2007 IEEE International Conference on Control and Automation Guangzhou, CHINA - May 30 to June 1, 2007

ThA3.2

Time Optimal and Robust Control of Twin Rotor System

Mr. TE-WEI LU
Faculty of Engineering and Surveying University of Southern Queensland Toowoomba, Australia ludav@usq.edu.au

Dr. Peng Wen

Faculty of Engineering and Surveying University of Southern Queensland Toowoomba, Australia Wen@usq.edu.au

AbstractThis paper presents a new method to implement a time optimal control for a twin rotor MIMO system. We first decouple this MIMO system into two independent SISO systems, and consider the coupling effects as disturbances or the change of system parameters. For each of the SISO system, we design a time optimal robust controller, then join them together. As these optimal controllers can tolerate 50% changes in system parameters, the joined system can tolerate the coupling effects and keep its original SISO performance. This new method is evaluated in both simulations using Simulink. Keywords: Twin Rotor, TRMS system, PID controller, Robust control

I. INTRODUCTION The twin rotor multi-input multi-output system (TRMS)[1] is an aero-dynamical system similar to a helicopter as shown in Figure 1. It consists of a beam pivoted on its base in such a way that it can rotate freely both in its horizontal and vertical planes. This TRMS system has two degrees of freedom (DOF). Either the horizontal or the vertical degree of freedom can be restricted to 1 degree of freedom using the screws. At both end of a beam, there are two propellers driven by DC motors. The aerodynamic force is controlled by varying the speed of the motors. Therefore, the control inputs are the supply voltages of the DC motors. The TRMS system has main and tail rotors for generating vertical and horizontal propeller thrust. The main rotor produces a lifting force allowing the beam to rise vertically making a rotation around the pitch axis. While, the tail rotor is used to make the beam turn left or right around the yaw axis. The state of the beam is described by four process variables: horizontal and vertical angles measured by optical encoders fitted at the pivot, and another two additional state variables are the angular velocities of the rotors, measured by tacho-generators coupled to the driving DC motors. This paper is organized as the follows. Section 1 briefs the TRMS system. Section 2 addresses the system model and our method. In section 3, we present the details of our design procedure. Section 4 shows the numerical simulations in Simulink, and demonstrates the effective of the model. Section 5 gives the conclusion and future work.

Figure 1. Schematic diagram of TRMS (reproduced from TRMS system manual, 1996)

II.

PROBLEM DEFINITION

The block diagram of Twin Rotor MIMO System (TRMS) can be shown as below[1], it contains two main features: a) Nonlinear, there are two non-linear inputs which are DC-motors. b) Cross-coupling, Angular momentum and reaction turning moment are the two main effects from cross-coupling.

Figure 2. Block diagram of the TRMS system (reproduced from TRMS system manual, 1996)

The main problem with this TRMS system is that the controllers of tail and main rotor interact badly [2-7]. Also, modeling non-linear rotor is a difficult task.[3, 4, 8-10] . Even if we get the system model, however it might not exactly represent the real-system for the entire input range. If we apply PID controllers for the system for both main and tail rotor, we would have six parameters to tuning [11]. The final result would be influenced heavily by the tuning algorithm and the
862

1-4244-0818-0/07/$20.00 2007 IEEE

performance is hard to predict [12, 13]. In order to control system here, we use the technique proposed in [14, 15] which includes a PID controller and a deadbeat controller. In [14] Dawes claims that response will remain almost unchanged when all the plant parameters vary by as much as 50%. We are going to decouple the system into two SISO systems. We will design a controller for each of the SISO systems using the above method. This time optimal controllers designed are robust to system parameter changes. When we join the two SISO systems together, the coupling effects are considered as system parameter changes, and can be handled the controller well. In directly, we have achieved the time optimal control for this MIMO TRMS system. First, the de-couple techniques are used to separate the system into two SISO ones [16]. Without angular momentum and reaction turning moment, the TRMS system will be modeled into two 1-D systems as below: 2) Decouple the TRMS to become two separate systems a) Horizontal part (Tail Rotor)

Gc ( s ) =

K s (s 2 + Xs + Y ) s

Figure 5. The basic structure of the robust system.

An example is presented to illustrate the procedure; a third order plant which has the transfer function of tail rotor in TRMS system. 2) Use PID controller as Gc ( s ) . 3) Refer to figure of the basic structure: it can be simplified as figure 6.

Gc ( s ) =

K s (s 2 + Xs + Y ) s

G1(s)

G2 (s)

H(s) 2
H1 ( s)

Figure 3. The structure of the robust system design. (Horizontal)

Figure 6. The basic structure of the robust system.

b) Vertical part (Main Rotor)

4) Determine the close loop transfer function

C (s ) G1 ( s )G2 ( s ) = R( s ) 1 + G2 ( s ) H 2 ( s ) + G1 ( s )G2 ( s ) H1 ( s )
Where:

Figure 4. The structure of the robust system design. (Vertical)

The continuous transfer functions of the TRMS in vertical and horizontal movements are given as:
1.519 Gm ( s ) = 3 + 0.748 s 2 +1.533s +1.046 s 15.02 Gt ( s ) = 3 +3.458 s 2 + 2.225 s s

K [ K 3 ( s 2 + Xs + Y )] = Gc (s ) s 15.02 15.02 G2 ( s) = 3 = 2 s + 3.458s + 2.225s s ( s + 2.603)( s + 0.8547) G1 ( s) =

H1 (s ) = (1 + K b s ) H 2 ( s) = K a
5) The close loop transfer function can be drawn as:
C ( s) 15.02 K [ K 3 ( s2 + Xs +Y )] = R ( s ) s 4 +{3.458+15.02 K b KK 3 }s 3 +{2.225+15.02 KK 3 +15.02 KK b K 3 X +}s 2 +{15.02 K a +15.02 KK 3 X +15.02 KK b K 3Y }s +{15.02 KK 3Y }

(1) (2)

where Gm ( s ) represents the transfer function of main rotor and Gt ( s ) represents the transfer function of tail rotor. These transfer functions will be utilized throughout this work. III. METHOD AND PROCEDURES Figure 5 is the basic structure of the robust system design. Richard Dorf and Jay Dawes created in 1994 [14, 15]. The PID controller enables a system to achieve robustness; however, it will only work for lower order plants. As a result, there is a need for more variable gain when higher order systems are analyzed. This design method has been tested which would result in systems that are insensitive to plant parameter variations of up to 50% .

6) By Richards deadbeat response design method; The characteristic equation of the 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 equal to:

s 4 + n s 3 + n 2 s 2 + n 3 s + n 4
By looking up table 1 to select the coefficients, to determine n p for Gc ( s ) G ( s ) , where n p equals the number of poles in Gc ( s ) G ( s )
863

TABLE I.

DEADBEAT COEFFICIENTS AND RESPONSE TIMES. ALL

set

= Ts /(80% of the desired settling time Ts )

Figure 7. The response of main rotor (K=10)

n =

Ts 4.81 = = 3.00625 Ts 80% 1.6

Therefore, the characteristic equation of the deadbeat transfers function is:

10) For 1-DOF Horizontal The horizontal plant with a third order system where

s 4 + 6.6138s3 + 31.6314s 2 + 76.0735s + 81.6771

7) Comparison of the characteristic equation Set K equal to 1 then

15.02 G ( s) = 3 t s + 3.458s 2 + 2.225s

It also has a settling time of 2 seconds. To find n , Ts is divided by 80% of the desired settling time. Therefore, Kb = 0.5 and X = 7.323 result in choosing

{7 + Kb K3} = 11.1386 {14 + K3 + Kb K3 X } = 89.71889 {8 + K a + K3 X + Kb K3Y } = 363.397 {K3Y } = 657.1

Hence

Y = 12.95 and K a = 0.73 . Setting K = 7 gives the

response.

Kb = 0.243; K a = 45.848 K3 = 17; X = 14.21; Y = 38.6529

8) Select K until system meet deadbeat requirement IV. PERFORMANCE E VALUATION

To evaluate the above control schemes, we implemented the designed TRMS system using Simulink. We started with the decoupled SISO systems. In simulation we thoroughly investigate the time domain specifications such as overshoot, settling time, steady state error and compared the SISO response with the joined MIMO system response. 9) For 1-DOF vertical For the vertical plant, where

Figure 8. The response of tail rotor (K=7)

11) Apply study into 2-DOF Once obtain the result in the two 1-DOF systems, these results can be carried onto the 2-DOF MIMO system.

1.519 G ( s) = 3 2 m s + 0.748s + 1.533s + 1.046

The desired settling time is 2 seconds. The gains

produce the desired response.

K a = 2.5453 and K3 = 7.723 are arbitrarily set. This result in X = 3.131 and Y = 6.963 . K = 10 is found to

864

Figure 9. The control structure of the 2-D system.

Figure 11. The response of tail and main rotor with PID control scheme.

The settling time of both tail and main rotor set to 2 seconds. By tuning each k both in horizontal and vertical plant until the system response meet the requirement of deadbeat response.

V.

CONCLUSION

Comparing the responses, we can clearly see the followings: In the two SISO systems a) The settling time after start-up has been reduced from approximately six and twenty seconds in tail and main rotor respectively. b) The amount of overshoot has also been reduced. In the joined 2-D system: c) The settling time has been reduced up to 20 second. d) The amount of overshoot has been reduced as well

Figure 10. The response of tail and main rotor

12) Compare with PID Only In previous study [11], we designed the PID controllers with steepest decent algorithm. The analysis of the optimized control scheme was performed by comparing its response to that of the original system. Figure 11 shows the system response based on PID compensators. The initial PID parameters are the company default setting and the steepest decent algorithm is applied to optimize controllers. The system response shows with unit step wave. This result can be an excellent reference for comparing.

We have successfully applied the time optimal robust controller design technique to our MIMO TRMS system. Comparing with the system obtained using PID controllers, the system performance has been improved dramatically. For example, the settling time has been shortened 20 seconds and the overshoot has been reduced about 20%. This control scheme does not include many complicated math and calculation. It is generally based on the deadbeat controller design procedure, and the tuning procedure of a PID controller. It is easy to be accepted by industrial designers. Further more, we only change the control scheme for the system without any new investment for controller. In PID controller design in 2 degree of freedom, at least, it includes 6 parameters. However we can reduce it to 2 parameters in multiinput and multi-output with cross-coupling system. The further work can be done on improving the system steady state error occurred on the 2-DOF system. REFERENCES
[1] [2] [3] Manual, Twin Rotor MIMO System Manual. UK: Feedback Instruments Ltd., 1996. B. U. Islam, N. Ahmed, D. L. Bhatti, and S. Khan, "Controller design using fuzzy logic for a twin rotor MIMO system," 2003, pp. 264-268. S. M. Ahmad, A. J. Chipperfield, and O. Tokhi, "Dynamic

865

[4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10]

modeling and optimal control of a twin rotor MIMO system," 2000, pp. 391-398. S. M. Ahmad, A. J. Chipperfield, and M. O. Tokhi, "Dynamic modelling and control of a 2-DOF twin rotor multi-input multioutput system," 2000, pp. 1451-1456 vol.2. W.-Y. Wang, T.-T. Lee, and H.-C. Huang, "Evolutionary design of PID controller for twin rotor multi-input multi-output," Shanghai, China, 2002, pp. 913-917. F. M. Aldebrez, M. S. Alam, and M. O. Tokhi, "Input-shaping with GA-tuned PID for target tracking and vibration reduction," Limassol, Cyprus, 2005, pp. 485-490. S. Juhng-Perng, L. Chi-Ying, and C. Hung-Ming, "Robust control of a class of nonlinear systems and its application to a twin rotor MIMO system," 2002, pp. 1272-1277 vol.2. I. Z. Mat Darus, F. M. Aldebrez, and M. O. Tokhi, "Parametric modelling of a twin rotor system using genetic algorithms," Hammamet, Tunisia, 2004, pp. 115-118. S. M. Ahmad, M. H. Shaheed, A. J. Chipperfield, and M. O. Tokhi, "Nonlinear modelling of a twin rotor MIMO system using radial basis function networks," 2000, pp. 313-320. F. M. Aldebrez, I. Z. M. Darus, and M. O. Tokhi, "Dynamic

[11]

[12] [13] [14] [15] [16] [17]

modelling of a twin rotor system in hovering position," 2004, pp. 823-826. L. TE-WEI, "The 2-D Optimal Control of a Twin Rotor MIMO System," in Faculty of Engineering & Surveying. vol. Master of Engineering Technology Toowoomba, Australia: University of Southern Queensland, 2005. K. J. Astrom and T. Hagglund, "The future of PID control," Control Engineering Practice, vol. 9, pp. 1163-1175, 2001. K. H. Ang, G. Chong, and Y. Li, "PID control system analysis, design, and technology," IEEE Transactions on Control Systems Technology, vol. 13, pp. 559-576, 2005. J. Dawes, L. Ng, R. Dorf, and C. Tam, "Design of deadbeat robust systems," Glasgow, UK, 1994, pp. 1597-1598. R. C. Dorf and R. H. Bishop, Modern control systems, 9th ed. Upper Saddle River: Prentice Hall International, 2001. F. G. Shinskey, Process control systems : application, design, and tuning, 4th ed. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1996. Manual, Matlab/Simulink User's Guide. American: MathWork Inc., 1994-2005.

866