Mechatronics 23 (2013) 789797

Contents lists available at SciVerse ScienceDirect

Mechatronics
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/mechatronics

Auto-tuning of PID controller according to fractional-order reference

model approximation for DC rotor control
Baris Baykant Alagoz a,, Abdullah Ates b, Celaleddin Yeroglu b
a
b

Inonu University, Department of Electrical and Electronics Engineering, Malatya, Turkey

Inonu University, Department of Computer Engineering, Malatya, Turkey

a r t i c l e

i n f o

Article history:
Received 28 February 2013
Revised 3 May 2013
Accepted 6 May 2013
Available online 10 June 2013
Keywords:
Online auto-tuning
Flight control
PID rotor control
Optimization

a b s t r a c t
This paper presents a stochastic, multi-parameters, divergence optimization method for the auto-tuning
of proportionalintegralderivative (PID) controllers according to a fractional-order reference model. The
study aimed to approximate the step response of the real closed-loop ight control system to the
response of a theoretical reference model for a smoother and more precise ight control experience.
The proposed heuristic optimization method can auto-tune a PID controller without a precise plant
model. This is very advantageous when dealing with model and parameter uncertainties in real control
application and practice. Experimental study conrms the reference model driven auto-tuning of the DC
rotor prototype.
2013 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction
Today, there is increasing interest in electrically driven rotorcraft due to advances in high-speed DC motors and low-weight
battery technologies [1]. Electrically driven, multi-rotor, aerial
vehicle designs present several advantages compared to conventional aerial vehicles. They greatly reduce mechanical complexity
and the need for aerodynamic casings. They can maneuver by simply adjusting rotor speed, and thus, a well-designed multi-rotor
vehicle inherently provides more stable and reliable ight [2]. Mini
multi-rotor, unmanned aerial vehicles have great potential for new
applications, particularly in their use for indoor missions [3].
Flight control problems [410] involve serious complications,
due to the complex mechanisms of aircrafts, nonlinear and inaccessible aerodynamics, and frequent variability in ight conditions,
depending on altitude, payload, and weather conditions. Therefore,
online auto-tuning of controller parameters is needed to maintain
desired control responses under varying conditions of real ight.
Flight control of aerial vehicles demands smooth and precise
maneuvers because high acceleration and oscillations in motion
harm passengers and vehicle structure. High maximum overshoots
in the control of vertical and horizontal maneuvers may cause aerial vehicle crashes, especially when ight space is limited, such as
in landing or indoor ights of autonomous mini-aerial vehicles.
High overshoots in multi-rotor aerial vehicles also cause deteriora Corresponding author. Tel.: +90 55527134170.
E-mail address: baykant.alagoz@inonu.edu.tr (B.B. Alagoz).
0957-4158/$ - see front matter 2013 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.mechatronics.2013.05.001

tion in ight stability due to the structural and aerodynamic coupling between rotors, which delays rotors settling into the
desired positioning. Moreover, high overshoots and oscillations before settling result in the consumption of more electrical energy
and reduce the ight range of vehicles. Consequently, smooth
and overshoot-free step responses are more appropriate for reliable and efcient ight control; vehicle acceleration should be kept
low and overshoots should be suppressed as much as possible [10
13]. Automated ight control systems should ensure smoother and
more precise maneuvers than human pilots alone could provide,
and increase the efciency in energy consumption by providing
proper power injection to the rotors, and accordingly increase
ight ranges. This study aimed to provide online auto-tuning of
PID controllers for the smooth and precise step response of rotors
for ight control practice.
Due to the widespread use of classical PID controllers in industry, several methods have been proposed to achieve practical tuning of classical PID controllers. These analytical controller-tuning
methods depend mainly on plant transfer function modeling and
presumptions [14,15]. However, unpredictable environmental factors affecting the system outputs and presumptions in system
modeling techniques can make it impossible to obtain an exact
theoretical modeling of real physical systems. Robustness margin
for attitude control of mini-rotorcraft known as X4-yer was presented for multivariable PD controller in order to stabilize the attitude of the aerial vehicle [10]. However, online auto-tuning of
controller coefcients is necessary to deal with the negative impacts of temporal changes and model uncertainties on controller

790

B.B. Alagoz et al. / Mechatronics 23 (2013) 789797

performance. Heuristic tuning methods are advantageous for online auto-tuning of real control systems because they can progressively improve their responses using previous control experiences.
Today, PID tuning is still a promising research area because it is
widely used in industrial applications. Several methods for selftuning controllers were developed in the literature. Methods for
PID tuning, based on genetic algorithms and differential evolution,
have been presented [1618]. A holistic, multi-objective optimization method, using a multi-objective evolutionary algorithm, has
also been proposed for controller tuning [19]. A self-tuning controller, based on control performance evolution, was developed
to improve both transient-state and steady-state control performance [20]. A mixture of conventional PID controller and the neural network was developed for capability of learning, adaptation
and tackling nonlinearity problems [21]. Radial Basis Function neural networks were used to design an adaptive PID controller [22].
Particle swarm optimization (PSO) algorithm was used for design
method for the self-tuning PID control in a slidercrank mechanism system [23]. A grey prediction model combined with a fuzzy
PID controller was used to change the grey step size in order to improve the force control quality for hydraulic load [24]. Nicol et al.
proposed a direct approximate-adaptive control, using CMAC nonlinear approximators, for quadrotor helicopter [9]. Barbosa et al.
presented a theoretical study for PID tuning according to Bodes
ideal control loop (BICL) reference model and discussed advantages
of the BICL model in control problems [25]. They reported that BICL
systems are robust for gain variations. BICL systems dene a fractional order system with iso-damping property [25,26]. Yeroglu
et al. investigated the dependence of BICL step responses on crossover frequency and fractional-order parameters [27].
This paper presents a reference model based optimization approach for the online auto-tuning of PIDs using the Stochastic Multi-Parameters Divergence Optimization (SMDO) method. SMDO
denes an optimization parameter space where the controller
parameters are represented by an optimization parameter vector.
The SMDO method stochastically redirects the optimization
parameter vector to a new parameter vector according to a predened objective function. The reference system is called the master
system, which yields the desired responses for the controller tuning. The slave system is the closed-loop PID control system. The
SMDO optimizer tunes the PID controller so that the response of
the slave system approximates the response of the master system.
The main advantage of masterslave system optimization is that
the master system can be a well-known and easily adjustable theoretical system for a desired system response, while the slave system is a real closed-loop PID control system with model
uncertainty and parameter uctuation. Thus, one can approximate
the responses of the real control system to a desired response of
the theoretical reference model. This study has two main contributions: It presents SMDO optimization method and employs this
method in a reference model based auto-tuning of PID controller
for the smooth control of TRMS rotors. Experimental results revealed that a low accelerated, precise and energy-efcient step response of rotors is possible by a conventional PID controller.
Bodes ideal control loop (BICL) [25,26] is used as a fractionalorder reference model in the proposed masterslave optimization
method so that desired step responses of the well-known BICL,
such as maximum overshoot, peak time, rise time, and settling
time, can be easily obtained [25,27].
The ight control performance of the adaptive PID controller
using the masterslave system optimization method was demonstrated in the experimental work conducted on a Twin-Rotor
MIMO (Multi-Input/Multi-Output) System (TRMS). The TRMS setup provides a nonlinear and complex helicopter ight control test
platform to simulate several ight modes such as hovering and
taking off in laboratory conditions [28]. Responses of the TRMS

rotor were adjusted to mimic the responses of the fractional order

BICL. The results can enhance low acceleration, overshoot-free
ight control of multi-rotor unmanned aerial vehicles [1,7,13,29].
2. Denitions and system descriptions
2.1. General system descriptions
Fig. 1 illustrates the basic block diagram of the proposed masterslave SMDO PID-tuning method. The BICL reference system is
the master system and the slave system is composed of G(s) and
C(s) blocks establishing a closed-loop control system. Here, the
plant transfer function and the PID controller transfer function
are represented by G(s) and C(s), respectively. The optimizer block
adjusts the PID controller gain coefcients to enhance the control
response according to the BICL reference.
Auto-tuning of controller denes a multi-parameter optimization problem on the basis of a performance evaluation function,
which aims to converge towards the minima or maxima of an
objective function. The main complications in auto-tuning of controller parameters for practical applications come from model and
parameter uncertainties and dynamically uctuating system
parameters. The masterslave system optimization approach uses
a reference model so that the real control system, with model
uncertainty and parameter uctuations, can approximate a well
known theoretical model. Thus, the control performance of the real
system can be governed by a reference system.
2.2. Bodes ideal control loop
H.W. Bode (1945) introduced new analysis tools for the specication and design of feedback systems in his well-known book
[26]. Bodes ideal control loop (BICL) is summarized from the reference [25] as follows: Bode has suggested an ideal shape of the
open-loop transfer function in the form of,

Ls

x c
c

c 2 R;

where xc is the gain crossover frequency, that is |L(xc)| = 1. The c is

the slope of the magnitude curve on loglog scale for all frequencies
and it may be integer or non-integer values. The transfer function
L(s) can be considered as a fractional order differentiator for c < 0
and a fractional order integrator for c > 0. The closed-loop transfer
function of the BICL system was given by

Fig. 1. Basic block diagram of reference system guided PID controller tuning system
[25].

B.B. Alagoz et al. / Mechatronics 23 (2013) 789797

Ts

Ls
1
;
 c
1 Ls
s
1

1 < c < 2:

xc

791

mation from the initial X0 parameter vector to the optimal vector

Xopt, which can accommodate to the minima of the error function
in a predened search range (Xs e X) of parameter space and this
can be expressed as,

At high frequencies, asymptotes of magnitude and phase were given

by straight lines of 20c dB/dec and c p2 rad for BICL [25]. The value of c is selected between 1 < c < 2 to obtain a favorable fractional-order reference model. Thus, the L(s) gives a closed-loop
system with the desirable property of being insensitive to gain
changes in a limited frequency interval around the gain crossover
frequency xc. Optimization based on BICL reference models yields
the less oscillatory system for both setpoint and disturbance inputs
[25]. Moreover, the desired time response specications of the reference system, such as maximum overshoot, peak time, rise time,
and settling time, can be adjusted by using the parameters c and
xc [25,27]. The parameter c increases the overshoot and xc decreases settling time of step response of BICL. The factional-order
BICL is used as a reference model in the masterslave SMDO controller-tuning algorithm and thus the real PID systems control performance can be approximated to the performance of the fractionalorder closed-loop system.

The SMDO method is based on consecutive, stochastic, bidirectional, componential set and trial (ST) operations. It searches for a
convenient divergence vector satisfying the condition given by Eq.
(3). Therefore, a component of X vector is tested initially for a random forward step. If it does not result in a convenient divergence
(DEn1;n P 0), then the component is tested for a random backward
step. If the backward step test also fails to yield a convenient divergence of Xn, the component keeps its original value.
In SMDO, the number of consecutively tested divergence vectors for a full search of all components is 2k for a k-parameter system. During the controller tuning process, controller parameters
are subsequently tested, and only the convenient divergences are
allowed to modify Xn vectors in the controller parameter space.
Let a divergence vector for a PID controller be written as

2.3. Stochastic Multi-Parameters Divergence Optimization method

DX n /nv b:

EX opt min
fEX n g:
n
X 2X s

Let us denote controller coefcients at time instance t = nh by

the vector Xn in a parameter space X. Here, parameter h represents
the sampling period of discrete state sampling, and n = {1, 2, 3, . . .}
is the discrete time increment. In order to tune the controller
parameters, Xn controller parameter vector has to be persistently
changed to a Xm vector in time that satises the following adaptation condition:

EX m  EX n < 0;

where E(.) is a positive, real-valued error function that is used to

evaluate the performance of controllers in the parameter optimization. Let p = m  n > 0 refer to the tuning period of the controller,
where n and m represent the current and a future sampling, respectively. During the tuning period, the controller transforms to a
adapted (tuned) controller minimizing error function. The adaptation degree of the controller namely the adaptation rate can
be evaluated by the rate of DEm,n/p. The DEm,n indicates the convenience of a parameter vector divergence in terms of the error function, which can be dened as DEm,n = E(Xm)  E(Xn). Let DXm,n
denote the degree of deviation in X vector from sampling n to sampling m.
The remainder of this section contains some basic denitions
and relevant remarks about this process.
Denition 1. If a deviation DXm,n satises Eq. (3), the divergence
will be considered a convenient divergence in the parameter space
at time instance nh. Otherwise, DXm,n is not a convenient divergence in the parameter space of the controller.
Lemma 1. Given any positive real valued error function E(X):R ? R+,
a vector divergence DXm,n in the parameter space of a controller leads
to a deviation in the descent of E(Xn), only if it satises Eq. (3) for any
discrete sampling n and m, where m > n > 0. (Proof of the lemma 1 can
be found in the appendix.)
The condition given by Lemma 1 assures the evolution of Xn
vectors in the parameter space towards the descent of the error
function. This persistent evolution of Xn vectors along the descent
of the error function potentially can continue to minima of the error function. The Stochastic Multi-Parameters Divergence Optimization (SMDO) method uses stochastic parameter divergences in
the parameter space X for the persistent minimization of the error
function. The aim of the controller adaptation process is a transfor-

Fig. 2. An algorithm designed for auto-tuning of controllers by SMDO method.

792

B.B. Alagoz et al. / Mechatronics 23 (2013) 789797

A forward divergence of components can be written as

n1

X /v b:

E
6

A forward test for a convenient divergence in the parameter space

of the controller can be arithmetically expressed as follows:

EX n /nv b  EX n < 0;

where /v is the divergence rate vector.

In a similar manner, a backward divergence of components can
be expressed as

X n1 X n  /nv b:

A backward test for a convenient divergence in the parameter space

of the controller can be arithmetically expressed as follows:

EX n  /nv b  EX n < 0:

In the controller tuning with SMDO, /v vector subsequently takes k

different
values
from
the
set
{[g 0 0 . . . 0]T,
T
T
0 g 0 . . . 0 ; . . . ; 0 0 0 . . . g } for v = {1, 2, 3, . . . , k}. The value of g
in each step is obtained from a random number generator with a
uniform distribution in the range of [0, 1]. For example, /1 denotes
the vector g 0 0 . . . 0T , which is used in the divergence of the rst
component. Sub-index v indicates the component of X vector that
is tested in a bidirectional componential ST operation.
The vector of b Dpn1 Dpn2 . . . ; Dpnk  species the divergence
length of the parameter, which directly affects the adaptation rate.
Fig. 2 presents an algorithm for employing the SMDO method in
controller tuning problems. The SMDO method performs online
auto-tuning unless the error function is lower than a predened error limit. This means the algorithm has two operational states: the
tuning mode and the tuned mode. In the tuned mode, the closedloop real system approximates the reference system and optimization is stopped.
The following short-time average error function with a backward time window length of L (Batch error) is used for SMDO:

1
L

Om t  Os t2 dt:

10

tL

Eq. (10) is a real valued error function dened to reduce dissimilarity between step responses of the reference model and the closedloop PID control system. This error function calculates squared difference of master and slave system outputs, Om and Os.
The SMDO algorithm tests all components, one by one, for the
both forward and backward directions. By calculating Eq. (10),
the method observes the impacts of random divergence on the error function for each component in both directions. Then, it decides
upon the best divergence, resulting in decrease of the error function, and continues searching, by using the best parameter vector.
The SMDO method presents the advantage of being independent from plant transfer functions modeling; however, it requires
a trial period (L  h) in ST operations long enough to assess reliably
the effects of vector divergences on the error function. Use of
unnecessarily long trial periods has the side effect of slowing down
the tuning speed of the controller. A satisfactory tuning performance is possible when the trial period is slightly larger than the
periodicity of the reference signal (r(t)), in which case, the result
of the error function dened by Eq. (10) becomes consistent in each
trial.
2.4. A real-time instability prevention mechanism during online autotuning
Online auto-tuning of controllers, without pre-knowledge of
plant models, bears the risk of system instability during the optimization of the controller parameters. In practice, it may be difcult to specify parameter ranges, where the system stays stable.
Therefore, it is very important to develop a real-time instability
detection mechanism to avoid control system instability during
online auto-tuning by using the SMDO method. This study used a
simple error-threshold mechanism, based on the Lyapunov stability criterion. Hurwitz stability suggests that as poles of a system

Fig. 3. Matlab Simulink TRMS simulation model.

793

B.B. Alagoz et al. / Mechatronics 23 (2013) 789797

(a) 0.8

(a) 150
iteration number

Initial PID response

0.6

0.4

BICL response

100

50

Tuned PID response

0.2

10

15

20

auto-tuning seasons
0

10

20

30

-4

40

(b) 4

second

Emin

0.01

Tuning State

Tuned State

(b)

x 10

0.008
1
0.006

0
0.004

(c)
Kp

10

15

20

Fig. 5. Auto-tuning was repeated 20 times. (a) ST iteration numbers to reach tuned
state in each auto-tuning session. (b) Average errors in each auto-tuning session.

50

100

150

200

iteration
10

auto-tuning seasons

0.002
0

(a)
Tuned State

Ki

0
10

50

100

150

200

Tuned State

Kd

0
0
20

50

100

15
10

150

(b)

200

Tuned State
0

50

100

150

200

iteration
Fig. 4. (a) Step responses of initial PID controller (X0 = [5 10 8]), tuned PID controller
(X93 = [7.37 17.43 1.07]), and reference model BICL (c = 1.04, xc = 0.4). (b) Convergence of average error at 93th ST iteration. (c) Alteration of PID coefcients during
simulation.

approach the complex axis or right half plane, system output severely diverges from the reference signal r(t). This causes a sharp
rises in the error function. By using a predened error threshold
(ds), pole approximation to the complex axis was detected in
real-time by monitoring the condition of E(Xn) > ds according to
the Lyapunov stability criterion. When E(Xn) > ds occurred, the
SMDO method turned back to the best parameters from parameter
history, which provided a minimum error value during the optimization, as expressed below:

(
Xn

min fX u g EX n > ds

0<u<n

Xn

EX n 6 ds

)
:

11

The ds restrict the optimization to a predened error function limit,

and it should be congured according to the error tolerances of realtime applications. This mechanism can effectively prevent unstable
control system responses during online auto-tuning, unless exceedingly large divergence lengths are used.

(c)

Fig. 6. (a) Picture of the TRMS experimental setup. (b) Main parts of the TRMS.
(Label 1 indicates the bottom positioning and Label 2 indicates the top positioning
of the pendulum counterweight.) (c) Block diagram of the TRMS control setup using
masterslave SMDO.

2.5. Simulation results of master slave-system SMDO of TRMS model

This section presents PID tuning simulation by masterslave
system SMDO method. The Matlab Simulink simulation in Fig. 3
used a TRMS plant model provided by Feedback Instruments Ltd.

794

B.B. Alagoz et al. / Mechatronics 23 (2013) 789797

tion model, and then the ne tuning of online PID was performed
on the TRMS experiment to obtain online ne tuned PID coefcients. As the masterslave system SMDO tunes PID coefcients,
the step responses of the real closed loop PID-controlled TRMS converged with the step responses of the BICL. Fig. 7a shows the step
responses of the main rotor after PID controller tuning with the reference system. In order to alter the TRMS systems operating conditions, the location of the pendulum counterweight was altered
from bottom to top positions, which considerably changed the vertical angular momentum of the main rotor during takeoff and hovering. Fig. 7b reveals the discrimination between the TRMS step
responses and the responses of the theoretical BICL reference model for changing the position of the pendulum counterweight. After
retuning of PID controller for new positioning of pendulum counterweight, step response of TRMS approximated again to the response of BICL as shown in Fig. 7c.
Unmanned multi-rotor aerial vehicles are largely driven by
step-wise control signals [24] because (i) processing delays occur
in communication and operators decisions for remote controlled
systems or (ii) computational delays occur in machine vision and
autonomous ight path decision algorithms for autonomous robotic systems [3033]. Fig. 8 shows the responses of the TRMS
main rotor to vertical angle control commands. Fig. 8a shows the

(a) 0.8
0.6

The parameter vector for optimization of PID control was dened

as X n K np K nd K ni .
Fig. 4 demonstrates the approximation of the step responses of
the closed loop PID controlled TRMS model (slave system) to the
step responses of the reference model BICL (master system), characterized by model parameters c and xc. The parameter c affects
the overshoots, while xc affects settling times [27]. Fig. 4a compares step responses of master and slave before optimization (Initial PID) and after optimization (Tuned PID). Fig. 4b shows
convergence of the error function, reaching the tuned state of the
SMDO algorithm. Spikes in average error function show errors of
inconvenient vector divergences. Fig. 4c shows PID coefcient
alternation during the simulation.
Due to the random nature of the SMDO algorithm, it is important to discuss the optimization statistics of the method. The
authors performed 20 auto-tuning sessions. All auto-tuning sessions ended with tuned states; this implies a high probability of
convergence with the reference model. Fig. 5 shows ST iteration
numbers to reach the tuned state and the average errors. The
SMDO algorithm reached the tuned state in approximately 74 ST
iterations, on average, for an error threshold (Emin) of Emin = 3  104. Main advantage of this method is that SMDO may nd better solutions in a new optimization season for the same initial
setting and conditions, and thus avoids the optimization process
blocked at the same solution point. Besides, it does not need an
accurate arithmetical modeling of plants to accomplish optimization because of using set and trial method in the optimization process. However, it presented a disadvantage of 74 ST iterations in
average to reach tuned state for TRMS system.

0.4
BICL
SMDO
r(t)

3. Experimental study
0.2

3.1. Experimental setup

3.2. Experimental results

10

15

20

second

(b) 0.8
Undesired
Overshoot

0.6

0.4
BICL
SMDO
r(t)

0.2

10

15

20

second

(c) 0.8
0.6

Fig. 6a depicts the TRMS experimental setup installed in the

control laboratory. Fig. 6b introduces the main parts of the TRMS
ight simulator. The TRMS is composed of two propellers, perpendicular to each other. The propellers are joined by a shaft pivoted
on its base, and this shaft rotates freely on both the horizontal
and vertical planes. The motion of the shaft is controlled by input
voltages that adjust the rotational speed of the propellers driven by
DC electric motors. The main rotor controls the vertical angle of the
shaft, and the tail rotor controls its horizontal angle. The TRMS setup mimics the ight controls of a helicopter in a laboratory setting.
Controlling a TRMS rotor involves some difculties, because of its
nonlinear motion mechanisms and is aerodynamic features [28].
A pendulum counterweight is attached to the propeller shaft.
This counterweight adjusts the angular momentum of the main rotor motion on the vertical plane, and it is used to change the operating conditions of the TRMS. Fig. 6c shows a block diagram of the
experimental system developed for PID tuning using the reference
system.
The objective of the experiments was to adapt the TRMS responses accurately to the desired smooth ight responses of the
BICL reference model. Acceleration and maximum overshoot of
the TRMS step responses were adjusted according to the fractional-order reference model.

0.4
BICL
SMDO
r(t)

0.2

10

15

20

second
This section presents experimental results demonstrating the
online auto-tuning of a PID controlled TRMS. In experiments, a reference signal in the form of a step function with amplitude of 0.5
was used to control the main rotor angle. Optimization initialized
with the PID coefcients, which were tuned off-line by the simula-

Fig. 7. (a) Main rotor step responses after online tuning with the pendulum
counterweight at low position (Label 1 in (b)). (b) Main rotor step responses after
pendulum counterweight changed to high position (Label 2 in (b)) for plant
perturbation. (c) Main rotor step responses after online tuning with the pendulum
counterweight at high position.

795

B.B. Alagoz et al. / Mechatronics 23 (2013) 789797

(a) 0.6

(b)
0.5
0.4

0.2

0.4

BICL
FD
r(t)

0.3
BICL
SMDO
r(t)

0.2
0.1
0

-0.2
0

20

60

40

80

100

20

40

60

80

100

second

second

(c)

0.5

(d)

0.4

0.4

0.3

0.3

0.5

0.2

BICL
SMDO
r(t)

0.1

0.2

BICL
SMDO
r(t)

0.1
0

-0.1
20

40

60

80

100

20

40

second

60

80

100

second

Fig. 8. (a) The responses of PID controller provided by Feedback Instruments Ltd. (FD) for step-wise control commands. (b) The responses of PID controller for step-wise
control commands after online ne auto-tuning of PID controller. (c) The responses of PID controller for step-wise control commands after perturbing the TRMS by changing
the position of the pendulum counterweight. (d) The responses of PID controller for step-wise control commands after online ne auto-tuning again.

0.8

0.6

0.4

SMDO
BICL
r(t)

0.2

10

15

20

25

30

second
Fig. 9. (a) Tail rotor step responses after online tuning with the pendulum
counterweight at the low position (Label 1 in Fig. 7b).

Table 1
Average errors and average accelerations.
PID tests

Position of
counter
weight

After online ne tuning (Fig. 7a) Bottom

Before online re-tuning (Fig. 7b) Top
After online ne tuning (Fig. 7c) Top

Average
squared
error

Average
acceleration

3.04  104 0.1402

14.00  104 0.1917
3.43  104 0.1509

responses of PID coefcients provided by Feedback Instruments

Ltd. [34]. Peak overshoots in main rotor positioning may cause aerial vehicle crashes, particularly in landing or maneuvering in a conned space, such as indoor ights. The action of swinging, prior to
the settling of the rotor angle, can cause temporary ight stability
deterioration in multi-rotor aerial vehicles due to the structural
coupling between rotors. Fig. 8b demonstrates low overshoot and

more precise control of the main rotor after ne auto-tuning of

the PID controller according to the reference model. When the
TRMS was perturbed by the pendulum counterweight rising to
the top position, the PID controller exhibited more overshoot, as
illustrated in Fig. 8c, and therefore, settling to the prescribed vertical angle was less precise. However, online PID controller retuning
reduced overshoots and provided more accurate positioning of the
main rotor, as illustrated in Fig. 8d. Fig. 9 shows smooth response
of tail rotor (yaw) after ne tuning according to the same BICL
model. Concurrent PID tuning for all rotors may reduce negative effects of coupling between rotors on the control performance. The
results clearly show the approximation of a nonlinear real PID control system to a theoretical reference system. This is benecial for
real PID control applications.
Controller transfer functions, used for the default PID controller
(CFD(s)) given by Feedback Instruments Ltd., for the PID controller
auto-tuned for the counter weight at the bottom position (CPL-SMDO(s)), and for the PID controller auto-tuned for the counter
weight at the top (CPH-SMDO(s)), are given by Eqs. (12)(14),
respectively.

C FD s 5

8
10s;
s

12

C PL-SMDO s 7:49

1:07
17:35s;
s

13

C PH-SMDO s 8:14

0:96
18:50s:
s

14

Table 1 lists the average squared errors (|E|) and average accelerations (|A|) calculated by using the following discrete
approximations:

jEj

1
L

tL

Om  Os 2 dt

nL
1X
Onm  Ons 2 ;
L n

15

796

B.B. Alagoz et al. / Mechatronics 23 (2013) 789797


Z 
1 t @ 2 Om 
jAj
dt

L tL  @t2 

n
n
nL  n

1X
Om n 1 Om n 1  2Om n:



2
L n
h

For any discrete time sampling of n and m for m > n > 0, a Dt time
interval can always be found such that Dt < mh  nh. In this case,
one can easily write the following inequality,

16

The parameters Om and Os represent output of the slave system and

output of the master system, respectively. The sampling period with
h = 103 s and the time window length with L = 2  104 samples
were used in the experiments. During the experiments, online ne
tuning by SMDO considerably decreased magnitudes of average error and acceleration. Consequently, smooth PID control by Eq. (13)
can provide from 5% to 15% less energy consumption than PID control by Eq. (12).
4. Conclusions
The paper presents an implementation for online auto-tuning of
a PID controller according to a theoretical reference system. The
paper suggests the SMDO method as a heuristic optimization
method for tuning PID coefcients so that step responses of a real
closed-loop PID control system can approximate the step responses of a fractional-order reference model, namely BICL transfer
function. The performance of the proposed method was demonstrated on TRMS rotor control experiments. Some remarks are:
The method allows for online auto-tuning of real control systems without the need for accurate plant modeling. This offers
considerable benets for control practices, especially under
varying control conditions.
The study clearly demonstrates that responses of a nonlinear
real control system can approximate the responses of a fractional-order reference model by using a conventional PID structure supported by a heuristic optimization method.
TRMS control performance and ight control stability can be
enhanced by adjusting BICL responses.
Low acceleration and low overshoot control of a TRMS rotor was
achieved by using conventional PID controller structure. The
PID controller was auto-tuned for the smooth and precise positioning of electrical rotors. This is very useful for performing
step-wise control commands by multi-rotor aerial vehicles.
Low acceleration and low overshoot in control reduce the
power consumption of rotors while positioning, which in turn,
contributes to the ying ranges of electrical multi-rotor aerial
vehicles.
These ndings hold promise for enhancing rotor control in multi-rotor, unmanned aerial vehicles by using conventional PID
structures.
Acknowledgment
We are thankful to Inonu University and the Department of
Computer Engineerings Flight Control Laboratory.
Appendix Appendix

Proof of Lemma 1. A parameter deviation resulting in a descent of

the positive real value E(Xn) in time can be expressed as @E
@t < 0.
Considering the basic limit denition of the derivatives, one can
reorganize it as,

lim

Dt!0

DE
< 0:
Dt

17

DE
DE
< lim
< 0:
m  nh Dt!0 Dt

18

Then, for a state sampling at n and m for m > n > 0, DE = E(Xm)  E(Xn) is considered, the condition of E(Xm)  E(Xn) < 0 is valid. h
References
[1] Yang JH, Hsu WC. Adaptive backstepping control for electrically driven
unmanned helicopter. Control Eng Practice 2009;17:90313.
[2] Pounds P, Mahony R, Corke P. Modeling and control of a large quadrotor robot.
Control Eng Practice 2010;18:6919.
[3] Oung R, DAndrea R. Distrib Flight Array Mechatron 2011;21:90817.
[4] Song D, Han J, Liu G. Active model-based predictive control and experimental
investigation on unmanned helicopters in full ight envelope. IEEE Trans
Control Syst Technol 2012;1:17.
[5] Zhao X, Han J. Yaw control of helicopter: an adaptive guaranteed cost control
approach. Int J Innovative Comput, Inform Control 2009;5:226776.
[6] Yamamoto T, Mori S, Sakaguchi A. Data-driven Skill-Based PID Control of A
Pilot-Scale Helicopter Model. Int J Innovative Comput, Inform Control
2008;4:334858.
[7] Salazar-Cruz S, Lozano R, Escareno J. Stabilization and nonlinear control for a
novel trirotor mini-aircraft. Control Eng Practice 2009;17:88694.
[8] Ross M, Karpenko M. A review of pseudospectral optimal control: from theory
to ight. Ann Rev Control 2012;36:18297.
[9] Nicol C, Macnab CJB, Ramirez-Serrano A. Robust adaptive control of a
quadrotor helicopter. Mechatronics 2011;21:92738.
[10] Lara D, Romero G, Sanchez A, Lozano R, Guerrero A. Robustness margin for
attitude control of a four rotor mini-rotorcraft: case of study. Mechatronics
2010;20:14352.
[11] Vasconcelos JF, Silvestre C, Oliveira P, Guerreiro B. Embedded UAV model and
LASER aiding techniques for inertial navigation systems. Control Eng Practice
2010;18:26278.
[12] Shouzhaon S, AhmadMian A, Chao Bin ZJ. Autonomous take off and landing
control for a prototype unmanned helicopter. Control Eng Practice
2010;18:10539.
[13] Lee J, Yoo C, Park YS, Park B, Lee SJ, Gweon DG, et al. An experimental study on
time delay control of actuation system of tilt rotor unmanned aerial vehicle.
Mechatronics 2012;22:18494.
[14] Ang KH, Chong G, Li Y. PID control system analysis design and technology. IEEE
Trans Control Syst Technol 2005;13:55976.
[15] Meza GR, Nieto SG, Sanchis J, Blasco FX. Controller tuning by means of multiobjective optimization algorithms: a global tuning framework. IEEE Trans
Control Syst Technol 2012;21:44558.
[16] Saad MS, Jamaluddin M, Darus IZM. Implementation of PID controller tuning
using differential evolution and genetic algorithms. Int J Innovative Comput,
Inform Control 2012;9:776179.
[17] Vallejoa AJ, Morales-Menendezb R. Cost-effective supervisory control system
in peripheral milling using HSM. Annual Reviews in Control 2010;34:15562.
[18] Habera R, Schmitza U, Barsb R. Optimal choice of horizons for predictive
control by using genetic algorithm. Annual Reviews in Control 2004;28:538.
[19] Rani MR, Selamat H, Zamzuri H, Ibrahim Z. Multi-objective optimization for
PID controller tunning using the global ranking genetic algorithm. Int J
Innovative Comput, Inform Control 2012;8:26984.
[20] Tokuda M, Zamamoto T. Self-tuning PID controller based on control
performance evalutions. Int J Innovative Comput, Inform Control
2010;6:375162.
[21] Thanh TU DC, Ahn KK. Nonlinear PID control to improve the control
performance of 2 axes pneumatic articial muscle manipulator using neural
network. Mechatronics 2006;16:57787.
[22] Mizumoto I, Ikeda D, Hirahata T, Iwai Z. Design of discrete time adaptive PID
control systems with parallel feed forward compensator. Control Eng Practice
2010;18:16876.
[23] Kao CC, Chuang CW, Fung RF. The self-tuning PID control in a slidercrank
mechanism system by applying particle swarm optimization approach.
Mechatronics 2006;16:51322.
[24] Truong DQ, Ahn KK. Force control for hydraulic load simulator using selftuning grey predictor fuzzy PID. Mechatronics 2009;19:23346.
[25] Barbosa RS, Machado JAT, Ferreira IM. Tuning of PID controller based on Bodes
ideal transfer function. Nonlinear Dynam 2004;38:30521.
[26] Bode HW. Network analysis and feedback amplier design. New York: Van
Nostrand; 1945.
[27] Yeroglu C, Tan N. Classical controller design techniques for fractional order
case. ISA Trans 2011;50:46172.
[28] Rahideh A, Shaheed MH. Constrained output feedback model predictive
control for nonlinear systems. Control Eng Practice 2012;20:43143.
[29] Vachtsevanos G, Tang L, Drozeski G, Luis G. From mission planning to ight
control of unmanned aerial vehicles: strategies and implementation tools. Ann
Rev Control 2005;29:10115.

B.B. Alagoz et al. / Mechatronics 23 (2013) 789797

[30] Nalpantidis L, Kostavelis I, Gasteratos A. Stereovision-based algorithm for
obstacle avoidance. Proceeding ICIRA 09 proceedings of the 2nd international
conference on intelligent robotics and applications; 2009. p. 195204.
[31] Jeon D, Cho K, Kim DH. Vision-based autonomous landing for small-scale
unmanned
rotorcraft.
Object/component/service-oriented
real-time
distributed computing workshops (ISORCW) 2011. 14th IEEE International
Symposium on; 2011. p. 27480.

797

[32] Rufer F, Franceschini N. Optic ow regulation: the key to aircraft automatic

guidance. Robot Autonomous Syst 2005;50:17794.
[33] Yu H, Beard R, Byrne RJ. Vision-based navigation frame mapping and planning
for collision avoidance for miniature air vehicles. Control Eng Practice
2010;18:82436.
[34] Feedback Instruments Twin Rotor MIMO System Control Experiments 33
949S [For use with MATLAB R2006bversion 7.3, 2006].