Proceedings of the Institution of Mechanical Engineers, Part I: Journal of Systems and Control Engineering http://pii.sagepub.

com/

Mathematical dynamic modelling of a twin-rotor multiple input-multiple output system

A Rahideh and M. H. Shaheed Proceedings of the Institution of Mechanical Engineers, Part I: Journal of Systems and Control Engineering 2007 221: 89 DOI: 10.1243/09596518JSCE292 The online version of this article can be found at: http://pii.sagepub.com/content/221/1/89

Published by:
http://www.sagepublications.com

On behalf of:

Institution of Mechanical Engineers

Additional services and information for Proceedings of the Institution of Mechanical Engineers, Part I: Journal of Systems and Control Engineering can be found at: Email Alerts: http://pii.sagepub.com/cgi/alerts Subscriptions: http://pii.sagepub.com/subscriptions Reprints: http://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.nav Permissions: http://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav Citations: http://pii.sagepub.com/content/221/1/89.refs.html

>> Version of Record - Feb 1, 2007 What is This?

Downloaded from pii.sagepub.com at Indian Inst Of Tech Madras on March 27, 2013

89

Mathematical dynamic modelling of a twin-rotor multiple inputmultiple output system

A Rahideh and M H Shaheed* Department of Engineering, Queen Mary, University of London, London, UK The manuscript was received on 8 May 2006 and was accepted after revision for publication on 14 August 2006. DOI: 10.1243/09596518JSCE292

Abstract: This investigation presents the mathematical modelling of an experimental aerodynamic test rig, a twin-rotor multiple inputmultiple output (MIMO) system (TRMS). The system is modelled in terms of vertical one-degree-of-freedom (1DOF), horizontal 1DOF, and two-degree-of-freedom (2DOF) dynamics using Newtonian as well as Lagrangian methods. The modelling is carried out in two phases. In the rst phase the interface circuit, d.c. motors, and propulsive forces due to these motors, common to both Newtonian and Lagrangian approaches, are modelled. Thereafter, the dynamic equations for the remaining parts are formulated taking all the eective forces into account. The responses of both the Newtonian and the Lagrangian models are compared with that of the real TRMS to validate the accuracy of the models. The performances of the two models are also compared. Keywords: dynamic, modelling, Lagrange, Newton, twin-rotor multi-inputmulti-output system

1 INTRODUCTION The twin-rotor multiple inputmultiple output (MIMO) system (TRMS) is a laboratory set-up developed by Feedback Instruments Limited [1] for control experiments. The system is perceived as a challenging engineering problem owing to its high non-linearity, cross-coupling between its two axes, and inaccessibility of some of its states and outputs for measurements. An accurate dynamic model of the system is thus required to achieve control objectives satisfactorily. Some investigations are reported to have addressed the modelling and control of a TRMS using various model-based and articial intelligence (AI)-based approaches. For instance, non-linear modelling of a TRMS using radial basis function networks has been addressed in reference [2], which presents a nonlinear system identication method for modelling air vehicles of complex conguration. Ahmad et al. [3] carried out dynamic modelling and optimal control
* Corresponding author: Department of Engineering, Queen Mary, University of London, London E1 4NS, UK. email: m.h.shaheed@ qmul.ac.uk

of a TRMS. The extracted model is employed in the design of a feedback LQG compensator. Performance analysis of four types of conjugate gradient algorithm in the non-linear dynamic modelling of a TRMS using feedforward neural networks has been reported in reference [4]. Dynamic modelling of a TRMS has been presented in reference [5], which has investigated the utilization of neural networks and parametric linear approaches for modelling a TRMS in the hovering position. Aldebrez et al. [6] have proposed the parametric modelling of a TRMS using a genetic algorithm (GA). In their approach the global search technique of the GA has been used to identify the parameters of the TRMS on the basis of one-step-ahead prediction. The modelling of UAVs and helicopters, which resemble the characteristics of a TRMS in certain aspects, has also been reported comprehensively in the literature. For instance, dynamic general modelling and feedback control of a side-by-side rotor tandem helicopter have been proposed in reference [7]. This investigation deals with the development of a dynamic model and the design of a feedback controller for reducing torque oscillations of a side-by-side rotor tandem helicopter, which is a
Proc. IMechE Vol. 221 Part I: J. Systems and Control Engineering

JSCE292 IMechE 2007

Downloaded from pii.sagepub.com at Indian Inst Of Tech Madras on March 27, 2013

90

A Rahideh and M H Shaheed

MIMO system. Wu et al. [8] have presented a nonlinear ight controller design for a helicopter model by the trajectory linearization method. In their paper, the authors have presented the development of a non-linear dynamic model of a three-degree-offreeom (3DOF) ight control experiment apparatus, a helicopter, with three propellers driven by d.c. motors. Exact linearization and non-interacting control of a four-rotor helicopter via dynamic feedback have been reported in reference [9]. The authors have presented a non-linear dynamic model for a four-rotor helicopter in a form suited for control design. Hover control via the Lyapunov approach for an autonomous model helicopter has been proposed by Mahony et al. [10]. In that investigation a dynamic model based on physical insight has been developed for a reduced-scale autonomous helicopter using Newtons equations. Real-time stabilization and tracking of a four-rotor mini rotorcraft have been described in reference [11]. The authors have developed a controller and implemented it on a mini rotorcraft. A dynamic model of the four-rotor rotorcraft has been obtained via a Lagrange approach. Non-linear dynamics and control of a windmilling gyroplane rotor have been proposed by Somov and Polyntsev [12]. In that study, mathematical models of autorotation and apping of the windmilling rotor have been extracted and used for non-linear dynamic modelling. The development of a nonlinear model and non-linear control strategy for a Vario-scale model helicopter has been presented in reference [13]. The model is based on Lagrangian equations. Cerro et al. [14] have proposed the identication of a small unmanned helicopter model using a genetic algorithm. A hybrid (analytic and empiric) model of a small helicopter, the stability and response of the model, and parameter identication using a GA have been presented in that study. Mathematical modelling of a UAV during take-o with nose-wheel o the ground has been discussed in reference [15]. The model is formulated according to the NewtonEuler method. Jun et al. [16] have presented the state estimation of an autonomous helicopter using Kalman ltering. The authors have proposed a technique for estimating the state of a robot helicopter using a combination of gyroscopes, accelerometers, inclinometers, and GPS. This investigation addresses the one-degree-offreedom (1DOF) horizontal, 1DOF vertical, and twodegree-of-freedom (2DOF) dynamic modelling of a TRMS using Newtonian and Lagrangian approaches. The models are developed taking all the eective forces into account. Such investigations of dynamic
Proc. IMechE Vol. 221 Part I: J. Systems and Control Engineering

modelling of a TRMS or a similar system are very limited in the literature. The present paper is organized as follows. Section 2 describes the TRMS and presents the dynamic models developed using Newtonian and Lagrangian approaches. The responses of the models are presented and illustrated in section 3. Finally, conclusions are drawn in section 4.

2 TRMS The TRMS as introduced in section 1 is shown in Fig. 1. It is driven by two d.c. motors. Its two propellers are perpendicular to each other and joined by a beam pivoted on its base that can rotate freely in the horizontal and vertical planes. The joined beam can be moved by changing the input voltage in order to control the rotational speed of the propellers. The system is equipped with a pendulum counterweight hanging from the beam, which is used for balancing the angular momentum in steady state or with load. In certain aspects, its behaviour resembles that of a helicopter. For example, it possesses a strong crosscoupling between the collective (main rotor) and the tail rotor, like a helicopter. However, the TRMS is dierent from a helicopter in many ways. Table 1 lists the main dierences between a helicopter and a TRMS. The crude dynamic model of the system supplied by the manufacturer does not represent the system dynamic precisely, as all the eective forces are not taken into consideration. However, accurate dynamic modelling of the system is a prerequisite for achieving satisfactory control performance. In this study the system is modelled using Newtonian and Lagrangian equations taking all the eective forces into account. The models include the 1DOF horizontal, 1DOF vertical, and 2DOF dynamics of the system. The

Fig. 1 Twin-rotor MIMO system

JSCE292 IMechE 2007

Downloaded from pii.sagepub.com at Indian Inst Of Tech Madras on March 27, 2013

Twin-rotor MIMO system

91

Table 1 Main dierences between a helicopter and a TRMS

TRMS
Location of pivot point Lift generation or vertical control Yaw is controlled by Cyclical control Midway between two rotors Speed control of main rotor Tail rotor speed No

Helicopter
Main rotor head Collective pitch control* Pitch angle of tail rotor blades Yes for directional control

*The pitch angles of all the blades of the main rotor are changed but at constant rotor speed.

modelling is carried out in two stages. In the rst stage the interface circuit, d.c. motors, and propulsive forces due to these motors are modelled. Thereafter the dynamic equations for the remaining parts are developed. 2.1 Interface circuit There are dierences between the input voltage values of the main motor, U , in the Simulink v environment and the motor terminal voltages, V , v and the relationship between these two sets of values is non-linear. The relationship is obtained by changing the input voltage in the Simulink environment and measuring the relative terminal voltage, as shown in Fig. 2. Like the main motor, there are also dierences between the input voltage values of the tail motor, U , in the Simulink environment and h the motor terminal voltages, V . Figure 3 shows the h relationship between U and V . h h 2.2 Direct current motors The TRMS possesses two permanent magnet d.c. motors, one for the main propeller and the other for the tail. The motors are identical, but with dierent mechanical loads. The mathematical equations governing the main and tail motors, as shown in Fig. 4, are presented in equations (1) to (5). The parameters used in the numerical solution of the dierential equations are listed in Table 2. It should be noted that the sampling interval for both modelling and the real system is 0.001 s. The initial condition can
Fig. 4 Circuit diagram of a d.c. motor

Fig. 3 Relationship between U and V h h

be varied according to the initial position of the real system U

E

di ah/v =E +R i +L h/v ah/v ah/v ah/v ah/v dt

=k Q v ah/v h/v h/v Lh/v +J dv h/v + B v tr/mr h/v tr/mr dt

(1) (2)
(3) (4) (5)

ah/v

eh/v
eh/v

=M
=k

Q i ah/v h/v ah/v M = k sign(v ) v2 Lh/v th/v h/v h/v 2.3 Newtonian-based model

Fig. 2 Relationship between U and V v v

JSCE292 IMechE 2007

The mathematical model of the remaining parts of the system is described in equations (6) to (13) (see Figs 5 and 6). The equations are derived using the Newtonian approach. In equation (6) the rst term represents the torque of the propulsive force due to the main rotor; the second term is the torque of the friction force; the torque of the gravity force
Proc. IMechE Vol. 221 Part I: J. Systems and Control Engineering

Downloaded from pii.sagepub.com at Indian Inst Of Tech Madras on March 27, 2013

92

A Rahideh and M H Shaheed

Table 2 System parameters

Parameter
l (m) t l (m) m l (m) b l (m) cb r (m) ms r (m) ts m (kg) tr m (kg) mr m (kg) cb m (kg) t m (kg) m m (kg) b m (kg) ts m (kg) ms k g

where
A=
C=

Value
0.282 0.246 0.290 0.276 0.155 0.100 0.221 0.236 0.068 0.015 0.014 0.022 0.119 0.219 0.2

Parameter
R (V) a L (mH) a k Q (N m/A) a J (g cm2 ) mr J (g cm2 ) tr B (kg m2 /s) tr B (kg m2 /s) mr k th k tv k fhp k fhn k fvp k fvn k t k m

Value
8 0.86 0.0202 1272 248 2.3 105 4.5 105 3.6 107 8.7 107 1.84 106 2.20 107 1.62 105 1.08 105 2.6 105 2 104

A A

m t +m +m l , tr ts t 2
m b l +m l cb cb 2 b

B B

B=

m m +m +m l mr ms m 2

m H = Al + Bl + b l 2 + m l 2 t m cb cb 2 b
k |v | v v v F (v ) = fvp v v k |v | v fvn v v kv V =S + t h v v J v da v =V v dt

for v 0 v for v < 0 v

(7)
(8)
(9)

In equation (10) the rst term represents the torque of the propulsive force due to the tail rotor; the second term implies the torque of the friction force; and the last term refers to the torque of the at cable force, which is completely non-linear and can be obtained by point-by-point measurement. The second term of equation (12) denotes the eect of the main propeller speed on horizontal plane movement of the beam. Figure 7 shows the torque of the friction force which covers viscous, Coulomb, and static frictions.
Fig. 5 Gravity forces and propulsive force in the vertical plane

l F (v ) cos a M M (a ) dS v fric,h cable h h= t h h dt D cos2 a + E sin2 a + F v v where

D=

(10)

m m m +m +m t +m +m l2 l2 + mr ms m tr ts t 3 3
m F = m r2 + ts r2 ms ms 2 ts
(11)
(12)
(13)

B A

m E= b l2+m l2 , cb cb 3 b

Fig. 6 Propulsive force in the horizontal plane

is expressed in the third term; the fourth term denotes the torque of the centrifugal force due to beam rotation in the horizontal plane; and nally the fth term refers to the torque of the gyroscopic eect. The second term of equation (8) denotes the eect of the tail propeller speed on vertical plane movement of the beam.
dS l F (v ) M + g [(AB ) cos a C sin a ] v= m v v fric,v v v dt J v 0.5V2 H sin 2a + k F (v ) V cos a h v g v v h v (6) + J v
Proc. IMechE Vol. 221 Part I: J. Systems and Control Engineering

k |v | v for v 0 h h h F (v ) = fhp h h k |v | v for v < 0 fhn h h h k v cos a m v v V =S + h h D cos2 a + E sin2 a + F v v da h =V h dt

Fig. 7 Torque of the friction force

JSCE292 IMechE 2007

Downloaded from pii.sagepub.com at Indian Inst Of Tech Madras on March 27, 2013

Twin-rotor MIMO system

93

2.4 Lagrangian-based model In developing a Lagrangian-based model the TRMS conguration has been divided into three subsystems: the rst one consists of the freefree beam (tail and main beam), tail rotor, main rotor, tail shield, and main shield; the second one comprises the counterbalance beam and weight; and nally the third one is a pivoted beam. 2.4.1 Freefree beam Assume that [r (R ), r (R ), r (R )] denotes the x 1 y 1 z 1 coordinate of point P on the freefree beam para1 meterized in the distance R from O (which means 1 1 that P O = R ). Also, assume that OO = h, where O 1 1 1 1 is the origin of coordinates. Note that, in order to simplify the gure, the x and y axes have been drawn from O . 2 According to Figs 8 to 10, the following equations can be obtained r (R ) = R sin(a ) cos(a ) + h cos(a ) x 1 1 h v h r (R ) = R cos(a ) cos(a ) h sin(a ) y 1 1 h v h r (R ) = R sin(a ) z 1 1 v
Fig. 9 Front view of the TRMS with a = 0 h

(14)

Fig. 10 Top view of the TRMS

The corresponding velocities are obtained by dierentiating equation (14) with respect to time v (R ) = R cos(a ) cos(a ) a x 1 1 h v h R sin(a ) sin(a ) a h sin(a ) a 1 h v v h h v (R ) =R sin(a ) cos(a ) a y 1 1 h v h R cos(a ) sin(a ) a h cos(a ) a h v v h h 1 v (R ) = R cos(a ) a z 1 1 v v The square magnitude of the velocity of P is given 1 by the equation v2 (R ) = v2 (R ) + v2 (R ) + v2 (R ) (16) 1 x 1 y 1 z 1 After substitution and simplication, the following equation is obtained (15) v2 (R ) = R2 cos2 (a )(a )2 + h2 (a )2 + R2 (a )2 1 1 v h h 1 v + 2R h sin(a ) a (17) a 1 v h v It should be noted that a has no eect on the r (R), h z and for simplicity it can be assumed to be zero, as shown in Fig. 9. 2.4.2 Counterbalance beam Let [r (R ), r (R ), r (R )] denote the coordinate of x 2 y 2 z 2 point P on the counterbalance beam parameterized 2 in the distance R from O (which means that 2 1 P O = R ). According to Fig. 8, the following equation 2 1 2 can be obtained r (R ) = R sin(a ) sin(a ) + h cos(a ) x 2 2 h v h r (R ) = R cos(a ) sin (a ) h sin(a ) y 2 2 h v h r (R ) =R cos(a ) z 2 2 v
Fig. 8 Twin-rotor MIMO system
JSCE292 IMechE 2007

(18)
Proc. IMechE Vol. 221 Part I: J. Systems and Control Engineering

Downloaded from pii.sagepub.com at Indian Inst Of Tech Madras on March 27, 2013

94

A Rahideh and M H Shaheed

The corresponding velocities are obtained by dierentiating equation (18) with respect to time
v (R ) = R cos(a ) sin(a ) a x 2 2 h v h + R sin(a ) cos(a ) a h sin(a ) a 2 h v v h h v (R ) =R sin(a ) sin(a ) a y 2 2 h v h + R cos(a ) cos(a ) a h cos(a ) a 2 h v v h h v (R ) = R sin(a ) a z 2 2 v v
(19) The square magnitude of the velocity of P is given 2 by the equation
v2 (R ) = v2 (R ) + v2 (R ) + v2 (R ) (20) 2 x 2 y 2 z 2 Substitution and simplication yield the equation
v2 (R ) = R2 sin2 (a )(a )2 + h2 (a )2 + R2 (a )2 2 2 v h h 2 v 2R h cos(a ) a a 2 v h v 2.4.3 Pivoted beam
For more accuracy, point P can be considered with 3 the coordinates [r (R ), r (R ), r (R )] on the pivoted x 3 y 3 z 3 beam, where R is the distance between P and O 3 3 r (R ) = R cos(a ) x 3 3 h r (R ) R sin(a ) y 3 3 h r (R ) = 0 z 3 (22)
The corresponding velocities and square magnitude of the velocity of P can be written as 3 v (R ) =R sin(a ) a x 3 3 h h v (R ) =R cos(a ) a y 3 3 h h v (R ) = 0 z 3 (23)
v2 (R ) = R2 (a )2 3 3 h 2.4.4 Energy expression The kinetic and potential energies are expressed by the equations 1 T= 2
V =g

(27) and (28) T = 1 [cos2 (a )(a )2 + (a )2 ]J + 1 h2 (a )2 m 1 2 v h v 1 2 h T1 + h sin(a ) a a m l v h v T1 T1 m t +m +m l2 J = R2 dm (R ) = 1 1 tr ts t 1 3

(27)

(21)

m = dm (R ) = m + m + m + m + m + m 1 t tr ts m mr ms T1 R dm (R ) 1 1 l = T1 dm (R ) 1 (m /2 + m + m ) l (m /2 + m + m ) l mr ms m t tr ts t = m m T1 V = g sin(a ) m l (28) 1 v T1 T1 The kinetic and potential energies of the counterbalance beam are expressed by equations (29) and (30)
T = 1 [sin2 (a )(a )2 + (a )2 ]J + 1 h2 (a )2 m v h v 2 2 h T2 2 2 h cos(a ) a a m l v h v T2 T2 m J = R2 dm (R ) = b l 2 + m l 2 2 2 2 cb cb 3 b

A P

m m m +m +m l 2 + ms r2 + m r2 mr ms m ts ts 3 2 ms

(29)

m = dm (R ) = m + m 2 b cb T2 R dm (R ) m l /2 + m l 2 2 = bb cb cb l = T2 dm (R ) m 2 T2 V =g cos(a ) m l (30) 2 v T2 T2 The kinetic and potential energies of the pivoted beam are expressed by equations (31) and (32)
T = 1 (a )2 J 3 2 h 3
J = 3 (31)

(24)

V =0 3 2.4.5 Lagrangian equations The Lagrangian equation denes L as 3 3 L= T V i i i=1 i=1 and the equations of motion are given by
d qL qL = M ih dt qa qa h h i d qL qL = M iv dt qa qa v v i

m R2 dm (R ) = h h2 3 3 3
(32)

P P

(33)

v2 (R) dm (R) r (R) dm (R) z

(25)

(26)

The kinetic and potential energies of the freefree beam are also obtained and expressed by equations
Proc. IMechE Vol. 221 Part I: J. Systems and Control Engineering

A B A B

(34)
(35)

JSCE292 IMechE 2007

Downloaded from pii.sagepub.com at Indian Inst Of Tech Madras on March 27, 2013

Twin-rotor MIMO system

95

Therefore, by substituting equations (27) to (32) into equations (33) to (35) and simplifying, the following equations are obtained [J cos2 (a ) + J sin2 (a ) + h2 (m + m ) + J ] a 1 v 2 v T1 T2 3 h +h [m l sin(a ) m l cos(a )] a T1 T1 v T2 T2 v v +h [m l cos(a ) + m l sin(a )] a 2 T1 T1 v T2 T2 v v +2[J J ] sin(a ) cos(a ) a (36) a = M 2 1 v v h v ih i [J + J ] a + h [m l sin(a ) m l cos(a )] a 1 2 v T1 T1 v T2 T2 v h +[J J ] sin(a ) cos(a ) a 2 1 2 v v h (37) +g [m l cos(a )+m l sin(a )]= M v T2 T2 v iv T1 T1 i 2.4.6 Implementation of the Lagrange-based model Equation (36) can be rewritten in the form
W M h [m l sin(a ) m l cos(a )] a v v v T2 T2 T T1 a = i ih h [J cos2 (a ) + J1 sin 2 (a ) + h2 (m + m ) + J ] 3 T2 1 v 2 v T1 h [m l cos(a ) + m l sin(a )] a 2 v v v T2 T2 T T1 + [J cos2 (a ) 1 + J sin2 (a ) + h2 (m + m ) + J ] 3 T2 1 v 2 v T1 2[J J ] sin(a ) cos(a ) a a 2 1 v v h v + [J cos2 (a )+J sin2 (a )+h2 (m + m )+J ] 3 T2 1 v 2 v T1 (38)

3 RESULTS In developing the models, all the eective forces have been considered, and thereby a signicant improvement in the responses of the models has been achieved compared with that of the model supplied by Feedback Instruments Limited. It is noted that the supplied models have been used by a number of researchers to develop controllers that could not be implemented on real plant [17, 18]. 3.1 1DOF model According to both Newtonian and Lagrangian approaches, the 1DOF horizontal and 1DOF vertical dynamics can be easily obtained from the more general 2DOF dynamics. The 1DOF models of the system are identical in both approaches. The response of the developed 1DOF models is presented in Figs 11 to 14. In order to validate the models, they have been tested with various inputs. However, owing to limitation of space, only some of the validation results are presented here.
3.2 Newtonian 2DOF model
In order to validate the 2DOF model based on Newtonian dynamics, it has been tested with various

In equation (38), W M is the sum of applied torques i ih in the horizontal movement and can be summarized as M =M M M (a ) + k v cos a ih prop,h fric,h cable h m v v i (39) M = l F (v ) cos(a ) prop,h t h h v Equation (37) can be written as W M h [m l sin(a ) m l cos(a )] a T1 T1 v T2 T2 v h a = i iv v [J + J ] 1 2 [J J ] sin(a ) cos(a ) a 2 1 2 v v h + [J + J ] 1 2 g [m l cos(a ) + m l sin(a )] T1 T1 v T T v (40) + [J + J ] 2 2 1 2
In equation (40), W M is the sum of applied torques i iv in the vertical movement and can be expressed as M =M M +k v +M iv prop,v fric,v t h gyro i M = l F (v ) prop,v m v v M gyro = k F V cos(a ) g v h v (41)
Fig. 12 Yaw angle of the beam in response to square input with a frequency of 0.1 Hz and an amplitude of 0.3 V
Proc. IMechE Vol. 221 Part I: J. Systems and Control Engineering

Fig. 11 Yaw angle of the beam in response to sine input with a frequency of 0.2 Hz and an amplitude of 1 V

JSCE292 IMechE 2007

Downloaded from pii.sagepub.com at Indian Inst Of Tech Madras on March 27, 2013

96

A Rahideh and M H Shaheed

Table 3 Characteristics of the sets of inputs

Type
Mode 1 Mode 2 Mode 3 Mode 4 Mode 5 Main Tail Main Tail Main Tail Main Tail Main Tail Sine Sine Sine Sine Square Square Sine Square Square Sine

Frequency (Hz)
0.5 0.5 1 1 0.2 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.2 0.5

Amplitude (V)
1 0.5 2.5 2.5 1 1.5 1.5 1.5 1 2

Fig. 15 Yaw angle of the beam (mode 1)

Fig. 13 Pitch angle of the beam in response to sine input with a frequency of 0.02 Hz and an amplitude of 1 V Fig. 16 Pitch angle of the beam (mode 1)

Fig. 14 Pitch angle of the beam in response to square input with a frequency of 0.1 Hz and an amplitude of 1 V

Fig. 17 Yaw angle of the beam (mode 2)

inputs. Again, owing to the limitation of space, only some of the validation results are presented here. Table 3 lists the characteristics of inputs in ve modes. The response of the developed 2DOF Newton-based model is presented in Figs 15 to 24. It is noted that the model responses closely follow the real TRMS responses.
Proc. IMechE Vol. 221 Part I: J. Systems and Control Engineering

3.3 Lagrangian 2DOF model The responses of the developed 2DOF Lagrangebased model to the inputs presented in Table 3 are shown in Figs 25 to 34. Again, it can be perceived from the gures that the model responses closely match the real TRMS responses.
JSCE292 IMechE 2007

Downloaded from pii.sagepub.com at Indian Inst Of Tech Madras on March 27, 2013

Twin-rotor MIMO system

97

Table 4 Comparative study of the Lagrangian and Newtonian models

Lagrange
Mean square error of yaw Mean square error of pitch 0.0053 0.0104

Newton
0.0089 0.0116

Fig. 21 Yaw angle of the beam (mode 4)

Fig. 18 Pitch angle of the beam (mode 2)

Fig. 22 Pitch angle of the beam (mode 4)

Fig. 19 Yaw angle of the beam (mode 3)

Fig. 23 Yaw angle of the beam (mode 5)

3.4 Comparative study Table 4 lists a comparison study of the Lagrangian and Newtonian models. The responses of both Newtonian and Lagrangian models are extremely satisfactory and they follow the real TRMS response
Proc. IMechE Vol. 221 Part I: J. Systems and Control Engineering

Fig. 20 Pitch angle of the beam (mode 3)

JSCE292 IMechE 2007

Downloaded from pii.sagepub.com at Indian Inst Of Tech Madras on March 27, 2013

98

A Rahideh and M H Shaheed

Fig. 24 Pitch angle of the beam (mode 5)

Fig. 27 Yaw angle of the beam (mode 2)

Fig. 25 Yaw angle of the beam (mode 1)

Fig. 28 Pitch angle of the beam (mode 2)

Fig. 26 Pitch angle of the beam (mode 1)

Fig. 29 Yaw angle of the beam (mode 3)

very closely. However, the response of the Lagrangian model is slightly better than that of the Newtonian model. As presented in Table 4, the mean square error of the yaw angle in the case of the Lagrangian model is 0.0053, as against 0.0089 in the case of the
Proc. IMechE Vol. 221 Part I: J. Systems and Control Engineering

Newtonian model. Similar performance is achieved in terms of the pitch angle. In this case a mean square error of 0.0104 is obtained with the Lagrange model, as opposed to 0.0116 in the case of the Newtonian model.
JSCE292 IMechE 2007

Downloaded from pii.sagepub.com at Indian Inst Of Tech Madras on March 27, 2013

Twin-rotor MIMO system

99

Fig. 30 Pitch angle of the beam (mode 3)

Fig. 33 Yaw angle of the beam (mode 5)

Fig. 31 Yaw angle of the beam (mode 4) Fig. 34 Pitch angle of the beam (mode 5)

parts of the TRMS have been modelled separately and then integrated. The responses of the models are compared with that of the real plant. It is shown that the models obtained using both methods are very adequate in representing the system. However, the performance of the Lagrangian model is slightly better than that of the Newtonian model.

REFERENCES
Fig. 32 Pitch angle of the beam (mode 4) 1 Twin Rotor MIMO System 33-220 User Manual, 1998 (Feedback Instruments Limited, Crowborough, UK). 2 Ahmad, S. M., Shaheed, M. H., Chippereld, A. J., and Tokhi, M. O. Nonlinear modelling of a twin rotor MIMO system using radial basis function networks. IEEE National Aerospace and Electronics Conference, 2000, pp. 313320. 3 Ahmad, S. M., Chippereld, A. J., and Tokhi, M. O. Dynamic modelling and optimal control of a twin rotor MIMO system. IEEE National Aerospace and Electronics Conference, 2000, pp. 391398.
Proc. IMechE Vol. 221 Part I: J. Systems and Control Engineering

4 CONCLUSION In this investigation, dynamic modelling of an experimental system, the TRMS, using both Newton- and Lagrange-based methods has been developed. In developing a complete model of the system, various
JSCE292 IMechE 2007

Downloaded from pii.sagepub.com at Indian Inst Of Tech Madras on March 27, 2013

100

A Rahideh and M H Shaheed

4 Shaheed, M. H. Performance analysis of 4 types of conjugate gradient algorithm in the nonlinear dynamic modelling of a TRMS using feedforward neural networks. IEEE International Conference on Systems, man and cybernetics, 2004, pp. 59855990. 5 Mat Darus, I. Z., Aldebrez, F. M., and Tokhi, M. O. Parametric modelling of a twin rotor system using genetic algorithms. International Symposium on Control, communications and signal processing, 2004, pp. 115118. 6 Aldebrez, F. M., Mat Darus, I. Z., and Tokhi, M. O. Dynamic modelling of a twin rotor system in hovering position. International Symposium on Control, communications and signal processing, 2004, pp. 823826. 7 Rao, M., Biswas, S. K., Butz, B. P., and Miller, D. G. Dynamic modelling and feedback control of a sideby-side rotor tandem helicopter. Proceedings of the IEEE International Symposium on Intelligent control systems, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, September 1990, pp. 780785. 8 Wu, X., Ignatov, R., Muenst, G., Imaev, A., and Zhu, J. J. A nonlinear ight controller design for a UFO by trajectory linearization method. Part I: modelling. In Proceedings of the 34th Southeastern Symposium on System theory, 2002, pp. 97102. 9 Mistler, V., Benalleque, A., and Msirdi, N. K. Exact linearization and non-interacting control of a 4 rotors helicopter via dynamic feedback. 10th IEEE International Workshop on Robot and human interactive communication, September 2001, pp. 586593. 10 Mahony, R., Hamel, T., and Dzul, A. Hover control via Lyapunov control for an autonomous model helicopter. IEEE Conference on Decision and control, 1999, vol. 4, pp. 34903495. 11 Castillo, P., Dzul, A., and Lozano, R. Real-time stabilization and tracking of a four-rotor mini rotorcraft. IEEE Trans. Control Syst. Technol., 2004, 12(4), 510516. 12 Somov, Y. I. and Polyntsev, O. Y. Nonlinear dynamics and control of a wind-milling gyroplane rotor. International Conference on Physics and control, August 2003, vol. 1, pp. 151156. 13 Avila-Vilchis, J. C., Brogliato, B., Dzul, R., and Lozano, R. Nonlinear modelling and control of helicopters. Automatica, 2003, 39(9), 15831596. 14 Cerro, J. D., Valero, J., and Barrientos, A. Identification of a small unmanned helicopter model using genetic algorithms. IEEE International Conference on Intelligent robots and systems, August 2005, pp. 33603365. 15 Song-Yun, D., Ji-Hong, Z., and Chun-Hua, H. Mathematical modelling of a UAV during take-o with nose-wheel o the ground. World Automation Congress, June 2004, vol. 15, pp. 359364. 16 Jun, M., Roumeliotis, S. I., and Sukhatme, G. S. State estimation of an autonomous helicopter using Kalman ltering. IEEE International Conference on Intelligent robots and systems, October 1999, vol. 3, pp. 13461353.
Proc. IMechE Vol. 221 Part I: J. Systems and Control Engineering

17 Juang, J. G., Liu, W. K., and Tsai, C. Y. Intelligent control scheme for twin rotor MIMO system. IEEE International Conference on Mechatronics, 2005, pp. 102107. 18 Islam, B. U., Ahmed, N., Bhatti, D. L., and Khan, S. Controller design using fuzzy logic for a twin rotor MIMO system. IEEE International Multi Topic Conference, 2003, pp. 264268.

APPENDIX Notation B tr/mr viscous friction coecient of the tail/main d.c. motor (kg m2 /s) E electromotive force of the tail/main ah/v motor (V) F non-linear function of the h/v aerodynamic force from the tail/main rotor (N) g gravitational acceleration (m/s2 ) h length of the pivoted beam (m) i armature current of the tail/main ah/v motor (A) J moment of inertia in the tail/main tr/mr d.c. motor (kg m2 ) J moment of inertia about the v horizontal axis (kg m2 ) J moment of inertia of the freefree 1 beam (kg m2 ) J moment of inertia of the 2 counterbalance beam (kg m2 ) J moment of inertia of the pivoted 3 beam (kg m2 ) k Q torque constant (N m/A) a k ,k ,k ,k ,k ,k ,k,k ah/v fhp fhn fvp fvn th/v t m positive constants k gyroscopic constant g l length of the counterweight beam b (m) l distance between the counterweight cb and the joint (m) l length of the main part of the beam m (m) l length of the tail part of the beam t (m) l centre of gravity of the freefree beam T1 (m) l centre of gravity of the T2 counterbalance beam (m) L armature inductance of the tail/main ah/v motor (H) m mass (kg) m mass of the counterweight beam (kg) b
JSCE292 IMechE 2007

Downloaded from pii.sagepub.com at Indian Inst Of Tech Madras on March 27, 2013

Twin-rotor MIMO system

101

m cb m h m m m mr m ms m t m tr m ts m T m 1 T2 M (a ) cable h M eh/v M fric,h M fric,v

M gyro M Lh/v M prop,h M prop,v r ms r ts R ah/v S h

mass of the counterweight (kg) mass of the pivoted beam (kg) mass of the main part of the beam (kg) mass of the main d.c. motor (kg) mass of the main shield (kg) mass of the tail part of the beam (kg) mass of the tail d.c. motor (kg) mass of the tail shield (kg) total mass of the freefree beam (kg) total mass of the counterbalance beam (kg) torque of the at cable force (N m) electromagnetic torque of the tail/main motor (N m) torque of the friction force in the horizontal plane (N m) torque of the friction force in the vertical plane (N m) torque of gyroscopic force (N m) load torque of the tail/main motor (N m) propulsive torque due to tail propeller rotation (N m) propulsive torque due to main propeller rotation (N m) radius of the main shield (m) radius of the tail shield (m) armature resistance of the tail/main motor (V) angular momentum in the horizontal plane (rad/s)

T T T

T 3 U h/v V V 1 V V 2 3

angular momentum in the vertical plane (rad/s) kinetic energy (J) kinetic energy of the freefree beam (J) kinetic energy of the counterbalance beam (J) kinetic energy of the pivoted beam (J) horizontal/vertical voltage control input (V) potential energy (J) potential energy of the freefree beam (J) potential energy of the counterbalance beam (J) potential energy of the pivoted beam (J) horizontal position of the TRMS beam (rad) vertical position of the TRMS beam (rad) magnetic ux of the tail/main motor (Wb) rotational speed of the tail/main rotor (rad/s) acceleration of the tail/main rotor (rad/s2 ) angular velocity of the TRMS beam in the horizontal plane (rad/s) angular velocity of the TRMS beam in the vertical plane (rad/s)

a a

h v h/v

v h/v v h/v V V h v

JSCE292 IMechE 2007

Proc. IMechE Vol. 221 Part I: J. Systems and Control Engineering

Downloaded from pii.sagepub.com at Indian Inst Of Tech Madras on March 27, 2013