Proceedings of the 35th WP19 350

Conference on Decision and Control

Kobe, Japan December 1996

Decoupling Compensation for the Apache Helicopter

Kevin L. Hicks*
(klhicks@ix.netcom.com)

Armando A. Rodriguez
*+
(aar@asu.edu)

Arizona State University

Center for System Science and Engineering
Department of Electrical Engineering

Abstract This paper contributes a systematic design method

The design of a decoupling compensator for the
Apache helicopter is presented. The design is based on
linear quadratic regulation with implicit model following.
A decoupling compensator is designed for a reduced-order
linear model of vehicle dynamics at hover using
eigenstructure assi,gnment. The resulting closed-loop
system is used as i i reference model in the design of a
compensator for tlne full-order system, resulting in a
constant state feedback matrix. A feedforward matrix
(command mixer) is then designed to diagonalize the
system at low frequencies. The design is evaluated with
both the full-order linear model and a nonlinear simulation
(ARMCOP [l]). It is found to provide desired bandwidth
and good decoupling properties with the linear model. The
nonlinear simulation shows increased coupling due to the
nonlinearities.
1. Introduction
Helicopters, being highly-coupled systems with
several inputs and outputs, are well suited to flight control
design by multivariable techniques. These offer methods
to systematize control design for complex systems and
allow the designer to handle cross-coupling and high-order
modes directly.
Several multivariable design techniques have been
proposed to improve the handling qualities of complex
aircraft. For example, Kanai et al. use an exact model-
matching technique to achieve decoupling of the
in which eigenstructure assignment (ESA) for a reduced-
order model is combined with linear quadratic regulation
with implicit model following (LQWIMF) [4]. The
LQWIMF design involves a model that accounts for high-
order dynamics such as blade flapping. Part of the method
involves the design of a command mixer to diagonalize the
system at low frequencies.
This paper is organized as follows: Section 2 lists
the nonlinear state equations, discusses linearization and
model order reduction, and gives the problem statement.
Section 3 presents the ESA-LQR/IMF design methodology.
Section 4 presents a case study for the hovering helicopter,
and Section 5 presents the conclusions and directions for
future research.
2. Model and Problem Definition
In this section, the nonlinear model equations are
presented, along with the linearization and model order
reduction strategies and the problem statement.
2.1 Nonlinear Model
In addition to the aircraft's rigid-body dynamics,
the ARMCOP helicopter simulation models main rotor
blade flapping along with main rotor rotating and engine
dynamics. The original main rotor rotating model was
augmented by the author to include drive train and flexible
shaft dynamics along with a compensator to govern main
rotor speed [6]. The nonlinear state equations can be
written as

F 1
longitudinal dynamics of a control-configured vehicle [2].
Ridgely et al. use tracker theory to design a transducer % &#p+@
2 = %, = f(J& = ~&&?JRIII) (2.1)
matrix that asymptotically diagonalizes a MIMO system.
131 Several authors have used eigenstructure assignment to pR* R@&p+l4
stabilize and decouple fixed-wing aircraft [4] and rotorcraft
[5]. The models used in these designs tend to be low-
order, consisting of rigid-body dynamics.

*Currently completing a Master of Science in Electrical Engineering.

**Associate Professor.
0-7803-3590-2/96 $5.100 0 1996 IEEE 1551
 2

functions are defined as follows: Table 2.1: System states and inputs.

State Defn. Defn.

Long., lateral, Column position
vertical velocity
Rolling, pitching, Collective stick
yawing rate position
Pitch, roll angles Wheel position
Main rotor coning Pedal position
fB0 = angle
Long., lateral
flapping angles
Coning and
flapping angle
derivatives
Engine power
output
fa = Main rotor and
drive train angular
velocities
Shaft twist angle
Integral of main
rotor velocity
perturbation

fR0 =
where

The states and inputs are listed in Table 2.1, and and where xE and uEa r e the state and input vectors at
parameters and other variables are listed in Table 2.2. equilibrium.
The system output consists of a subset of the The resulting linearized system was 19th-order. It
system states, namely was found to have three unstable modes close to the origin,
3 = cz = [e W @ 4
'
. (2.6) with one real mode and one complex pair. It also had a
number of low-frequency minimum-phase transmission
2.2. Model Linearization zeroes, as well as some nonminimum-phase transmission
The helicopter simulation was trimmed at hover zeroes at high frequencies.
and the system was linearized about the resulting
equilibrium point by the method of small perturbations. 2.3. Model order Reduction
The linearized state equations are A reduced-order approximation was desired that
would give a good approximation to the full-order system's
d8.x = A 8 x + B8y dynamics in the frequency band of interest, up to about 10
a!t (2.7)
8y = C8& radianskecond. The first attempt at model order reduction
consisted of simply truncating the flapping and main

1552
 3
Table 2.2: Additional variables in system state equations.
high-frequency dynamics can be seen. The linear model
matrices for both the full- and the reduced-order system are
Var. Defn. Var. Defn. listed in appendix A of reference [ 6 ] .

Vehicle mass Main rotor

moment of inertia
Vehicle rotational Drive train
inertia matrix
Body moments of
moment of inertia
Sum of forces
-
m
20

o
E-20
inertia along body axes -40
-60

Cross-pr'oduct of Sum of moments io-2 io-' ioo 10' io2 10'

inertia about body axes (rad/sec)

Engine throughpui Flapping equation

gain components
Engine time Engine command
constant input
Main rotor shaft Main rotor
spring constant disturbance torque
Main rotor shaft Drive train
damping disturbance torque
coefficient
rotor/engine/drive train states from the linear model, since
these dynamics tended to be higher in frequency.
However, it was found that these states had a significant
effect on the system's transfer characteristics at low
frequencies as well, with the result that the truncated
system was a poor approximation to the full-order system
across the frequency band. A more sophisticated approach
was called for. First, the system was decomposed into
stable and unstable subsystems. A balanced realization [7]
was computed for the stable subsystem, and states that
were weakly coupled to the input and output were
truncated. The result was added to the unstable subsystem
for the final reduced-order model.
A total of ten states were removed from the
system, leaving a system order of nine. The reduced-order
system contained the unstable modes of the full-order
system, and also coatained low-frequency minimum-phase
transmission zeroes in roughly the same positions as those
of the full-order system.
Singular value plots of both the full- and reduced-
order systems appear in Figure 2.1. It is seen that both
systems have very similar transfer characteristics except for
between 10 and 100 radianstsecond, where the effect of the
Figure 2.1: Singular value plots of full- and reduced
order systems (X = full-order, 0 = reduced-order).
2.4 Pmblem Statement
The problem to be solved is this: Given the
linearized model of helicopter dynamics described above,
design a controller that will do the followng:
e Stabilize the helicopter.
e Provide bandwidths of 2 radianstsecond for the
pitch, roll and yaw channels, and 1 radiadsecond
for the vertical channel.
Produce step responses with transients that are
limited in amplitude to less than 20% of the
steady-state values.
e Give the pilot simple transfer functions along each
input-output channel.
Provide minimal cross-coupling between channels.
3. ESA-LQWJMF Design Procedure
In this section the compensator design for the low-
order linear model using eigenstructure assignment (ESA)
is discussed. It is then shown how the resulting closed-
loop system is used as a reference model for the design of
the full-order linear system by linear quadratic regulation
with implicit model following (LQR/IMF).
3.1 ESA Design Pmcedun?
The control loop structure for the ESA-based
compensator is showin in Figure 3.1. The system employs
full-state feedback with a constant-gain feedback matrix.
There is also a constant-gain feedforward matrix that acts
as a command mixer.
Let the system order be n, and let there be p
transmission zeroes in the left half-plane (LHP). The
closed-loop eigenstructure is chosen as follows:
1. p of the closed-loop poles are assigned to
cancel LHP transmission zeroes by placing each pole on

1553
 4

where T = [TuT TLTIT is a state transformation matrix

that performs the steps of model order reduction, listed
above, up to the truncation of the state vector. Let PR =
[ARBRCRO] = CR(SI - AR)-lBR be the closed-loop
reduced-order system, and P = [A,B,C,O] be the open-loop
full-order system. We can define an error function as
Figure 3.1: Control loop structure for ESA-based
P E k, - A,&,. (3.5)
compensator.
Then we can define a new cost integral as

(3.6)
top of a transmission zero and setting its associated
eigenvector to match the transmission zero's state directio where Q and R are weighting matrices chosen by the
If all transmission zeroes below the cutoff frequency can designer. J can be rewritten as
be cancelled in this manner, then the transfer characteristics
of the closed-loop system will be flat in the passband.
This fulfills our requirement for "simple" transfer functions.
2. The remaining n-p closed-loop poles are where
distributed, either singly or in complex pairs, among the -
system outputs. They are placed at distances from the Q = (TuA - ARTu)~Q(TuA- ART&
-
origin that will give the required bandwidth for their W = (T,A - A,T,)TQT$#, (3.8)
corresponding input-output channel. Their eigenvectors are -
selected so that each pole couples only into its designated R = BTTUTQTUB+ R
output, that is, The problem has been converted to a standard LQR
CYi = [... 0 1 0 0 ...I (3.1) optimization with a cross-weighting term, which can be
solved to give a state feedback matrix K for the full-order
Once the desired closed-loop eigenstructure has system.
been selected, it is straightforward to calculate the 3.3 Command Mixer Design
necessary state feedback matrix using, for example, the The command mixer is calculated by inverting the
techniques given by Stevens and Lewis [4]. closed-loop dynamics of the system at DC. Assume that
3.2 LQWIMF Design h c e d u r e a state-feedback matrix K has been found for the open-loop
Linear quadratic regulation is a method of control system P = [AB,C,O] = C(s1 - A)-'B. In this case, P
design in which specifications are made in the time might be either the full- or reduced-order system, and K
domain. The standard LQR problem is to minimize the might have been found by eigenstructure assignment or
closed-loop cost integral linear quadratic regulation. The closed-loop system is PK
= [AK,B,C,D], where
A , = A - BK. (3.9)

where Q and R are chosen by the designer to satisfy Also assume that the desired closed-loop system gain at
system requirements. Another form of the cost integral DC is Go. We can write
contains a cross-weighting term between 2~ and as M = Go(-C4K'B)-'. (3.10)
follows:
J = -lm,xTQ,x
1
2 0
+ 2.gTWa iy T R y a3 (3.3)
Go is a diagonal matrix to provide decoupling at low
frequencies. Its diagonal elements are the desired steady-
state values of the outputs in response to unit steps.
The method of implicit model following [4]is a method
for choosing Q, W and R in which a combination of 4. Case Study: Hover
system states are "coerced" into responding as do the states The eigenstructure chosen for the closed-loop
of a reference model. Let be the state vector of the full- reduced-order model is listed in reference [ 6 ] . Three poles
order system, and let be the state vector of the reduced- were used to cancel low-speed transmission zeroes in the
order closed-loop system. We can write LHP, and the rest were used to satisfy closed-loop
zR = TUX, (3.4) bandwidth requirements and output coupling requirements.

1554

Real poles were p1,aced at -1.0 and -2.0 and set to couple
into W and R, respectively. A complex pair was placed at
-1.60 & j1.20 and set to couple into 8, and another was
placed at -1.80 & 0.872 and set to couple into 4.
The state deedback matrix for the full-order system
was calculated by choosing the penalty matrices in
equation (3.6) to ble
Q = lOO*I,
and
R = 0.1 *Iw
The command mixer for the full-order system was
calculated to give DC gains of 10" pitch per inch of
column deflection, -20 fdsecond (up) vertical velocity per
inch of collective stick deflection, 10" roll per inch of
wheel deflection, and 20 deglsecond yaw rate per inch of
pedal deflection. The singular value plot of the resulting
closed-loop system is shown in Figure 4.1. The plot was
normalized by dividing 0 by lo", W by -20 ft/sec, 4 by
10" and R by 20 deglsec.
- r - - - - - 8 - - - - -
_ _ _ _
10-3 10-2 10-1
(rcd/sec)
Figure 4.1: Scaled singular value plot of full-order linear
system with LQWIMF-based controller.
The respoinse of the closed-loop full-order linear
system to unit steps at each of the inputs is shown in
Figure 4.2. It is seen that each output rises smoothly to its
steady-state value with little cross-coupling between
channels. The cross-coupling is attributed to the presence
of high-frequency transmission zeroes in the right half-
plane, which cannot be removed by pole cancellation in a
stable closed-loop system.
The controller was implemented on the nonlinear
helicopter simulation (ARMCOP) and subjected to a series
of doublets at eaclh of the control inputs. The doublets
were of low magnitude (0.25") in order to maintain the
aircraft near the hovering trim condition and avoid
nonlinearities due 10 changing flight conditions. It can be
seen that the pitch and vertical channels offer good
decoupling, while directional commands couple
significantly into pitch angle. The roll channel exhibits
poor command following that is attributed to significant
nonlinearities in that channel.
5
5. Conclusions and Directions for Fulther Research
The LQWIMF controller has been seen to give
good responses to step inputs for a linear model of
helicopter dynamics that includes high-order dynamics.
However, issues of robustness with respect to uncertainties
and to disturbances at the plant inputs and outputs have not
been addressed in this design. The performance has also
(4.1) been seen to suffer in the presence of plant nonlinearities
as seen in the step responses of the nonlinear simulation.
There are a number of techniques that can be used
(4.2) to address these robustness issues, in particular Hm design
[8]. One disadvantage of the Hm is that it tends to result
in dynamic compensators of high order. However, it is
implied throughout the LQR design that all states are
available for feedback. Implementation of this controller
would therefore require a high-order state estimator and
would again result in a high-order controller.
The HOD design process allows the designer to
trade off improved performance with improved robustness
to disturbances and nonlinearities. The performance of the
Hm design might seem to suffer as a result. However,
state estimators have their own limitations and the
combination of the LQR design with a high-order state
estimator might result in poorer performance anyway.
Future research can investigate the effect of including a
state estimator on the performance of the LQWIMF design.
- 8 - - In a complete flight control system, controllers
would be designed for several different operating
conditions and the results combined, most likely by
100 10' interpolating between controller gains as the aircraft moves
about the flight envelope. Future research can investigate
the effect of such an interpolation scheme on controller
design.
References
Talbot, Peter D. et al, "A Mathematical Model of a
Single Main Rotor Helicopter for Piloted Simulation,"
NASA Technical Memorandum 76575, May 1979.
Kanai, Kimio, Uchikado, Shigeru, Nikiforuk, Peter
N., and Hori, Noryuki, "Application of a New
Multivariable Model-Following Method to Decoupled
Flight Control," A IAA Journal of Guidance, Control
and Dynamics, Vol. 8, NO. 5, Sept.-Oct. 1985.
Ridgely, D. Brett, Banda, Siva, and D'Azzo, John J.,
"Decoupling of High-Gain Multivariable Tracking
Systems," A IAA Journal of Guidance, Control and
Dynamics, Vol. 8, No. 1, Jan.-Feb. 1985.
1555
 6

Longitudinal step Longitudinal step

1.2 0 . 4 , . . . . , . . . . , . . . . , . . . . , . . . , , , , , . . ,
1.0
0.6
0.6 - - - - b - . . - L - _ _ J - _ _
0 4 _ , _ _ _ _ r _ _ _ _ l _ _ _

0.2 -0.1
0.0 -0.2
-0.2 -0.3
-0 4
0 2 4 6 10 0 10 20 30 40 50
(sec) (-0.)

Collective step Collective step

I..

0.2
0.0

0 2 4 6 8 10 0 10 20 30 40 50
(sec)

Laterol step
0.6
0.4
0.2
0.0
-0.2
-0.4
-0.6
0 10 20 30 40 50
(sec)

Direction01 s t e
0 3
0 2
0.1
0 0
-0.1
-0 2
-0.3
0 10 20 30 40 50
)
.
e
(

Figure 4.2: Step responses of linear system with Figure 4.3: Doublet responses of nonlinear system with
LQWIMF-based controller. (X = 8, A = W, 0 = 4, LQWIMF-based controller. (X = 8, A = W, 0 = 4,
diamonds = R) diamonds = R)

Stevens, Brian L., and Lewis, Frank L., Aircraft [8] Francis, Bruce A., A Course in H w Control Theory,
Control and Simulation, John Wiley & Sons, Inc., Springer-Verlag, 1987.
1992.

Manness, M. A., and Murray-Smith, D. J., "Aspects

of Multivariable Flight Control Law Design for
Helicopters Using Eigenstructure Assignment,"
Joumal of the American Helicopter Society, July,
1992.

Hicks, Kevin L., "Flight Control Design for the

Apache Helicopter," master's thesis, Arizona State
University, 1996.

Moore, Bruce C., "principal Component Analysis in

Linear Systems: Controllability, Observability, and
Model Reduction," IEEE Transactions on A utomatic
Control, Vol. AC-26, No. 1, February 1981.

1556