = v , ωb = q (2.1)
w r
where u, v, w are the forward, lateral, and down velocities, and p, q, r are the roll, pitch,
and yaw angular rates. The NewtonEuler equations for the fuselage expressed in the
body frame are
1
v̇b = F − ωb × v b (2.2)
m b
ω̇b = J −1 ( M b − (ωb × Jωb )) (2.3)
y, v, q
x, u, p
x, u, p
z, w, r
Figure 2.2: Body frame with translational (u, v, w) and rotational (p, q, r) velocities.
Fb = F mr + F tr + F g + F ae
(2.6)
M b = M mr + M tr + M g + M ae
that is, they are the sum of the forces and moments due to the main rotor (F mr , M mr ),
tail rotor (F tr , M tr ), gravity (F g ), and fuselage aerodynamic forces (F ae , M ae ).
where ψ, φ, and θ are the yaw, roll, and pitch Euler angles. Euler angles represent the
three consecutive rotations that transform the earth frame into the body frame (see Fig
ure 2.2). The earth frame is fixed and has the x, y, and z axes parallel to the North, East,
and Down directions respectively. The body frame is parallel to the earth frame for ψ, θ,
and φ = 0. The equation for the Euler angles variations in time is
φ̇ 1 tan θ sin φ tan θ cos φ
θ̇ = 0 cos φ − sin φ ωb (2.8)
ψ̇ 0 sin φ/ cos θ cos φ/ cos θ
The motion of the rotor blades generates the mainrotor forces and moments transmit
ted to the fuselage. The main assumptions made to derive the dynamic equations of
the main rotor are the following: (1) the blades are rigid in bending and torsion, (2) the
flapping angle is small, (3) there is no reverse flow region and no blade stall, (4) the tip
loss factor is equal to 1, and (5) compressibility effects are ignored.
These assumptions grant validity of the model up to an advance ratio µ of 0.3 [Tal
bot et al., 1982]. The advance ratio µ is defined as the ratio of the mainrotor inplane
velocity to the bladetip speed:
V cos α
µ= (2.9)
ΩR
where V is the airspeed, α is the angle of attack of the rotor, Ω is the mainrotor ro
tational speed, and R is the rotor radius. For the R50, µ = 0.3 corresponds to V ≃
40 m/s (144 Km/h), which exceeds the R50’s maximum speed. Thus, the model is
adequate to represent the full flight envelope of the vehicle.
The first step to obtain the dynamic equations of the main rotor is to derive the
expression of the sum of all the moments on a blade with respect to the flapping hinge.
The development of such an expression is simplified by the use of the hubwind frame.
The hubwind frame has its origin at the center of the mainrotor hub, the z axis aligned
2.1. Firstprinciples nonlinear model 16
with the mainrotor shaft with positive direction down, the x axis aligned with the
relative wind component perpendicular to the shaft, and the y axis oriented as required
to form a righthanded orthogonal frame.
The moment components on a single blade are due to the aerodynamic forces, cen
trifugal forces, blade inertia, Coriolis acceleration, restraint moment at the hinge, weight,
and fuselage vertical and angular accelerations.
The dynamic equation for a blade has the following form:
Z R−e
1
β̈ = Mh dr (2.10)
Jβ 0
where β is the outofplane flapping angle, Jβ the blade moment of inertia, and e is
the blade hinge offset from the center of the rotor. Mh dr is the sum of the moment
components with respect to the flapping hinge calculated at each “strip” dr along the
blade (strip theory). Mh is a complicated function of the rotor physical parameters
(e.g., blade twist, hinge spring, blade chord, etc.), flapping angle β and flapping angle
velocity β̇, blade velocity of rotation Ω, blade azimuth angle Ψ, fuselage velocities and
accelerations (translational and rotational), induced velocity, and blade pitch angle.
Once the expression for Mh is obtained, β (and its derivatives) is substituted with
the following expression (and its derivatives):
Retaining only the first harmonic terms in Equation 2.10 after the former substitution,
allows the description of the flapping motion of the blades with three elementary mo
tions of the tip of the blades (tippath plane). In fact, a0 (t), a1 (t), and b1 (t) represent
respectively the coning, the pitching, and the rolling motion of the tippath plane.
A nonlinear firstorder system of differential equations for the flapping coefficients
can be obtained by separating the constant terms and the terms with cos Ψ and sin Ψ in
Equation 2.10,
0 I
ȧmr = amr + f
mr (2.12)
−K mr − Dmr
2.1. Firstprinciples nonlinear model 17
where amr = [a0 a1 b1 ȧ0 ȧ1 ḃ1 ]T and K mr , Dmr , and f mr depend on the rotor physical
parameters, the blades’ velocity of rotation, the induced velocity, the blade pitch angle,
and the fuselage velocities and accelerations (translational and rotational). In detail, the
elements of K mr are
e mβ 1
1 1 1
K mr (1, 1) = + γ ε K l + 1 − γ ε2 µ2 K l + γ ε µ2 K l − γ K l −
Jβ 6 8 4 8
Kβ
1
γ µ2 K l Ω 2 + (2.13)
8 Jβ
1 1 2
K mr (1, 2) = − γ ε µ + γ ε µ Ω2 (2.14)
8 4
1 1
K mr (1, 3) = − γ µ K l + γ ε µ K l Ω2 (2.15)
6 4
1 1
K mr (2, 1) = − γ µ + γ ε µ Ω2 (2.16)
6 4
e mβ
1 1 1 1
K mr (2, 2) = γ ε K l + γ ε µ2 K l − γ K l + − γ ε2 µ2 K l −
6 8 8 Jβ 16
Kβ
1
γ µ2 K l Ω 2 + (2.17)
16 Jβ
1 2 1 2 1 2 1 1 1
K mr (2, 3) = − γε + γεµ − γµ − γ ε µ − γ + γ ε Ω2 (2.18)
2 2
4 8 16 16 8 3
1 1
K mr (3, 1) = − γ µ K l + γ ε µ K l Ω2 (2.19)
3 2
1 1 1 1 1 1
K mr (3, 2) = − γ ε2 µ2 − γ µ2 + γ ε µ2 + γ ε2 − γ ε + γ Ω2 (2.20)
16 16 8 4 3 8
e mβ
1 1 3 3
K mr (3, 3) = γ ε Kl − γ Kl + − γ ε2 µ2 K l + γ ε µ2 K l − (2.21)
6 8 Jβ 16 8
Kβ
3
γ µ K l Ω2 +
2
(2.22)
16 Jβ
the elements of Dmr are
1 1 2 1
Dmr (1, 1) = − γε+ γε + γ Ω (2.23)
3 4 8
Dmr (1, 2) = 0 (2.24)
1 2 1 1
Dmr (1, 3) = γε µ+ γµ− γεµ Ω (2.25)
4 12 4
Dmr (2, 1) = 0 (2.26)
2.1. Firstprinciples nonlinear model 18
1 1 2 1
Dmr (2, 2) = − γε+ γε + γ Ω (2.27)
3 4 8
Dmr (2, 3) = −2 Ω (2.28)
1 2 1 1
Dmr (3, 1) = γε µ+ γµ− γεµ Ω (2.29)
2 6 2
Dmr (3, 2) = 2Ω (2.30)
1 1 2 1
Dmr (3, 3) = − γε+ γε + γ Ω (2.31)
3 4 8
and the elements of f mr are
1 1 1 1
f mr (1) = − ā0 + γ µ θlonw − γ ε θcol + γ ε λ0 + γ µ θa1s +
6 6 4 6
1 1 1 1 e m β ā0
γ θcol + γ θtw − γ ε µ θlonw + γ ε µ λs − +
8 10 4 8 Jβ
1 1 1 1 1
γ µ2 θcol − γ ε θtw + γ µ2 θtw − γ ε µ θa1s + γ ε2 µ2 θcol −
8 8 12 4 8
1 1 1 1
γ ε µ2 θcol − γ ε µ2 θtw − γ µ λs − γ λ0 Ω 2 +
4 8 12 6
1 1 1 γ ε wh
γ ε µ p cos β w − γ µ q sin βw − +
8 12 4 R
1 1 γ wh 1
γ ε µ q sin βw + − γ µ p cos β w Ω +
8 6 R 12
m β ẇ m β g cos φ cos θ m β uq m β pv
− − + (2.32)
Jβ Jβ Jβ Jβ
1 1 1 1
f mr (2) = − γ ε 2 µ 2 θ b1 s − γ µ2 θlatw − γ µ 2 θ b1 s − γ ε2 µ2 θlatw −
16 16 16 16
1 1 1 1 1
γ ε λc + γ λc − γ θlatw − γ θb1s − γ ε µ ā0 +
6 8 8 8 4
1 1 1 1 1
γ µ ā0 + γ ε µ θlatw + γ ε θlatw + γ ε θb1s + γ ε µ θb1s Ω2 +
2 2
6 8 6 6 8
1 1
2 q sin β w − γ q cos βw + γ p sin β w + 2 p cos β w +
8 8
e m β p cos β w e m β q sin βw
1 1
2 +2 + γ ε q cos βw − γ ε p sin βw Ω −
Jβ Jβ 6 6
q̇ cos βw + ṗ sin β w (2.33)
1 1 1 3 1
f mr (3) = γ θa1s + γ µ θcol − γ ε µ θtw − γ ε µ2 θlonw − γ ε µ θcol −
8 3 3 8 2
1 2 1 1 3 1
γ ε µ λ0 − γ ε θa1s − γ λs − γ ε µ2 θa1s + γ θlonw +
4 6 8 8 8
2.1. Firstprinciples nonlinear model 19
3 1 3 3
γ µ 2 θ a1 s + γ ε µ λ 0 + γ ε 2 µ 2 θ a1 s + γ ε2 µ2 θlonw +
16 2 16 16
1 3 1 1 1
γ ε λs + γ µ θlonw + γ µ θtw − γ µ λ0 − γ ε θlonw Ω2 +
2
6 16 4 4 6
e m β q cos βw
1 γ µ wh
−2 − 2 q cos βw + + 2 p sin βw +
Jβ 4 R
1 1 γ ε µ wh 1 e m β p sin β w
γ ε p cos β w − − γ q sin βw + 2 +
6 2 R 8 Jβ
γ ε2 µ w h 1
1
γ ε q sin βw + 1/4 − γ p cos βw Ω − ṗ cos βw −
6 R 8
q̇ sin βw (2.34)
In the preceding expressions m β is the blade mass moment about the flapping hinge,
Kl the blade pitch/flap coupling ratio, ε = e/R, K β the hingespring stiffness, γ the
blade Lock number, ā0 the blade preconing angle, λ0,c,s the inflow components, βw
the sideslip angle (the angle between the inertial velocity vector and the relative wind
vector in the xy plane of the hubwind frame), and wh the velocity of the rotor hub
in the body frame. The subscripted θs represent the various contributions to the main
rotor blade pitch angle θmr ; so, for example, θtw is the pitch due to the blade twist, and
θlonw is the pitch due to the longitudinal cyclic input in the hubwind frame. The blade
Lock number γ is defined as
ρ c α c R4
γ= (2.35)
Jβ
where ρ is the air density, c is the blade cord, and cα is the blade liftcurve slope.
The dynamic inflow λ is defined as the ratio between the induced velocity and
bladetip velocity. The representation of the rotor inflow is the one suggested by Pitt
and Peters [1981] with the addition of the wakedistortion term proposed by Keller
[1996]. Pitt and Peters [1981] assumed that the distribution of the inflow λ is
r r
λ(t, r, Ψ) = λ0 (t) + λs (t) sin Ψ + λc (t) cos Ψ (2.36)
R R
The firstorder differential equation that describes the inflow dynamics is then
L M λ̇ + λ = L c + k (2.37)
2.1. Firstprinciples nonlinear model 20
where
λ
0
c
T 0
pw
λ = λs , c = cL , and − Kr Ω
k= (2.38)
qw
λc cM Kr
Ω
represent the inflow components, the thrust and moment coefficients due to aerody
namic forces on the rotor, and the wake distortion terms respectively. The expressions
for L and M are
8
3π Ω 0 0
16
M= 0 − 0 (2.39)
45 π Ω
16
0 0 −
45 π Ω
1 15 π χ
0 tan
2 vt 64 vm 2
4
L=
0 − 0
(2.40)
(1 + cos χ) vm
15 π 4 cos χ
0 −
64 vm (1 + cos χ) vm
wh
q
vt = µ2 + ( λ0 − µ3 )2 , with µ3 = , (2.41)
ΩR
and
µ2 + (2 λ0 − µ3 )(λ0 − µ3 )
vm = . (2.42)
vt
For a twisted rotor blade, M (1, 1) = 128/(75πΩ). Both the dynamic inflow and
the Keller’s wakedistortion terms allow a better representation of the coupling effects
between the rotor dynamics and the fuselage.
The forces and moments transmitted by the rotor to the fuselage are calculated using
2.1. Firstprinciples nonlinear model 21
the elementary strip forces and moments. For example, Fmrz (mainrotor thrust) in
Fmrx
F mr = Fmry (2.43)
Fmrz
is
Z 2πZ R−e
N
Fmrz = Fz dr dΨ (2.44)
2π 0 0
where N is the number of blades, and Fz is the sum of all the forces acting on a rotor
blade in the z direction and calculated at each strip dr along the blade.
F mr and M mr , and Equations 2.12 and 2.37, all depend on blade pitch angle θmr ,
which is effected by the stabilizerbar flapping motion and the actuator positions. The
following section describes these two subsystems.
In a helicopter without a stabilizer bar, four actuators are used to change the pitch angle
θmr of the main rotor blades and the pitch angle θtr of the tail rotor blades to generate
forces and moments on the fuselage. The expression for θmr is
where the subscripts col, lon, and lat indicate the bladepitch components due to the
collective, longitudinal, and lateral inputs (δcol , δlon , and δlat ) respectively. Secondorder
systems approximate satisfactorily the dynamics of the actuators. For the collective
control, for example, the equation is
where
θcol
θcol = (2.47)
θ̇col
2.1. Firstprinciples nonlinear model 22
and δcol is the input to the actuator. The matrices in Equation 2.46 are
0 1 0
Acol = , Bcol = . (2.48)
−ωn2 col −2 ζ col ωncol ωn2 col
θmr = θcol + θlon sin Ψ + θlat cos Ψ + ks ( a1s sin Ψ + b1s cos Ψ) (2.49)
where a1s and b1s represent the flapping motion of the stabilizer bar, and the constant
ks models the mechanical gearing between this flapping motion and the mainrotor
blades’ pitch angle.
The purpose of the stabilizer bar is to help the human pilot in controlling the he
licopter. Usually, it is present on smallscale helicopters, which have faster dynamics
compared to fullscale ones, and acts as a laggedrate feedback system [Miller, 1950].
The stabilizer bar on the R50 has two peripheral paddles that produce negligible
forces on the fuselage due to the their small surface. Its dynamics are modeled as an
additional rotor with a set of equations similar to Equation 2.12:
0 I
ȧs = as + f
s (2.50)
−K s − Ds
Since the stabilizer bar is teetered there is no coning term in Equation 2.50 and as =
[a1s b1s ȧ1s ḃ1s ]T . The expressions for K s , Ds , and, f s are much simpler than the corre
sponding ones for the main rotor:
γs µ 2 R2i γs R4i
0 −1 + −1
16 R2o 8 R4o
K s = Ω2
γs µ 2 R 2
γs R4i
i
−1 − −1 0
16 R2o 8 R4o
(2.51)
2.1. Firstprinciples nonlinear model 23
R4
γs
1 − 4i −2
8 Ro
Ds = Ω (2.52)
R4i
γs
2 1−
8 R4o
4 2
1 1 γs θslonw Ri 1 γs µ2 θslonw Ri
f s ( 1) = − γs θslonw + + −
8 8 Ro 4 16 Ro 2
1 γs q cos βw Ri 4
1 1
γs µ θslonw Ω2 + − γs q cos βw +
2
+
16 8 8 Ro 4
!
1 1 γs p sin β w Ri 4
γs p sin β w + 2 p cos β w + 2 q sin β w − Ω−
8 8 Ro 4
q̇ cos βw + ṗ sin β w (2.53)
4
1 γs µ λ̄s Ri 2 1 1 γs θlonsw Ri 1
f s ( 2) = − 2
+ γ s µ λ̄ s − 4
+ γs θlonsw −
4 Ro 4 8 Ro 8
!
2
3 γs µ2 θlonsw Ri 3 2 2 1 γs q sin βw Ri 4
+ γ s µ θ lonsw Ω + +
16 Ro 2 16 8 Ro 4
1 γs p cos β w Ri 4 1 1
4
+ 2 p sin βw − γs q sin βw − γs p cos βw −
8 Ro 8 8
2 q cos β w ) Ω − ṗ cos β w − q̇ sin βw (2.54)
Many of the variables in the former equations have the same meaning as for the main
rotor except for Ri and Ro that are the radial position of the inward and outward bound
aries of the paddles, and λ̄s that is the static inflow ratio. The stabilizerbar bladepitch
angle is
θs = θslon sin Ψ + θslat cos Ψ. (2.55)
where θslon and θslat represent the blade pitch due to the longitudinal and lateral inputs
respectively.
The tail rotor has smaller dimensions compared to the main rotor. Its dynamics are
much faster so they can be fairly represented by a steadystate solution of the flapping
2.1. Firstprinciples nonlinear model 24
equation. This is achieved by zeroing the derivatives of the blade flapping in a flapping
equation similar to the one for the main rotor (Equation 2.12):
0 I
ȧtr = atr + f
tr (2.56)
−K tr − Dtr
where atr = [ ȧ0tr ȧ1tr ḃ1tr a0tr a1tr b1tr ]T . Eliminating ȧtr and ȧ0tr , ȧ1tr , and ḃ1tr from atr ,
Equation 2.56 becomes:
−1
ātr = K tr f tr (2.57)
where ātr = [a0tr a1tr b1tr ]T . The expression for K tr and f tr are very similar to the ones
given for the main rotor, the only difference being a steadystate representation for the
induced velocity as for the stabilizer bar. Forces and moments (F tr , M tr ) are calculated
as for the main rotor (Equation 2.44). The pedal actuator is used to change the blade
pitch angle θtr :
θ̇tr = Atr θtr + Btr δped (2.58)
where δped is the pedal input and the entries in Atr and Btr (see Equation 2.48) are
obtained with system identification.
The aerodynamic forces and moments (F ae , M ae ) acting on the fuselage are modeled as
proposed in Talbot et al. [1982]. It can be assumed that F ae and M ae depend on angle of
attack α and/or sideslip β w . For example, the expression for the drag force Faex is
where qf is the dynamic pressure and d0α , d1α , d2α , and d2βw are experimental aerody
namic coefficients. Talbot et al. [1982] give aerodynamic coefficients for a Cobra AH1G.
Given the absence of wind tunnel tests for the Yamaha R50, the use of scaling rules pro
vides an estimate of the coefficients in Equation 2.59 from the ones of the AH1G.
2.1. Firstprinciples nonlinear model 25
Summing the forces and moments from all the subsystems gives F b and M b (see Equa
tion 2.6). Combining Equations 2.2, 2.3, 2.8, 2.12, 2.37, 2.50, Equation 2.46 (three of them
for collective, longitudinal, and lateral inputs), and Equation 2.58 results in the system
of nonlinear equations that describes the coupled dynamics of the helicopter:
ẋ = g ( ẋ, x, u, t) (2.60)
which is equivalent to
ẋ = ( I − Γ(t))−1 g ( x, u, t) ≡ f ( x, u, t) (2.64)
y = h( x, u, t) (2.65)
In case the desired outputs are all the helicopter states, h( x, u, t) is simply x.
2.2. Linear models 26
After obtaining the nonlinear model, the second step in the MOSCA procedure (see
Figure 2.1) is to extract linear models at the operating points for which flighttest fre
quency responses are available. Notice that, for simplicity, Figure 2.1 shows only two
operating points, but the approach can be extended to any number of them as long as
the corresponding flighttest data are available.
2.2.1 Trimming
To extract the linear models, the nonlinear model must be trimmed first. The trim state
is obtained by solving (see Equation 2.64)
f ( x, u) = 0 (2.66)
that is a nonlinear system of 30 equations with 34 unknowns (30 for x plus 4 for u).
To have a square system, which can be solved efficiently utilizing the Powell Hybrid
Method, four equations must be added. These four equality constraints specify the
operating point at which the trim is desired. In fact, a particular flight condition is
specified with V, γ, and βw , and it is independent of ψ. V is the ground speed of the
helicopter, γ the flightpath angle, and βw the sideslip angle. For example, forward
straight level flight at 10 m/s is specified with
V = 10
γ = 0
βw = 0
ψ = 0
2.2. Linear models 27
V = 10
γ = 0
π
βw =
2
ψ = 0
V, γ, and β w are related to the state vector x; constraining these variables translates into
constraining the state vector. Hence, it is possible to derive the missing equations to
solve Equation 2.66. The four equations are:
ψ = 0 (2.70)
where
Vz = −V sin γ (2.73)
It is also possible to obtain solutions for other flight configurations such as coordi
nated turn, instantaneous constant pitch rate (θ̇), and instantaneous constant roll rate
(φ̇). For example, the trim for a forward coordinated level turn at V = 20 m/s and
turning velocity (ψ̇) of 30 deg/s is specified by imposing the same conditions as for
forward straight level flight for V, γ, β w , and ψ, and by requesting that the value of
the statederivative vector component ψ̇ in the system of Equations 2.66 is equal to 30
deg/s instead of 0 deg/s.
2.3. Model and flighttest frequency responses 28
2.2.2 Linearization
Linear models at the calculated trim are derived with a first order Taylor series expan
sion of Equations 2.64 and 2.65.
∂g ∂g
∆ ẋ ≃ ∆x + ∆u (2.74)
xtrim ∂x ∂u utrim
∂h ∂h
∆y ≃ ∆x + ∆u (2.75)
∂x xtrim ∂u utrim
where
The partial derivatives in Equations 2.74, 2.75 are computed using a twopoint finite
difference scheme with an adaptive step size.
With x̃˙ = ∆ ẋ, x̃ = ∆x, ỹ = ∆y, and ũ = ∆u, Equations 2.74, 2.75 can be rewritten in
the standard form for linear systems:
x̃˙ A B x̃
= (2.78)
ỹ C D ũ
MOSCA requires also frequency responses from flight tests (see Figure 2.1), which were
calculated using CIFER with the same data set used by Mettler et al. [2002]. This data
set consists of several sweeps (used for frequency responses calculations) and doublets
(used for time domain verification) on all the inputs for two different flight conditions:
hover and cruise flight at 15 m/s.
2.4. Identification of physical parameters 29
1. Extensive and cumbersome manual tuning of the large number of physical pa
rameters in the nonlinear model to improve their overall matching capabilities.
2. Extraction of linear models at the target design points, and direct automatic tun
ing of the A and B matrices in Equation 2.78 with the use of flighttest data and
system identification.
Each one of these approaches has its own drawbacks. The intent of the MOSCA
approach is to automate the practically infeasible manual tuning process in approach 1,
to deliver a highfidelity realtime nonlinear model adequate for linear and nonlinear
modelbased controller design.
Automatic tuning can be achieved by identifying the uncertain parameters in the
time or in the frequency domain. The use of time domain identification for nonlinear
models, presents an important shortcoming: the identification of the uncertain parame
ters is severely biased by the necessity of identifying also both the trimming conditions
and the initial dynamic states of the model. In fact, the parameters of the nonlinear
2.4. Identification of physical parameters 30
model, the trim, and the initial states all contribute to the dynamic response of the sys
tem, which makes it difficult, if not impossible, to identify correctly the system parame
ters. Another problem with time domain identification arises if the linear or nonlinear
system is unstable as in the case of a helicopter. Instability creates problems both in
executing long flighttest runs to include the lowfrequency dynamics, and during the
simulation phase for the identification.
For linear systems, frequency domain techniques eliminate the need to identify the
trim and the initial states, and the collection of flight data is easily accomplished with
sweeps over the frequency range of interest. These are the main reasons why identi
fication from frequency responses is so popular in the aeronautical industry with ro
bust software packages such as CIFER [Tischler and Cauffman, 1992]. Frequency do
main identification has not been used directly to identify the parameters of a nonlinear
model because for nonlinear cases a frequency response represents only the best lin
ear system approximating the dynamic behavior in the neighborhood of a particular
operating point.
MOSCA uses the frequency domain to identify the parameters of a nonlinear model
in an intuitive and physically meaningful way. Suppose that the NFR flighttest fre
quency responses G for each input/output pair of interest are available at each of the
NOP operating points. MOSCA identifies the parameters of the nonlinear model by
(1) extracting linear models (Equation 2.78) at the NOP operating points, (2) calculating
their frequency responses (Equation 2.79) and selecting the ones of interest, and (3) min
imizing a single cost function that includes the mismatches between the NFR calculated
and flighttest frequency responses at each one of the NOP operating points. Figure 2.1
illustrates this procedure assuming that only flight tests for hover and cruise flight are
available.
The expression for the cost function to minimize is
NOP NFR
J ( p) = ∑ ∑ wκ κTn,i ( p)W n,iκn,i ( p) + wχ χTn,i ( p)W n,i χn,i ( p) (2.80)
n =1 i =1
2.4. Identification of physical parameters 31
where p is the vector of selected parameters of the nonlinear model that we want
to identify, NFR is the number of frequency responses, NOP is the number of operat
ing points, κn,i is the magnitude error between flighttest and calculated frequency re
sponses
κn,i = Gn,i (s)data  − Gn,i (s)model  (2.81)
and χn,i is the phase error between flighttest and calculated frequency responses
W n,i is a weighting matrix to emphasize most accurate data (i.e., data with high coher
ence), and wκ and wχ are weights that determine the tradeoff between magnitude and
phase errors [Tischler and Cauffman, 1992].
A single cost function results in a unique set of optimized model parameters, which
makes the model accurate in the flightenvelope region covered by the flight exper
iments. MOSCA allows the inclusion of any number of operating points as long as
flighttest frequency responses are available. MOSCA uses a simplexmethod algorithm
[Rowan, 1990] to minimize J ( p ).
An analogy to a geometric problem in two dimensions helps to understand better
how MOSCA works. The process (tuning a nonlinear parametric model to flight tests
in the frequency domain) is analogous to finding the values of a parametric curve (the
nonlinear model) such that the curve is tangent to N known straight lines (frequency
responses from flight tests that describe a linear approximation of the nonlinear sys
tem) at a number N of known points (the operating points). To form the cost function
one would compute the derivatives (extract the linear models) of the parametric curve
(the nonlinear model) at each of the N points, and calculate the errors with the known
tangents (the frequency responses from flight tests).
The key to the success of this approach is that the nonlinear parametric model must
capture the salient characteristics of the given dynamic system. This allows the solution
to be a physically meaningful set of parameters .
2.5. Reducedorder linear models 32
The fullstate linear models contain high frequency dynamics that may be less impor
tant in capturing the dynamic behavior of the helicopter in the crossover region of in
terest for control. Reducedorder linear models can be derived from Equation 2.78 in
two steps. The state vector x̃ is partitioned in x̃1 (states to be kept) and x̃2 (states to be
eliminated):
x̃˙1 A A12 B1 x̃
11 1
˙
x̃2 = A21 A22 B2 x̃2 (2.83)
ỹ C1 C2 D ũ
Then x̃2 , which contains the faster dynamics, can be eliminated substituting its dynamic
equation with the respective steadystate solution; that is, x̃˙2 is set to zero,
x1 = [ u v w p q r φ θ ψ a1 b1 a1s b1s θlon θ̇lon θlat θ̇lat θcol θ̇col θtr θ̇tr ]T (2.87)
Except for the actuators, this reduced model has basically the same dimensions of the
CMU R50 linear model identified with CIFER by Mettler et al. [2002]. The reduced
linear model describes the helicopter with rigid body dynamics for the fuselage, and
firstorder tippath–plane dynamics for the main rotor and the stabilizer bar.
2.6. MOSCAmodel evaluation 33
This section reports the set of identified model parameters and comparisons among full
state linear models, reducedorder linear models, and flighttest data in the frequency
and time domains. Results from the nonlinear model are not presented since, as ex
pected, they were always marginally better than the results from the linear models at
every operating point.
Table 2.1 reports some of the measured and optimized values for a typical MOSCA
run for the CMU R50. The optimized parameters are close to the measured ones. The
pitch moment of inertia exhibits the largest variation (30%); this is probably due to
an incorrectly measured value1 , or to the transfer of the uncertainty of other physical
parameters to the pitch moment of inertia.
The fact that the identified physical parameters do not lose their physical meaning
is a key result, which shows the power of the integration of firstprinciples modeling
and system identification with global optimization in the frequency domain. Previous
attempts [Hong and Curtiss, 1993] in tuning a nonlinear helicopter model with the use
of time responses have always led to unrealistic values of the model’s parameters. Fur
thermore, Hong and Curtiss [1993] performed the optimization only for hover, which
does not guarantee that the optimized set of values is able to increase the fidelity of the
original nonlinear model over a wider portion of the flight envelope. MOSCA, which
uses flighttest frequency responses at multiple operating points, results in a nonlinear
model that is guaranteed to be highly accurate within the boundary of the flight enve
lope covered with all the experiments.
1 When the the moments of inertia were approximately measured, the R50 had a different configuration
Table 2.1: Optimization results from MOSCA (British System of weight and measure)
Figures 2.3 and 2.4 illustrate selected frequencyresponse comparisons at hover and
cruise flight. The results for the full and reducedorder linear models from MOSCA
are practically the same and difficult to distinguish in the figures. The agreement is
excellent especially if compared to the stateoftheart linear models of Mettler et al.
[2002] identified with CIFER. The coherence plots are useful to interpret the flight tests:
a value smaller than 0.6 or a deep notch indicates a decrease in accuracy of flight tests
data or a strong effect of non linearities on the response.
Figures 2.5 and 2.6 show hover and cruiseflight timehistory comparisons for dou
blet inputs in all axes. The MOSCA reduced linear model has not been included since,
2.7. Conclusions on integrated modeling 35
as for frequency responses, it matches the MOSCA linear model without noticeable dif
ferences. These results show clearly that the accuracy of the models justify their use for
highbandwidth control design.
This chapter has presented the MOSCA integrated modeling technique. The high
fidelity of MOSCA models is suitable for both flight simulation and control design.
MOSCA was applied to the CMU robotic helicopter starting from the development of
a mediumcomplexity nonlinear mathematical model. The same workflow could be
equally applied to other helicopters, fixedwing aircrafts, or other aerial vehicles sub
stituting only the nonlinear model. A case would be, for example, the tuning of higher
complexity helicopter models such as GENHEL models [Ballin and DalangSecrétan,
1991], or the development of highfidelity models for aerial robots of unconventional
design.
The key results are
• The nonlinear model of the CMU R50 used to test MOSCA has 30 states. Model
reduction was applied to the extracted linear models without decreasing the ac
curacy. The results show that smallscale helicopter dynamics can be predicted
fairly well with a model which includes at least a firstorder representation of the
rotor and stabilizerbar dynamics.
2.7. Conclusions on integrated modeling 36
50 50 50
0 0 0
0 1 0 1 0 1
10 10 10 10 10 10
Phase (deg)
−200 0 0
1 1
0.8
0.9
0.5
0 1 0 1 0 1
10 10 10 10 10 10
q/lat w/col r/ped
40
Mag (dB)
50 50
20
0 −20 0
0 1 0 1 0 1
10 10 10 10 10 10
−200
Phase (deg)
0 0
−250
−200 −100
−300 −200
−400
−350 −300
0 1 0 1 0 1
10 10 10 10 10 10
1 1 1
Coherence
0.8
0.5
0.6 0.5
0
0 1 0 1 0 1
10 10 10 10 10 10
Frequency (rad/s) Frequency (rad/s) Frequency (rad/s)
Figure 2.3: Hover comparisons: flight tests (solid), MOSCA linear model (dashdot),
MOSCA reduced linear model (dashed), CIFER linear model [Mettler et al., 2002] (dot
ted).
2.7. Conclusions on integrated modeling 37
0 0 0
0 1 0 1 0 1
10 10 10 10 10 10
Phase (deg)
−200 0 0
−100
−400 −200
−200
−600 −300 −400
0 1 0 1 0 1
10 10 10 10 10 10
1 1 1
Coherence
0 0.8 0
0 1 0 1 0 1
10 10 10 10 10 10
q/lat w/col r/ped
40
Mag (dB)
50 50
20
0 −20 0
0 1 0 1 0 1
10 10 10 10 10 10
0 100
Phase (deg)
0
0
−200 −500
−100
−400
−1000 −200
0 1 0 1 0 1
10 10 10 10 10 10
1 1 1
Coherence
0 0 0
0 1 0 1 0 1
10 10 10 10 10 10
Frequency (rad/s) Frequency (rad/s) Frequency (rad/s)
Figure 2.4: Forward flight (15 m/s) comparisons: flight tests (solid), MOSCA linear
model (dashdot), MOSCA reduced linear model (dashed), CIFER linear model [Mettler
et al., 2002] (dotted).
2.7. Conclusions on integrated modeling 38
0 0 50 0
0 0 0 0
−5 −5 −5 −5
5 6 5 5
v (m/s)
4
0 2 0 0
0
−2
−5 −4 −5 −5
5 5 5 5
w (m/s)
0 0 0 0
−5 −5 −5 −5
50 50 50 50
p (deg/s)
0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0
20 20 20 20
0 0 0 0
−20 −20 −20 −20
−40 −40 −40 −40
40 40 40 40
θ (deg)
20 20 20 20
0 0 0 0
−20 −20 −20 −20
−40 −40 −40 −40
40 40 40 0
ψ (deg)
20 20 20 −20
0 0 0 −40
−20 −20 −20 −60
−40 −40 −40 −80
0 5 0 2 4 6 0 2 4 6 0 5
Time (s) Time (s) Time (s) Time (s)
Figure 2.5: Time comparisons at hover among flight test (solid), MOSCA linear model
(dashdot), CIFER linear model [Mettler et al., 2002] (dotted).
2.7. Conclusions on integrated modeling 39
0 0 50 0
15 15 15 15
10 10 10 10
2 2 2 5
v (m/s)
0 0 0 0
−2 −2 −2
−4 −4 −4 −5
−6 −6 −6
w (m/s)
2 2 2 2
0 0 0 0
−2 −2 −2 −2
−4 −4 −4 −4
−6 −6 −6 −6
50 50 50 50
p (deg/s)
0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0
−50
−50 −50 −50
40 40 40 40
φ (deg)
20 20 20 20
0 0 0 0
−20 −20 −20 −20
−40 −40 −40 −40
40 40 40 40
θ (deg)
20 20 20 20
0 0 0 0
−20 −20 −20 −20
−40 −40 −40 −40
40 40 40 40
ψ (deg)
20 20 20 20
0 0 0 0
−20 −20 −20 −20
−40 −40 −40 −40
0 5 0 2 4 6 0 2 4 6 0 5
Time (s) Time (s) Time (s) Time (s)
Figure 2.6: Time comparisons in forward flight (15 m/s) among flight test (solid),
MOSCA linear model (dashdot), CIFER linear model [Mettler et al., 2002] (dotted).
Chapter 3
Robust hover control
Robotic helicopters are dynamic systems with characteristics that make them an in
teresting problem for control system design. They are multipleinput/multipleoutput
(MIMO), nonlinear, nonminimum phase, highly coupled, and unstable. These prob
lems have motivated the investigation of robust multivariable control design techniques,
and particularly H∞ loop shaping on the CMU R50.
There are only a few cases in which applications of linear multivariable robust meth
ods for highbandwidth controller design have been actually implemented and flight
tested. The principal reason is that highbandwidth controller design requires high
fidelity modeling [Tischler, 1990]. This chapter shows how the use of MOSCA models
40
3.1. H∞ loop shaping 41
and H∞ loop shaping produces robust highbandwidth controllers for hover and low
speed flight.
H∞ loop shaping is a sensible and appealing procedure for designing robust controllers [Pa
pageorgiou and Glover, 1999]. It is a combination of loop shaping [Doyle et al., 1992]
and robust stabilization and is described below after some useful preliminaries.
Loop shaping is an approach to controller design. Given a SISO plant G (see Figure
3.1), it consists of shaping the loop transfer function L = GK, by choosing an appropri
ate K, to meet desired closedloop objectives such as reference tracking or disturbance
rejection. The relation between closedloop objectives and L is evident considering the
r K G y
−
L 1 L
y= r+ d− n (3.1)
1+L 1+L 1+L
3.1. H∞ loop shaping 42
To have the reference r following the output y we desire to have  L large. A large loop
gain reduces also the effect of the disturbance d on y but increases the transmission of
noise n to y. In fact, to reduce the effect of n onto y we need  L to be small. Require
ments on  L are conflicting, but, generally, reference tracking and disturbance rejection
( L large) are required at low frequency while noise rejection ( L small) is required at
high frequency. In the crossover region, it is necessary to limit the slope of  L, since the
robustness of the closedloop system and the transient nominal performance increase
with a decrease in the slope of  L at crossover [Bode, 1945]. Typically, the slope of  L is
set at 20dB/decade. The design requires some tradeoff.
y(ω ) G ( jω )u(ω )
= = G ( jω ) (3.2)
u(ω ) u(ω )
that is, the gain is independent of the magnitude of the input u(ω ).
For a MIMO system y = Gu, where in general the input u and output y are vectors,
the gain at frequency ω can be defined, using the Euclidean 2norm .2 :
The gain can be shown to be independent of the magnitude u (ω )2 but depends on
the direction of u. Singular value decomposition (SVD) of G helps in determining the
maximum and the minimum values of the gain in Equation 3.3 as the direction of u is
varied. In fact, if σ̄ ( G ) and σ ( G) are the maximum and minimum singular values of G
then
These relations are valid except when G has more inputs than outputs, in which case
the minimum gain is zero.
3.1. H∞ loop shaping 43
Singular values allow the generalization of the practice of shaping transfer functions
of SISO systems for controller design to MIMO cases. In a MIMO problem, shaping
transfer functions means shaping their singular values. In this context, a very useful
metric is the ∞−norm of G, which is defined as
G ∞ is then the maximum gain of G over all frequencies and all the input directions.
One of the main goals of feedback control is to preserve stability in the presence of
disturbances and plant uncertainties (robust stabilization). A general and powerful
description for uncertainties in a plant is the coprime factor uncertainty. A left coprime
factorization of a plant G(s) is
−1
G(s) = M̃ (s) Ñ (s) (3.6)
M̃ M̃ ∗ + Ñ Ñ ∗ = I, ∀ s ∈ R (3.8)
T T
where M̃ ∗ (s) = M̃ (−s) and Ñ ∗ (s) = Ñ (−s). Similar relations hold for a right co
prime factorization of G (s) (see Zhou et al. [1996]).
Coprime factor uncertainty is obtained by introducing perturbations to a left (or
right) coprime factorization of G:
Gp = ( M̃ + ∆˜ M )−1 ( Ñ + ∆˜ N ) (3.9)
3.1. H∞ loop shaping 44
+ −
˜N
∆ ˜M
∆
+ −1
u
Ñ + M̃ y
K∞
1. Let G denote a linear timeinvariant model of the plant for which the controller
is to be designed. Shape the singular values of G with frequencydependent
weights W 1 and W 2 according to closedloop objectives. The weighted plant
Gs = W 2 GW 1 is depicted in Figure 3.3. What follows is a typical weighting
z2 w2 w1 z1
Gs = W 2 GW 1
K∞
scheme. W 2 contains lowpass filters for noise rejection and leadlag filters for
3.1. H∞ loop shaping 45
2. Maximize the inverse of the H∞ norm of the transfer function matrix from dis
turbances [w1 , w2 ]T to errors [z1 , z2 ]T over all stabilizing controllers K ∞ ; that is,
−1
−1
w1 z1
I
h i
−1
max
→
= max
( I − Gs K ∞ ) I Gs
=ǫ
stab K ∞
w z2
stab K ∞
K
2 ∞
∞ ∞
(3.10)
The stability margin ǫ takes values in the interval [0, 1] and is a measure of robust
ness and performance. A margin greater than 0.3 is considered good, based on
theory and practical experience. The stability margin can be seen also as an upper
bound to “tolerable” coprime factor perturbations of G s . In fact, given a perturbed
left coprime factorization G p of G s as in Equation 3.9, stability is guaranteed for
The theoretical basis for H∞ loop shaping is that K ∞ does not modify the desired
loop shape (G s ) significantly at low and high frequencies if the stability margin
is not too small [McFarlane and Glover, 1992]. Consider for example Figure 3.14.
The synthesized controller K ∞ achieves an ǫ = 0.36, is essentially a leadlag filter
and indeed does not modify Gs significantly. Therefore, the designer can define
performance objectives by shaping the openloop model G with weights W 1 and
W 2.
2000] that the Nyquist or Nichols plot of any loop transfer function that results
from breaking the closed loop at one of the actuators or sensors lies outside a
region whose size is a function of the stability margin. (see Figure 3.4). The guar
2
Gain (dB)
ε = 0.3
0 ε = 0.35
ε = 0.4
−2
−4
−6
−8
−50 −40 −30 −20 −10 0 10 20 30 40 50
Phase (deg)
Figure 3.4: Guaranteed Nichols plot exclusion regions for ǫ = 0.3, 0.35, 0.4.
1+ǫ
GM = ±20 log10 , and PM = 2 arcsin ǫ (3.12)
1−ǫ
Thus, a stability margin of 0.35 guarantees gain and phase margins of ±6.3dB
and 40.9 degrees respectively. In [Glover et al., 2000] the stability margin is also
related to a multiinput/multioutput robustness test popular in the aeronautical
industry.
3. Choose the position of the controller. There are three ways to implement the
H∞ loopshaping controller: in the forward path, in the backward path, and in
the observer form [Sefton and Glover, 1990].
3.2. Innerloop design and analysis 47
4. Check time simulations and frequency responses of the resulting closedloop sys
tem to verify robust performance. Iterations may be required.
The controller structure implemented and flight tested on the CMU R50 for hover
and lowspeed control is based on an innerloop and outerloops architecture: the inner
loop (Figure 3.5) provides stabilization and decoupling; the outer loops (Figure 3.6 and
3.7) are cascaded with the inner loop for velocity and position control. H∞ loop shaping
is used to design all the loops as illustrated in the next sections.
x
y
z
θr lon ψ
φr lat vx
vz K ∞ ( 0 )W 2 ( 0 ) W1 col R−50 vy
ψ̇r ped θ
φ
vz
k
s I ψ̇
K∞ W2
φr
k θr
s
v xr x
θ
Kvx (0)W2vx (0) W1vx
y
v yr φ R−50
Kvy (0)W2vy (0) W1vy z
+
v zr Inner ψ
k Loop vx
s ψ̇r
vy
Kvy W2vy
Kv x W2vx
In the H∞ loopshaping framework it is easy to set the system bandwidth and thus,
the achievable performance would be determined by increasing the system bandwidth
3.2. Innerloop design and analysis 49
y
xr vx R−50 x
z +
yr vy Inner y
Loop
zr vz + z
v x and vy
ψr ψ̇ Outer ψ
Kψ (0)W2ψ (0) W1ψ Loops
ψ̇r
Kψ W2ψ
until robustness as quantified by the stability margin (see Equation 3.11) decreases be
low the desired level. Moreover, the use of a highfidelity model in controller design
provides confidence in the achieved robustness, and makes it possible to represent ac
curately the highbandwidth and multivariable effects that H∞ control exploits.
To help in assessing the performance of the hover controller, the analysis uses some
specifications adopted in the fullscale militaryhelicopter community [ADS33E, 2000,
MILF9490D, 1975]. Although a higher level of performance (in particular agility and
maneuverability) is generally expected from smallscale helicopters, the CMU R50 is
quite limited in achievable performance; given the original design aim of the vehicle
(crop dusting at limited velocities), together with the relevant payload added by the
CMU instrumentation (50% of the machine’s dry weight), and the low bandwidth of
the actuators (15 rad/s), the use of a set of fullscale helicopters’ specifications may be
justified. Nevertheless, the design tries to satisfy the requirements with a large margin
on the examined bounds.
3.2. Innerloop design and analysis 50
Bandwidth. Closedloop bandwidth ωBW shall satisfy Level 1 Target Acquisition and
Tracking Specifications.2 For the θ, φ, and ψ channel, ADS33E defines ωBW as
the frequency where the phase of the closedloop response is Φ = −135 deg.
ωBW should be larger then 2.0, 2.5, and 3.5 rad/s for the θ, φ, and ψ channels
respectively.
For the vz channel, ADS33E gives the desired speed of response in terms of
bounds on a time constant RTvz ≤ 5.0 and a time delay τvz ≤ 0.2 of a firstorder
transfer function
eτvz s
TFIT =
RTvz s + 1
that is used to fit the step response of the vz channel. ADS33E considers the fit
successful when the following cost coefficient is between 0.97 and 1.03:
φ θ ψ̇
Decoupling. Offaxis responses due to onaxis requests ( θr , φr , vzr ) shall comply with
Level 1 Aggressive agility specifications.
For the first two transfer functions, ADS33E imposes the following bounds:
∆θpk ∆φpk
−0.25 ≤ ≤ 0.25, −0.25 ≤ ≤ 0.25,
∆φ4 ∆θ4
where the numerators are the differences between the values (peak within 4 s and
trim) of the offaxis variable caused by a step change of the onaxis variable, and
1 Details about specifications’ metrics are in ADS33E [2000], and MILF9490D [1975].
2 Level 1 and Target Acquisition and Tracking are the highest levels achievable for military rotorcraft in
the ADS33E specifications.
3.2. Innerloop design and analysis 51
the denominators are the differences between the values (at 4 s and at trim) of the
onaxis variable.
For the third transfer function3 , ADS33E imposes bounds on ψ̇ following a step
request in vz :
ψ̇1 ψ̇3
vz (3) ≤ 0.65, −0.15 ≤ ≤ 0.2,
vz (3)
where ψ̇1 is the first peak of ψ̇ before 3 seconds or the value of ψ̇ at 1 second ψ̇ (1)
if no peak occurs, and
ψ̇(3) − ψ̇1 : ψ̇1 > 0
ψ̇3 =
−ψ̇(3) + ψ̇ : ψ̇1 < 0
1
The units for the correct estimation of the bounds are deg/s for ψ̇, and ft/s for vz .
Some of these requirements are more meaningful with a pilot in the loop; they are con
sidered here, since there are applications for unmanned helicopters, where the pilot will
still perform primarily the guidance and navigation functions. Examples are filmmak
ing or some fullscale unmanned helicopters [Frost et al., 2000].
The diagonal weight W 1 has integral action on all the axes; W 1 contains also zeros
in the θ, φ, and vz axes to decrease rolloff rates at crossover. The complete expression
for W 1 is
s + zi1
ki1 s
s + zi2
ki2 s
W1 =
s + zi3
(3.13)
ki3 s
1
ki4 s
3 ADS33E takes in consideration the transfer function r/vzr , where r is the yaw rate in the body frame.
At hover the difference between r and ψ̇ is minimal.
3.2. Innerloop design and analysis 52
The diagonal W 2 contains secondorder lowpass filters for sensor noise rejection on vz
and ψ̇. The complete expression for W 2 is
ko1
ko2
W2 = (3.14)
ωn2
ko3
s +2ζωn + ωn2
ωn2
ko4
s +2ζωn + ωn2
The gains ki1−4 of W 1 and ko1−4 of W 2 are tuned to have crossover frequencies of the
openloop system at 7 rad/s. The tuning follows the guidelines of Hyde [1995], and it
is done automatically. The procedure consists of ordering the inputs and outputs of the
plant such that the plant is as diagonally dominant as possible; the model with inputs
u and outputs y
δlon θ
δlat φ
u=
,
y=
,
(3.15)
δcol vz
δped ψ̇
already satisfies this condition. Then, calculating the values at the desired crossover
frequencies for the singular values from each input to all outputs, and the singular
values from all inputs to each output, it is possible to tune the gains ki1−4 and ko1−4 .
Figures 3.8 and 3.9 show the singular values of the plant after the tuning.
Figure 3.10 and 3.11 show the singular values of W 1 and W 2 respectively. Figure 3.12
shows the singular values of the plant with and without the shaping. The H∞ optim
ization gives ǫ = 0.362. Figure 3.13 shows the singular values of the controller and
Figure 3.14 shows the singular values of the shaped hover model with the H∞ loop
shaping controller. The singular values of the closedloop system
are in Figure 3.15. K ∞ (0) and W 2 (0) represent K ∞ and W 2 evaluated at zero frequency,
3.2. Innerloop design and analysis 53
50 50
Magnitude (dB)
Magnitude (dB)
0 0
−50 −50
−100 −2 −1 0 1 2
−100 −2 −1 0 1 2
10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10
Frequency (rad/s) Frequency (rad/s)
60
50
Magnitude (dB)
Magnitude (dB)
40
20
0
0
−20
−50
−40
−60 −2 −1 0 1 2
−100 −2 −1 0 1 2
10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10
Frequency (rad/s) Frequency (rad/s)
Figure 3.8: Singular values of the shaped plant from each input to all outputs.
and form the constant prefilter needed to have steadystate gain from references to out
puts equal to I.
The innerloop controller contains also an antiwindup loop (Figure 3.5) based on a
classical scheme [Kothare et al., 1994]: a diagonal system with integrators and constant
gains feeds back, to the output of W 1 , the difference between the actual input to the
plant and the output from W 1 . There are two reasons for the presence of an antiwindup
loop. First, W 1 contains integrators that in case of actuators’ saturation continue to
integrate the error signals causing windup problems (overshoot and rapid degradation
of performance). Second, the antiwindup loop ensures a smooth transition (bumpless
3.2. Innerloop design and analysis 54
40
Magnitude (dB)
Magnitude (dB)
20
0
0
−20
−50
−40
−60
−100 −2 −1 0 1 2
−80 −2 −1 0 1 2
10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10
Frequency (rad/s) Frequency (rad/s)
60 60
Magnitude (dB)
Magnitude (dB)
40 40
20 20
0 0
−20 −20
−40 −40
−60 −2 −1 0 1 2
−60 −2 −1 0 1 2
10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10
Frequency (rad/s) Frequency (rad/s)
Figure 3.9: Singular values of the shaped plant from all inputs to each output.
transfer) between humanpilot mode and computer mode conditioning the controller
outputs while the controller is off line.
Figure 3.16 shows Bode plots with gain and phase margins for singleloop analysis;
all the loops satisfy the robustness specifications.
Table 3.1 compares bandwidth ωBW to the ADS33E Level 1 specification for Target
Acquisition and Tracking introduced on page 49. The ADS33E does not specify ωBW
for the ψ̇ channel, but the calculated bandwidth may be considered satisfactory. For the
vz channel, Table 3.1(b) reports the evaluation of response speed as specified on page 50.
Figure 3.17 shows two nonlinear step responses of the closed loop; both onaxis
3.2. Innerloop design and analysis 55
σ(W1)
60
40
Magnitude (dB)
20
−20
−40 −2 −1 0 1 2
10 10 10 10 10
Frequency (rad/s)
σ(W2)
5
0
Magnitude (dB)
−5
−10
−15 −2 −1 0 1 2
10 10 10 10 10
Frequency (rad/s)
60
Magnitude (dB) 40
20
−20
−40
−60
−80
−2 −1 0 1 2
10 10 10 10 10
Frequency (rad/s)
and offaxis responses needed for the evaluation of decoupling performance (defined
on page 50) are present. Table 3.2 shows the calculated values and bounds. The de
ψ̇
coupling specification for the v zr transfer function requests the presence of a heading
(ψ) hold controller; since the ψ controller is on the outer loop, this specification is not
tested.
The last specification is disturbance rejection. Figure 3.18 shows the nonlinear nor
malized (respect to the peak values) responses for each of the 4 axes when sharp square
pulses are applied directly at correspondent plant’s input; they all clear the 10% bound
well before the 10 seconds required. The θ and the φ responses in Figure 3.18 show os
cillatory responses. The oscillatory nature of the attitude responses of the R50 is due to
the lightlydamped coupling mode between the rotor system and the fuselage evident
in the frequency responses of the angular rates to cyclic control inputs (Figure 2.3); the
stabilizer bar is responsible for the low damping of this mode [Heffley, 1979].
Similar behavior is present in the closedloop responses to step references (see Fig
3.2. Innerloop design and analysis 57
σ(K )
∞
10
Magnitude (dB) 5
−5
−10
−15
−20 −2 −1 0 1 2
10 10 10 10 10
Frequency (rad/s)
50
Magnitude (dB)
−50
−100
−150 −2 −1 0 1 2
10 10 10 10 10
Frequency (rad/s)
Figure 3.14: Singular values of the shaped plant with and without the H∞ controller.
3.2. Innerloop design and analysis 58
σ(T)
−40
−60
−80
−100
−2 −1 0 1 2
10 10 10 10 10
Frequency (rad/s)
ure 3.17). In [Mettler et al., 2000], the authors proposed the use of notch filters at the
input of the plant to compensate the effects of the lightlydamped modes (i.e., to allevi
ate the reduction in gain margin caused by the resonances, as evident in Figure 3.16(b),
and to avoid exciting the lightlydamped modes with fast attitude reference changes).
This choice, besides reducing the robustness of the system with the addition of
phase delay at crossover, does not improve the disturbance rejection problem when
the notch filters are added to a highbandwidth controller; in this case, the effect of dis
turbances injected at the actuators’ input could be in fact, even worse. The disturbances
may still excite the lightlydamped mode (they enter the plant without being filtered
by the notch filters), and any counteracting effect of the highbandwidth feedback con
troller at the frequency of the underdamped mode is largely reduced by the presence
of the notch filters in front of the actuators. If the light oscillatory responses to step
reference inputs are of concern, the notch filters may be safely introduced as prefilters
at the input of the closedinner loop. A more drastic but better solution would consist
of removing the stabilizer bar [Mettler et al., 2000].
3.2. Innerloop design and analysis 59
Magnitude (dB)
Magnitude (dB)
40
20
20
0
0
−20
−20
−40
0 1 0 1
10 10 10 10
PM = 45.55 deg (at 2.95 rad/s) PM = 46.81 deg (at 3.85 rad/s)
0
Phase (deg)
Phase (deg)
−100 −100
−200 −200
−300 −300
−400 0 1 0 1
10 10 10 10
Frequency (rad/s) Frequency (rad/s)
(a) θ channel. (b) φ channel.
20
0
0
−20
−20
−40
0 1 0 1
10 10 10 10
PM = 54.32 deg (at 4.53 rad/s) PM = 68.22 deg (at 2.23 rad/s)
−100
−100
Phase (deg)
−150
Phase (deg)
−200
−200 −300
−250 −400
0 1 0 1
10 10 10 10
Frequency (rad/s) Frequency (rad/s)
(c) vz channel. (d) ψ̇ channel.
Figure 3.16: Bode plots for broken single loop with gain and phase margins.
3.3. Outerloop design and analysis 60
θ 5.6 ≥ 2.5
φ 9.08 ≥ 2.5
ψ̇ 6.4 
(b) vz channel.
The innerloop closure makes available a highbandwidth, robust, and decoupled sys
tem with four inputs (θr , φr , vzr , ψ̇r ) and four outputs (θ, φ, vz , ψ̇). The decoupling jus
tifies the use of cascaded singleinput/singleoutput (SISO) outer loops to allow the
helicopter to fly a specified trajectory. Before proceeding with the actual design of
the outerloop controller, the closed innerloop system is approximated using balanced
model truncation [Zhou et al., 1996] to reduce the order of the outer loops.
The outerloop structure uses and controls variables in a reference frame known as
headingreferenced inertial frame. This frame has its origin fixed at the helicopter’s
center of gravity and when ψ = 0 the x, y, and z axes are parallel to the earth frame; if
3.3. Outerloop design and analysis 61
θ (solid), φ (dash−dot)
5
Attitude (deg)
−5
−10
−15
−20
−25
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4
Time (s)
(a) θr step.
φ (solid), θ (dash−dot)
5
0
Attitude (deg)
−5
−10
−15
−20
−25
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4
Time (s)
(b) φr step.
1 θ
φ
v
z
dψ/dt
0.5
Amplitude
0
−0.5
−1
0 2 4 6 8 10
Time (s)
Tvy = (1 − Gvy /φ W1vy Kvy W2vy )−1 Gvy /φ W1vy Kvy (0)W2vy (0).
3.3. Outerloop design and analysis 63
50
Magnitude (dB)
0
−50
−100
−2 −1 0 1 2
10 10 10 10 10
Frequency (rad/s)
50
Magnitude (dB)
−50
−100
−2 −1 0 1 2
10 10 10 10 10
Frequency (rad/s)
vx vy
Figure 3.19: Singular values of θr and φr with and without shaping weights.
Notice that the stability margins obtained with these controllers refer to the openloop
systems obtained by breaking the vx and vy loops at the θ and φ reference inputs of the
closed inner loop (see Figure 3.6). Table 3.3 reports, instead, gain and phase margins
obtained by breaking the loops at the plant inputs when the vx and vy loops are closed.
3.3. Outerloop design and analysis 64
Magnitude (dB)
−5
−10
−15
−20 −2 −1 0 1 2
10 10 10 10 10
Frequency (rad/s)
0
Magnitude (dB)
−10
−20
−30
−40
−50
−60 −2 −1 0 1
10 10 10 10
Frequency (rad/s)
The phase margins for the loops broken at the longitudinal and lateral cyclic inputs
of the plant do not satisfy the requested phase margins bounds (PM ≥ 45 degrees). A
3.3. Outerloop design and analysis 65
Table 3.3: Gain and phase margins with brokenloop analysis for velocity outer loops.
possible remedy would be to increase the robustness of the innerloop design modifying
W 1 and W 2 (for example adding lead compensation to decrease the phase delay), or to
reduce the bandwidth of the vx and vy loops reducing the gains in the respective W1 s.
Classical antiwindup loops are also present to counteract wind up of the integrators
in the W1 weights caused by the limiters on the requested attitude angles. For the vx and
vy channels, ADS33E gives bounds on their rise time, which is defined as the time RT
in seconds when the step response reaches 63.2% of the steadystate value. The bounds
are
Figure 3.22(a) and 3.22(b) show step responses for the two loops. The calculated rise
times are RTv x = 2.64 s and RTvy = 2.5 s, which satisfy the specifications. Figure 3.22(c)
shows the step response for vz used in the innerloop section for RTvz and τvz evalua
tion; during this test, the vx and vy loops are closed, but simulations confirm that the
evaluation of RTvz and τvz is practically unchanged when leaving the vx and vy loops
open. With the closure of the vx and vy outer loops, the main inputs to the systems
become vxr , vyr , vzr , and ψ̇r (see Figure 3.6); these four channels are utilized by the next
four independent SISO outer loops to control x, y, z, and ψ. The controller architec
ture also provides the capability to inject θr and φr for feedforward control and turn
coordination.
3.3. Outerloop design and analysis 66
Flight Test (solid), Simulation (dashed) Flight Test (solid), Simulation (dashed)
6 6
5 5
4 4
v (m/s)
v (m/s)
3 3
2 2
x
y
1 1
0 0
−1 −1
0 2 4 6 8 10 0 2 4 6 8 10
Time (s) Time (s)
(a) v x step. (b) vy step.
Flight Test (solid), Simulation (dashed) Flight Test (solid), Simulation (dashed)
0.5 25
0 20
−0.5 15
vz (m/s)
x (m)
−1 10
−1.5 5
−2 0
−2.5 −5
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 0 5 10 15
Time (s) Time (s)
(c) vz step. (d) 20 m x step.
Flight Test (solid), Simulation (dashed) Flight Test (solid), Simulation (dashed)
25 100
20 80
15
60
ψ (deg)
y (m)
10
40
5
20
0
0
−5
0 5 10 15 0 2 4 6 8 10
Time (s) Time (s)
(e) 20 m y step. (f) 90degree ψ step.
Figure 3.22: Flight tests and MOSCA linear model vx , vy , vz , x, y and ψ step responses.
3.3. Outerloop design and analysis 67
The design of the four position outer loops is analogous to the design of the vx and
vy loops; x, y, z, and ψ loops are closed respectively on vx , vy , vz , and ψ̇ (Figure 3.7).
Again, before closing the four outer loops, model reduction is performed on all the
x (s)
transfer functions (e.g., v xr (s)
). The crossover frequency is set at 0.6 rad/s for the x and
y loops, and at 0.8 rad/s for the z and ψ loops. None of the W1 s contain integral action
since each loop has already a free integrator4 . To decrease the rolloff rate at crossover
the W1 weights for the x and y loops contain lead compensation. The W2 weights are
simply unity gains. The H∞ optimization gave the following values of ǫ: ǫ = 0.59 for
the x loop, ǫ = 0.56 for the y loop, ǫ = 0.52 for the z loop, and ǫ = 0.54 for the ψ loop.
Figures 3.22(df) show step responses for the x, y, and ψ loops. For the ψ channel
the ADS33E requires ωBW ≥ 3.5 rad/s. With the synthesized controller structure (ψ
controlled in the outer loop) it is nearly impossible to satisfy this specification with
out a decrease in robustness of the design. The achieved ωBW is 2.5 rad/s. Since the
Yamaha R50 is already equipped with an elementary yaw rate feedback system, a sen
sible choice would be to eliminate the innerloop control on ψ̇ and control directly ψ
instead. This would allow to have ωBW for ψ to be as high as the one obtained for ψ̇
(see Table 3.1) without decreasing the stability margins. The wideenvelope controller
presented in the next chapter is designed based on this observation.
The ψ response in Figure 3.23 is used to check the compliance with the specifications
in ADS33E for a positionhold controller; ADS33E requires that, for Aggressive agility,
a 360degree yaw turn shall be completed in less than 10 s, in steady wind of up to 18
m/s, and maintaining the helicopter position within a 3 m diameter circle at constant
altitude. Since the wind during flight tests was not at the level prescribed, a MOSCA
nonlinear simulation is used. The controller cleared the position and time bounds with
a frontal steady wind of 10 m/s. This wind speed is close to an upper limit for the R50;
at larger wind speeds (≥ 15 m/s), the R50 lacks tail rotor power to execute the turn (i.e.,
the helicopter stops turning at ψ = 90 degrees). The controller architecture leaves the
option of directly injecting vxr , vyr , vzr , and ψ̇r for feedforward control (see Figure 3.7);
4 Position is measured in the earth frame and then transformed in the headingreferenced inertial frame
3.4. Controller implementation 68
6
ψ
−1
0 5 10 15 20 25
Time (s)
it is also possible to switch off any position outer loops in case they are not needed to
fly a particular maneuver (e.g., in straight forward flight the x loop is switched off since
the request is on vx ).
The MATLAB µAnalysis and Synthesis Toolbox [Balas et al., 1995] is used for controller
design and reduction. After the reduction, the controller is discretized with Tustin bi
linear transformation; the sampling frequency is 100 Hz. Using a ground laptop it is
possible to update gains, weights, filters, and H∞ controllers, in flight without landing
the helicopter. After any modification, an ad hoc utility recomputes the new state
space matrices (which can also have a different number of states if the structures of
the weights have changed) for all the loops and sends them to the onboard computer
through a wireless ethernet connection. Then, the operator or the safety pilot switches
in the new controller. More drastic modifications are also possible. In fact, the high
such that x, y, z are the integrals of v x , vy , vz ; yaw angle ψ is by definition the integral of yaw rate ψ̇.
3.5. Flight tests 69
fidelity nonlinear simulation software MOSCA is interfaced with MATLAB. This ar
chitecture allows the user to (1) modify the helicopter configuration on the field, (2)
update the model, (3) recompute the controller, (4) test the controller with nonlinear
simulations, and (5) fly test the new system. Possible reconfigurations of the vehicle
include, for example, different payloads or weight redistribution.
This aspect is of primary importance, since a general criticism of multivariable tech
niques has always been the difficulty in modifying and tuning the elements of the con
troller. Once the controller architecture is fixed, H∞ loop shaping with automated code
generation and highfidelity simulation models allows the designer to utilize classical
loopshaping experience for quick and reliable tuning of the original design. This tech
nique was tested during the flight tests shown in the next section. The original outer
loop crossover frequencies were too high and caused undesirable fast attitude changes
in presence of wind gusts. After switching in the baseline controller, the gains of the
outerloops W1 s were reduced and the utility to rebuild the whole controller executed.
The new controller was flight tested again without having to land the helicopter.
The goals of the flight tests were (1) to check the overall performance and robustness of
the system, and (2) to gain confidence in flying a set of maneuvers limiting the tracking
error within acceptable bounds. The maneuvers flown were the following:
• Forward Coordinated Turn: The helicopter starts at hover. The operator commands
a 6 m/s step in vx . The helicopter flies on a straight line until the operator com
mands a turn. All the loops are engaged except the x position loop since the re
quest is on vx . The turn trajectory is a circle of 10 m radius (R). Once the operator
issues the turn command, the helicopter flies the turn while maintaining vx = 6
vx
m/s, vy = 0, constant altitude, and ψ̇ = R. The y loop is engaged to drive the
horizontal tracking error to zero.
3.5. Flight tests 70
• Nosein Pirouette: Similar to the noseout pirouette with vy = 4 m/s and helicopter
nose towards the center of the circle. The helicopter starts at hover. The operator
commands a 4 m/s step in vy . The helicopter flies sideways on a straight line until
the operator commands a turn. All the loops are engaged except the y position
loop since the request is on vy . The turn trajectory is a circle of 10 m radius (R).
Once the operator issues the turn command, the helicopter flies the turn while
vy
maintaining vy = 4 m/s, vx = 0, constant altitude, ψ̇ = R, and pointing the nose
towards the center of the circle. The x loop is engaged to drive the horizontal
tracking error to zero.
To analyze the data correctly, the following comments are necessary. The controller
was designed for hover operations. Wind gusts of 47 m/s were present throughout the
3.6. Loading analysis 71
tests. The trajectories were not designed to be easy to follow, but to test the controller in
limiting cases. In fact, all the turn trajectories would require the helicopter to be able to
follow, exactly, step changes in attitude and yaw rate to achieve zero tracking error. The
operator issued the turn commands following the indications of the safety pilot. This
procedure gave a higher level of confidence to the safety pilot, since the maneuvers
were never flown before. The safety pilot relies only on his vision to estimate the flying
speed, and he asked to start all the turns before the helicopter reached a steady straight
flight. Nevertheless, the tracking performance was remarkable.
Figure 3.24 shows the results for the forward coordinated turn. The two dotted
vertical lines in Figures 3.24(c)3.24(f) mark the instants when the operator commands
straight and turning flight. The horizontal error is less than 2 m, while the vertical error
is less than 0.3 m. The presence of a constant wind can be clearly seen in Figure 3.24(c):
vx oscillates with a period equal to the time needed to complete a 360degree turn (the
completion of the 360degree turns are marked by the horizontal lines in Figure 3.24(f))
and thus the constant wind acts as a sinusoidal forcing term.
Figure 3.25 shows the results for the noseout pirouette. The two dotted lines have
the same meaning described above. The horizontal error is less than 1 m, while the
vertical error is less than 0.2 m.
Videos of the maneuvers in Figures 3.24 and 3.25, and of all the other described
maneuvers, can be found on line at http://www.roboticflight.org.
Some of the robotic helicopter’s missions will require extra payload that was not taken
into consideration during the controller design. For example, a video camera will be
mounted on the helicopter for reconnaissance and filming missions, and some long
distance missions will need extra fuel tanks. One of the advantages of a highfidelity
model with physical parameters is the possibility to analyze the effect of parameter
3.6. Loading analysis 72
Desired flight path (solid), flight test (dash−dot) Desired flight path (solid), flight test (dash−dot)
0 10
−5 5
y (m)
z (m)
−10 0
−15 −5
−20 −10
−5 0 5 10 15 20 −5 0 5 10 15 20
x (m) x (m)
(a) Horizontal flight path. (b) Vertical flight path.
θ (dash−dot), φ (solid), dψ/dt (dashed)
7 10
θ and φ (deg), dψ/dt (deg/s)
6
0
5
Velocity (m/s)
4
Turn vx −10
vy
3 −20
v
z
2
−30
1
−40
0
−1 −50
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70
Time (s) Time (s)
(c) v x , vy , and vz . (d) θ, φ, and ψ̇.
δlon (solid), δlat (dash−dot), and δcol (dashed), δped (dotted)
1
0
δlon−lat−ped [−0.5, 0.5], δcol [0, 1]
−5
0.5 −10
ψ (rad)
−15
−20
0
−25
−30
−0.5 −35
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70
Time (s) Time (s)
(e) Controller outputs. (f) ψ.
Figure 3.24: Forward turn: the two vertical lines delimit hover, straight, and turn flight.
3.6. Loading analysis 73
Desired flight path (solid), flight test (dash−dot) Desired flight path (solid), flight test (dash−dot)
0 10
−5 5
y (m)
z (m)
−10 0
−15 −5
−20 −10
0 5 10 15 20 0 5 10 15 20
x (m) x (m)
(a) Horizontal flight path. (b) Vertical flight path.
θ (dash−dot), φ (solid), dψ/dt (dashed)
1 15
0
Velocity (m/s)
−1 vx
v −5
y
−2 v −10
z
−15
−3
Turn −20
−25
−4
−30
−5 −35
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70
Time (s) Time (s)
(c) v x , vy , and vz . (d) θ, φ, and ψ̇.
δlon (solid), δlat (dash−dot), and δcol (dashed), δped (dotted)
0
[0, 1]
0.8
col
−5
[−0.5, 0.5], δ
0.6
ψ (rad)
−10
0.4
lon−lat−ped
0.2 −15
0
−20
δ
−0.2
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70
Time (sec) Time (s)
(e) Controller outputs. (f) ψ.
Figure 3.25: Noseout pirouette: the vertical lines delimit hover, straight, and turn flight.
3.6. Loading analysis 74
where D is
D2
D= (3.17)
D1−1
3.6. Loading analysis 75
and D1 and D2 are restricted to be diagonal, stable, and minimum phase. Figure 3.26
shows the setup. The idea is that pre and post multiplying the shaped plant W 2 G ∆ W 1
z2 w2 w1 z1
D1 W 2 G∆W 1 D2
D1−1 K D2−1
by D1 and D2 respectively, and pre and post multiplying the controller K ∞ by D2−1 and
D1−1 respectively, does not alter the gain and phase margins. Thus, the optimization
over D in Equation 3.16 gives less restrictive guaranteed gain and phase margins. Note
that without D, Equation 3.16 is identical to Equation 3.10.
0.36
0.34
εµ 0.32
0.3
0.28
0
0.2 0.4
0.3
0.2
y (m) 0.1
0.4 0 z (m)
Figure 3.27: Loading plot for two fuel tanks of different mass at x = 0.02 m.
The lower bounds of the worst case singleloop gain and phase margins are ob
3.7. Conclusions on robust hover control 76
tained by substituting ǫµ into Equation 3.12. The power of Equation 3.16 lies in the fact
that ǫµ is also related to a multiinput/multioutput robustness test. The reader should
refer to Papageorgiou and Hyde [2001] for a complete explanation of how ǫµ is related
to singleloop and multiloop gain and phase margins. Note that optimization 3.16 is
straightforward to solve using commercial software as, for example, the µtools com
mand mu [Balas et al., 1995].
Figure 3.27 illustrates a typical loading plot. It is evident from Figure 3.27 that
adding two extra fuel tanks of different mass at x = 0.02 m anywhere in the region
of the yz plane considered does not decrease ǫµ significantly from its nominal value.
The worst case ǫµ is 0.274 which corresponds to lower bounds of 4.88 dB and 31.8 de
grees.
The synergistic use of a highfidelity simulation model and the H∞ loopshaping design
method proved to be an effective strategy for the rapid and reliable development of a
highbandwidth hover controller for a robotic helicopter. H∞ loop shaping enables the
engineer to tackle the problem in an intuitive and elegant fashion. The design space
can be explored quickly, and it is simple to understand what level of closedloop per
formance is achievable from the system. Using classical notions of bandwidth and loop
gain results in clear and intuitive choices on performance and robustness tradeoff.
The synthesized highbandwidth controller easily satisfied a set of handlingquality
specifications that are a standard in the fullscale militaryrotorcraft community. The
implementation of the controller on the onboard computer was straightforward. Fur
thermore, integrating all the tools used in the design, the whole process from controller
modification to flight test is automated, making it possible to tune the controller in
flight. The new controller was capable of flying several moderatespeed coordinated
maneuvers. The effect of typical extraloading conditions on the robustness of the con
3.7. Conclusions on robust hover control 77
troller is analyzed. The hover controller is the starting point for the development of a
controller for wideenvelope flight presented in the next chapter.
Chapter 4
Robust fullenvelope flight control
4.4 Scheduling . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 87
Complex future missions in urban and remote environments will require robotic
helicopters to operate at the edge of their flight envelope. This chapter shows how to
use effectively MOSCA with the H∞ loopshaping framework to produce robust full
envelope flight controllers.
78
4.1. Observer form for scheduling 79
The helicopter dynamics vary widely across the flight envelope. A single linear con
troller cannot cope with this highly nonlinear behavior, and thus cannot deliver good
stability and performance levels across the full flight envelope. One technique to over
+
r P(ρ) W 1 (ρ) G y
+
W 2 (ρ)
− +
H (ρ)
+ +
Bs ( ρ )
+
x̂s R
F (ρ)
As (ρ )
ŷs
C s (ρ)
State Observer
K (ρ)
come this problem consists of designing several linear controllers on a grid in the do
main that covers the flightenvelope region of interest, and then switching among the
controllers as the vehicle flies across the different operating points. Another well
known technique is gain scheduling.
tries of the statespace matrices of the controllers designed for different operating points.
This interpolation requires that the controller states maintain the same physical inter
pretation and do not change in number for all the controllers that need to be scheduled.
One of the advantages of the H∞ loopshaping approach is that the controller can be
written as an exact plant observer plus state feedback [Sefton and Glover, 1990]. This
means that the controller has a well defined structure that can be used for scheduling.
The main problem was the appearance of very low frequency righthalfplane (RHP)
transmission zeros at different operating points. RHP transmission zeros impose limi
tations on the achievable bandwidth or robustness and make the controller design dif
4.2. Controller structure 81
extracted at speeds vx < −3 m/s in straight levelflight trim have RHP real zeros at
frequencies between 0.002 and 0.01 rad/s. For the same set of inputs and outputs,
complex conjugate and real RHP zeros appear also in left coordinatedturn trims; for
example at a speed of 15 m/s and turn rate lower than zero (left turn) the RHP zeros
are at frequencies between 0.09 and 0.35 rad/s.
Other problems were those experienced in Section 3.3 during the design of the outer
loops for the hover controller: (1) a decrease in robustness at the plant input with the
closure of the velocity outer loops, and (2) difficulty in satisfying the bandwidth specifi
cation for the ψ channel, with an outer loop on ψ̇, without violating the stability margins
at the plant input.
The remedy for this situation consists of modifying the structure of the inner loop as
follows: vx and vy are added to the output variables of the plant to eliminate the RHP
transmission zeros, and as suggested in Section 3.3, the ψ̇ signal is replaced by ψ. The
new outputs are
y = [θ v x φ vy vz ψ] T (4.2)
Since there are four inputs we can control only four outputs. Blending vx and θ in
a longitudinal variable (vθ ), and vy and φ in a lateral variable (vφ ) reduces the number
of output variables to four. The blending utilizes the attitude signals (θ and φ) at high
frequency and the velocity signals (vx and vy ) at low frequency. This is possible by
combining the variables as follows:
kθ s
vθ = θ + kvx vx (4.3)
s + pθ
4.2. Controller structure 82
kφ s
vφ = φ + k vy vy (4.4)
s + pφ
The parameters kθ , pθ , kv x , kφ , pφ , and kvy are chosen by the designer. For vθ , for example,
kθ is used to set the crossover frequency of vθ (i.e., θ), and kv x is used to set the crossover
frequency of vx (or the frequency up to where it is desired that the vx is larger than θ in
magnitude). kv x is also chosen such that the vx term does not affect gain and phase be
havior of vθ at crossover [Hyde, 1995] (i.e., at crossover the attitude channel dominates
the dynamics). The highpass filter on the attitude signal is needed to remove the atti
tude trim value, which is different from zero in general, and thus allows the controller
to hold a constant velocity. The location of the highpass filter pole pθ involves some
tradeoffs: increasing its value increases robustness (i.e., introduces phase lead), but in
creases overshoot; decreasing its value improves overshoot but increases settling time
due to the longer time needed to wash out the attitude trim value. Figure 4.2 illustrates
an example of the vθ blending for a linear model at 10 m/s forward speed.
40
20
0
−20
−40
−60
180
90
Phase (deg)
0
−90
−180
−270
−360
−2 −1 0 1
10 10 10 10
Frequency (rad/s)
Figure 4.3 shows the new innerloop controller structure in the observer form (see
also Figure 4.1). The blending is included in the W 2 weight, which hence has six inputs
and four outputs (see Equation 4.6). Another option would be to use the single elements
of the blending in a diagonal W 2 with six inputs and six outputs. This would leave the
actual blending of the plant outputs to the controller.
x
y
z
v xr lon
θ
v yr lat
vx
v zr P W1 col R−50
φ
ψr K ped
vy
vz
ψ
k
s I
W2
• The overall controller structure is simpler, since it eliminates the need for velocity
control outer loops.
• It can be used by a human operator with no particular skills to fly the helicopter
controlling directly the velocity vector.
4.3. Innerloop design for fixed operating points 84
• It makes it still possible to set independently the bandwidth for velocity and atti
tude responses by adjusting the parameters in Equations 4.34.4.
The purpose of the scheduled innerloop controller (Figures 4.1 and 4.3) is to provide
robust stabilization and decoupling over the helicopter’s flight envelope. The next sec
tion shows how to choose the scheduling variables, the number of fixed operatingpoint
controllers, and the interpolation functions. Assume for now that the locations in the
flight envelope of the fixed operatingpoint controllers are known, and concentrate on
the common design procedures and characteristics of these fixed operatingpoint con
trollers.
The innerloop controller controls the 4 variables of Section 4.2 (see Figure 4.3): (1)
a blend of pitch attitude θ with forward velocity vx , (2) a blend of roll attitude φ with
lateral velocity vy , (3) vertical velocity vz , and (4) yaw angle ψ. In normal operations,
the references are vxr , vyr , vzr , and ψr , but it is possible to control also θ, φ, and ψ̇ using
appropriate prefilters.
The requirements for the scheduled innerloop controller, and therefore for the fixed
operatingpoint controllers, are similar to those used for the hover design (see page 49).
The differences are the following:
4.3. Innerloop design for fixed operating points 85
Robust stability. Stability margin ǫ ≥ 0.3, which guarantees gain and phase margins
larger than ±5.4 dB and 34.9 deg respectively. The choice of ǫ ≥ 0.3 does not
relax the stabilitymargin requirements used for the hover design. An ǫ = 0.3
does not mean that gain and phase margins in broken singleloop analysis are
exactly ±5.4 dB and 34.9 deg. Rather, the margins are guaranteed to be greater
than or equal to ±5.4 dB and 34.9 deg respectively. In practice ǫ ≥ 0.3 will result
in designs which satisfy the usual specification that gain and phase margins shall
be ≥ 6 dB and ≥ 45 deg respectively.
Bandwidth. Speed of response for the vx and vy channels defined on page 64 becomes
an innerloop specification.
Decoupling. For the decoupling between vertical response and yaw rate, ADS33E
takes in consideration the transfer function r/vzr , where r is the yaw rate in body
frame. Since the innerloop controller presented here controls ψ, the substitution
of r with ψ̇ gives a more meaningful evaluation of the achieved level of decou
pling, especially during coordinatedturns.
Given the structure of the innerloop controller, the bandwidth and decoupling require
ments for the θ and φ channel are enforced on vθ and vφ . This choice is appropriate,
since in the crossover–frequency region of vθ and vφ , θ and φ dominate the responses
(see Figure 4.2).
For scheduling, the structure of the controllers must be the same at each operat
ing point. This is ensured by designing identical structures for the W 1 (ρ) and W 2 (ρ)
shaping weights where ρ indicates the dependence of the weights on the scheduling
variables. With this choice, the observer form, which observes the shaped plant (see
Figure 4.1) ensures that the synthesized controller has a fixed structure. The structures
of the W 1 (ρ) and W 2 (ρ) weights are chosen to be as follows for all of the operating
points. The diagonal W 1 (ρ) structure contains proportional plus integral action on all
4.3. Innerloop design for fixed operating points 86
the axes:
s + zi1
ki1 ( ρ) s
s + zi2
ki2 ( ρ) s
W 1 ( ρ) =
s + zi3
(4.5)
ki3 ( ρ) s
s + zi4
ki4 ( ρ) s
The W 2 (ρ) structure contains secondorder lowpass filters for sensor noise rejection on
all channels and the blending filters of Equations 4.3 and 4.4.
ωn2
ko1 ( ρ)
s +2ζωn + ωn2
ωn2
ko2 ( ρ)
s +2ζωn + ωn2
W 2 ( ρ) =
ωn2
ko3 ( ρ)
s +2ζωn + ωn2
ωn2
ko4 ( ρ)
s +2ζωn + ωn2
(4.6)
s
k θ (ρ) s+ p k v x (ρ)
θ
s
k φ (ρ) s+ p k vy (ρ)
φ
1
1
The gains ki1−4 (ρ) of W 1 and ko1−4 (ρ) of W 2 are tuned to have crossover frequencies of
the openloop system at 5 rad/s for the blended channels and 4 rad/s for the vz and ψ
channels. This tuning is done automatically for every design point using the singular
values of the shaped plants as illustrated in Chapter 3.
After calculating the weights, the plant is shaped and the controller is calculated
and expressed in observer form. A reducedorder model (see Section 2.5) is used to
synthesize the controller. The choice of the prefilter P(ρ) (Figures 4.1 and 4.3) depends
on its purpose. At any single operating point P is calculated as follows. If the transient
response of the closed loop is satisfactory, only the steadystate gain from references to
outputs must be enforced. To have this gain equal to I, P is
P = T ( 0) − 1 (4.7)
4.3. Innerloop design for fixed operating points 87
where T (0) is the closedloop transfer function matrix from the references to the vx , vy , vz ,
and ψ outputs evaluated at frequency ω = 0.
If the closedloop responses need to be improved, dynamic prefilters are designed.
Suppose it is desired that the closedloop transfer function Tv x from vxr to vx matches
the transfer function of an ideal system To ; the SISO prefilter Pv x is then calculated by
minimizing over Pv x the H∞ norm of the transfer function from d to [e1 , e2 ]T in Fig
ure 4.4. In Figure 4.4, We1 and We2 are weights to emphasize lowfrequency matching
T0

d Pvx Tvx We1 e1
We2 e2
Dynamic prefilters should not be used to correct a bad controller design, since they
could result in poor robust performance [Papageorgiou, 1998]. The procedure works
well if the bandwidth of To is smaller than the closedloop bandwidth [Papageorgiou,
1998]. A dynamic prefilter calculated as in Figure 4.4 requires special care during
scheduling, since its states do not necessarily maintain the same physical meaning at
each operating point. In this case, scheduling can be done on the outputs; the technique
4.4. Scheduling 88
consists of simulating the prefilters in parallel and scheduling their outputs. Another
possibility is to switch between prefilters as the helicopter traverses the flight envelope.
Four antiwindup loops are finally added for each actuator as in the hover design
of Chapter 3. The gains of the antiwindup loops are the same for each operating point.
The next section shows how to choose the operating points for which this design pro
cedure is applied.
4.4 Scheduling
Scheduling is necessary to ensure robust stability and performance across the flight
envelope. The target flight envelope tested in this thesis is represented by the following
limits:
−10 m/s ≤ vx ≤ 20 m/s
−2 m/s ≤ vy ≤ 2 m/s
(4.9)
−2 m/s ≤ vz ≤ 2 m/s
−30 deg/s ≤ ψ̇ ≤ 30 deg/s
There are three interrelated aspects in scheduling multiple linear controllers: (1) choos
ing the interpolation functions, (2) determining the variables for the scheduling, and (3)
establishing the number of fixed operatingpoint controllers.
The simplest choice for the interpolation functions (the one that was implemented
for the flight tested controller), is linear interpolation. Supposing that the scheduling is
on one variable ρ and that the fixed operating points where the controllers need to be
designed are known, the matrices — for example H (ρ) — of the scheduled controller
K (ρ) (Figure 4.1) between two adjacent operating points i, j are calculated as
H (ν) = (1 − ν) H i + νH j (4.10)
ρ − ρi
ν= . (4.11)
ρ j − ρi
4.4. Scheduling 89
Linear interpolation can easily be applied to more scheduling variables. In case of two
variables ρa and ρb the expression for H (ρa , ρb ) in the square composed of the corners
ia , ja , ib , and jb is
where
ρa − ρ ia ρb − ρ ib
νa = , and νb = . (4.13)
ρ ja − ρia ρ jb − ρib
Having chosen the interpolation function it is now possible to check which of the
variables that define the flight envelope need to be scheduled and then determine the
number and positions of the fixedpoint controllers across the scheduledvariable range.
This procedure starts from the hover controller (designed as illustrated in the previous
section), and uses the stability margin as a design tool. Recall that, given a plant G,
shaping weights W 1 and W 2 , and the H∞ loopshaping controller K, the stability mar
gin of their feedback connection is (see Equation 3.10)
−1
I
h i
( I − W 2 GW 1 K )−1 I W 2 GW
= ǫ.
b(W 2 GW 1 , K ) =
1
(4.14)
K
∞
The scheduling procedure is divided in two parts. For the sake of clarity, suppose
that only vx and vy are used to define the flight envelope (i.e., the helicopter is only
allowed to move forward and laterally, with neither turning nor vertical flight). It is also
assumed that the fixedpoint controllers are designed such that their stability margin is
greater than 0.3 at the respective operating points. The steps of the first part, which will
determine the variables to schedule, are the following.
1. Start at the hover operating point (Γ(0,0) in Figure 4.5), design a controller (W 1(0,0) ,
W 2(0,0) , and K (0,0) ), and choose a variable in the 2dimensional domain (e.g., vx )
2. Extract linear models of the helicopter at the lower and upper bounds of the
chosenvariable range of variation, and at the conditions of the current operat
ing points for the other variable (Γ(−10,0) and Γ(20,0) in Figure 4.5).
4.4. Scheduling 90
3. Check if
b(W 2(0,0) G (−10,0)W 1(0,0) , K (0,0) ) ≥ 0.3,
b(W 2(0,0) G (20,0) W 1(0,0) , K (0,0) ) ≥ 0.3.
If the conditions are not satisfied, vx needs to be scheduled. In this case, design
controllers at Γ(−10,0) and Γ(20,0) and check that
with
4. In case that the first conditions in the previous step are satisfied, check that the
hover controller gives a stability margin greater than 0.3 at the remaining six
points on the boundary in Figure 4.5 (i.e., Γ(−10,−2) , Γ(−10,2) , Γ(0,−2) , Γ(0,2) , Γ(20,−2) ,
and Γ(20,2) ). If the condition is satisfied, neither vx nor vy need to be scheduled.
Otherwise, vy is the only variable that is scheduled.
Supposing that the first part of the scheduling procedure showed that only vx needs
to be scheduled, the steps of the second part, which will determine the position of the
fixedpoint controllers across vx , are the following.
vy
2. Generate controllers at Γ(l,0) and Γ(m,0) . The first time, start with l and m at the
lower and upper bound of the schedulingvariable range of variation (i.e., for vx ,
l = LB = −10 and m = UB = 20).
3. Schedule the controller between Γ(l,0) and Γ(m,0) as shown in Equations 4.12 and
4.13.
4. Check if
b(W̄ 2(l +kv x ∆v x , 0) G(l +kv x ∆v x , kvy ∆vy ) W̄ 1(l +kv x ∆v x , 0) , K̄ (l +kv x ∆v x , 0) ) ≥ 0.3
(m − l )
∀ kvx ∈ [1, 2, . . . , − 1], and ∀ kvy ∈ [−1, 0, 1], (4.15)
∆vx
where the bar over a system indicates that the system is scheduled. Equation 4.15
evaluates the stability margin of the scheduled controller at every point of a strip
(between l and m) of the grid defined in step 1.
5. If Equation 4.15 is not satisfied, use steps 24 with a bisection algorithm (moving l)
over the vx grid points to find the maximum m − l that satisfies Equation 4.15.
4.4. Scheduling 92
6. If Equation 4.15 is satisfied, register the current Γ(l,0) . Then substitute Γ(m,0) with
Γ(l,0) and Γ(l,0) with Γ(LB,0) and iterate steps 25 until Equation 4.15 has been sat
isfied at all operating points between Γ(−10,0) and Γ(20,0) . The registered Γ(l,0) are
the operating points along vx needed for the scheduling together with Γ(LB,0) and
Γ(UB,0) .
7. If Equation 4.15 is not satisfied not even for l = m − 1, then vy needs to be sched
uled.
The whole scheduling procedure can be extended to multiple variables, and can be com
pletely automated. This was indeed done for the synthesis of the flighttested controller
of the CMU R50, and the results of the procedure are presented in the next section.
If the choice of the weighting functions is done properly, the use of the stability
margin for scheduling not only guarantees robustness throughout the desired flight
envelope, but guarantees also that the achieved loop shapes are reasonably close to
the desired ones (i.e., closedloop objectives are most likely satisfied by the scheduled
controller). Scheduling with the use of gain and phase margins instead, does not allow
one to draw clear performancerelated conclusions and necessitates many more time
simulations. Consider the following. Figure 4.7 shows the brokenloop gain and phase
margin at the inputs of the plant achieved by a hover controller with linear models
generated between vx = 0 m/s and vx = 20 m/s. The scheduling procedure carried
on using gain and phase margins, would conclude that the hover controller could be
used up to 20 m/s without any scheduling, since it satisfies the standard requirements
of 6 dB and 45 degrees for gain and phase margin respectively. Figure 4.6 shows the
stability margin for the same situation: above 6 m/s, ǫ drops below 0.3 indicating the
need for scheduling. Figure 4.8 shows some step responses at hover, 6 m/s, and 20 m/s.
Clearly, the level of performance is well predicted by ǫ: the hover controller at 6 m/s
still delivers good decoupling and the onaxis responses are close to the nominal ones;
at 20 m/s, instead, performance deteriorates considerably.
4.5. Scheduled innerloop evaluation 93
14
lon
12 lat
GM (dB)
col
ped
10
lon
85 lat
col
PM (deg)
ped
65
45
0 5 10 15 20
vx (m/s)
Figure 4.6: GM and PM of the hover controller for vx ∈ [0, 20] with ∆vx = 1 m/s.
0.4
ε
0.3
0.2
0 5 10 15 20
vx (m/s)
Figure 4.7: ǫ of the hover controller for vx ∈ [0, 20] with ∆vx = 1 m/s.
The application to the CMU R50 of the scheduling procedure introduced in the pre
vious section results in the following: to cover the flight envelope described in Equa
tion 4.5, the controller needs to be scheduled on vx and ψ̇. There are 30 requested fixed–
4.5. Scheduled innerloop evaluation 94
v step reference to v
z z
vz step reference to ψ
0.02
Amplitude (normalized)
Amplitude (normalized)
1 0.01
0
0.8
−0.01
@ 0 m/s
0.6
@ 6 m/s
−0.02
@ 20 m/s
0.4 @ 0 m/s
−0.03
@ 6 m/s
0.2 @ 20 m/s
−0.04
0 −0.05
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4
Time (s) Time (s)
Amplitude (normalized)
0.2 1
@ 0 m/s
0.15
@ 6 m/s 0.8
@ 20 m/s @ 0 m/s
0.1
0.6 @ 6 m/s
0.05 @ 20 m/s
0.4
0
−0.05 0.2
−0.1 0
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4
Time (s) Time (s)
Figure 4.8: Selected onaxis and offaxis step responses for evaluation of the hover con
troller performance at vx = 0, 6, 20 m/s.
operatingpoint controllers at
vx = [−10, −6, 0, 6, 12, 20] m/s and ψ̇ = [−30, −15, 0, 15, 30] deg/s. (4.16)
Figures 4.9, 4.10, and 4.11 show the ǫ values achieved by the scheduled controller at
some slices of the flightenvelope. The values satisfy the requirement for robust stability
given on page 84.
Figures 4.12, 4.13, and 4.14 show the vθ , vφ , and ψ bandwidths achieved by the
scheduled controller at some sections of the flightenvelope. The values satisfy the
4.5. Scheduled innerloop evaluation 95
0.38
0.36
0.34
ε
0.32
0.3
0.28
−20
0 20
15
dψ/dt (deg/s) 10
20 5
0
−5 vx (m/s)
−10
0.38
0.36
0.34
ε
0.32
0.3
0
15 20
vz (m/s) 5 10
−5 0
−2 −10
v (m/s)
x
0.38
0.36
0.34
ε
0.32
0.3
2
1
0
vy (m/s)
−1 15 20
5 10
−2 −5 0
−10
vx (m/s)
For reference and future comparisons with other controllers, Figures 4.15, 4.16, and
4.17 show the vθ , vφ , and ψ bandwidths evaluated as the frequency where the gain of
the closedloop response is equal to 3 dB.
Figures 4.18, 4.19, and 4.20 show the performance of the vz channel with RTvz , τvz
and r2 . The values satisfy the bounds given on page 50.
Figures 4.21 and 4.22 show the rise time of the vx and vy channels. At several points
in the grid, both RTv x and RTvy violate the lower bound given on page 64. This is a
typical case were it is safe to use a dynamic prefilter (see Section 4.3) to slow down the
response. The same result can be obtained by decreasing kv x and kvy in the blending fil
ters of Equations 4.3 and 4.4. In fast coordinated turns, there is also an increase in RTv x ,
which does not violate the bounds, but indicates that the vx response becomes sluggish.
The proper way to decrease RTv x is to increase kv x in the blending filter (i.e., increase the
vx crossover frequency), or to tune the zero in the first entry of W 1 (ρ) (Equation 4.5).
4.5. Scheduled innerloop evaluation 97
Note that the zeros of W 1 (ρ) are chosen at hover and they are not scheduled.
Figures 4.23, 4.24, 4.25, and 4.26 show the time t10% needed for the θ, φ, vz , and ψ
responses to return to less than 10% of their peak values following a pulse input in the
corresponding actuator. The values satisfy the bounds given on page 51.
Figures 4.27, 4.28, and 4.29 show the evaluation of the decoupling performance. The
ψ̇3
values obtained satisfy the decoupling requirements given on page 50, except for vz (3)
(Figure 4.29) that slightly exceeds the limit of 0.2 in steep/right coordinated turns.
8.5
7.5
ωBW
6.5
20 20
0 10
−20 0
dψ/dt (deg/s) −10 vx (m/s)
11
10.5
ωBW
10
9.5
20
20
0
10
dψ/dt (deg/s) −20 0
−10 vx (m/s)
8
ωBW
6
20
0 20
10
dψ/dt (deg/s) −20 0
−10 vx (m/s)
4
ω
−3dB
3
20
20
0
10
dψ/dt (deg/s) −20 0
−10 vx (m/s)
4.5
ω 4
−3dB
3.5
2.5
20
0 20
10
dψ/dt (deg/s) −20 0
−10 vx (m/s)
4.5
3.5
ω
−3dB
3
2.5
20
0 20
15
dψ/dt (deg/s) 10
−20 5
0
−5
−10 vx (m/s)
0.36
0.34
0.32
RT
0.3
0.28
0.26
20
0 20
10
dψ/dt (deg/s) −20 0
−10 v (m/s)
x
0.06
0.05
τ
0.04
0.03
20
0 20
15
10
dψ/dt (deg/s) −20 5
0
−5
−10 vx (m/s)
0.995
r2
0.99
0.985
20
0 20
10
dψ/dt (deg/s) −20 0
−10 vx (m/s)
3.5
3
RT
2.5
1.5
20
0 20
10
dψ/dt (deg/s) −20 0
−10 v (m/s)
x
2.5
2
RT
1.5
1
20
0 20
10
dψ/dt (deg/s) −20 0
−10 vx (m/s)
2.5
t10%
2
1.5
20
0 20
15
10
−20 5
dψ/dt (deg/s) 0
−5
−10 vx (m/s)
2.5
t10%
1.5
20
0 20
10 15
dψ/dt (deg/s) −20 0 5
−10 −5
vx (m/s)
2.1
2
t10%
1.9
1.8
20
0 20
10 15
dψ/dt (deg/s) −20 0 5
−10 −5
vx (m/s)
2.2
2
t10%
1.8
1.6
20
0 20
15
10
dψ/dt (deg/s) −20 5
0
−5
−10 vx (m/s)
0.15
0.1
0.05
0
20
0 20
10
dψ/dt (deg/s) −20 0
−10 vx (m/s)
∆θpk
Figure 4.27: ∆φ4 vs vx and ψ̇ for vy = 0 and vz = 0.
0.15
0.1
0.05
0
20
0 20
10
dψ/dt (deg/s) −20 0
−10 vx (m/s)
∆φpk
Figure 4.28: ∆θ4 vs vx and ψ̇ for vy = 0 and vz = 0.
4.5. Scheduled innerloop evaluation 106
0.3
0.25
0.2
0.15
0.1
0.05
0
20
0 20
10
dψ/dt (deg/s) −20 0
−10
vx (m/s)
ψ̇ ψ̇3
Figure 4.29: vz (13) ≃ vz (3) vs vx and ψ̇ for vy = 0 and vz = 0.
reducing cross coupling, improving robustness and disturbance rejection, and reducing
actuator usage. Hall and Bryson [1973] showed that high gain necessitates rotorstate
feedback to avoid instability of the coupled rotorfuselage mode. Using a mathematical
model, they showed also that (1) lowquality rotor measurements improve marginally
the tracking performance with respect to accurate body measurements and rotorstate
estimation, and (2) accurate body measurements and rotorstate estimation result in bet
ter disturbance rejection with respect to the case when rotor states are measured with
low quality. Howitt et al. [2001] have evaluated the performance of a H∞ loop shaping
controller on a modelscale rotor rig showing the benefit of rotorstate estimation and
feedback.
It was thus hypothesized that H∞ loop shaping had the potential of excellent per
formance if used in combination with accurate and highorder models of the CMU R50
as the ones delivered by MOSCA. The results shown have confirmed the hypothesis. It
should be emphasized that in the H∞ loop shaping framework, the feedback and esti
4.5. Scheduled innerloop evaluation 107
mation of rotor states do not require any additional design effort. In fact, the designer
follows the same exact procedure as if only rigidbody states were used for feedback.
The frequency shaping maintains its transparency allowing simple tradeoffs between
robustness and performance, while the H∞ optimization exploits the high order dynam
ics synthesizing the optimal observer and feedback matrix for decoupling and robust
stability.
The analysis of the statefeedback matrix makes it possible to gain physical insight
about the use that the controllers makes of highorder dynamics. For the controller de
veloped in this thesis, the analysis (shown below) resulted in the following finding: the
improvement of stability and performance with respect to rigidbodystatesonly feed
back is caused mainly by the feedback of the stabilizerbar states. That is, estimating
only the mainrotor states would not increase the performance as much as estimating
only the stabilizerbar states. This result may be explained by the slower dynamics of
the stabilizerbar with respect to the main rotor dynamics, resulting in a predominant
effect of the stabilizerbar on the rigidbody dynamics. The analysis was performed on
the hover model. After generating the H∞ loop shaping controller, several performance
metrics were evaluated for the following cases.
Case 1 Both rotor and stabilizerbar states are used for feedback (i.e., the matrix F is
unchanged). The entries in F representing the feedback of these states (a1 longitu
dinal and b1 lateral flapping of the main rotor, and a1s longitudinal and b1s lateral
flapping of the stabilizer bar) to the longitudinal and lateral input δlon and δlat are
a1 b1 a1s b1s
δlon −1.3373 −0.6915 −2.9125 −0.2555 (4.17)
a1 b1 a1s b1s
δlon 0.0 0.0 −2.9125 −0.2555 (4.18)
a1 b1 a1s b1s
δlon −1.3373 −0.6915 0.0 0.0 (4.19)
Case 4 Neither stabilizerbar states nor rotor states are used for feedback.
a1 b1 a1s b1s
δlon 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 (4.20)
Table 4.1 shows the results. ǫ captures well the deterioration of the overall perfor
mance. Case 2 (stabilizerbar–state feedback only) satisfies all the specifications. Phase
margins and the ADS33E bandwidths have opposite tendencies and increase while the
other performance metrics deteriorate and violate the bounds for Case 3 and 4. The
coupling of φ due to θ request varies only marginally. The reason for the poor stabil
ity margin of Case 4 is due to the high bandwidth of the design; a lower bandwidth
(i.e., a decrease of the attitude gains) would restore acceptable values for ǫ and the gain
margins.
This analysis suggests also a possible way to optimize a H∞ loopshaping controller
to tailor better its performance to multiple and conflicting specifications, which may not
be captured exhaustively by ǫ. Tischler et al. [2001] compared several controller design
techniques (including H∞ loop shaping) for the design of an aircraft lateral/directional
controller using the CONDUIT software package. CONDUIT optimizes the controllers
4.5. Scheduled innerloop evaluation 109
∆θpk ∆φpk
ωBW a (vθ ) ω−3dB b (vθ ) ωBW a (vφ ) ω−3dB b (vφ ) ∆φ4 ∆θ4
to satisfy a set of userselected specifications. For the H∞ loop shaping case, the opti
mization is run optimizing a fixed structure of the shaping weights and recalculating
the controller at each step of the optimization. It was noted that optimizing the weights
did not map well into the design requirements chosen in the example case. This re
sult may be expected, since every time the weights are changed, the H∞ optimization
recalculates an optimal controller to maximize the stability margin ǫ. If ǫ does not cap
ture comprehensively the set of specified requirements, then the optimization may not
be successful. A better approach would be to optimize only the gains in the F matrix
leaving both the weights and the observer part unchanged. This would allow one to
4.6. Outer loops 110
tradeoff the optimal value of ǫ obtained after the first synthesis with other specifica
tions. Including also the weights in this optimization would allow further tuning of the
design at the expense of an increase in computational cost.
To allow the helicopter to track predetermined trajectories, its position over time must
be constrained. This is achieved with three outer loops on the vx , vy , and vz channels to
control x, y, and z respectively. These outer loops are not scheduled, since the scheduled
inner loop delivers a system with dynamic characteristics that do not vary widely in the
target flight envelope. The design is done using the closed inner loop at hover, and it is
identical to the one presented in Section 3.3.
The scheduledcontroller design uses MATLAB µAnalysis and Synthesis Toolbox [Balas
et al., 1995]. The resulting controller is discretized with a zero order hold (ZOH) with
sampling frequency of 100 Hz. The ZOH discretization is necessary because the phys
ical interpretation of the states of the discretized controllers must remain the same for
the scheduling. The design procedure is highly automated for changes that do not in
volve the controller structure. The designer sets the crossover frequencies of all the
channels and a specialdeveloped MATLAB routine generates
• the weights W 1 and W 2 and the controllers K at each determined operating point;
If the user judges the performance to be satisfactory, the routine continues generating
4.8. Flight tests 111
The automaticallyproduced FORTRAN code for the controller is exactly the same for
simulation on the nonlinear model and flight tests. Before actual flight tests, both
manned and unmanned flight simulations make it possible to test further the controller
performance especially during maneuvering flight.
The CMU R50 equipped with the presented controller flew ascending and descending,
forward, and backward turns, and steps at different speeds. The R50 flew up to a speed
of 21.8 m/s (78.5 km/h) forward and 12 m/s (43.2 km/h) backward.
2
∆ v (m/s)
1.5
1
x
0.5
0
20 6
15
10 4
5 2
0 Time (s)
vx (m/s) −5 0
Figures 4.30, 4.31, and 4.32 show the results for step inputs in vx , vz , and ψ respec
tively at different speeds. It is evident that the closedloop dynamic characteristics are
4.8. Flight tests 112
−0.5
v (m/s)
−1
−1.5
z
−2
−2.5
0
5 20
10
Time (s) 10 0
−10 v (m/s)
x
15
10
ψ (deg)
20 10
10 5
0
v (m/s) −10 0 Time (s)
x
Desired flight path (dashed), flight test (solid) Desired flight path (dashed), flight test (solid)
30
80
70 20
60
50 10
x (m)
z (m)
40
0
30
20
−10
10
0 −20
−20 −10 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80
y (m) x (m)
(a) Horizontal flight path. (b) Vertical flight path.
20
θ (deg)
vz (m/s) vy (m/s) v (m/s)
10
5 0
x
0
−20
5
φ (deg)
30
20
0 10
0
−5 −10
dψ/dt (deg/s)
4
30
2 20
0 10
−2 0
−4 −10
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90
Time (s) Time (s)
(c) v x , vy , and vz . (d) θ, φ, and ψ̇.
0
δ
−0.5 25
0.5
20
δlat
0
ψ (rad)
−0.5 15
1
col
0.5 10
δ
0
0.5 5
ped
0 0
δ
−0.5
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90
Time (s) Time (sec)
(e) Controller outputs. (f) ψ.
Desired flight path (dashed), flight test (solid) Desired flight path (dashed), flight test (solid)
160 50
140 40
120 30
100 20
x (m)
z (m)
80 10
60 0
40 −10
20 −20
0 −30
−20 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 0 50 100 150
y (m) x (m)
(a) Horizontal flight path. (b) Vertical flight path.
20
θ (deg)
vx (m/s)
15
10
0
5
0
−20
10
φ (deg)
vy (m/s)
30
20
0 10
0
−10 −10
dψ/dt (deg/s)
5
30
v (m/s)
20
0 10
0
z
−10
−5
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 0 20 40 60 80 100 120
Time (s) Time (s)
(c) v x , vy , and vz . (d) θ, φ, and ψ̇.
−0.5 25
0.5
20
lat
0
ψ (rad)
δ
−0.5 15
1
col
0.5 10
δ
0
0.5 5
δped
0 0
−0.5
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 0 20 40 60 80 100 120
Time (s) Time (sec)
(e) Controller outputs. (f) ψ.
Desired flight path (dashed), flight test (solid) Desired flight path (dashed), flight test (solid)
0 30
−10
20
−20
−30
10
x (m)
z (m)
−40
−50 0
−60
−70 −10
−80
−20
−60 −50 −40 −30 −20 −10 0 10 20 −80 −70 −60 −50 −40 −30 −20 −10 0
y (m) x (m)
(a) Horizontal flight path. (b) Vertical flight path.
20
θ (deg)
vy (m/s) v (m/s)
−5 0
x
−10
−20
φ (deg)
5 10
0
0 −10
−20
−5 −30
dψ/dt (deg/s)
4
30
vz (m/s)
2 20
0 10
−2 0
−10
−4
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90
Time (s) Time (s)
(c) v x , vy , and vz . (d) θ, φ, and ψ̇.
−0.5 25
0.5
20
δlat
0
ψ (rad)
−0.5 15
1
col
0.5 10
δ
0
0.5 5
δped
0 0
−0.5
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90
Time (s) Time (sec)
(e) Controller outputs. (f) ψ.
almost unchanged while traversing the speed envelope. The figures report also the re
sults from nonlinear simulations obtained with the MOSCA model augmented with
the flighttested controller. The simulations match closely the flighttest responses, con
firming the quality of the model across the flight envelope.
Figures 4.33, 4.34, and 4.35 show the flight of helicoidal turns at speeds of 10, 15,
and 10 m/s respectively. The turns are composed of the following trim trajectories:
(1) hover, (2) straight flight at the target speed, (3) constant yawrate turn, (4) climbing
flight at constant vertical velocity and constant yawrate, (5) constant yawrate turn, (6)
descending flight at constant vertical velocity and constant yawrate, (7) straight flight
at the target speed, (8) hover. Polynomial interpolation of requested vx , vz , and ψ̇ is
used to connect the trim trajectories and thus ensure smooth transition between any
two consecutive trims. The max requested yawrate is based on the max allowed bank
angle that was set at 25 deg for all the turns. Using
tan φmax
ψ̇max = g ,
vx
where g is gravity’s acceleration, gives requested yawrate of 26.2 deg/s for the 10 and
10 m/s turns, and 17.5 deg/s for the 15 m/s turn. The maximum requested vertical
velocity during climbing and descending phase is 1.5 m/s. During the flights, the po
sition outer loops are selectively closed on the inner loop to limit deviation from the
desired path.
Chapter 5
Conclusions
5.1 Contributions
The main contribution of this thesis is the development of a modeling and control
framework that greatly reduces the time, cost, and both human and physical resources
needed to design highperformance control systems for robotic helicopters. In develop
ing the framework this work achieved the following.
117
5.2. Suggestions for future work 118
hover that performed successfully showing coordinated flight away from the de
sign operating point.
• The determination, with an analysis done using the observer plus statefeedback
form of the H∞ loop shaping controller, that in a helicopter with a stabilizer bar
the feedback of estimated stabilizerbar states is more important than the feedback
of mainrotor states.
There are several future research activities that could expand and capitalize on the re
sults of this thesis.
• The investigation of the direct optimization of the state feedback matrix F to sat
isfy conflicting specifications not well captured by the optimization of ǫ.
5.2. Suggestions for future work 119
Amidi O., Kanade T., and Miller J.R. Visionbased autonomous helicopter research at
Carnegie Mellon Robotics Institute 19911997. In Heli Japan ’98, Paper No. T73. 1998.
Balas G.J., Doyle J.C., Glover K., Packard A., and Smith R. µAnalysis and Synthesis
Toolbox User’s Guide. The MathWorks, Inc., second edition, 1995.
Bates D.G., Gatley S.L., Postlethwaite I., and Berry A.J. Design and piloted simulation
of a robust integrated flight and propulsion controller. Journal of Guidance, Control,
and Dynamics, 23(2):269–277, 2000.
120
Bibliography 121
Bode H.W. Network Analysis and Feedback Amplifiers. D. Van Nostrand Company, Inc.,
1945.
Bruce P.D., Silva J.E.F., and Kellett M.G. Maximum likelihood identification of a rotary
wing RPV simulation model from flighttest data. In Atmospheric Flight Mechanics
Conference, AIAA984157. Boston, MA, 1998.
Doyle J.C. Analysis of feedback systems with structured uncertainties. IEE Proceedings,
129(6):242–250, 1982.
Doyle J.C., Francis B.A., and Tannenbaum A.R. Feedback Control Theory, chapter 7 and
8, pages 105–155. Macmillan Publishing Company, 1992.
Eshow M.M., Orlandi D., Bonaita G., and Barbieri S. Results of an A109 simulation val
idation and handling qualities study. In Fourteenth European Rotorcraft Forum, Paper
No. 64. Milano, Italy, 1988.
Frost C.R., Tischler M.B., and Bielefield M. Design and test of flight control laws for
the Kaman BURRO unmanned aerial vehicle. In AIAA Atmospheric Flight Mechanics
Conference, AIAA 20004205. 2000.
Gavrilets V., Mettler B., and Feron E. Nonlinear model for a smallsize acrobatic heli
copter. In AIAA Guidance, Navigation, and Control Conference and Exhibit, AIAA 2001
4333. 2001.
Glover K., Vinnicombe G., and Papageorgiou G. Guaranteed multiloop stability mar
gins and the gap metric. In Proceedings of the 39th IEEE Conference on Decision and
Control, pages 4084–4085. 2000.
Hall W.E. and Bryson A.E. Inclusion of rotor dynamics in controller design for heli
copters. Journal of Aircraft, 10(4):200–206, 1973.
Heffley R.K. A compilation and analysis of helicopter handling qualities data. Technical
Report No 10872, Systems Technology, Inc., 1979.
Bibliography 122
Hoffmann F., Koo T., and Shakernia O. Evolutionary design of a helicopter autopilot.
In 3rd Online World Conference on Soft Computing (WSC3). 1998.
Hong S.W. and Curtiss H.C. An analytic modeling and system identification study of
rotor/fuselage dynamics at hover. In Piloting Vertical Flight Aircraft: A Conference on
Flying Qualities and Human Factors, NASA Conference Publication 3220, pages 265–
286. 1993.
Hovakimyan N., Kim N., Calise A., Prasad J.V.R., and Corban E. Adaptive output
feedback for highbandwidth control of an unmanned helicopter. In Conference on
Guidance, Navigation and Control, AIAA 20014181. 2001.
Howitt J., Howell S.E., McCallum A.T., and Brinson P.R. Experimental evaluation of
flight control system designs exploiting rotor state feedback. In Proceedings of the 57th
Forum of the American Helicopter Society. Washington D.C., 2001.
Kim F.D., Celi R., and Tischler M.B. Highorder state space simulation models of heli
copter flight mechanics. Journal of the American Helicopter Society, 38(2):16–27, 1993.
Kim S.K. and Tilbury D.M. Mathematical modeling and experimental identification of
a model helicopter. In AIAA Modeling and Simulation Technologies Conference, AIAA
984357. 1998.
Koo T., Shim D., Shakernia O., Sinopoli B., Ma Y., Ho F., and Sastry S. Hierarchical hy
brid system design on Berkeley UAV. In The International Aerial Robotics Competition.
1998. http://citeseer.nj.nec.com/koo98hierarchical.html.
Bibliography 123
Kothare M.V., Campo P.J., Morari M., and Nett C.N. A unified framework for the study
of antiwindup designs. Automatica, 30(12):1869–1883, 1994.
La Civita M., Messner W.C., and Kanade T. Modeling of smallscale helicopters with
integrated firstprinciples and systemidentification techniques. In Proceedings of the
58th Forum of the American Helicopter Society, volume 2, pages 2505–2516. Montreal,
Canada, 2002a.
La Civita M., Papageorgiou G., Messner W.C., and Kanade T. Design and flight testing
of a highbandwidth H∞ loop shaping controller for a robotic helicopter. In Pro
ceedings of the AIAA Guidance, Navigation, and Control Conference, AIAA20024836.
Monterey, CA, 2002b.
La Civita M., Papageorgiou G., Messner W.C., and Kanade T. Design and flight testing
of a gainscheduled H∞ loop shaping controller for wideenvelope flight of a robotic
helicopter. In American Control Conference. Denver, CO, 2003. (Submitted).
Mettler B.F., Tischler M.B., Kanade T., and Messner W.C. Attitude control optimization
for a smallscale unmanned helicopter. In AIAA Guidance, Navigation, and Control
Conference. 2000.
MILF9490D. General Specification for Flight Control Systems  Design, Installation and Test
of Piloted Aircraft. United States Air Force, 1975.
Miller R.H. A method for improving the inherent stability and control characteristics of
helicopters. Journal of Aeronautical Sciences, 17(6):363–374, 1950.
Bibliography 124
Morris J.C., van Nieuwstadt M., and Bendotti P. Identification and stabiliza
tion of a model helicopter in hover. In American Control Conference. 1994.
http://citeseer.nj.nec.com/morris94identification.html.
Papageorgiou G. Robust Control System Design: H∞ Loop Shaping and Aerospace Applica
tions. Ph.D. thesis, University of Cambridge, 1998.
Papageorgiou G. and Glover K. Taking robust LPV control into flight on the VAAC
Harrier. In Proceedings of the 39th IEEE Conference on Decision and Control, pages 4558–
4564. 2000.
Papageorgiou G. and Hyde R.A. Analysing the stability of NDIbased flight controllers
with LPV methods. In Proceedings of the AIAA Guidance, Navigation, and Control Con
ference, AIAA 014039. 2001.
Pitt D.M. and Peters D.A. Theoretical prediction of dynamicinflow derivatives. Vertica,
5:21–34, 1981.
Prasad J., Calise A., Pei Y., and Corban J.E. Adaptive nonlinear controller synthesis and
flight test evaluation on an unmanned helicopter. In Proceedings of the IEEE Conference
on Control Applications. 1999.
Schrage D.P., Peters D.A., Prasad J.V.R., Stumpf W.F., and He C.J. Helicopter stability
and control modeling improvements and verification on two helicopters. In Four
teenth European Rotorcraft Forum, Paper No. 77. Milano, Italy, 1988.
Bibliography 125
Sefton J.A. and Glover K. Pole/zero cancellations in the general H∞ problem with
reference to a two block design. Systems & Control Letters, 14(4):295–306, 1990.
Shim D.H., Kim H.J., and Sastry S. Control system design for rotorcraftbased un
manned aerial vehicles using timedomain system identification. In IEEE International
Conference on Control Applications, CCA808. Anchorage, AK, 2000.
Smerlas A., Postlethwaite I., Walker D.J., Strange M.E., Howitt J., Horton R.I., Gubbels
A.W., and Baillie S.W. Design and flight testing of an H∞ controller for the NRC Bell
205 experimental flybywire helicopter. In Proceedings of the AIAA Guidance, Naviga
tion, and Control Conference, AIAA 984300. 1998.
Sprague K., Gavrilets V., Dugail D., Mettler B., Martinos I., and Feron E. Design and
applications of an avionics system for a miniature acrobatic helicopter. In Digital
Avionics Systems Conference. 2001.
Stengel R.F. and Ray L.R. Stochastic robustness of linear timeinvariant control systems.
IEE Transactions on Automatic Control, 36(1):82–87, 1991.
Takahashi M.D. H∞ helicopter flight control law design with and without rotor state
feedback. Journal of Guidance, Control, and Dynamics, 17(6):1245–1251, 1994a.
Takahashi M.D. Rotorstate feedback in the design of flight control laws for a hovering
helicopter. Journal of the American Helicopter Society, 39(1):50–62, 1994b.
Talbot P.D., Tinling B.E., Decker W.A., and Chen R.T.N. A mathematical model of a
single main rotor helicopter for piloted simulation. Technical Memorandum 84281,
NASA, 1982.
Tischler M.B. and Cauffman M.G. Frequencyresponse method for rotorcraft system
identification: Flight applications to BO 105 coupled rotor/fuselage dynamics. Jour
nal of the American Helicopter Society, 37(3):3–17, 1992.
Tischler M.B., Lee J.A., and Colbourne J.D. Optimization and comparisons of alterna
tive flight control system design methods using a common set of handlingqualities
criteria. In Proceedings of the AIAA Guidance, Navigation, and Control Conference, AIAA
20014266. Montreal, Canada, 2001.
Tischler M.B. and Tomashofski C.A. Flight test identification of SH2G flappedrotor
helicopter flight mechanics models. Journal of the American Helicopter Society, 47(1):18–
32, 2002.
Walker D.J. and Postlethwaite I. Advanced helicopter flight control using twodegree
offreedom H∞ optimization. Journal of Guidance, Control, and Dynamics, 19(2):461–
468, 1996.
Weilenmann M.F., Christen U., and Geering H.P. Robust helicopter position control at
hover. In American Control Conference, pages 2491–2495. Baltimore, 1994.
Weilenmann M.F. and Geering H.P. A test bench for rotorcraft hover control. Journal of
Guidance, Control, and Dynamics, 17:729–736, 1994.
Zhao X. and Curtiss H.C. A linearized model of helicopter dynamics including corre
lation with flight test. In Second International Conference on Rotorcraft Basic Research,
ZHAO1–ZHAO14. University of Maryland, MD, 1988.
Zhou K., Doyle J.C., and Glover K. Robust and Optimal Control. Prentice Hall, first
edition, 1996.
Mult mai mult decât documente.
Descoperiți tot ce are Scribd de oferit, inclusiv cărți și cărți audio de la editori majori.
Anulați oricând.