00 голосов за00 голосов против

1 просмотров8 стр.Sep 25, 2017

© © All Rights Reserved

PDF, TXT или читайте онлайн в Scribd

© All Rights Reserved

1 просмотров

00 голосов за00 голосов против

© All Rights Reserved

Вы находитесь на странице: 1из 8

DOI 10.1007/s11768-010-0017-8

a small-scale helicopter

Baoquan SONG 1 , Yunhui LIU 2 , Caizhi FAN 1

(1.College of Electronic Science and Engineering, National University of Defense Technology, Changsha Hunan 410073, China;

2.Department of Mechanical and Automation Engineering, The Chinese University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong, China)

Abstract: In order to design a nonlinear controller for small-scale autonomous helicopters, the dynamic character-

istics of a model helicopter are investigated, and an integrated nonlinear model of a small-scale helicopter for hovering

control is presented. It is proved that the nonlinear system of the small-scale helicopter can be transformed to a linear

system using the dynamic feedback linearization technique. Finally, simulations are carried out to validate the nonlinear

controller.

Keywords: Feedback linearization; Nonlinear model; Model helicopter

In the rotorcraft community, simple linear models and lin- lateral/longitudinal forces, they showed that the approxi-

ear controller design techniques are most commonly used mated system can be linearized by the feedback lineariza-

for ight controller design [1]. However, since the rotor- tion technique. In [14], the attitude and translational dynam-

craft suffers strong external disturbance, its linear models ics were input-state feedback linearized using dynamic in-

are valid only in the vicinity of an operating point, and the version, and then, an adaptive controller for an autonomous

designed controller is constrained to small-amplitude ma- helicopter using a neural network as the adaptive element

neuvers. To deal with this problem, many robust controller was developed to minimize the effect of nonlinear paramet-

design techniques are proposed and applied to designing the ric uncertainty arising from approximate inversion. How-

ight control system in the rotorcraft community [25]. ever, [6] and [8] did not model the rotor apping dynamics,

The other way is to develop the nonlinear control tech- which is one of the key dynamic characteristics. Although

niques, which is highly demanded for aerospace problems Kim and Tilbury [13] studied the dynamics of the stabilizer

in general because of the wide range of ight conditions bar, which is typically used on the model helicopters, only

encountered [68]. For a wide class of nonlinear dynamic simple SISO linear systems were identied. Furthermore,

systems, the feedback linearization with state feedback pro- for the autonomous helicopter controller design, few refer-

vides a direct method for designing the nonlinear controller. ences take into account the induced inow dynamics, which

In the nonlinear afne system, the static feedback lineariza- has found utility for various problems in rotor aeroelasticity

tion problem was solved by Jakubczyk and Respondek [9] and helicopter ight dynamics [17, 18].

and, independently, by Hunt and Su [10]. References [11] In our previous work, we studied the nonlinear attitude

and [12] give a complete solution to the dynamic input- system and control of the model helicopter on the test bench

output decoupling issue and [12] provides a constructive al- and proved that the attitude subsystem can be linearized

gorithmic solution for dynamic input-output decoupling. by the dynamic feedback linearization technique [19, 20].

For a small-scale model helicopter system, for its com- Then, the key characteristics of the model helicopter were

plex dynamics, it is challenging to develop a nonlinear studied in [21], and we proved that the simplied attitude-

model that is sufciently accurate and simple for practical heave subsystem, in which the angular velocity cross prod-

controller design. Many researchers have tried to model and uct is ignored, can be transformed to linear system by the

control the small-scale helicopter by the nonlinear control dynamic feedback linearization technique [21]. In this pa-

techniques [6, 8, 1315]. Cai et. al implemented an auto- per, the nonlinear model of a small-scale helicopter inte-

matic control law on the actual UAV helicopter using the grating the rotors apping dynamics and the inow dynam-

composite nonlinear feedback control method [16]. Then, ics is presented. Using the dynamic feedback linearization

they set up a more accurate model for the yaw channel technique, it is proved that the attitude-heave subsystem,

of the helicopter and designed an efcient control law us- without ignoring the angular velocity cross product, can be

ing the same technique [15]. The fact that the nonlinear linearized, while the zero dynamics of the small-scale he-

model of the helicopter cannot be converted into a con- licopter is inherently stable. Through deriving the relation-

trollable linear system via exact state feedback lineariza- ship between the horizon motion and the attitude dynamics,

tion is proved by Koo and Sastry [8]. Then, by neglect- the fact that the full nonlinear system of the small-scale he-

licopter can be feedback linearized is proved.

This work was supported by the National Natural Science Foundation of China (No.60975023).

c South China University of Technology and Academy of Mathematics and Systems Science, CAS and Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2010

302 B. SONG et al. / J Control Theory Appl 2010 8 (3) 301308

nonlinear model of the small-scale helicopter near hover- 2.1 Forces and moments

ing. In Section 3, it is proved that the nonlinear system can

For calculating the forces and moments, it is sufcient

be linearized by the dynamic feedback linearization tech-

to consider only the behavior of the rotor as a whole [22].

nique. Section 4 presents the simulation results of the pro-

The loss of thrust near the blade tips, or tip loss, amounts

posed controller. Finally, Section 5 concludes the work.

to about 4.5% of the total thrust [22]. Furthermore, there is

about a 3% induced power increase due to the tip loss, as

2 Nonlinear model of the small-scale heli- well as the root cutout effect on the induced power is small

copter compared to the tip loss effect [23]. Therefore, the tip loss

The plant in our work is HIROBO Shuttle Pluse model and root cutout are ignored here.

helicopter. The fuselage is modeled as a rigid body with six For our model helicopter, the main rotor is a two-bladed

DOFs shown in Fig.1. Point C is the center of mass of the teetering rotor. The airfoil of the main blade is a rigid thin

fuselage, Points M and T are the attachment points of rectangle with no twist. There is a damper rubber in the

the main rotor hub and tail rotor hub, respectively. T m and main rotor holder, which is modeled as a center-spring,

T t are the lifts generated by the main rotor and tail rotor, whose spring constant is denoted as K . The center-spring

respectively. representation is quite adequate for describing the apping

behavior of the teetering rotor under a wide range of condi-

tions [17].

The blade pitch angle m of the main rotor (positive when

above the reference plane) is periodic around the azimuth ,

m = 0m Am 1 cos B1 sin ,

m

(2)

where 0 is the collective pitch angle, which is controlled

m

m

plate and the stabilizer bar; = t is azimuth angular po-

sition of blade; and is the main rotor angular velocity.

Based on the blade element theory, for vertical ight or

hovering, the average value of the thrust coefcient is

0m

CT = k1 ( ), (3)

3 2

where k1 = Cl /2, is the rotor solidity, and Cl is the

slope of the blade two-dimensional lift curve. = f s + 0

is the total average inow, 0 is the average induced inow,

Fig. 1 Geometry of a small-scale model helicopter. and f s = w/(R), where w is the climb velocity in the

The position of the model helicopter is parameterized by xed frame Cxyz,

(x, y, z), and its attitude is parameterized by Euler angles w = (0, 0, 1)RFI (x, y, z)T . (4)

with , , and about the axes x, y, z, respectively. The

body angular velocity vector is = (p, q, r)T . The rotation The main rotor lift is T m = k2 CT , where k2 =

matrix from the body-xed coordinate frame Cxyz to the (R2 ) 2 R2 , is the density of air, and R is the main rotor

inertial coordinate frame OXY Z is denoted as radius.

The main rotor torque is approximated as a sum of in-

cc ssc cs csc + ss

duced torque and prole torque:

RIF = cs sss + cc css sc , (1)

Cd0

s sc cc CQ = CT + , (5)

8

where c, s are abbreviations for cos and sin , respec- where CQ is the rotor torque coefcient, Cd0 is the mean

tively, and similarly for the other terms. RFI = (RIF )T is drag coefcient. The rotor torque is

the rotation matrix from frame OXY Z to frame Cxyz.

It is reasonable that the rotor does not apply reaction Q = (R2 ) 2 R3 CQ k3 T m + k4 ,

forces back to the actuators, because the moment required to where k3 = R and k4 = (R2 ) 2 R3 Cd0 /8.

rotate the blade around the feathering axis is small [13]. For In this paper, the induced inow dynamics is modeled

most ight mechanics analysis, the presence of lead-lag mo- based on the nonlinear Pitt/Peter model [24], which was

tion contributes little to the overall response and stability of found to give the best representation of the inow gradient

the helicopter [17]. Thus, the effects of the blades torsional as functions of wake skew angle and advance ratio when

dynamics and the lead-lag dynamics are ignored, while the compared to the experimental evidence [25]. However, it is

rotors ap dynamics will be discussed. still complicated for controller analysis and design. Here,

The speed is small when the helicopter is near hovering we assume that the induced inow has the uniform distri-

in a windless condition. Furthermore, the small-scale heli- bution, and hence, we study the dynamics of the average

copter considered in this work is small, so in the modeling induced inow 0 . If it is windless, for the vertical ight

and control of the small-scale helicopter, the air resistance or hovering, based on the Pitt/Peter model, the average in-

B. SONG et al. / J Control Theory Appl 2010 8 (3) 301308 303

0 = 2k5 0 (f s + 0 ) + k5 CT , (6) rotor are produced (see [1] and [26] for details):

m

m

=

For the typical model helicopter, there is an angular vec- bm

1 p k 24 k23 bm1

tor control system (AVCS) gyro used on the tail rotor to sta-

m

k26 k25 A1

bilize the yaw axis through negative feedback of the heading + , (11)

rate r. The AVCS generates an angular velocity propor- k25 k26 B1m

tional to the rudder control signal. Based on the discussion where

in [21], the tail rotor thrust is simply modeled as 4K 32K

k23 = Krm (8 + m 2 ), k24 = Krm ( m m 2 m ),

T t = k6 Q k7 tail + k8 r, (7) I I

where k6 = 1/l3 , k7 , and k8 are the parameters of the AVCS m

gyro, and tail is the input of the tail rotor system that is con- k25 = 8Krm , k26 = Krm m , Krm = m 2 ,

( ) + 64

trolled by the servo motor.

Im is the inertia of the main rotor, and m is the main rotor

In the fuselage coordinate frame Cxyz, the external mo-

lock number.

ment components are

The stabilizer bar can be regarded as the secondary teeter-

Mx = (k9 T + k10 )b1 + k11 T ,

m m t

ing rotor. It receives cyclic inputs cyc s

from the swashplate

M = (k9 T m + k10 )am 1 k12 T ,

m (8) in a manner similar to that of the main blades.

y

Mz = Q k12 T b1 k13 T ,

m m t

cyc

s

= As1 cos B1s sin , (12)

where k9 = l1 , k10 = K , k11 = l4 , k12 = l2 , k13 = l3 , l1 , where A1 and B1 are the longitudinal and lateral cyclic

s s

l2 , l3 , and l4 are the geometric parameters of the fuselage pitch angle of the stabilizer bar.

(refer to Fig.1), am 1 and b1 are the longitudinal and lateral

m

Similar to the main rotor, the simplied apping equation

apping angles of the main rotor disk, respectively (refer to of the stabilizer bar is

Section 2.3). s

s

a1 q k27 k28 a1

2.2 Attitude dynamics =

bs1 p k28 k27 bs1

The kinematics of rotation is

s

k k27 A1

= q sin sec + r cos sec f1 , + 28 , (13)

k27 k28 B1s

= q cos r sin f2 , (9)

where as1 and bs1 are the longitudinal and lateral tilting an-

= p + q sin tan + r cos tan f3 .

gle of the stabilizer rotor, respectively, k27 = 8Krs , k28 =

Based on Euler equation, the attitude dynamic equation s

of the fuselage is IC = (Mx , My , Mz )T (IC ), Krs s , Krs = , s is the stabilizer rotor lock

( s )2 + 64

I1 0 I4 number.

where IC 0 I2 0 is the inertia matrix about the The cyclic pitch angle cyc of the swashplate (positive

I4 0 I3 when above the reference plane) is

body-xed frame. Thus, cyc ( ) = a cos b sin , (14)

p = k14 pq + k15 qr + k19 Mx + k22 Mz f4 , where a and b are the longitudinal and lateral tilting angle

q = k16 (p2 r2 ) + k17 pr + k20 My f5 , (10) of the swashplate, respectively, which are controlled by the

servo motors.

r = k18 pq k14 qr + k22 Mx + k21 Mz f6 ,

As the response of a mechanical system is much faster

where than the aerodynamics and the operating ranges of the me-

(I2 I1 I3 )I4 I2 I3 I32 I42 chanical devices (such as swashplate and the Bell/Hiller

k14 = , k 15 = ,

I1 I3 I42 I1 I3 I42 mixer) are small, it is suitable that the mechanical device

I4 I3 I1 I 2 + I42 I1 I2 in the helicopter system is regarded as the immediate syn-

k16 = , k17 = , k18 = 1 , chronous transfer mechanism and is simply modeled as the

I2 I2 I1 I3 I42

linear equation when designing the ight controller. Based

I3 1

k19 = , k20 = , on the structure of the Bell/Hiller mechanism, for the stabi-

I1 I3 I42 I2 lizer blade, the cyclic pitch angle that is caused by the tilting

I1 I4 swashplate is simply modeled as

k21 = , k22 = .

I1 I3 I42 I1 I3 I42 As1 = kcyc

s

b, B1s = kcyc s

a, (15)

2.3 Flapping dynamics of the main rotor and stabilizer where kcyc is the ratio of the gear between the stabilizer bar

s

bar and the swashplate.

In our model helicopter, the two blades, which are at- Although the stabilizer bar does not produce any signi-

tached to the shaft by a single apping hinge, form a single cant force or moment on the hub, it affects the cyclic pitch

teetering structure. The equations can be derived with suf- command of the main rotor via the Bell/Hiller mixer. The

cient accuracy by assuming that lagging and feathering mo- main blade receives both the cyclic pitch command from

tion do not occur, when considering apping motion [22]. the tilting swashplate and a component imposed by the sta-

Under the simplifying assumptions in [26], the following bilizer bar that is proportional to the apping angle of the

304 B. SONG et al. / J Control Theory Appl 2010 8 (3) 301308

Am most of them cannot be directly measured. The unknown

1 = kcyc b + ks b1 , B1 = (kcyc a + ks a1 ), (16)

m m s m m m s

parameters in the dynamic model are estimated from the

where kcyc and ks are the geometric parameters of the

m m

ight-test data using the nonlinear least squares optimiza-

Bell/Hiller mechanism. tion algorithm. Figures 4 and 5 in [21] compared the empir-

By substituting (16) into (11), we can have the following ical data and the simulated data from the proposed nonlinear

apping equation of the main rotor: model.

m

m

a1 q k23 k24 a1

= 3 Feedback linearization of the nonlinear

bm

1 p k k

24 23 bm1

s

model

k25 k26 a

+ks

m 1 When taking the model helicopter off the ground, the pi-

k26 k25 bs1 lot usually trims its roll and pitch attitude rst, then moves

k25 k26 a the tail to the desired orientation, and nally rises it up.

+kcyc

m

. (17) From the ight experience of the pilot, it can be seen that

k26 k25 b

the helicopter exhibits strong coupling between the heave

By substituting (15) into (13), the apping equation of dynamics and the yaw dynamics, as well as the strong cou-

the stabilizer rotor is pling between the longitudinal and lateral dynamics. How-

s

s

a1 q k27 k28 a1 ever, the heave dynamics and the yaw dynamics have rela-

= tively small effect on the roll attitude and pitch attitude. This

b1

s

p k28 k27 bs1

structural characteristic of the model helicopter gives us in-

k27 k28 a spiration to design the controller in the following way: ini-

+kcyc

s

. (18)

k28 k27 b tially, we feedback linearize the heave dynamics, then com-

pensate for the yaw dynamics, and nally decouple the roll

2.4 Simplied nonlinear model for controller design and pitch dynamics.

For hovering, the air resistance is ignored because am 1 3.1 Feedback linearization of the attitude-heave sub-

and bm 1 are small, and the small side-forces T a1 and

m m

system

(T m bm1 T ) are not designed to act as the lifts that con-

t

trol the helicopter moving. Therefore, they are usually ig- In this section, we only consider one subset of the dy-

nored [6,8]. Thus, in the inertial coordinate frame OXY Z, namic model of the small-scale helicopter: the heave and

the dynamic equation of the fuselage is attitude dynamics. The output vector of the subsystem is

Y1 = (z, , , )T , and the inputs (actuators) are 0m , tail ,

(x, y, z)T = RIF (0, 0, T m /m)T + (0, 0, g)T , (19) a, b.

where m is the mass of the helicopter, and g is the gravity Theorem 1 If all states can be observed and all inputs

acceleration. are unlimited, then the attitude-heave subsystem of the non-

In summary, (19), (6), (9), (10), (17), and (18) constitute linear model in Section 2.4 can be linearized via state feed-

the full nonlinear model for designing the small-scale heli- back.

copter ight controller. Proof The theorem is proved by two steps. The st step

is to transform the nonlinear subsystem to a linear system

x = T (cos sin cos + sin sin )/m,

m

via states feedback, and then, the second step proves that its

y = T (cos sin sin sin cos )/m,

m

zero dynamics is stable.

z = g + T m (cos cos )/m,

Based on (19), the heave dynamics is z = g +

0 = 2k5 0 (f s + 0 ) + k5 CT , Tm

cos cos . Let z = 11 , 11 = 12 , 12 = 13 , and

= q sin sec + r cos sec , m

13 = u1 , where 11 , 12 , 13 are the dynamic states, and u1

= q cos r sin ,

= p + q sin tan + r cos tan , is the rst nominal input. Then, for = and = , T m

2 2

p = k14 pq + k15 qr + k19 Mx + k22 Mz , becomes

q = k16 (p2 r2 ) + k17 pr + k20 My , T m = m sec sec (g + 11 ).

(21)

r = k pq k14 qr + k22 Mx + k21 Mz , Therefore, based on (3), the actuator 0m can be solved:

m

18

m

(20)

a1 = q k23 k24 a1

g + 11 3

b1

m

p k24 k23 bm 0m = 3m sec sec + . (22)

1

k1 k2 2

k25 k26 as1

+ ksm

From (9), the second-order derivative of can be solved:

k k bs

26 25

1

= f1 f2 tan + f2 f3 sec + f5 sin sec

k25 k26 a

+ kcyc

m

, +f6 cos sec . (23)

k k b

26 25

as1 q k27 k28 as1

Let = 2 and 2 = u2 , where 2 is the dynamic state,

=

p k28 k27 bs and u2 is the second nominal input. Then, f6 becomes

b1

s

1

k27 k28 a f6 = (2 cos f1 f2 sin f2 f3 ) sec f5 tan .

+ kcyc

s

.

k28 k27 b (24)

B. SONG et al. / J Control Theory Appl 2010 8 (3) 301308 305

Substituting (7), (8), (21), and (24) into (10) results in the There are three internal states: 0 , as1 , and bs1 . Here, the

actuator tail as follows: zero dynamics of 0 becomes 0 = 2k5 20 + k5 mg/k2 .

f6 k21 Q k18 pq + k14 qr Obviously, it is stable.

tail = (k6 Q + k8 r +

k13 k21 k11 k22 Since am

1 = b1 = 0, from (17), a and b are solved:

m

1

m

1

)/k7 . (25) a 1 k25 k26 k23 k24 a1

k13 k21 k11 k22 = m

b kcyc k26 k25 k24 k23 bm

1

For the pitch attitude and roll attitude, the second-order

derivatives are ks

m

as1

m . (33)

= f1 f3 cos + f5 cos f6 sin , (26) kcyc bs1

= f1 f2 sec + f2 f3 tan + f4 + f5 sin tan Therefore, substituting (33) into (18) leads to the follow-

+f6 cos tan . (27) ing zero dynamics of as1 and bs1 :

s

m

s

= (1 + k s

)

derivative of : bs1 kcyc

cyc m

k28 k27 bs1

= f1 f2 cos + 2 sin + f4 .

1

(28) kcyc

s

k27 k28 k25 k26

The third-order time derivatives of and are solved + m

kcyc k28 k27 k26 k25

based on (26) and (28), respectively,

m

(3)

m

k23 k24 a1

f10 a1 . (34)

= + A 1 , (29) k24 k23 bm

1

(3) f11 bm

1

The eigenvalues of the above zero dynamics are

A1{11} 0 ksm

where A1 = , referring to Appendix 1 for

A1{21} A1{22} (1 + kcyc

s

)(k27 k28 i)

kcyc

m

details.

Substituting (17) into (29) leads to ks

m

(3)

= (1 + kcyc

s

)K s (8 s i). (35)

k25 k26 a kcyc r

m

= B1 + kcyc A1

m

, (30) Since kcyc

s

, kcyc

m

, ks

m

, and Krs are the positive geometric

(3) k26 k25 b

m

and physical parameters of the small-scale helicopter, for

f q k23 k24 a1

where B1 = 10 A1 + + the zero dynamics, the real parts of its eigenvalues are nega-

f11 p k24 k23 bm tive. Consequently, the zero dynamics of the attitude-heave

s

1

k25 k26 a1 subsystem is stable, i.e., the second step is proved. Then,

A1 ks

m

. Theorem 1 is proved.

k26 k25 bs1

3.2 Feedback linearization of the full nonlinear model

Obviously, both the matrix A1 (assuming = ) and the

2 For the full nonlinear system of the small-scale model

k25 k26 helicopter, the output vector is Y = (x, y, z, )T , and the

matrix are invertible. If we set ( , (3) )T =

(3)

k26 k25 inputs are 0m , tail , a, and b.

(u3 , u4 )T , where u3 and u4 are the nominal inputs, then the Theorem 2 If all states can be observed and all inputs

actuators a and b are solved as follows: are unlimited, then the nonlinear model in Section 2.4 can

1

be linearized via state feedback.

a 1 k25 k26 1 u3

= m A1 B1 . (31) Proof Theorem 1 has proved that the outputs (z, ,

b kcyc k26 k25 u4 , )T can be decoupled. From (19) and (1), the outputs

Finally, the following linearized system is obtained: (x, y) are mainly dominated by (, ). Therefore, if the re-

z (5) = u1 , (3) = u2 , (3) = u3 , (3) = u4 . (32) lationship between (x, y) and ((3) , (3) ) can be found, then

the full nonlinear system can be linearized.

Although the rst step is proved, it is not sufcient to Denote Y2 = (x, y)T , substituting (21) into (19) leads to

claim that the nonlinear system can be linearized by the dy-

namic feedback linearization technique if the stability of its cos sin tan

Y2 = (g + 11 ) , (36)

zero dynamics is not checked. The zero dynamics of a non- sin cos tan sec

linear system is its internal dynamics subject to the con- and denote

straint that the outputs and all derivatives of the outputs are

(3)

set to zero for all time, i.e., Y1 = Y1 = Y1 = Y1 = 0. It B2 = (g + 11 ) , A2 = .

sin cos tan sec

implies that

z = = = = 0, w = p = q = r = 0, Thus,

(3)

p = q = r = 0, T m = mg, Y2 = B2(1) A2 + B2 A(1)

2 ,

(4) (2) (1) (1) (2)

mg k12 T m Y2 = B2 A2 + 2B2 A2 + B2 A2 , (37)

Q = k3 mg + k4 , am 1 = ,

(5) (3) (2) (1) (1) (2) (3)

2k2 k9 T m + k10 Y2 = B2 A2 + 3B2 A2 +3B2 A2 +B2 A2 .

Q The details of the above equations are presented in Ap-

1 =

bm , am1 = b1 = 0.

m

(k9 k13 k11 k12 )T m +k10 k13 pendix 2.

306 B. SONG et al. / J Control Theory Appl 2010 8 (3) 301308

(3)

The derivative of A2 can be written as where (x, y)T = Y2 (refer to (36)), (x(3) , y (3) )T = Y2 ,

(1) f (4)

(x(4) , y (4) )T = Y2 (refer to (37)), and K0P = 70, K1P =

A2 = A3 2 , (38)

f3 100, K2P = 60, K3P = 25, K4P = 5.

For the yaw subdynamics, the feedback linearized sys-

sec2 0

where A3 = , and thus, tem is a third-order linear system, and the state feedback

sec tan tan sec sec2 controller is

(1) f2 (2)

(2)

A2 = A3 + A3 (2) , u2 = K0Y K1Y f1 K2Y 2 , (44)

f

3

(2)

(3)

(39)

f where

A2 = A3

(3) (2) 2

+2A3

(1)

+A3 (3) .

f3 (2) K0Y = 160, K1Y = 88, K2Y = 14.

Therefore, substituting (39) into (37) results in the fth-

order derivative of Y2 as follows: The simulated responses of the regulator system are

(3)

shown in Figs.2 to 4. It can be seen that input-output is de-

(5)

Y2 = B3 + B2 A3 (3) , (40) coupled, and every element of the outputs exhibits a linear

response, and the internal states are stable.

where

(3) (2) (1) (1) (2)

B3 = B2 A2 + (3B2 A3 + 3B2 A3 + B2 A3 )

(1) (1)

(f2 , f3 )T + (3B2 A3 + 2B2 A3 )((2) , (2) )T .

Substituting (30) into (40) leads to

Y2 = B3 + B2 A3 B1 + kcyc m

B2 A3 A1 .

k26 k25 b

(41)

If g + 11 = 0, B2 is invertible. In fact, g + 11 = 0

means T m = 0, which should be avoided when the heli-

copter is piloted. For = and = , A3 is invertible

2 2

too.

(5)

Let Y2 = (u3 , u4 ) , where u3 and u4 are the nominal

T

inputs, and then, the actuators a and b are solved: Fig. 2 Outputs response of the regulator system.

1

a 1 k25 k26

= m A1 1 1

1 A3 B2

b kcyc k26 k25

u

3

B3 B2 A3 B1 . (42)

u4

Finally, the nonlinear system is linearized as

x(5) = u3 , y (5) = u4 , z (5) = u1 , (3) = u2 . (43)

Similar to the proof of Theorem 1, it is easy to prove that

the zero dynamics of the full nonlinear model is stable, and

thus, the full nonlinear model can be feedback linearized.

4 Simulation results

A simulation platform is set up using the MATLAB

Simulink R Fig. 3 Internal states of the regulator system.

software in order to test the proposed controller.

In this simulation work, the objective is to hover the heli-

copter at the origin: xd = yd = zd = d = 0, assuming the

initial states:

x0 = 2, y0 = 2, z 0 = 3, 0 = 1,

0 = 0 = 0, 0 = mg/(2k2 ),

p0 = q0 = r0 = 0, am 1 = b1 = a1 = b1 = 0.

m s s

system is a fth-order linear system, and the state feedback

controller is

u1 = K0 z K1 vz K2 11 K3 12 K4 13 ,

P P P P P

u = K0 x K1 vx K2 x K3 x K4 x ,

P P P P (3) P (4)

3

u4 = K0P y K1P vy K2P y K3P y (3) K4P y (4) , Fig. 4 Actuator response of the regulator system.

B. SONG et al. / J Control Theory Appl 2010 8 (3) 301308 307

This paper addressed the nonlinear control of a small- ight dynamics and control applications[J]. Vertica, 1990, 14(2): 147

184.

scale model helicopter. Based on its dynamic characteris-

tics, an integrated nonlinear model of the small-scale heli- [19] B. Song, J. K. Mills, Y. Liu, et al. Nonlinear dynamic modeling

copter for hovering control is developed. It is demonstrated and control of a small-scale helicopter[J]. International Journal of

Control, Automation, and Systems, 2010, 8(3): 534 543.

that the full nonlinear model can be converted into a con-

trollable linear system via the dynamic feedback lineariza- [20] B. Song, J. K. Mills, H. Huang, et al. Nonlinear robust control of

a small-scale helicopter on a test bench[J]. International Journal of

tion technique. Then, the state feedback controller was sim-

Control, 2010, 83(4): 761 775.

ulated, and the simulation results conrmed its validity. In

future studies, the controller will be implemented and tested [21] B. Song, C. Fan, Y. Liu, et al. Nonlinear system and control of the

model-scale helicopter[C]//Proceedings of 2009 IEEE International

on the actual experimental platform of the model helicopter.

Conference on Robotics and Biomimetics. Piscataway: IEEE, 2009:

References 1081 1086.

[1] B. Mettler. Identication Modeling and Characteristics of Miniature [22] A. R. S. Bramwell, G. Done, D. Balmford. Bramwells Helicopter

Rotorcraft[M]. Norwell: Kluwer Academic Publishers, 2003. Dynamics[M]. Oxford: Butterworth-Heinemann, 2001.

[2] J. Gadewadikar, F. L. Lewis, K. Subbarao, et al. Structured H-innity [23] W. Johson. Helicopter Theory[M]. Princeton: Princeton University

command and control-loop design for unmanned helicopters[J]. Press, 1980.

Journal of Guidance, Control, and Dynamics, 2008, 31(4): 1093

[24] D. M. Pitt, D. A. Peters. Theoretical prediction of dynamic-inow

1102.

derivatives[J]. Vertica, 1981, 5(1): 21 31.

[3] J. Gadewadikar, F. L. Lewis, K. Subbarao, et al. H-innity static

output-feedback control for rotorcraft[J]. Journal of Intelligent and [25] J. G. Leishman. Principles of Helicopter Aerodynamics[M].

Robotics Systems, 2009, 54(4): 629 646. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2000.

[4] E. Prempain, I. Postlethwaite. Static H-innity loop shaping control [26] R. T. N. Chen. Effects of Primary Rotor Parameters on Flapping

of a y-by-wire helicopter[J]. Automatica, 2005, 41(9): 1517 1528. Dynamics[R]. NASA/PT 1431. Mountain View, CA: NASA Ames

Research Center, 1980.

[5] I. Postlethwaite, M. C. Turner, G. Herrmann. Robust control

applications[J]. Annual Reviews in Control, 2007, 31(1): 27 39.

Appendix 1

[6] R. Mahony, T. Hamel, A. Dzul. Hover control via Lyapunov control

for an autonomous model helicopter[C]//Proceedings of the 38th The derivative of f5 is

Conference on Decision and Control. Piscataway: IEEE, 1999: 3490 f5 = f7 + k20 (k9 T m + k10 )am1 , (a1)

3495.

where f7 = 2k16 (pf4 rf6 )+k17 (rf4 +pf6 )+k20 (k9 am 1

[7] G. Meyer, R. Su, L. R. Hunt. Application of nonlinear transformations

to automatic ight control[J]. Automatica, 1984, 20(1): 103 107. k12 )T m , and,

[8] T. J. Koo, S. Sastry. Output tracking control design of a helicopter T m = T m (f3 tan + f2 tan ) + m12 sec sec . (a2)

model based on approximate linearization[C]//Proceedings of the The derivative of f6 is

37th Conference on Decision and Control. Piscataway: IEEE, 1998:

3635 3640. f6 = f8 f5 tan , (a3)

[9] B. Jakubczyk, W. Respondek. On linearization of control systems[J]. where f8 = [(u2 f1 f2 f2 ) cos (22 f2 + f1 ) sin

Bulletin LAcademie Polonaise des Science, Serie des Sciences

Mathematiques, 1980, 28: 517 522.

f3 f2 ] sec + f3 (f6 tan f5 ).

The derivative of f4 is

[10] L. R. Hunt, R. Su. Linear equivalents of nonlinear time-varying

systems[C]//Proceedings of the 17th International Symposium on the f4 = f9 + [(k9 k19 k12 k22 )T m + k10 k19 ]bm 1

Mathematical Theory of Networks and Systems. Berlin: Springer- k11 k19 k13 k22

Verlag, 1981: 119 123. + (f5 tan

k13 k21 k11 k22

[11] P. Martin. An intrinsic sufcient condition for regular decoupling[J].

Systems & Control Letters, 1993, 20(5): 383 391. +[(k9 k22 k12 k21 )T m + k10 k22 ]bm

1 ), (a4)

[12] W. Respondek. Dynamic input-output linearization and decoupling where

of nonlinear systems[C]//Proceedings of the 2nd European Control f9 = k14 (qf4 + pf5 ) + k15 (rf5 + qf6 ) + k22 Q

Conference. Groningen, 1993: 1523 1527.

k11 k19 k13 k22

[13] S. K. Kim, D. M. Tilbury. Mathematical modeling and experimental +(k9 k19 k12 k22 )T m bm1 +

identication of an unmanned helicopter robot with ybar k13 k21 k11 k22

dynamics[J]. Journal of Robotic Systems, 2004, 21(3): 95 116. [k21 Q + k18 (qf4 + pf5 ) k14 (rf5 + qf6 ),

[14] E. N. Johnson, S. K. Kannan. Adaptive trajectory control for

+(k9 k22 k12 k21 )T m bm1 f8 ],

autonomous helicopters[J]. Journal of Guidance, Control, and

Dynamics, 2005, 28(3): 545 538.

Q = k (T + T ),

m m

3

w

= 0 + f s = k5 (20 + CT ) +

[15] G. Cai, B. M. Chen, K. Peng, et al. Modeling and control of the

yaw channel of a UAV helicopter[J]. IEEE Transactions on Industrial ,

Electronics, 2008, 55(9): 3426 3434.

R

and

[16] G. Cai, B. M. Chen, K. Peng, et al. Modeling and control

system design for a UAV helicopter[C]//Proceedings of the 14th w = (vx , vy , vz )RIF + (vx , vy , vz )RIF sk() (0, 0, 1)T ,

Mediterranean Conference Control and Automation. Piscataway: (a5)

IEEE, 2006: 600 606.

0 r q

where sk() = r 0 p .

[17] G. D. Padeld. Helicopter Flight Dynamics: the Theory and

Application of Flying Qualities and Simulation Modelling[M].

Oxford: Blackwell Publishing Ltd., 2007. q p 0

308 B. SONG et al. / J Control Theory Appl 2010 8 (3) 301308

solved: (2)

B2 = C3 C(), (a11)

(3) = f10 + A1{11} am

1 , (a6)

where

f5 sin f6 cos ) + f7 sec f8 sin , A1{11} = C3 = ,

C3{21} C3{22}

k20 sec (k9 T m + k10 ).

Based on (28), the third-order time derivatives of is C3{11} = 13 (g + 11 )f12 ,

solved: C3{12} = 212 f1 (g + 11 )2 ,

(3) = f11 + A1{21} am 1 + A1{22} b1 ,

m

(a7) C3{21} = 212 f1 + (g + 11 )2 ,

where C3{22} = 13 (g + 11 )f12 .

f11 = (22 f2 + f1 ) cos + (u2 f1 f2 f2 ) sin The third-order derivative of B2 is

k11 k19 k13 k22 (3)

+f9 + f7 tan , B2 = C4 C(), (a12)

k13 k21 k11 k22

k11 k19 k13 k22 where

k13 k21 k11 k22 C4 = ,

k19 k21 k22 k22 C4{21} C4{22}

A1{22} = [(k9 k13 k11 k12 )T m

k13 k21 k11 k22 C4{11} = u1 312 f12 3(g + 11 )2 f1 ,

+k10 k13 ]. C4{12} = 313 f1 312 2 (g + 11 )(u2 f13 ),

Appendix 2 C4{21} = 313 f1 + 312 2 + (g + 11 )(u2 f13 ),

The second-order derivative of A2 is

(2) (1) C4{22} = u1 312 f12 3(g + 11 )2 f1 .

A2 = A3 (f2 , f3 )T

+ A3 ( , (2)

) ,

(2) T

where the rst-order derivative of A3 is Baoquan SONG received the B.E. degree and M.E.

(1) degree in Automatic Control from National Uni-

A3 = f2 tan A3 + sec A6 , (a8) versity of Defense Technology, Changsha, China,

where in 2002 and 2004, respectively. He was a visiting

Ph.D. student with the Department of Mechanical

A6{11} 0

A6 = , and Industrial Engineering, University of Toronto,

A6{21} A6{22} Toronto, Canada, in 2008. Currently, he is pursu-

ing his Ph.D. degree in the Department of Infor-

A6{11} = f2 sec tan ,

mation and Communication Engineering, National

A6{21} = f2 sec2 tan + f3 tan sec2 , University of Defense Technology. His research interests include heli-

copter control, nonlinear control, and robust control. E-mail: baoquan-

A6{22} = 2f3 sec2 tan . song@gmail.com.

(3) (2)

The third-order derivative of A2 is A2 = A3 (f2 , f3 )T Yunhui LIU received his B.E. degree in Applied

(1)

+2A3 ((2) , (2) )T + A3 ((3) , (3) )T , where the second- Dynamics from Beijing Institute of Technology,

China in 1985, his M.E. degree in Mechanical En-

order derivative of A3 is gineering from Osaka University in 1989, and his

(2) (1)

A3 = ((2) tan + f22 )A3 + 2f2 tan A3 Ph.D. in Mathematical Engineering and Informa-

tion Physics from the University of Tokyo, Japan,

+ sec A9 , (a9)

in 1992. He has been with Department of Automa-

where

tion and Computer Aided Engineering, The Chinese

A9{11} 0 University of Hong Kong since 1995 and is currently

A9 = , a professor. He is the director of the Centre for Robotics and Technology

A9{21} A9{22} Education of Faculty of Engineering and the director of the Joint Center

A9{11} = [((2) + 2f22 tan ) tan + f22 ] sec , for Intelligent Sensing and Systems of CUHK and NUDT. He is a fellow

of IEEE and was members of the Robotics Society of Japan and of the So-

A9{21} = ((2) + 2f32 tan ) tan sec2 + ((2) ciety of Instrument and Control Engineers. His research interests include

visual servoing of dynamic systems, medical robotics, internet robotics,

+2f22 tan ) sec2 tan + 2f2 f3 sec2 sec2 , education robotics, multi-ngered grapsing, and active sensor networks.

A9{22} = 2[((2) + 2f32 tan ) tan + f32 sec2 ] sec2 . E-mail: yhliu@mae.cuhk.edu.hk.

Denote

Caizhi FAN received the B.E. degree in Thermal

cos sin Dynamics from Xian Jiaotong University, Xian,

C() = , China and M.E. degree in Astronautic Science and

sin cos Technology from the National University of Defense

and then B2 = (g + 11 )C() (refer to (36)). Technology, Changsha, China, in 2002 and 2004, re-

spectively. Currently, he is pursuing his Ph.D. degree

The rst-order derivative of B2 is

in the Department of Information and Communi-

(1)

= C2 C(),

B2 (a10) cation Engineering, National University of Defense

Technology, Changsha, China. His research interests

12 (g + 11 )f1

where C2 = . include visual servoing, adaptive control, and predictive control. E-mail:

(g + 11 )f1 12 caizhifan@gmail.com.

## Гораздо больше, чем просто документы.

Откройте для себя все, что может предложить Scribd, включая книги и аудиокниги от крупных издательств.

Отменить можно в любой момент.