www.ietdl.

org
Published in IET Control Theory and Applications
Received on 4th September 2007
Revised on 23rd April 2008
doi: 10.1049/iet-cta:20070335

ISSN 1751-8644

Decoupling control of a twin rotor

MIMO system using robust deadbeat
control technique
P. Wen T.-W. Lu
Faculty of Engineering and Surveying, University of Southern Queensland, Toowoomba 4350, QLD, Australia
E-mail: pengwen@usq.edu.au

Abstract: The decoupling control of a twin rotor multi-input multi-output (MIMO) system is studied and
proposed to apply robust deadbeat control technique to this nonlinear system. First, the nonlinear problem is
identied and system model is developed. Then, it is shown that the system is able to be decoupled into two
single-input single-output (SISO) systems, and the cross couplings can be considered as disturbances to each
other. Finally, a robust deadbeat control scheme is applied to the two SISO systems and a controller is
designed for each of them. This design is evaluated in simulations, and the nal result is tested in a twin
rotor MIMO system. Comparing with a traditional system with two proportional, integral and derivative (PID)
controllers, this method is easy to follow, and the results show that the proposed scheme has less overshoot,
shorter settling time and is more robust to cross-coupling disturbances.

Introduction

Helicopters are typically described in the literature as having

unstable, nonlinear, time varying and coupled dynamics.
Many suites of PID control modules have been employed
to produce agile, low observable and multi-functional
helicopters capable of performing complicated missions
[1 7]. One of the problems with such simple PID
approaches is that the tuning of gains is noted to be
tedious. In recent years, more advanced control approaches
such as gain scheduling [3] and linearisation feedback [4,
5] have been applied with considerable success. However,
these techniques require a dynamic model for their design.
The development of such dynamic models for small size
helicopters has commanded considerable research focus
over recent years [6, 7].
A considerable effort has been made to devise
methodologies to identify and control systems with
nonlinearity and uncertain dynamics. For instance, Blythe
and Chamitoff [8] have used neural networks to estimate
the aerodynamic coefcients of unmanned air vehicles.
Chon and Cohen [9] have addressed parametric system
IET Control Theory Appl., 2008, Vol. 2, No. 11, pp. 999 1007
doi: 10.1049/iet-cta:20070335

identication of linear and nonlinear dynamic systems by

the analysis of input and output signals [9]. Kim and
Calise [10] have employed neural networks to perform dual
roles of identifying the input output model parameters
(ofine learning) using the mathematical model of an
aircraft and an adaptive network that compensates for
imperfect inversion and in-ight changes in the actual
aircraft dynamics. Talebi et al. [11] have carried out an
investigation into the dynamic modelling of a exible-link
manipulator using neural networks. An innovative timedomain nonlinear mapping-based identication method has
been addressed by Lyshevski [12] for the identication of
unsteady ight dynamics. Bruce and Kellet [13] have
investigated B-splines in modelling and identication of
nonlinear aerodynamic functions of aircraft. In all these
cases, the model structure is known. Shaheed and Tokhi
[14] proposed an approach which yields input output
models with neither a priori dened model order nor
specic parameter settings reecting any physical aspects.
The approach is, thus, useful in modelling a class of air
vehicles whose dynamics are not well understood. A similar
approach has previously been addressed by Ahmad et al.
[15]. They used radial base function feed forward neural
999

& The Institution of Engineering and Technology 2008

www.ietdl.org
networks with well-known orthogonal least square algorithm
to model a twin rotor multi-input multi-output (MIMO)
system (TRMS).
This study addresses the decoupling and robust deadbeat
control of a TRMS based on the available models and
techniques. First, the system model is identied. It is
shown, that the identied system is able to be decoupled
into two single-input single-output (SISO) systems, and
the crossing couplings can be considered as disturbances to
each of the SISO systems. Then, a PID-based robust
deadbeat control scheme is applied to the SISO systems,
and a deadbeat controller is designed for each of them.
These robust deadbeat controllers can tolerate system
parameter changes for up to 50% [16]. This feature is used
to surpass the cross-coupling effects between the main and
tail rotors. This design is investigated in simulations using
Simulink, and compared with a system with two
independent PID controllers. The results show that the
proposed scheme has less overshoot, shorter settling time
and is more robust to cross-coupling disturbances. The
nal result is tested in a TRMS in the lab.
The paper is organised as follows. The TRMS is introduced
and described in the system and modelling section. The
system model is then presented. This is followed by the
robust deadbeat control method and procedure section,
where the details of the robust deadbeat control scheme and
our design are addressed. The system is then simulated
using simulink in the simulation and experiment section. In
this section, we also analysed and compared the simulated
results. Finally, the proposed method is tested in a TRMS
and the main ndings of this study are summarised in the
conclusion.

System and modelling

Similar to most ight vehicles, the helicopter consists of

several elastic parts such as rotor, engine and control
surfaces. The nonlinear aerodynamic forces and gravity act
on the vehicle, and exible structures increase complexity
and make a realistic analysis difcult. For control purpose,
it is necessary to nd a representative model that shows the
same dynamic characteristics as the real aircraft. The twin
rotor MIMO system or TRMS is a laboratory setup
designed for ight control experiments. The schematic
diagram of the laboratory setup is shown in Fig. 1. The
behaviour of the TRMS in certain aspects resembles that of

Figure 1 TRMS diagram

1000
& The Institution of Engineering and Technology 2008

a helicopter. It can be well perceived as a static test rig for

an air vehicle with formidable control challenges [2].
This TRMS consists of a beam pivoted on its base in such
a way that it can rotate freely in both its horizontal and
vertical planes. There are two rotors (the main and tail
rotors), driven by DC motors, at each end of the beam. If
necessary, either or both axes of rotation can be locked by
means of two locking screws provided for physically
restricting the horizontal or vertical plane rotation. Thus,
the system permits both 1 and 2 degree-of-freedom (DOF)
experiments. The two rotors are controlled by variable
speed electric motors enabling the helicopter to rotate in a
vertical and horizontal plane (pitch and yaw). The tail rotor
could be rotated in either direction, allowing the helicopter
to yaw right or left. The motion of the helicopter was
damped by a pendulum, which hung from a central pivot
point. In a typical helicopter, the aerodynamic force is
controlled by changing the angle of attack of the blades.
The laboratory setup is constructed such that the angle of
attack of the blades is xed. The aerodynamic force is
controlled by varying the speed of the motors.
The mathematical model of the TRMS is developed under
following assumptions.
The dynamics of the propeller subsystem can be described
by rst-order differential equations.
The friction in the system is of the viscous type.
The propeller air subsystem could be described in
accordance with the postulates of the ow theory.
The mechanical system of TRMS is simplied using a four
point-mass system shown in Fig. 2, includes main rotor, tail
rotor, balance-weight and counter-weight. Based on
Lagranges equations, we can classify the mechanical system
into two parts, the forces around the horizontal axis and
the forces around the vertical axis.

Figure 2 Simplied four point-mass system

IET Control Theory Appl., 2008, Vol. 2, No. 11, pp. 999 1007
doi: 10.1049/iet-cta:20070335

www.ietdl.org
The parameters in the simplied four point-mass system are
Mvl is the return torque corresponding to the force of
gravity, Mmr is the mass of the DC motor within the
main rotor, Mm is the mass of the main part of the
beam, Mtr is the mass of the DC motor within tail
rotor, Mt is the mass of the tail part of the beam, Mcb is
the mass of the counter weight, Mb is the mass of the
counter-weight beam, Mms is the mass of the main
shield, Mts is the mass of the tail shield, Im is the length
of the main part of the beam, It is the length of the tail
part of the beam, Ib is the length of the counter-weight
beam, Icb is the distance between the counter-weight and
joint, and g is the gravitational acceleration.
Consider the rotation of the beam in the vertical plane
(around the horizontal axis). The driving torques are
produced by the propellers, and the rotation can be
described in principle as the motion of a pendulum. We
can write the equations describing this motion as follows.
The main rotor model
dSv
Im Sf Fv (vm )  Vv kv g((A  B) cos av  C sin av )
dt
1
(1)
 V2h (A B C) sin 2av
2
da v
J v
Vv Sv tr t
dt
Jv

Mv

dSv
dt

(2)

(3)

Similarly, we can describe the motion of the beam in the

horizontal plane (around the vertical axis) as shown in
Fig. 3. The driving torques are produced by the rotors and
that the moment of inertia depends on the pitch angle of
the beam.

The tail rotor model

dSh
It Sf Fh (vt ) cos av  Vh kh
dt

(4)

da h
S Jmr vm cos av
Vh h
dt
Jh

Sh Jmr vm cos av
D sin2 av E cos2 av F

(5)

dSh
dt

(6)

Mh

where Jmr is the moment of inertia in DC-motor main

propeller subsystem, Jtr the moment of inertia in DCmotor tail propeller subsystem, Sh the angular momentum
in the horizontal plane of the beam, Sv the angular
momentum in the vertical plane of the beam and Sf the
balance scale.
Furthermore, the angular velocities (vm , vt) are nonlinear
functions of the input voltage of the DC motor (uv , ut), and
the model of the motor propeller dynamics is obtained by
substituting the nonlinear system by a serial connection of a
linear dynamics system. This can be expressed as
duvv
1

(  uvv uv )
dt
Tmr

(7)

vm Pv (uvv )

(8)

duhh
1

(  uhh uh )
dt
Ttr

(9)

vt Ph (uhh )

(10)

where Tmr is the time constant of the main rotor propeller

system and Ttr is the time constant of the tail motor
propeller system.
The static characteristics of the propellers are measured
using a proper electronic balance with voltage output [7].
Thus, we can identify the following nonlinear functions:
two nonlinear input characteristics determining the
dependence of DC-motor rotational speed on input voltage

vm Pv (uvv )

(11)

vt Ph (uhh )

(12)

Two nonlinear characteristics determining the dependence of

propeller thrust on DC-motor rotational speeds

Figure 3 Torques around the vertical axis

IET Control Theory Appl., 2008, Vol. 2, No. 11, pp. 999 1007
doi: 10.1049/iet-cta:20070335

F h F h (v t )

(13)

F v F v (v m )

(14)

Based on the above equations, a system diagram can be drawn

as shown in Fig. 4.
1001

& The Institution of Engineering and Technology 2008

www.ietdl.org

Figure 4 Block diagram of TRMS system

It is obvious that this is a high-order, non-linear and crosscoupled system. The details of the TRMS and its model are
provided in [17].

T (s) as an example

3 Robust deadbeat control

method and procedure

First, normalising the system by dividing the numerator and

denominator by v4n

Fig. 5 shows the basic structure of the PID-based robust

deadbeat control system, and Table 1 is the look-up table
for controller designing. This technique is initially
proposed by Dorf et al. in 1994 [16]. However, this
technique works only for lower-order plants. As a result,
there is a need for higher gain when higher-order systems
are considered. This design with a proper high gain will
result in systems that are insensitive to plant parameter
variations of up to 50% [16].
To show the design procedure of a PID-based robust
deadbeat control, we take the following fourth-order system

T (s)

T (s)

v4n
s4 avn s3 bv2n s2 gv3n s v4n

(15)

1
(s=vn )4 a(s=vn )3 b(s=vn )2 g (s=vn ) 1
(16)

Let S s=vn to obtain

T (s)

1
s as bs2 gs 1
4

(17)

Equation (17) is the normalised, fourth-order and closedloop transfer function. For a higher-order system, the same
method is used to derive the normalised equation. The
coefcients of the equation a, b and g are selected from
Table 1. Taking the above fourth order system as an
example, with a required settling time of 0.95 s, we can
nd the normalised settling time from Table 1

vn Ts 4:81
Therefore we require

Figure 5 Robust deadbeat control structure

Table 1 Robust deadbeat control look-up table [16]
Order (np)

vn

TS0

2nd

1.82

4.82

3rd

1.90 2.20

4.04

4th

2.20 3.50 2.80

4.81

5th

2.70 4.90 5.40 3.40 5.43

Note: Ts is the settling time based on

normalised vn .
1002
& The Institution of Engineering and Technology 2008

4:81 4:81
5:063

Ts
0:95

The characteristic equation of the closed-loop transfer

function is
s4 avn s3 bv2n s2 gv3n s v4n
From Table 1, we have

a 2:20;

b 3:50;

g 2:80

IET Control Theory Appl., 2008, Vol. 2, No. 11, pp. 999 1007
doi: 10.1049/iet-cta:20070335

www.ietdl.org
Hence, the transfer function is
T (s)

657:1
s4 11:1386s3 89:71889s2 363:397s 657:1
(18)

To apply the above technique to our TRMS, rst the

decouple techniques are required to separate the system
into two SISO systems. Without angular momentum and
reaction turning moment, the TRMS system is modelled
into two 1-DOF systems: vertical part (main rotor) and
horizontal part (tail rotor) shown in Figs. 6 and 7.

3.1 Tail rotor controller design

Now, we apply the above robust deadbeat control scheme to
the tail rotor system. The block diagram of the designed
system is shown in Fig. 8.

where
G1 (s)

K [K3 (s2 Xs Y )]
Gc (s)
s

15:02
3:458s2 2:225s
15:02

G(s)
s(s 2:603)(s 0:8547)

G2 (s)

s3

H1 (s) (1 Kb s)
H2 (s) Ka
The closed-loop transfer function can be written as
C(s)
15:02K [K3 (s2 Xs Y )]
4
R(S) s {3:458 15:02Kb KK3 }s3 {2:225 15:02KK3
15:02KKb K3 X }s2 {15:02Ka 15:02KK3 X
15:02KKb K3 Y }s {15:02KK3 Y }

Determine the closed-loop transfer function

C(s)
G1 (s)G2 (s)

R(s) 1 G2 (s)H2 (s) G1 (s)G2 (s)H1 (s)

Next, we can apply Dorfs method to determine these

parameters. In this method, the characteristic equation of
the above transfer function is equal to the characteristic
equation of the deadbeat transfer function. To obtain the
characteristic equation of the deadbeat transfer function, we
set the characteristic equation of the closed-loop transfer
function as follows
s4 avn s3 bv2n s2 gv3n s v4n
From looking up Table 1, we have

Figure 6 Vertical robust control system structure

a 2:20;
vn

b 3:50;

g 2:80

Ts0
80% of the desired settling time Ts

If we choose the desired settling time as 2 s, then we have

vn

Figure 7 Horizontal robust control system structure

Ts0
4:81

3:00625
Ts  80% 1:6

Therefore the characteristic equation of the deadbeat transfer

function is
s4 6:6138s3 31:6314s2 76:0735s 81:6771
Comparing the characteristic equation and let K equal to 1,
we have
{7 Kb K3 } 11:1386
{14 K3 Kb K3 X } 89:71889
{8 Ka K3 X Kb K3 Y } 363:397

Figure 8 Robust tail rotor control

IET Control Theory Appl., 2008, Vol. 2, No. 11, pp. 999 1007
doi: 10.1049/iet-cta:20070335

{K3 Y } 657:1
1003

& The Institution of Engineering and Technology 2008

www.ietdl.org
we have

Hence
Kb 0:243;
K3 17;

X 14:21;

3.2 Main rotor controller design

Similar to the previous section, we can apply this technique to
the main rotor control of TRMS system. First, let us
determine its closed-loop transfer function
C(s)
G1 (s)G2 (s)

R(s) 1 G2 (s)H2 (s) G1 (s)G2 (s)H1 (s)

where
K [K3 (s2 Xs Y )]
Gc (s)
s

1:519

1:533s 1:046
1:519
G(s)

2
(s 0:6982)(s 0:04983s 1:498)

G2 (s)

s3

0:748s2

H1 (s) (1 Kb s);

K3 7:723;

Y 38:6529

Adjust K until the system obtains a deadbeat response.

G1 (s)

Kb 0:5;

Ka 45:848

H2 (s) Ka

The closed-loop transfer function can be written as

K [K3 (s2 Xs Y )]
1
s4 (0:748 1:519KK3 Kb )s3
B
C
(1:533 0:1549KK3 )s2 l
B
C
@ (1:046 1:519K 0:1549KK K Y )s A
a
3 b
1:519KK3 Y
0

The characteristic equation of the closed-loop transfer

function is equal to

Ka 2:5453

X 3:131;

Y 6:963

Finally, the robust deadbeat controllers designed based on

two SISO systems can be put into our TRMS system and
form a robust deadbeat control MIMO system shown in
Fig. 9.

Simulation and experiment

To thoroughly investigate the system performance, the

proposed control schemes were implemented and tested in
simulation using Simulink and Matlab Control Toolbox.
We start with 1-DOF system by xing another freedom.
The specications we investigated are overshoot, settling
time and steady-state error.
For 1-DOF vertical control, the settling time is desired to
be 2 s. At K 10, we obtained the desired response. The
system response is shown in Fig. 10.
For 1-DOF horizontal control, we also choose a settling
time of 2 s. We obtain the desired performance at K 7,
which is shown in Fig. 11.
For the 2-DOF system shown in Fig. 12, we choose the
settling time of both tail and main rotors as 4 s. By tuning
each K both in horizontal and vertical control, we obtain
the desired system response which is shown in Fig. 13.
Figs. 10, 11 and 13 illustrate the responses of the TRMS
system in three different situations. It can be seen that all the
responses settle within a given time frame. In the 2-DOF
case with the introduction of cross-coupling disturbances,
both tail and main rotors reach the desired positions within
given time frames. Although there are overshot, the system
responses still meet all the specications. This is evident
that the scheme is robust against the cross-coupling.

s4 avn s3 bv2n s2 gv3n s v4n

From Table 1, we have

a 2:20;

b 3:50;

g 2:80

We choose the settling time as 2 s again, then we obtain

Ts 2 s;

vn

Ts0
4:81

3:00625
Ts  80%
1:6

Therefore
s4 6:6138s3 31:6314s2 76:0735s 81:6771
Comparing the characteristic equation and let K equal to 1,
1004
& The Institution of Engineering and Technology 2008

Figure 9 robust deadbeat control MIMO system

IET Control Theory Appl., 2008, Vol. 2, No. 11, pp. 999 1007
doi: 10.1049/iet-cta:20070335

www.ietdl.org

Figure 10 Vertical response of the main rotor (K 10)

Figure 13 Two-DOF robust deadbeat control response

Notes: The input and output of the main rotor are shifted down to
avoid the overlaps in plot

Fig. 14 shows the response of a traditional PID control

TRMS. The parameters of trail rotor PID controller are
Kp 1.1002, Ki 2.87 and Kd 2.87. The parameters of
the main rotor PID controller are Kp 0.077, Ki 0.385
and Kd 1.186. Comparing Figs. 13 and 14, it is obvious
that the robust deadbeat control performance is much
better than the traditional PID control.

Figure 11 Horizontal response of the tail rotor (K 7)

Finally, this design is experimentally tested on our TRMS

system in the lab. In this system, we implemented the robust
deadbeat control scheme using Matlab, real-time windows
and real-time workshop in a PC computer. The control
and the data acquisition are implemented using the
equipped PC1711 interface cards. The experiments are
carried out in calm air in our lab as the TRMS is very
sensitive to atmospheric disturbances. The input signal
frequency is chosen to enable the system to reach its steady
state. The results we obtained are different from but similar

Figure 12 Two-DOF system block diagram for simulation

IET Control Theory Appl., 2008, Vol. 2, No. 11, pp. 999 1007
doi: 10.1049/iet-cta:20070335

1005

& The Institution of Engineering and Technology 2008

www.ietdl.org
the settling time has been shortened to 20 s and the
overshoot has been reduced about 20% in the tail rotor and
completely eliminated from the main rotor. Comparing
these responses, we can clearly note the following
For the two SISO systems: The settling time has been reduced
to about 6 and 12 s in tail and main rotors, respectively; the
amount of overshoot has been reduced about 20%.
For the 2-DOF system: The settling time has been reduced
to 20 s; the amount of overshoot has also been reduced as well.

Figure 14 Two-DOF PID scheme responses

to the simulation results. However, the main rotor takes four
more seconds to settle and the tail rotor has a small overshot.
We also tried different amplitudes of the input signal. We
noticed that the amplitudes of the input signal do not
affect the response much in the normal operation scale. We
predicted but did not nd the strong effect from the
nonlinear elements. We believed that this is because of the
robust deadbeat controller which is able to tolerate the large
range of parameter changes. We also implemented the
traditional PID control scheme to this TRMS system. In
the beginning, we use the simulation parameters. However,
the system did not work at all. After, we re-adjusted them
manually, the PID control started to work but both the tail
rotor and main rotor had big overshoots before they reach
their specied positions.

Conclusions

In this study, we have successfully modelled a TRMS whose

dynamics resemble that of a helicopter. The extracted model
has been decoupled into two SISO systems. We applied a
PID-based robust deadbeat control scheme to these two
SISO systems and designed a deadbeat controller for each
of them. This design can tolerate system parameter changes
to about 50% without degrading system performance.
We have successfully employed this robust feature to
suppress the cross-coupling effects between the tail and the
main rotors.
Comparing the system responses obtained using individual
PID controllers, the proposed robust deadbeat control
scheme is simpler and the performance is better. In PID
control design in a 2-DOF case, it has six parameters to
tune. However, we have reduced them to two in our robust
deadbeat control scheme. In addition, this control scheme
does not include any complicated math and calculation
except the normalisation and look-up table. It is easily
accepted by industrial designers. In system performance,
1006
& The Institution of Engineering and Technology 2008

This model-based design procedure, however, needs a

accurate system transfer function, especially for the main
rotor. To further improve the system response we need to
improve the accuracy of system model. For the crosscoupling effects, another solution is to design a decoupler,
which will cancel the effects of the cross-coupling effects
among the main and tail rotors.

References

[1] SHAHEED M.H.: Feed forward neural network based

nonlinear dynamic modelling of a TRMS using RPROP
algorithm, Aircr. Eng. Aerosp. Technol., 2005, 77, (1),
pp. 13 22
[2] BUSKEY G., ROBERT J., WYETH G.: A helicopter named dolly
behavioural cloning for autonomous helicopter control.
Proc. Australasian Conf. Robotics and Automation,
Brisbane, December 2003
[3] SPRAGUE K. , GAVRILETS V. , DUGAIL D. , METTLER B. , FERON E. :
Design and applications of an avionics system for a
miniature acrobatic helicopter. Digital Avionics Systems
Conf., Daytona Beach, Florida, October 2001, p. 3.C.51 3.C.5-10
[4] KOO T.J., SASTRY S.: Output tracking control design of a
helicopter model based on approximate linearization,
IEEE Conf. Decis. Control, 1998, 4, pp. 3635 3640
[5] PRASAD J.V.R., CALISE A.J. , PEI Y. , CORBAN J.E.: Adaptive
nonlinear controller synthesis and ight test evaluation.
Proc. 1999 IEEE Int. Conf. Control Applications, Kohala
Coast, Island of Hawaii, August 1999, pp. 137 142
[6] BUSKEY G. , ROBERTS J., WYETH G. : Online learning of
autonomous helicopter ontrol. Australasian Conf.
Robotics and Automation, Auckland, New Zealand,
December 2002, pp. 19 24
[7] GAVRILETS V., METTLER B., FERON E.: Nonlinear model for a
small-size acrobatic helicopter. AIAA Guidance, Navigation
and Control Conf., Montreal, Canada, August 2001,
pp. 1593 1600
IET Control Theory Appl., 2008, Vol. 2, No. 11, pp. 999 1007
doi: 10.1049/iet-cta:20070335

www.ietdl.org
[8] BLYTHE P.W., CHAMITOFF G.: Estimation of aircrafts
aerodynamic coefcients using recurrent neural
networks. Proc. 2nd Pacic Int. Conf. Aerospace Science
and Technology, Australia, 1995
[9] CHON K.H., COHEN R.J.: Linear and non-linear ARMA model
parameter estimation using an articial neural network, IEEE
Trans. Biomed. Eng., 1997, 44, (3), pp. 168 174
[10] KIM B.S., CALISE A.J.: Non-linear ight control using neural
networks, J. Guid. Control Dyn., 1998, 20, (1), pp. 26 33
[11] TALEBI H.A., PATEL R.V., ASMER H.: Dynamic modelling of
exible-link manipulators using neural networks with
application to the SSRMS. Proc. IEEE Int. Conf. Intelligent
Robots and Systems, Victoria, Canada, 1998
[12] LYSHEVSKI S.E. : Identication of non-linear ight
dynamics: theory and practice, IEEE Trans. Aerosp.
Electron. Syst., 2000, 36, (2), pp. 383 392

IET Control Theory Appl., 2008, Vol. 2, No. 11, pp. 999 1007
doi: 10.1049/iet-cta:20070335

[13] BRUCE P.D., KELLET M.G.: Modelling and identication of

non-linear aerodynamic functions using b-splines, Proc.
Instn. Mech. Eng. G, 2000, 214, pp. 27 40
[14] SHAHEED M.H., TOKHI M.O.: Dynamic modeling of a singlelink exible manipulator: parametric and non-parametric
approaches, Robotics, 2002, 20, pp. 93 109
[15] AHMAD S.M., SHAHEED M.H., CHIPPERFIELD A.J., TOKHI M.O.: Nonlinear modeling of a one-degree-freedom of twin-rotor
multi-input multi-output system using radial basis
function networks, Proc. Instn. Mech. Eng. G, 2002, 216,
pp. 197 208
[16] DAWES J., NG L., DORF R.C., TAM C.: Design of deadbeat
robust systems. Proc. 28th Annual Asilomar Conf. Signals,
Systems, and Computers, 1994, pp. 1597 1598
[17] Twin Rotor MIMO System Manual, Feedback
Instruments Ltd., UK, 2002

1007

& The Institution of Engineering and Technology 2008