Professional Documents
Culture Documents
discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: http://www.researchgate.net/publication/260420694
DOWNLOADS
VIEWS
11
82
4 AUTHORS:
Ahmed Abdulelah
University Of Kufa
1 PUBLICATION 0 CITATIONS
29 PUBLICATIONS 31 CITATIONS
SEE PROFILE
SEE PROFILE
Samsul Noor
33 PUBLICATIONS 19 CITATIONS
SEE PROFILE
SEE PROFILE
Department of Electrical & Electronic Engineering, University Putra Malaysia, Selangor, Malaysia
Faculty of Engineering, University of Kufa, Iraq
Abstract - In this paper, the PID and fuzzy logic controllers are designed to control the pitch and yaw angles of a twin rotor
MIMO system (TRMS) in simulation-based platform. Two controllers were used in each case, one for pitch angle and one for
yaw angle. The twin rotor MIMO system designed as decoupling system in simplification. The tuned controllers gave a very
good response in the simulation. These results will provide a solid base for designing the final optimized real-time controller in
the next stages of the research.
Keywords - Fuzzy Logic Controller, PID Controller, Twin Rotor MIMO System
1. Introduction
Control of a helicopter is much more difficult to achieve than
controlling a fixed-wing aircraft. This is because the
fixed-wing aircraft will eventually reach some steady-state
flight condition if a pilot releases the controls, but a helicopter
will eventually diverge from the steady-state if the pilot
releases the control without constant corrective control input.
The difficulty in developing a controller for a helicopter is due
to the inherent instability and high degree of coupling in the
aircraft. Hence, a good controller has to be designed, so that
the helicopter could maintain at a specific position for an
extended period of time, and the movement of helicopter
could be controlled and always in steady-state. Helicopters
control systems have less spectacular performance than the
conventional fixed wing aircrafts due to the high non-linearity
of the system and strong coupling effects between the rotors
governing its movement, which hugely complicate the design
of a reliable and robust controller. All that added to the huge
difficulty of deriving a dynamic model for the helicopter form
a serious obstacle in the way towards designing a convenient
control system.
Although the coupled and nonlinear dynamics of the
helicopter make the altitude control a difficult task, numerous
control techniques are applied to control the flight system.
Flight control system of an aircraft requires a controller to
maintain flight path that is safe and smooth, which can be
controlled either by traditionally or by intelligent controller.
1
1
1
2
2
2
J eP 2 J eY 2 mheli ( x cm
y cm
z cm
) (2.5)
2
2
2
L Q1
t dq1 q1
and
dL
t dq1 q 2
(2.6)
(2.7)
Q1 K ppVm _ p K pyVm _ y B p
(2.8)
Q2 K ypVm _ p K yyVm _ y B y
(2.9)
where Kpp and Kpy are torque constant of pitch and yaw motor
propeller actuators above pitch axis; Kyp and Kyy are torque
constant of pitch and yaw motor propeller actuators above
yaw axis; Vm_p is pitch motor voltage, while Vm_y is yaw motor
voltage; and Bp and By are viscous rotary friction acting
corresponding to the pitch and yaw axis.
Using the Euler-Lagrange formula, the nonlinear
equations of motion of the 2-DOF helicopter system are
derived from the coordinates and forces defined in (2.8) and
(2.9). The equations of motion obtained are
Fig. 1. Free-body diagram of 2-DOF helicopter [2]
The Lagranges method is used to obtain the dynamic
model of the system. The pitch angle, and yaw angle, are
called as generalized coordinates or also called as Lagrangian
coordinates. After the transformation of the coordinates using
the pitch and yaw rotation matrices [12], and the conventions
of 2-DOF helicopter modeling [13], the center of mass is
represented in Cartesian coordinates with respect to angle
and of the aircraft is given by
(2.1)
(2.2)
z cm lcm sin
(2.3)
(2.4)
2
( J eP m heli l cm
)
sin cos
(2.10)
2
( J eY mheli lcm
cos 2 )
2
K yyVm _ y K ypVm _ p - B y 2mheli lcm
sin cos
(2.11)
These equations are linearized about zero and the linear
state-space model (A, B, C, D) describing the voltageto-angular joint position dynamics of the system is found. The
general states-space representation is written as in (2.12). The
state vector and output vector for the 2-DOF helicopter is
defined in (2.13) and (2.14) where and are the pitch and
yaw angles respectively.
d
x Ax Bu ;
dt
d
y Cy Du ;
dt
(2.12)
d
d
x T , ,
dt dt
(2.13)
y T ,
(2.14)
3. Controller Design
3.1. PID Controller
Two PID controllers were used to control each of pitch and
yaw angles. The use of separate controllers for each angle
helps in decoupling the effects of counter moments between
the pitch and yaw [14]. However, the PID design process
faces difficulties due to the fact that there is no clear transfer
function to connect each input with its respective output.
There are many reasons prevent using conventional
tuning methods such as Ziegler-Nichols method. One of the
reasons is that PID controllers deal with linear processes
effectively, but not effective if used for non-linear systems.
In order to use PID for nonlinear process, the process has to
be linearized around an equilibrium point [15]. The
linearized system incorporates a system of non-zero type
transfer function critically stable, making the conventional
tuning methods fail to deliver. Added to the point mentioned
above is that most tuning methods aim at regulatory control
performance and dont give good results for servo control.
The inherited instability of the system contributed to making
most tuning methods not suitable to be used.
The difficulties mentioned above lead us to three options.
Option 1 is using decoupling technique that linearizing the
system equations to make two separated transfer functions
responses to be tuned by two PID controllers. Option 2 is by
using a trial and error technique to get good responses.
Another option is using an intelligent optimization algorithm
such as genetic algorithm.
From the three options above, the first one is time
consuming and incorporate complex analytical calculations.
So it was disregarded as an option in the research. The trial
and error technique option is selected and used because it is
simple and does not require a lot of time, but the results are
not to be considered seriously as there is no optimality
analysis attached to them. These results will be used to give
a general idea about the difference between real time and
simulated systems. Intelligent optimization is to be
considered later to get the best optimization for the PID.
The PID used is of the standard parallel PID form. Using
the following standard PID equation (here we have to tune
K p , K i & K d while their respective time constants values
are included in the overall gain value)
u K p K i e(t )dt K d
de(t )
dt
(3.1)
Kp
Ki
Kd
Pitch
Yaw
0.9
1.4
0.2
0.5
0.1
0.3
(3.3)
error integral to the controller output. The resulted steadystate errors were zero for both pitch and yaw angles but a
very strong oscillation appeared at the output responses. Also
a very large overshoot appeared for the pitch angle response.
Next, the fuzzy system output was considered as the change
in the output voltage, so that integrating it would yield the
process input voltage. That allowed us to insert the integral
action in series with the fuzzy system. For pitch angle, the
results were good. Oscillation was also present but to a less
degree than with the parallel solution. However, yaw
response was oscillating heavily with large amplitudes due to
the system weight components being perpendicular to the
rotational direction of the yaw, unlike the pitch where the
weight gives extra damping to the system.
In order to get rid of the oscillation the following method
was used. Based on the consideration that the fuzzy systems
outputs is the change of voltages required for the motors,
these values were added to a constant voltage values that is
assumed to keep the angles on zero degree outputs. These
constant voltage values were obtained by experimenting with
the simulation model in open loop connection. The target
was to get values that keep the system around a zero angle
outputs for both pitch and yaw at the same time. The
obtained value for pitch motor voltage is around (12.5 v) and
for the yaw motor voltage is (-3.9 v) as shown in Fig. 2.
So the controller outputs represent the required voltage to
keep the angle at zero degree added to the required voltage
change to transform the angle to the new desired input value.
That is similar to the integral action but without the over
reactive affects that drives the response to the set-point value
which results to oscillation. This design will not guarantee a
zero steady-state error, but if the constant voltage values were
chosen carefully the error is very low and can be considered
negligible while the oscillation is vastly reduced
Fig. 4. Pitch and yaw shows response to step input for yaw
(PID controller)
Fig. 3. Pitch and yaw show response to step input for pitch
(PID controller)
Performance wise, the following values were obtained for
the system; Rising time is (0.5 sec), overshoot is (5.6%) and
settling time is (1.82 sec). Obviously, due to the integral
control the steady-state error is zero. However, even though
we tried to prevent the voltage from reaching saturation
values, it would still reach saturation if the pitch angle is to
be increased. But that would not happen if the pitch angle is
to be decreased. That is primarily due to the pitch motor
being operated at around (12.5 v) while in the marginal
equilibrium operation. That voltage is close to the upper
voltage saturation limit for pitch motor (24 v) but far from
the lower voltage saturation limit (-24 v). It remained to be
seen what are the effects of this operation in real-time. Even
though motors are protected from higher than limit voltages,
the motors could be slow in reacting to the sudden rise and
drop in the voltage values which would incorporate
undesired effects as the motors electro-magnetic reaction is
not considered in modeling the system.
The pitch and yaw response under variable yaw input
with PID control is shown in Fig. 4. The system has an
excellent response regarding both pitch and yaw responses.
The decoupling works so well that the pitch angle is barely
affected by yaw angle change. While the yaw angle
stabilized quickly with the rising time being (0.65 sec), the
overshoot not more than (7.4%) and the settling time merely
(2.58 sec). As with pitch response, the steady-state error is
zero for this case. But yaw voltages always reached voltage
saturation limits when the system reacts to applying a change
to yaw angle set-point. As mentioned earlier, even though
Fig. 5. Pitch and yaw shows response to step input for pitch
(Fuzzy controller)
References
[1]
[2]
[3]
[4]
[5]
[6]
[7]
[8]
[9]
[10]
Fig. 6. Pitch and yaw shows response to step input for yaw
(Fuzzy Controller)
5. Conclusions
It can be concluded from the above simulation results that
the PID controllers worked very well to decouple the
dynamic effects between pitch and yaw angular velocities
while providing a very good performance. However, these
controller need to be tested on the actual system in real-time
to see whether it can be an adequate solution for the system.
Major difficulties are expected from the voltage saturation at
the motors inputs. This is due to the motors electro-magnetic
time response not considered in the system model.
The final modified fuzzy controllers show a very good
performance and it is an indicator that next stage of research
may be a success when the system is applied real-time. It is
[11]
[12]
[13]
[14]
[15]
[16]
[17]
[18]
Lee, S., Ha, C., and Kim, B. S. (2005). Adaptive Nonlinear Control
System Design for Helicopter Robust Command Augmentation,
Aerospace Science and Technology, 9, 241-251.
Franko, S. (2009). LQR-Based Trajectory Control Of Full Envelope,
Autonomous Helicopter, World Congress on Engineering, 1,
351-356, London, UK, July, 2009.
Wahid, N., Rahmat, M. F., and Kamaruzaman, J. (2010). Comparative
Assessment Using LQR and Fuzzy Logic Controller for a Pitch
Control System, European Journal of Scientific Research, Vol.
42(Issue 2), 184-194.
Vishnu, G. N., Dileep, M. V., and George, V. I. (2012). Aircraft Yaw
Control System using LQR and Fuzzy Logic Controller, International
Journal of Computer Applications, 45(9), 25-30.
Chen, T. T., and Li, T. H. S. (2001). Simplex-Type Fuzzy Sliding
-Mode Control, Fuzzy Sets and Systems, 124(2), 249-261.
Amaral and Crisostomo, T. G. B. (2001). Automatic Helicopter
Motion Control Using Fuzzy Logic, IEEE International Conference on
Fuzzy Systems, 2, 860-863, Melbourne, Australia.
Kadmiry, B., and Driankov, D. A. (2004). Fuzzy Flight Controller
Combining Linguistic Model-Based Fuzzy Control, Fuzzy Sets and
Systems, 146(3), 313-347.
Cavalcante, C. M. C., Cardoso, J. J., Guimares, J., and Neves, O.
(1994). Application of Fuzzy Control to Helicopter Navigation,
Brazil-Japan Joint Symposium on Fuzzy Systems, 1, 72-74, Campinas,
So Paulo.
Cavalcante, C. M. C., Cardoso, J. J., Guimares, J., and Neves, O.
(1995). Design and Tuning of a Helicopter Fuzzy Controller, IEEE
International Conference on Fuzzy Systems, 3, 1549-1554, Yokohama,
Japan, March.
Mullhaupt, Ph., Srinivasan, B., Levine, J., Bonvin, D. (1997). A toy
more difficult to control than the real thing, European Control
Conference, p. 6.
Rahideh, A., Bajodah, A.H., Shaheed, M. H. (2012). Real time adaptive
nonlinear model inversion control of a twin rotor MIMO system using
neural networks, Engineering Applications of Artificial Intelligence,
25(6), 2012.
Dynamic Equation for the 2 DOF Helicopter. Maple Modeling
Worksheet. Qunser Inc., February 2006.
Quanser 2-DOF Helicopter. User and Control Manual, Qunser Inc.,
February 2006.
Vu, T. N. L., Lee, M. Y. (2010). Independent design of multi-loop
PI/PID controllers for interacting multivariable processes, Journal of
Process Control, 20(8).
Prashant, M., El-Farra, N. H., Panagiotis, D., Christofides, A. (2005).
Method for PID Controller Tuning Using Nonlinear Control
Techniques, AIChE J., 51(12).
Jan, J. (2007). Foundations of Fuzzy Control, John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
Kevin, M. P., Stephen, Y. (1997). Fuzzy Control, Addison Wesley
Publishing Company.
Jlna, G. (1997). Neuro-fuzzy Controllers: Design and Application,
PPUR presses polytechniques.