SDRE CONTROL WITH NONLINEAR FEEDFORWARD COMPENSATION FOR A SMALL UNMANNED HELICOPTER

Alexander Bogdanov, Eric Wan OGI School of Science and Engineering, OHSU 20000 NW Walker Rd, Beaverton, Oregon 97006
In this paper we report on the state-dependent Riccati equation (SDRE) control of a small unmanned helicopter for autonomous agile maneuvering. SDRE control requires reformulation of the vehicle dynamics into a pseudo-linear form. For a helicopter application, however, this results in a number of terms not accounted in the SDRE design. To overcome this problem, we employ a nonlinear feedforward compensator that is designed to match the vehicle response to the model used in the SDRE design. This paper provides new control results and additonal details based on work described previously by Bogdanov, et al. 1

NOMENCLATURE
vehicle velocities in longitudinal, lateral and vertical directions vehicle angular (roll, pitch and yaw) velocities Euler angles (roll, pitch and yaw) vehicle position in inertial frame longitudinal and lateral cyclic controls main rotor collective and tail rotor collective control inputs wind velocities in longitudinal, lateral and vertical directions helicopter mass moments of inertia around rolling, pitching and yawing axes main rotor thrust, tail rotor thrust rotor thrust coefcient rotor torque coefcient inow ratio advance ratio normal airow component speed of the rotor blade tip rotor blade drag coefcient air density main rotor disk area main rotor radius main rotor blade lift curve slope rotor solidity ratio coeff. of non-ideal wake contraction commanded and actual main rotor speed tail rotor speed tail rotor gear ratio

main rotor hub height above center of gravity (c.g.) tail rotor hub height above c.g. tail rotor hub location behind c.g. vertical tail blockage factor fuselage drag and main rotor induced force in longitudinal direction fuselage drag, main rotor induced force, tail rotor induced force and vertical tail force in lateral direction fuselage drag, main rotor induced force, horizontal tail force in vertical direction main and tail rotors induced rolling moment rolling moment from the vertical tail main and tail rotor induced pitching moment rolling moment from the horizontal tail yawing moment from the tail rotor and vertical tail engine torque engine power and max. engine power total moment of inertia as measured on the main rotor shaft proportional gain of the engine governor integral gain of the engine governor longitudinal and lateral apping angles scaling factor of ap response to speed variation main rotor hub torsional stiffness effective time constant of a rotor with a stabilizer bar longitudinal and lateral cyclic to ap gains

Senior Research Associate, AIAA member, alexb@ece.ogi.edu Associate Professor, AIAA member, ericwan@ece.ogi.edu

INTRODUCTION
We are developing nonlinear controllers to provide automatic vehicle control for a helicopter capable of per-

1 A MERICAN I NSTITUTE OF A ERONAUTICS AND A STRONAUTICS

TUS H 1 1 T( T1

1) 2&$ i 0$ i '%

T 1 XS T 1 @ T US

T 1 TUS 1

1 ( T 1 T S X H"

1 % T E F ) Sf h f h f ge

1 d T 1 1

l i jQk2u j e i g i

T S U(

p o m ni

PP II FF QE GGE HGE

9 9 9 CBA@"

$% 1 $%3 5387654 120$("& ) ' %$ #" !     a b` Y XV W XV T 1 R U4R T S T1 y T1 x x3 x 9w v T US u TXS t T US s pqXV i hgef1 d P c D c r

  

is a steady state solution of the difference where Riccati equation, obtained by solving the discrete-time algebraic Riccati equation using state-dependent matrices and , which are treated as being constant. For tracking problems with the desired state , the SDRE control can be implemented as (4)

In brief, the SDRE approach2 involves manipulating the vehicle dynamic equations

into a pseudo-linear form (SD-parameterization), in which system matrices are explicit functions of the current state: (2)

2 A MERICAN I NSTITUTE OF A ERONAUTICS AND A STRONAUTICS

u r {

r { r {

(1)

The control law is then described as a combination of the SDRE control and the feedforward compensator, , as is graphically illustrated in Figure 2. The purpose of the feedforward compensator can be viewed as matching the vehicles response (Eqn. (1)) to the response of the dynamic system (Eqn. (2)) to correct for inherent inaccuracies in a state-dependent reformulation

{| r r q| r y |r { r y r q y 5Aq } Aq { r q zw

SDRE AND FEEDFORWARD DESIGN

For helicopter control, we dene the observable states to correspond to the standard 12 states of a 6-DoF rigid body model: , and vector of controls corresponding to rotor blade pitch angles. Unfortunately, reformulation of the nonlinear dynamic equations specic to the helicopter into a state-dependent form does not yield an exact parameterization due to various approximations, disturbances and terms which can not be effectively presented in the pseudo-linear form. In this case, one may expect the dynamic response of the actual and approximated systems to differ. To overcome this problem, we split the control design into two parts. First, we design the SDRE control for the approximate statedependent system. Let us denote the computed SDRE control as . Next, we design a feedforward compensator , which provides

$%3 $% 1) '% y | 581  653 20$  &$ u { r W " g y | # !      W

(5)

r q

r q| r y | r | r | r 6Aq v @Aq y q y 6q y

y y r | r q v | r q r q y | r q vu r { f

| r qy

u q r

r vu q{ W j

r {

| r qy

y | r q }

forming a broad spectrum of maneuvers and in-ight situations. Previous work has been reported in Wan, et. al and Bogdanov, et. al. 1, 6 One technique that has shown considerable promise is called State-Dependent Riccati Equation (SDRE) control. This involves reformulating the system dynamics into a pseudo-linear form and then iteratively solving a Riccati equation on-line, providing state-feedback optimized around the system state at each time step. Details of this approach will be provided later in this paper. As pointed by Bogdanov, et al,1 direct application of the SDRE technique to a helicopter model results in the necessity to further simplify the vehicle model due to a number of terms that cannot be effectively presented in state-dependent form. Thus, the actual response of the vehicle may signicantly differ from the one expected from SDRE. To overcome this problem, a xed or scheduled trim control can be added (usually to provide altitude and heading hold in hover or level ight). However it is more appropriate to design a feedforward control that compensates for the differences between the actual vehicle model and the model used in the SDRE design. This approximately matches the vehicle response to the one used by the SDRE. In this paper, we present further details on the design of the feedforward compensator for a small helicopter. For simulation purposes and control design, we have used a full analytic nonlinear dynamic model of the helicopter,3 consisting of a six-degree-of-freedom, quaternion model augmented with simplied analytic models for the rotor forces, torque, and thrust, apping dynamics, horizontal stabilizer and vertical tail forces and moments, fuselage drag, and actuator states. For actual ight tests, we use a instrumented X-Cell60 acrobatic helicopter, which is a popular platform among competition R/C pilots for its capability to perform aerobatic maneuvers. The research vehicle (Figure 1) is a clone of a vehicle developed by MIT.4 The custom avionics package includes an inertial measurement unit (IMU) with three gyroscopes and three accelerometers, a GPS receiver, a barometric altimeter and a triaxial magnetoresistive compass. Wireless communications and an on-board microprocessor with compact ash memory is included.

Fig. 1 X-Cell 60 helicopter with sensors and avionics box

A standard Riccati Equation can then be solved at each time step to design the state feedback control law on-line (a 50 Hz sampling rate is used in the ight experiments). The SDRE regulator is specied as (3)

r {

{ r | r q y vr 6| r q ~u j tr q q y } s

|r { r y w u sr Aqq zxvj tq

u x des k

tr k sd uk

ek
xk

SDRE

K ( xk )
sd uk

uk
uk

xk

Helicopter dynamics

x k +1

Vehicle
Feedforward compensator

xk

Fig. 2 Control diagram

State-dependent formulation

Propelling forces and moments originating from the main and tail rotors can be expressed in a similar form, but will also include terms that depend on control inputs. In fact, these forces and moments require linearization with respect to the control inputs.1 Thus for the rotorinduced forces and moments we have

(7)

3 A MERICAN I NSTITUTE OF A ERONAUTICS AND A STRONAUTICS

| q y | y q $% | 53 q y R u UR T S $ | 5a% 3 q y R US R T a | q y

$% 53 a $% | 53 654 y $%3 a

| y q

W W

where is a coordinate transformation from the fuselage coordinate frame to the inertial frame, and the product inertia is assumed to be zero. The generic 6DOF dynamic equations are also supplemented with equations of the main rotor lateral and longitudinal apping dynamics, which is approximated in steady

where represents either , , , , , , , , , or . In this case, can be thought of as part of a force or a moment, not presented in formulation of or and compensated later with the feedforward control, are used in construction of , and constitute . Linearizing rotor thrust as , and denoting , the matrices and are then

a T1 T 1 T 1 T 1 US e T TUS US@ U U X T T S T S T S hhhh j e T t g 9 H z F

H u H a

(6)

where represents either , , , , , , , or . includes functions of state which can not be presented in a pseudo-linear form suitable for SDRE formulation and/or terms resulting from wind and downwash from the rotors (induced velocity). For example,

q a 1 1 1 H H H T 2 g 9 H z6F  u a

B F

F q y |

| y q

a u

1 @ 1

The helicopter model can be described as a generic 6DOF rigid body model with external forces and moments originating from the main and tail rotors, empennage and fuselage drag. The model we used to design the SDRE control law is discussed in detail by Gavrilets, et al.3

{| q| y 6q y 5q u q

In the following sections, we detail the statedependent formulation used for SDRE design and the specics of the feedforward compensation.

T US US T

T XS XS T

xk

q 1

(9) where and are the longitudinal and lateral apping angles and . The approximated apping then becomes part of the algebraic nonlinear equations of the main rotor induced forces ( ) and moments ( ) in the 6DOF equations. A number of steps are required to reformulate the dynamics into the required state-dependent form. To start with, we specify the continuous state-dependent canonical representation . This requires some additional notation. Forces and moments originating from the empennage and fuselage are described as drag, and hence are naturally state-dependent with respect to linear and angular velocities of the vehicle. Thus we can express these components as (10)

| ` 54 fy i u l u Ql ) $%3 l a p j k j u hgf1 e e d P c gf1 d c  o u u '&$'0$ i % % p j 9 C u j 9 " u j hgf1 d c e 1 )$ 1 ) 2&72&$ i o u Qk p j 9 jk

of the vehicle dynamics. The feedforward control provides system performance close to the potential of the ideal SDRE design.

state for the purpose of deriving a control law as (see Gavrilets, et al,3 Bogdanov, et al1 ) (8)

|  y   u # ! W  H  zQ   H  W &   &   G   2C zG   2C 0  PPE 2G 2GA | GGE HGE y PPE II FF  IIE QG QG | HGE 2GE y 2 IIE FF PP FFE HGU HG | QE GQE y  FFE PP II  D B  zG  zGX H "  D  X  0  zQX  D  &B  T1 1 T1 1 T 1 1 @ 1 @ 1 T 1 H" H f e X T S T S UB U T S U T S US T P HF E u u u u u u u u u u u u u u u

| y z   

    

(11)

 ~ {{ } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } U|  h h j h l ky { {{ {

{ {{ h)) A g f t 6 x pg p d v U )x t  w 5A p Wd)v )f 1w f  n pA o y m h)g f )A y  d f 5A i )f  5A e U d

6 h z z h Ah v j h )y )

t  h w w j h h 1)h v y

ww A f Rpgp 1) v

 U5A

p i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i Wh

 b ` W c7Y `   7Y a ` X

@ 4

& F ' VV' C(( B t W7DA7' )B ' S B 230 G B ' G & P TG

"8

E 1' A E C 1%D# B B' $" 

( ( 7' F

 b  3`  ` 7Y  `  a B ' F B Q Q ' R1DC ' ' 7( 6('& 117D6('(E AFB 6B' E C      8  hH

'F V V ' C ( ( 1DU76' B ' F B Q Q ' R1DC ' t @A597G7' G )& 4 2 0 ( ( "8    8
4

G G &

Fig. 3 State-dependent system matrices (s

,c

,t

denote

and

p

5D

g

g

g

{ {{

To compensate for the effects caused by linearization and by various terms not accounted in the formulation of and , a feedforward compensator is designed. In addition, the feedforward control provides a means for further adjustments in the previously obtained state-dependent parameterization. For example, dependency of the yawing dynamics on the engine torque and, hence, on the main collective control input can now be excluded from the SDRE design (as is already done in the system matrices presented in Figure 3) by treating the engine torque as not presentable in pseudo-linear form. The excluded dependence is then compensated by the corresponding (see below). Moreover, feedforward compensation provides a means for wind disturbance

|$%31 $%3 y 85855"q | ' %$ $ % 3 y &55"q $%3 1) $% | 581  2&$ 53 q y $% | 53 q y %3 1) $% y | $581  2&$ 53 q '% $% y | &$ 53 q j

| y q z | y q z | q y | q y | y q z | yj q A u u u u u

given explicitly for the X-Cell-60 model in Figure 3. Then and are obtained from and by approximate discretization at each time step, i.e. .

| y q

y | r q y | r q y 1 RDou| r q } | q y y | r qy | r q }

x w w w t s r 5geq w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w vw 6 UA 6g R5Ay   ` g w w w w u t r !5s q w w 6 Ug t s r ugeq xx  f Upg1p ) v w

 ` ed Y  Y ` d  7Y %  f` eW Y  d ` 1Y d Y G 7 8 G B ' fg I'BHB P G 230 f B G " ! 8! " 

GtB8g 8 f

 Y `  1Y W d Y  f7Y Y `   d Y  d ` e d ` 1Y  Y    d We  ` d Y t 8 " f 4 30 f B G 2 G B ' 8 G ( 4531 0 G 76G 2 8( ( ' )( '& " 8 G z 80 ( 8(h Gtff8 f

Design of a feedforward compensator

4 A MERICAN I NSTITUTE OF A ERONAUTICS AND A STRONAUTICS

7)e

r {

rejection given an estimate of the wind velocity at the coordinates of the aircraft. Since a small helicopter is far more sensitive to wind disturbance than would be a larger aircraft, the potential improvement in control that may be obtained with feedforward compensation can be signicant. To derive the feedforward compensation, we note that part of the helicopter dynamics with direct control inputs can be partitioned as

where functions are SDRE-parameterizable, and functions have to be linearized with respect to the control and also include all terms not accounted in
e 7)

).

(12)

 

| q y

| y q

Q q

(13)

Thus, the main rotor collective feedforward control provides cancellation gravity and unaccounted in the

5 A MERICAN I NSTITUTE OF A ERONAUTICS AND A STRONAUTICS

TUS F F

TUS F QF

$%3 65

hh $%3 5 81 53 653 G k $% $% hh k

In particular, from Eqn. (12) and form of functions

$% 53

| { q e { y

e Gk

Denoting elements of as control is computed to satisfy

, the compensating

Note that in the above equations, the pseudo-linear force terms appear in both and , but with opposite signs. Thus the terms cancel when is substituted into Eqn. (12) and the original dynamic equations (Eqn. (6)) result. This allows a certain freedom in formulating the system state-dependent parameterization: one can opt to include such terms into both and the functions , or exclude such terms in both the SDRE design and the feedforward compensator design. We found that this choice may affect performance of the control system by making it more stable or more agile. Generally speaking, inclusion of into the SDRE design and functions results in a lesser amount of feedforward control and better stability properties. Exclusion of such terms leads to faster vehicle reaction to commands due to the instantaneous feedforward compensation, but also requires a greater contribution of feedforward control leading to possible undesirable oscillations around steady state. For example, we and in both found that using the SDRE formulation and functions , damps undesirable oscillations in roll and pitch, but excluding them results in faster response of the vehicle to roll and pitch commands. Thus we exploit this fact for some of the aggressive maneuvers (e.g. axial roll).

q| y 6q

'%  &$

1) t&$

F F

hh j $% $% 653 53 q Q k 1) t &$ 658 $%31 hh j $% $%3 5654 53 q

| ye q A

'% 0$

1 )$ 2&

' %$ 0

F F

j $%3 5 81

j 

$%31 58 u u

the SDRE design. Functions are also bijective with respect to each control input at any xed and other controls. Such a system allows for approximate dynamic cancellation of the unaccounted components (including those induced by the gravity and engine torque discarded from the SDRE-parameterization) by means of the predictive feedforward compensation. In fact, is just an -th element of , and represents the remaining part of dynamics given by Eqn. (6)Eqn. (8). Following forces and moments representation as in Eqn. (10)-Eqn. (11) we can generally write
D

SDRE design parts of the horizontal tail force, fuselage drag and main rotor thrust in the vertical direction (fuselage frame). Tail rotor collective feedforward control dynamically compensates unaccounted terms in yawing dynamics: effects of tail rotor thrust linearization for the pseudo-linear SDRE formulation, unaccounted part of engine torque resulting from the total main collective control (SDRE plus feedforward) and state-independent part of vertical tail moment. Two remaining compensator outputs and are computed to satisfy Eqn. (5). Note, the system is overdetermined (two variables and cannot accurately balance four remaining equations of roll, pitch, forward and side velocity dynamics). Since the roll and pitch velocities dynamics are more prone to oscillations associated with the neglected apping dynamics and its resonant modes, we chose to compute the longitudinal and lateral compensator outputs to match the vehicles response in roll and pitch velocities to the one of the SDRE-parameterized model (assuming steady state approximation of apping dynamics):

1 )$ 20(

'% &$

T H X US a F

T  US a QF

QF $%3 $%3 | 581 65 81 q y T 1 1 T 1 a QF F P $% f $% f e | 53 53 q y ge 2P E F F $%3 |$%31 T 1 f658 5 81 q y T 1 1 a F F I I $% T |$%3 US 8654 53 q y US Q GE T QF F $%3 | 581 65 81 q y T 1 1 $%3 T 1 a QF F $% T FF |$%3 US 8654 53 q y US H GE T F 1  zG  zGX D a a F $ % T D |$%3 TUS 854 653 q y US F F $%3 |$%31 X T 1 858 65 81 q y T 1 1 a F QF $ % T S D $% | 53 653 q y U(

q| y 5q

$% T |$%3 85" 53 q y US

7)

| q y

u 6q y e k |

j q j j q j

f e e u u {

u u u u u u $%3 654

$%3 6581

Specically, considering the SDRE parameterization given in Figure 3 (used in all experiments), we set

and partial derivatives are estimated at the known total collective control input . Disturbances caused by the unaccounted feedforward control in the SDRE design in forward and side velocity dynamics are attenuated by the SDRE feedback. As shown by simulations, their effect is negligible. Although it allows fast, direct cancellation of unaccounted SDRE design terms, the feedforward control has a disadvantage of being directly affected by parametric disturbances. If model parameters are not known exactly, there will be an over- or under-compensation. To avoid such undesirable effects, we added an integral control of vertical velocity, altitude, heading and yaw velocity. In addition we are investigating online parameter and wind estimation.
Notes on the main rotor speed and engine torque estimation

where the formulation of propelling forces and moments , from the main and tail rotor is given by . Note that we opted to discard the engine torque and yawing moment from the vertical tail in the SDRE design. We also excluded from both the state-dependent formulation and , which resulted in a faster yawing response. These terms are compensated directly by the feedforward control. We also excluded and from both the SDRE formulation and functions and , as it simplied the SDRE design and made almost no difference in the pitching and rolling dynamics as they are dominated by the main rotor forces and moments. Then for this particular case we have

The rotorspeed and engine torque are used for various terms in the system matrices and feedforward compensation. Since there are no sensors to directly measure these terms in our system, we derive a simple, computationally cheap algorithm to estimate them. Rotor speed estimation: the rotorspeed dynamics is modeled as3

(14)

6 A MERICAN I NSTITUTE OF A ERONAUTICS AND A STRONAUTICS

u F ) Sf h f h

Although for the SDRE design we use the small angle approximation for the two apping angles, moments from the main rotor are in fact given as

The engine power is assumed to be proportional to the throttle setting (15)

lp

| T 1 e T 1 y US e ge y T f

Ql )

1 6% T E  u x

8 78s 7U078 l p

| m i X S QXS y T RT hgf1 d c e pH o | m i X S QXS y T RT j Qk 1 1 1  1 9 1 1 T

T US R u US T

hgf1 d P c e gf1 d c e  H o p j u j u

$%3 65 81 3g| 653 53 q y ge $% f $ % 1 1 65 81 k P E T 1 q T 1 R $%3 j P a

T 1 R QF F

$% 653  zQ  zQB D 1 H 53  k q U S R $% D T j a a

T 1 QF F

 T 1 F F

y | U0

1 T 1 R T (71 u T 1

T US F 1 1 a a

where

T US F $% T $%3 |f6%54 53 y US 86583 5 81 y T 1 $ 3 |$% 1 XS T QF $% T $%3 |$%3 f654 53 y US 8583 ( 5 81 y T 1 |$% 1

1 a 1

where

'% e '%  &$ &$ i P c P c hgf1 d c  o p j u 9 " u j $% T T S | $ % 3 m i 854 653 y XS R U( &Q e u Q k GGE II a 1) e 1) 2 &$ 20$ i hgf1 d c o p 9 jk $% | $ % 3 m i 854 653 y T T S u XS R U( &Q e Q k GE FF a | j y Qu 0 y U4GUS y u X | j k & | m i U4GUS y u T S RT T S T S RT
. This yields ,

1 )$ 20( ' %$ & a

| ni m T S XB

$%3 $ % 3 5 81 q y T 1 GT 1 1 | 581 R PP 1 | 54 53 q y f e 2GE $% $%3 a F I US X T 1 1 Q I E T T S QF a F F T XS US T 1 1 H F E T a F  G  GB D D $% T S $% | 53 653 q y U4R 1 H a a u u u

T US QF

$%3 654

$%31 658

The engine torque response to throttle changes is assumed to be instantaneous. The engine governor is modeled as a PI controller, maintaining commanded rotorspeed by actuating the throttle:

and aerodynamic torque and torque coefcient computed as

| c b` y W V u Y V c a v XV P p i T tT XS QUS s gfe 1 d r XV u XS e T Y

One can then derive the following derivatives:

x x x BV | P c a ` y x u x W c v a pqiBV P c ` W V Y V x x u x $% a ` P c 653 c v US u T W XV x P c x c u x c b` P c ` a a a b` 5 ` v XS u W V W V | b` P c y 9 w a ` c a a T u $% 653 v | 9w a T W US u XV y c a ` a ` ` p b` v US u W V W | ` P c y 9 w a ` c a a T V p u P a ` v US u XV | a ` P c y 9 w a ` T W a `

(19) (20) (21) (22)

Discretizing the lter described by transfer function Eqn. (26), and taking , yields a way to estimate the rotorspeed by passing the computed input through the lter. Note that the coefcients and have a nonlinear dependence on the rotorspeed, Eqn. (27)-Eqn. (28). Thus we treat them as being piecewise constant, using the most recent available estimate of the rotorspeed . This open-loop rotorspeed estimation can be justied due to the integral part in the engine governor resulting in zero steady-state estimation error. Estimation quality is illustrated in Figure 4. The estimation appears extremely accurate. Deviation from the actual is only apparent during sharp mode transitions, but still relatively insignicant as shown in Figure 5 (zoomed part of the previous plot). Engine torque estimation: the engine torque is estimated using the rotorspeed dynamics given by Eqn. (14)-Eqn. (17) and calculated total aerodynamic torque , Eqn. (18). Taking the same assumptions as in for estimating the rotorspeed, the following dependence between the engine torque and adjusted aerodynamic torque is established: (30)

where

7 A MERICAN I NSTITUTE OF A ERONAUTICS AND A STRONAUTICS

(23)

(31)

f e

Y i

e i

i | Y i g i i y e i i g i i

| Uy e | Uy Y

u | Uy f e

j r x

u | Ay Y

Furthermore, the rotor thrust computation is based on the momentum theory and assumes steady and uniform inow as described by Gavrilets, et al3 and Padeld,5 with the thrust coefcient and inow ratio given by the system of equations

| x 3 xy a | x 5658q y T 1 $%31 a

(18)

e i

x T1 e i

j r x u x a x 4y x T1 T1 e T US e $%3 T e T 14y | a x 55"q y US 1 x 6% T E u i F ) Sf h 1 T x % QE u 1 T 4y T US e | Y i g i iy 5j

Y i

u | Ay

The throttle servo dynamics is neglected as it is significantly faster than the rotorspeed dynamics. The rotorspeed dynamic equations can then be used to estimate the rotorspeed. To do this, the total aerodynamic torque on the main and tail rotors is presented as a Taylor series truncated to the rst order:

where

| Uy e | Uy

| UH3 x u | Ay x y

(17)

| x a $%3 | x 581 q y a

a ` P c

x 3 x e Re i | x 3 x y g i

x x xy 1 T1 y T e T XS e $% T T 1 e T 1 y | a x 53 q y XS e

9 P c b` c w a W XV $%3 5" v T XS u

x u f ge f h u u

T 1 e T 1 y US e u T

where

. In this case engine torque is (16)

(24) Similar computations are performed for the tail rotor derivatives (note that ). Noting that , and taking into account Eqn. (14)-Eqn. (17) and assuming the yaw acceleration is zero: and commanded rotorspeed is constant: , the following expression is obtained: (25)

u 3 x u  5 5 5 | x a 3 x y 23 x x py u | 5 x y | a x Y Y Y 1 4y u kY T kY e T tT US GUS s gf1 d r XV UXS s gfe 1 d r x u x T S tT Y T US e Y V

(26) (27) (28)

a ` W V

(29)

1700

Main rotor speed

1650

1600

1550

1500 Actual Commanded Estimated 1450 0 20 40 60

take-off, rapid ascent followed by descent, ascent and hover. The estimated states (e.g. yaw angle and velocity) as depicted in the plots are found using an Extended Kalman Filter. Note, the steady-state bias relative to the desired in the yaw estimation is a function of the state-estimator and cannot be compensated for by the controller. However, it is still apparent that the steadystate engine torque approximation results in overcompensation due to non-ideal rotorspeed hold by the engine governor. Taking engine-rotor dynamics into consideration nearly cancels this effect.
150 155
140

Rotorspeed, rpm

Yaw angle, psi(t)

psi, deg.

time, s.

80

100

120

160 165 170 175

Fig. 4 Rotorspeed estimation.

1610 1608 1606

Main rotor speed

Actual Commanded Estimated

180

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

40 30 20

time, s. Yaw velocity, r(t)

Actual Desired Estimated

r, deg/s

1604

10 0 10 20 30 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50

Rotorspeed, rpm

1602 1600 1598 1596 1594 1592

time, s.

Fig. 6 Yaw hold with engine torque estimation

Yaw angle, psi(t)
150

1590 61.5

62

62.5

63

time, s.

63.5

64

64.5

65

155

Fig. 5 Rotorspeed estimation (zoomed).

psi, deg.

160 165 170 175 180 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50

Discretizing the lter described by transfer function Eqn. (31) and passing computed current through the lter, yields approximate estimate of the engine torque to be compensated. As in the case with rotorspeed estimation, such open-loop engine torque estimation is possible due to integral part in the engine governor, which results in zero steady-state estimation error. As seen from the rotorspeed dynamics or Eqn. (31), steady-state engine torque equals total aerodynamic torque at the engine shaft at the commanded rotorspeed. Note that we do not have access to the actual torque (as we did with the rotor speed) in order to validate the estimator design. However, using the estimated engine torque as given by Eqn. (30)-Eqn. (31) results in signicantly better yaw hold in mode transitions (e.g.maneuvers involving rapid main collective control variations) as compared to simply approximating engine torque with computed aerodynamic torque (steady-state approximation of engine torque). This is clearly illustrated in Figures 6, 7. The plots depict yaw hold during

r, deg/s

8 A MERICAN I NSTITUTE OF A ERONAUTICS AND A STRONAUTICS

Yaw velocity, r(t) time, s.

80 60 40 20 0 20 40 60 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 Actual Desired Estimated

Fig. 7 Yaw hold with engine torque approximated in steady state

EXPERIMENTAL RESULTS
Below we compare our SDRE control augmented with feedforward compensation versus simply using a xed trim control that provides altitude and heading hold in hover. Both approaches also employ integral control of

Path
0 20 40 60 80 Actual Desired Estimated 0 20 40 60 80

Path
Actual Desired Estimated

X, m.

100 120 140 160 180 100 50 0 50 100

X, m.

100 120 140 160 180 100 50 0 50 100

Y, m.

Y, m.

Fig. 8 Path on the XY plane (feedforward compensator)

100 90 80 70 60

Fig. 11 Path on the XY plane (xed trim control)

100 90 80 70 60

Altitude, Z(t)

Altitude, Z(t)

Altitude, m.

50 40 30 20 10 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70

Altitude, m.
Actual Desired Estimated 80 90

50 40 30 20 10 0 10 20 30 40

Actual Desired Estimated

time, s.

time, s.

50

60

70

80

90

Fig. 9 Altitude hold (feedforward compensator)

Yaw angle, psi(t)
140 150
140 150

Fig. 12 Altitude hold (xed trim control)

Yaw angle, psi(t)

psi, deg.

170 180 190 200 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90

psi, deg.

160

160 170 180 190 200 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90

time, s. Yaw velocity, r(t)

60 40 Actual Desired Estimated
60 40

time, s. Yaw velocity, r(t)

r, deg/s

0 20 40

r, deg/s

20

20 0 20 40 10 20 30 40 Actual Desired Estimated

10

20

30

40

time, s.

50

60

70

80

90

time, s.

50

60

70

80

90

Fig. 10 Yaw tracking (feedforward compensator)

Fig. 13 Yaw tracking (xed trim control)

9 A MERICAN I NSTITUTE OF A ERONAUTICS AND A STRONAUTICS

D D

altitude, heading, vertical and yaw velocities. The test trajectory used in the experiment consists of a take-off and rapid ascent at , followed by a hover, left and

right side steps at , followed by a hover, acceleration to forward ight, diving into gure 8 (rst half) at descent speed and immediate ascent dur-

ing the second half of the gure at ascent speed. The helicopter then follows a straight path at a speed of and nally rapidly decelerates to . Figures 8-13 demonstrate performance of SDRE control equipped with the designed compensator vs. xed trim control. Yaw plots are zoomed to make the difference more evident. One can easily associate spikes in yaw and altitude hold with specic maneuvers1. The difference provided by the feedforward compensator is clearly seen in mode transitions. The test trajectory was intentionally chosen to be fairly aggressive to stress the difference between the two approaches and demonstrate capabilities of the designed control in agile maneuvering. One of the most interesting maneuvers made possible by feedforward compensation is an axial roll. We have simulated a trajectory consisting of a vertical climb at 5m/s to hover, then forward ight at 5m/s with an axial roll, followed by continued forward ight, nishing in hover. The entire trajectory is controlled by a common closed-loop controller, without mode-switching to separate control logic. Thus it illustrates the capability of an SDRE controller equipped with the feedforward compensator to provide modeless control throughout a series of maneuvers. Figures 14 through 17 illustrate
200 100

theta, deg.

q, deg/s

psi, deg.

Roll angle, phi(t)

Actual Desired Estimated

phi, deg.

r, deg/s

0 100

200 36

37

38

39

40

time, s.

41

42

43

44

45

250 200 150

Roll velocity, p(t)

Actual Desired Estimated

p, deg/s

100 50 0 50 100 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45

time, s.

Altitude, m.

Fig. 14 Roll tracking during axial roll maneuver

the performance of the designed controller during execution of the axial roll maneuver, which takes place at of ight. Figure 14 shows the accuracy of tracking of the roll angle and roll velocity. Note that this gure is plotted on an expanded time scale showing only nine seconds of the simulation. Figures 15 and 16 are also zoomed around the axial roll maneuver.
; hover ; left side and altitude gain ; hover ; right side step ; hover ; speeding up to 15 m/s and level ight ; diving into left turn (rst half of gure 8) ; ascending into right turn (second half of gure 8) ; level ight ; and level ight . deceleration to
ccD 33c 3c3 3cc 3cc 3Dc 3cc cnk 3cc

step

10 A MERICAN I NSTITUTE OF A ERONAUTICS AND A STRONAUTICS

ccc

cc

1 Take-off

5 0 5 10 15 20 25

Pitch angle, theta(t)

c33

Actual Desired Estimated 30 35 40 45 50

time, s.
20 10 0 10 20 30 40 25 30 35 40 45 Actual Desired Estimated 50

Pitch velocity, q(t)

time, s.

Fig. 15 Pitch during acceleration and axial roll

150 155 160 165 170 175 180 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45

Yaw angle, psi(t)

time, s.
20 10 0 10 20 35 36 37 38 39

Yaw velocity, r(t)

Actual Desired Estimated

time, s.

40

41

42

43

44

45

Fig. 16 Yaw tracking during axial roll maneuver

100 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 5 10 15 20 Actual Desired Estimated

Altitude, Z(t)

time, s.

25

30

35

40

45

50

Fig. 17 Altitude hold during axial roll maneuver

At the time of writing, initial ight tests have been conducted to verify the effectiveness of SDRE control in tracking a commanded velocity prole provided by

11 A MERICAN I NSTITUTE OF A ERONAUTICS AND A STRONAUTICS

Although state-dependent parameterization of the helicopter dynamics results in a number of approximations which may degrade performance of the SDRE control law, the problem can be solved by a feedforward control. This is designed to compensate for the introduced simplications and approximately match the vehicles performance to that of the SDRE design. As shown by simulations, the feedforward control provides signicantly better performance than simply using a xed trim control, which does not account for vehicle dynamics and ensures only trim ight conditions. Thus designed feedforward control has much better potential for aggressive maneuvering. The feedforward compensator also provides a means for wind disturbance compensation given an estimate of the wind velocity at the coordinates of the aircraft.1 Furthermore, the feasibility of a real-time SDRE controller to provide automatic control of an autonomous ight vehicle has been demonstrated with a small helicopter in initial ight testing. The automatic control successfully stabilized the helicopter as it executed a series of maneuvers including rapid turns, climbs and descents in response to commanded velocities given through an R/C transmitter by a human pilot. Future ight tests will extend the tracking control to full state tracking (position and orientation as well as linear and angular velocities) in order to demonstrate the full maneuvering capability of the control approach.

CONCLUSIONS AND FUTURE WORK

A. Bogdanov, M. Carlsson, G. Harvey, J. Hunt, R. Kieburtz, R. van der Merwe, , and E. Wan. State-Dependent Riccati Equation Control of a Small Unmanned Helicopter. In Proceedings of the AIAA Guidance Navigation and Control Conference, Austin, TX, August 2003. J. R. Cloutier, C. N. DSouza, and C. P. Mracek. Nonlinear regulation and nonlinear H-innity control via the state-dependent Riccati equation technique: Part1, Theory. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Nonlinear Problems in Aviation and Aerospace, FL, May 1996. V. Gavrilets, B. Mettler, and E. Feron. Nonlinear model for a small-size acrobatic helicopter. In Proceedings of AIAA Guidance Navigation and Control Conference, Montreal, Quebec, Canada, August 2001. V. Gavrilets, A. Shterenberg, M. A. Dahleh, and E. Feron. Avionics system for a small unmanned helicopter performing aggressive maneuvers. In Proceedings of 19th Digital Avionics Systems Conference, Oct. 2000. G. D. Padeld. Helicopter ight dynamics: the theory and application of ying qualities and simulation modeling. American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics, Inc., Reston, VA, USA, 1995. E. A. Wan, A. A. Bogdanov, R. Kieburtz, A. Baptista, M. Carlsson, Y. Zhang, and M. Zulauf. Software Enabled Control: Information Technology for Dynamical Systems, chapter Model Predictive Neural Control for Aggressive Helicopter Maneuvers. IEEE Press, 2003.

a human pilot via an R/C transmitter. In the initial ights, a human pilot, using conventional R/C control, conducts takeoffs and landings of the helicopter. Once airborne, control is switched from piloted mode to automatic control, in which the role of the pilot is to provide a commanded velocity vector through manipulation of the control sticks on the R/C transmitter. The onboard ight computer, running an SDRE controller, provides the actuator control to track the commanded velocity inputs. After a period of automatic controlled ight, the human pilot switches control back to manual operation and lands the helicopter. In ying a varied trajectory of turns, climbs and descents in light wind (estimated at 3-6 km/hr) the SDRE controller maintains continuous control of the vehicle and maneuvers approximately as expected by the pilot. However, quantitative measures of the control were difcult to obtain from the recorded data, as the effect of pilot feedback in correcting an observed trajectory cannot be accounted for. Our next ight experiments will be geared for fully automatic maneuvers, and should allow us to provide more quantitative experimental results in the future.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
This work was supported by the DARPA SoftwareEnabled Control program under contract No. F3361598-C-3516. We would like to thank Geoffrey Harvey, Magnus Carlsson and John Hunt for programming support and avionics servicing, and our pilot, Peter Haley as well, whose joint effort made this work possible.

References